Disclaimer: The views expressed in the blog are those of the author and NOT Eastmans’ Hunting Journals as a whole.
There’s a lot of hubbub right now regarding the sale of public lands. It seems that the Trump administration is spitballing the idea of selling select parcels of federally-owned property in order to bolster housing in areas such as Cody and Jackson, Wyoming.
At first blush this idea is bad. It seems like an effort to gut the great inheritance of our public lands and eviscerate American’s access to hunting, fishing and otherwise enjoying the lands we own. However…
Folks not being able to find or afford housing where they work and have built lives is an issue that deserves creative solutions girded by thoughtful discourse and study.
Simply put, we need public lands AND more housing for the ever-growing American population. This is not an easy conundrum to solve and I do not know the answer.
What I do know is that all or nothing approaches to any of life’s difficulties are rarely the best approach.
Divesting of all Federally owned public lands to States is clearly not a good idea as States will likely not have the resources to manage these lands, and will be forced to sell them and as we all know, once it’s gone it won’t be given back.
America’s public lands; National Forest, BLM and National Parks, are treasures and the product of forward thinking giants such as Theodore Roosevelt. These lands hold a wealth of resources that can and should be wisely managed for multiple uses. Think hunting, fishing, trapping, hiking, motor-sports, grazing, logging, mining and… limited development. The key to all of this is wise stewardship that utilizes the resources while maintaining their conservation with an eye on the future.
Do I support conservation of wildlife migration corridors and other pristine and/or sensitive habitats on public land? Absolutely! We must protect the gift of public lands for our present and future generations.
Should the Federal government conduct feasibility studies and consider selling certain parcels for housing development on suitable public lands? Yes.
I honestly believe that we can do both and I know that my, “having the cake and eating it too” viewpoint runs counter to popular opinion regarding public land. I also fully concede that selling public land is a slippery slope. We cannot sit idly by and think our elected officials have our best interests at heart. Stewardship comes with responsibility and that responsibility demands vigilance and involvement.
In today’s world of 24/7 electronic stimulation it’s hard to maintain a level head and not lose ourselves to knee jerk reactions and all or nothing group think. The public land conversation is more complex than that and the hunting community needs to be in clear and constant communication of our wishes to those representing us at the State and Federal levels. Therefore, reach out to your State and Federal Congressmen and Senators to express your thoughts and concerns about your public lands.
As always, I welcome your opinion.
6 comments
Only if I can choose what land they sell! I’ve already heard that the 500000 acres they have decided to sell for housing, only 15% of it will be used for housing! They had better be pretty well armed to keep me off the stolen federal lands!
I agree with you whole heartedly on this conundrum of housing and the conservation of our public land. I do not trust our elected officials to do the right thing. We must be vigilant citizens to ensure proper stewardship. So get to know your treehuggers it going to take all of us.
Nope! You are so wrong.
Mr. Bickford,
Noted, but how so? Simply telling me I’m wrong is your perogative but can you explain. Perhaps you can provide some thinking on the issue I haven’t thought of. Thank you.
I think it is okay within reason. If they sell some parcels near the towns of Cody or Jackson for housing development, probably not a big deal as that land likely has limited sporting uses.
I am not a fan of more habitat loss, but the way it was first presented by our Energy Secretary is that there would be a net increase of public land as public land around urban areas suitable for building would not be sold but rather traded for other lands. What those lands are, and if that’s what really happens is the big question.
As an employee for a federal land agency (USFS) for 33 yrs I know that land, typically smaller parcels are constantly being traded by lower level Forest Supervisors/Regional Foresters making decisions on a case by case basis. I have never seen land sold only traded. It is supposed to be done only with the “best interest of the Gov’t” in mind. There lies the problem who is watching the people doing these exchanges as it always seemed to me to be done in an obscure manner.