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

[Big Fin]

If you doubt the intent of the anti-public land crowd, every once in a while they provide a look behind the curtains of what the long-term goals are - Sell the public land to political pals. Here is the recent Forbes Magazine article advocating privatization of public lands.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/steveh...oing-privatize-u-s-public-lands/#6cca02aa5af3


For those who might doubt these groups are bending ears of the Administration and lobbying the most powerful members of the Senate and House, I can assure you that they are doing just that. And unfortunately, they are finding a lot of sympathetic ears in DC.

 

[Big Fin]

RMEF response to the Professor ...... https://elknetwork.com/never-privatize-lands-open-letter-steve-h-hanke/

July 19, 2017
Professor Steve H. Hanke
The John Hopkins University
Ames Room 209
Baltimore, MD 21218

Professor Hanke,

We recently read your piece in Forbes, “The Best Deal Going: Privatize US Public Lands.” A quick Google search shows you have been on this bandwagon for many years. In the Forbes article you reference the intellectual and the economist and yet you seem to ignore the public, the land itself and the wildlife; three key elements when evaluating public lands. I am not anti-free market and we are not against private lands at all, however this is a different issue for us.

Understandably in the intellectual or economist world it is likely difficult to relate to our view of public lands. Where I grew up many in the intellectual world would be challenged to survive more than an accidental night or two in the middle of our vast public land forests or prairies. And certainly most ranking economists would be challenged and perhaps even bored stiff fishing for high mountain brook trout in a glacial lake OR hunting elk in Montana with bow. So can we agree that most things are relative to one’s perspective?

The concept of privatizing public lands is a losing proposition for many reasons not the least of which is culture and heritage. There are those of us who still believe in the freedom of the American West and its wild places. It has value economists could not possibly equate to dollars and cents. I do not fault you for what appears to be a disconnect with how some of us might feel about something like public lands and all that goes with it. I do take issue with you and others who see no more value in it than some economic multiple “if only it were in the hands of the private sector.” Again I am a big believer in the private sector in the proper time and place, this isn’t it.

Sadly, your view is missing a value beyond comprehension when it comes to what public lands represent and what they actually support in terms of rural values and the most successful wildlife system in the world. We could discuss management of public lands or the lack thereof in places but that is for another day. Public lands must remain public if we are going to have any chance of keeping our American wildlife system alive. It is that simple.

Once the vastness of our American public lands is gone, it’s gone forever. And one thing I suspect about economists is at some point in the future they will be on to something else to generate a new multiple and the once public lands will be yesterday’s inventory. I invite you to come experience what our public lands offer, maybe you will see it differently. Come on out to the West and see from the ground what our public lands offer.

Review the extensive elk migration study done by Dr. Arthur Middleton from Yale and now Berkley; see how the vastness of our public lands contributes to the migration of thousands of elk in the greater Yellowstone region. This study is encapsulated in a film Elk River; search National Geographic online for it.

Thank you for your consideration.

Respectfully,

David Allen

President & CEO

Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation

 

[Ben Lamb]

Thanks David, and RMEF, for that great response.

 

[CodyCass]

That article is frightening. I cannot, for the life of me, wrap my head around their rational. Thank you for sharing the RMEF response.

 

[ChrisC]

Did i miss the part where he put forth some sort of effort to support the title of the article?

 

[Oneye]

Did you read the article?

 

[Tkaldahl2000]

If your only focus in life is generating money, then this is a perfectly reasonable approach. Since the things I treasure the most can not be acquired with cash, this to me is extremely short sighted.

 

[beginnerhunter]

That is the most poorly written argument for privitization that I have ever read. Seriously, the Bundy crowd makes better arguments than this professor. It read like an Onion article.

Not only was it silly, it was nonsensical. He referenced Reagan talking about privitization public lands while "preserving national parks, forests, wilderness and scenic areas". Huh? That IS public land. Maybe he was specifically targeting BLM? IDK. And while Trump's policies are debatable regarding the protection of public land, a Google search would reveal that he has spoken out in opposition to sale or transfer. So why would he "slap down" Secretary Zinke when he picked him in the first place?

 

[ChrisC]

Did you read the article?

I did, and again after I read your post to make sure I didn't miss any part of the article. I think the point he is trying to make is overshadowed by his need to bury it in historical accounts of Reagan and quotes from Adam Smith. I think his time would have been better spent supporting the economics case with current facts than in the way it was written. Just my opinion.

 

[stillkickin]

Way to go RMEF! I sure agree with Fin that our public lands are most definitely in the crosshairs.

 

[Irrelevant]

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.

 

[Oneye]

I did, and again after I read your post to make sure I didn't miss any part of the article. I think the point he is trying to make is overshadowed by his need to bury it in historical accounts of Reagan and quotes from Adam Smith. I think his time would have been better spent supporting the economics case with current facts than in the way it was written. Just my opinion.

While I agree it was poorly written, I took home that as his message yes.

 

[dannyb278]

Unfortunately I had to read that article twice to make sure I wasn't missing some kind of huge joke or reading complete satire.

 

[antlerradar]

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 am not sure I would like the results of that poll. There are roughly 320 million of us. It would not surprise me if a majority of the 320 million did not spend any time on public land in the last year. Exclude National Parks, forests and wilderness and just leave BLM that percentage gets very high. I would be surprised if more than 10% of us spent any time on BLM last year. We may find out that the majority of american's would take the money and run.

 

[IlliniFIre]

Fin it seems one of the OG Sagebrush Rebellion folks grew his teeth back! Guess it's time to kick them back in. On a side note, I saw that my Rep has just been put into an assistant chair position on the Federal Lands committee. I have called and emailed many times, but it seems he's stepping into the party line with Bishop.

 

[MooseCaboose]

I guess this makes explicit that the sage brush people are the same as those behind ALC. What a stupid article. It's nothing but pontificating with no substance. No explanation of how private ownership would be more beneficial.

There are good arguments, bad arguments, and dumb arguments. This one manages to be both of latter two at the same time.

 

[joelweb]

Thanks to Randy and RMEF for their work on this. That column is disturbing.

 

[shootbrownelk]

That article is frightening. I cannot, for the life of me, wrap my head around their rational. Thank you for sharing the RMEF response.

This is a case of greed...pure and simple.

 

[Nameless Range]

"These so-called public lands represent a huge socialist anomaly in America’s capitalist system"

 

[AggieOutlaw]

I guess this makes explicit that the sage brush people are the same as those behind ALC. What a stupid article. It's nothing but pontificating with no substance. No explanation of how private ownership would be more beneficial.

There are good arguments, bad arguments, and dumb arguments. This one manages to be both of latter two at the same time.

Agreed. What is the case for privatization, professor? Public lands are socialist? They are mismanaged by bureaucrats (which are not funded because you and your cronies think that's socialist to fund the government)? So, please, Professor Ivy League, explain to my simple brain fed with oxygen from my open mouth breathing, exactly how is privatizing our land "Americas Best Deal"

At least the good professor has the honesty and integrity to not make the case for state transfer. He goes straight to the point.

Sadly, the response from RMEF did not adequately criticize this idea. It attacked his values but not his ideas. His ideas are bad too, for many reasons. I hope BHA comes out with a more intellectual rebuttal to this nonsense.

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.