THE BP SPILL has exposed more than oil. A century-old practice of allowing larceny off the public's lands - the exploitation of valuable natural resources - has gotten serious attention by the Obama administration. Every American owns over two acres of federal lands, while revenues of over $100 billion a year go uncollected.The largest gold strike in history is happening right now on public lands in Nevada. The mostly foreign operators pay no royalties for extracting millions of dollars in gold. Timber and water theft from the public is widespread, too. The violation that bothers me the most is a fee not paid for grazing on public lands. We needn't look far to find an example: The grazing and oyster farming on the public's Point Reyes National Seashore. While the market rate for grazing a cow on land one rents is $26 a month, those cow owners at Point Reyes pay $7, one third of the market value. President Obama is doing what no other administration has had the courage to do - crack down on Big Oil's theft of oil. The Interior Department's Minerals Management Service has finally been split in three, with one arm collecting fair rents. Our hope is that with this, the toughest correction made, the management of the other resources being exploited will be correctly as well...more
Huey Johnson, the founder of Trust For Public Land, goes on to say:
As to Point Reyes and other examples on the more than 650 million aces of our publicly owned land, redirecting all cattle raised there would only amount to three percent of U.S. beef. The cost is more than money - it's a loss of recreation value. Cattle constantly break down the banks of streams, ruining streams and fishing. The cow pie is an ugly symbol spread across the American west...
Clearly he's trying to tap into the public disgust with the oil spill and use that to attack grazing. Seems like a stretch to me, but its something we better keep an eye on.
1 comment:
You have to admire the persistence of the cattle-free crowd. While never terribly original, even-tempered, or polite, they do not give up easily.
The point that amused me the most in Mr. Johnson's missive was the notion that every American "owns" over two acres of federal lands. Applying a stakeholder model to public lands is simply wrong, because nobody in America is truly able to exercise the most basic of stakeholders' rights with regard to this land, namely the ability to sell one's stake. If you need further proof of the idiocy of the stakeholder argument, I suggest you call your Congressman up and ask if he or she can arrange to sell your Hummer for you. You know, the HUMV military vehicle you "own" a stake in. Maybe that little chunk of B-52 or a bolt or two off of the Presidential Motorcade would float your boat better. No matter what you choose, I'm sure he or she will get a good laugh out of it.
This business of the difference in price between public and private leases is becoming tiresome. The reason the ranchers pay more for private leases is the same reason people pay more for a Ferrari than they would for one of those rope start hatchbacks. Both will get you to work, but you can expect to pay a premium for style, performance, and scarcity. I, for one, am not particularly shocked that the people of ag-land are willing to pay more for the privilege of not having to comply with as many mandates while simulatneously benefitting from the greater degree of improvement private leases generally offer. Like many people close to agriculture in the West, I am also painfully aware of the near death grip government has on land here. In several states, the percentage of privately held acreage is less than thirty percent.
Fair Rent is not new to the range, either. It was tried before, in a different time when we also had a liberal President and a man with a famous ranching background running Interior. The loudest squeals of outrage came not from the ranchers, but from the municipal governments who had cut sweetheart deals with the feds for various public developments (airports, arenas, fairgrounds, etc) that were located on the public lands.
I have a problem with the notion that if one party in a deal shorts themselves, the other party somehow committed a criminal act. All such a deal shows is that at least one party to it is a fool. There really isn't any more to say about that.
Lastly, I would pose a question for all to consider. Is this debate really about the land itself, or is it about a desire by a certain group of people to remake the West in their own image?
It sure feels like the latter.
Post a Comment