Forbes Magazine - The Best Deal Going: Privatize U.S. Public Lands

[beginnerhunter]

I guess I am now done with Forbes and the CATO institute. Too bad. I consider myself a capitalist and libertarian. But the free market has proven a poor system if one values wildlife and wild places.

And Reason and Heritage and pretty much every other free market organization. I agree with libertarians on many things but it's intellectually dishonest to insist that one ideology will magically solve every problem in the world.

The rest of your post was also terrific btw.

 

[MTGomer]

x.

I guess I am now done with Forbes and the CATO institute. Too bad. I consider myself a capitalist and libertarian. But the free market has proven a poor system if one values wildlife and wild places.

If CATO wanted to follow its own advice here we could direct a penny of every dollar saved by this idea to public land management and never have to worry about funding again.


I'm not really against 'unsocializing' public lands in the sense that national parks should be able to keep their revenues to spend in the parks and the people using public lands rightfully should pay more (like sportsmen already do) to fund public lands. For example, there should be a PR Type excise tax on ALL outdoor recreation equipment. This is probably the only instance Ill support a new or additional tax of any kind.
If this is the last bastion of socialism, what is charging childless homeowners property taxes to pay for the education of other people's kids? Example of 'socialism' are endless and I find the existence of most of them abhorrent. Being a 1/320,000,000th owner of 640,000,000 acres is not one of them however.
There are plenty of ways we can use the capitalistic model to fund our public lands, keep them public and have so much money to spend on them.


My big question to the non consumptive conservation, environmentalism, and recreation crowd always is 'What better time than now to step up to the plate and start paying your way?' They are unwilling. Outside magazine did a piece advocating for this a few months ago. The online comments were beyond disappointing.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I think this article further highlights the huge misunderstanding out there about publicly owned assets. I'm not sure when or where exactly the paradigm changed but it seems like the current political narrative is for our public assets have to generate profit to be worth while. When did we as American's decide that roads should exist only to pay dividends to investors, that we should run our healthcare system not to provide quality equitable care to our citizenry, but to bolster someones quarterly investment portfolio, and that prisons should exist not to punish offenders of our laws but to make money.

I agree with David Allen the value of our public lands has nothing to do with money.

That said, the modern outdoor sporting industry didn't exist in the time of Adam Smith and had barely taken off during the Reagan administration. I have yet to bike on a private trail, ski on a privately owned mountain, camp in a private forest, or raft a private river. My garage has thousands of dollars of equipment in it that would be unusable if public lands disappeared, a fact that the outdoor industry is keenly aware of and the impetus of the move of their convention from Salt Lake to Denver.

Hanke is a controversial figure in the economics field so I take anything he says or does with a grain of salt. Paul Krugman calls him "self-promoter whose image as a successful country doctor has been pumped up by resume inflation". Still it's very surprising that a guy who spent so much time in Colorado would be so anti-public lands maybe, he is just pissed the cool kids in school didn't invite him to smoke pot and hike the flat irons with them.

http://archive.fortune.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1998/04/13/240868/index.htm

 

[antlerradar]

Environmental groups have been demanding that logging, grazing and a host of other public land uses generate a positive revenue stream for years. No one should be surprised when nonusers demand that recreation also generate a profit for the Treasury.

 

[Ben Long]

Anyone notice that this joker in Forbes used the phrase "last bastion of socialism" to describe public lands? Don Peay used the exact same phrase to dismiss the North American Model of Wildlife Management. That's what this is about: bllnd zealotry. They hate public lands because the government has something to do with it, and because it upsets their image of a free market purity.

 

[Elkmagnet]

Looks like it needs more comments.

 

[windymtnman]

Besides the plethora of reasons for not privatizing our public lands, I have a single one that is huge. Here in Colorado, we've lost our mature Spruce trees to massive beetle kill. Some estimates are that 75% of our mature forests are DEAD. They are grey instead of green.
It's not a matter of "if", but rather a matter of "when" these will erupt in forest fires. The most recent fire around here, burned all Summer long, couldn't be put out and at one time threatened the City of South Fork.
So, when some billionaire buys all this acreage, and it morphs into a raging fire, who's going to put it out? Currently the Feds have fleets of air tankers, and crews of fire fighters they move around the Western States to combat the fires. There is no way a private individual is going to invest in the resources to fight a big fire on his tract of land. Will they let it burn out an entire community, much less some rural properties? Maybe....?

 

[Gr8bawana]

I wonder if you polled every american and asked them bluntly how much would you pay each year to be a partial time-share owner of 640,000,000 acres of land in America-all over the country, with no blackout dates and unlimited scheduling power. Sure some may not see any value, but it'll a helluva lot better deal than an actual time-share, or vacation house, or recreation property.

While those of us on a public land hunting forum see great value other than $$$ in public land I think we would see a great deal of apathy from those who live on the eastern side of the country. There is very little public land in the "east" and our public lands out here in the west are something far away many will never see or get to enjoy.

 

[Sytes]

While those of us on a public land hunting forum see great value other than $$$ in public land I think we would see a great deal of apathy from those who live on the eastern side of the country. There is very little public land in the "east" and our public lands out here in the west are something far away many will never see or get to enjoy.

Agree. This is the battle faced by keeping Fed lands in our hands.

With fire season in full swing, I have such a hard time comprehending how a State will keep a reasonable state budget faced with the funding of fire suppression alone, none the less all the other aspects involved - sell, sell, sell... Fire from one State to a bordering State? California with it's fantastic budget... one fine example of sell, sell, sell... John Muir trail through Evolution Valley, etc... - Privately owned and operated by Dame or Daddy Warbucks.

 

[psinclair]

Malcom Forbes.....I remember he was offered a fair price
from the Forest Service for his large ranch in the Upper Yellowstone back in the early 1980's. Instead he sold it to CUT, also known as the "Guru's". Lose, lose...

The Upper Yellowstone has never been the same since.

 

[1_pointer]

While those of us on a public land hunting forum see great value other than $$$ in public land I think we would see a great deal of apathy from those who live on the eastern side of the country. There is very little public land in the "east" and our public lands out here in the west are something far away many will never see or get to enjoy.

You provincialism is showing again... Just keep in mind where many of these bad public land policy ideas are coming from. It ain't from the "apathetic" East...

 

[haussjr]

He probably did not use the "economics case" because he knows it would be a failure and not bring in any value other than a quick penny.

 

[Schism]

Besides the plethora of reasons for not privatizing our public lands, I have a single one that is huge. Here in Colorado, we've lost our mature Spruce trees to massive beetle kill. Some estimates are that 75% of our mature forests are DEAD. They are grey instead of green.
It's not a matter of "if", but rather a matter of "when" these will erupt in forest fires. The most recent fire around here, burned all Summer long, couldn't be put out and at one time threatened the City of South Fork.
So, when some billionaire buys all this acreage, and it morphs into a raging fire, who's going to put it out? Currently the Feds have fleets of air tankers, and crews of fire fighters they move around the Western States to combat the fires. There is no way a private individual is going to invest in the resources to fight a big fire on his tract of land. Will they let it burn out an entire community, much less some rural properties? Maybe....?

There is no doubt in my mind that the federal government will still be fighting forest fires whether owned by the states or by private citizens. With the cronyism that goes on in the DC swamp, they will find a way to protect their buddies newly purchased ranches and get the people to pay for it. Use the financial industry bailouts as one such recent example.

 

[antlerradar]

If you wait around for the federal government for fire protection you have waited too long.

 

[Sytes]

You provincialism is showing again... Just keep in mind where many of these bad public land policy ideas are coming from. It ain't from the "apathetic" East...

With respect to constituents encouraged to contact their congressional reps, the "East"-ern side has little understanding for use of Federal Stewards of our public lands as they have very little to use, unfortunately. From constituents of the "East"-ern side of life - Why pay federal $$$ when it is within select states and mostly "West"-ern?
In that sense it does have roots from the "apathetic" east. Politicians/Congressional Representatives that are drooling over this "public land" will certainly exploit this apathy as support from citizens. Hopefully more "Indian-ians, such as yourself are able to offset this.

Edit added:

 

[u1299]

Count me in the crowd who has "never" doubted the intent of the anti public land crowd.

 

[Straight Arrow]

If you wait around for the federal government for fire protection you have waited too long.

'Not sure if you are referring to protection of your property from wildfire, which is your responsibility, and usually called risk mitigation. The Interagency Fire Centers, such as the one located in Boise, dispatch resources and personnel very rapidly to fight fires across the west ... typically with limited resources since many fires flare up at once as is the case presently. Your statement seems to reflect a lack of appreciation for what the wildfire fighting forces are able to accomplish during rapidly changing conditions and with great risk to personal safety of firefighters.

From a personal perspective as an Army helicopter pilot who has been deployed to assist in fighting forest fires, I hold great respect, admiration, and appreciation for the federal government, state government, and other agencies who rapidly and effectively converge on wildfires to suppress under extremely challenging conditions.

Detest the fedral guvmunt as you wish ... but don't unjustly criticize the government firefighting forces.

 

[haussjr]

With respect to constituents encouraged to contact their congressional reps, the "East"-ern side has little understanding for use of Federal Stewards of our public lands as they have very little to use, unfortunately. From constituents of the "East"-ern side of life - Why pay federal $$$ when it is within select states and mostly "West"-ern?
In that sense it does have roots from the "apathetic" east. Politicians/Congressional Representatives that are drooling over this "public land" will certainly exploit this apathy as support from citizens. Hopefully more "Indian-ians, such as yourself are able to offset this.

Edit added:

I am from one of those Blue states that would qualify as "Eastern". The problem I see when I contact my reps about public land issues is that it seems they have their mind made up already. They could care less, because it is not an issue to the larger majority of their constituency. Until we educate people in the Eastern states of how the lands are managed and run in the West vs. the East, I think there will be this on-going issue. Most people I talk to locally are just unaware of the fact that state lands in the west don't always give the similar benefits as state lands in the east where a lot of them allow hunting, camping, access, etc. Therefore many of them don't see the harm in the land going to the states. I feel like more and more people from the "Eastern" portion of the map are becoming educated through the platforms of social media and podcasts like Randy's, Rinella's, Kenyon's, etc. so it will be beneficial in the future to get them to not sit back and actually contact people.

 

[antlerradar]

'Not sure if you are referring to protection of your property from wildfire, which is your responsibility, and usually called risk mitigation. The Interagency Fire Centers, such as the one located in Boise, dispatch resources and personnel very rapidly to fight fires across the west ... typically with limited resources since many fires flare up at once as is the case presently. Your statement seems to reflect a lack of appreciation for what the wildfire fighting forces are able to accomplish during rapidly changing conditions and with great risk to personal safety of firefighters.

From a personal perspective as an Army helicopter pilot who has been deployed to assist in fighting forest fires, I hold great respect, admiration, and appreciation for the federal government, state government, and other agencies who rapidly and effectively converge on wildfires to suppress under extremely challenging conditions.

Detest the fedral guvmunt as you wish ... but don't unjustly criticize the government firefighting forces.

I think you are reading way too much into my post. Part of what I was referring to is what you correctly calling risk management. I have little sympathy for home owners in at risk subdivisions that have not properly protected there property. The last thing we need is for fire fighters to rake pine needles or trim low hanging branches from trees in some ones yard. I was also referring to landowners. If landowners wait for the government to fight fires on their property they have waited too long.
I am not going to criticize government firefighters. The vast majority do an excellent job considering the rules of engagement.

 

[Jaeger Fischer]

I wonder if you polled every american and asked them bluntly how much would you pay each year to be a partial time-share owner of 640,000,000 acres of land in America-all over the country, with no blackout dates and unlimited scheduling power. Sure some may not see any value, but it'll a helluva lot better deal than an actual time-share, or vacation house, or recreation property.

I would be willing to pay an excise tax similar to Pittman-Robertson to fund public lands management. Impose a modest tax on sleeping bags, tents, climbing gear, mountain bikes, etc. and dedicate those funds to the management of public lands.