I came across this opinion piece in "The Hill"
I have highlighted some of the important points that Fosburgh makes. (Seems like he understands what TR wanted with public lands, unlike our current TR poser Zinke....)
BY WHIT FOSBURGH, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR Whit Fosburgh is the president and CEO of the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership in Washington, D.C.
I’ve just spent a week at my hunting camp, enjoying the outdoors with my family and friends—a great reminder of the uniquely American landscapes and traditions at stake for those of us who work in conservation policy. Hunting season always seems to be over as quickly as it starts, but the same cannot be said of some truly terrible policy ideas that seem to linger endlessly.
This is especially true of efforts to eliminate or seriously undermine America’s 640 million acres of public lands, places that one-third of all American hunters depend on for their access.
Many groups, businesses, and individuals in the hunting and fishing community have spent the past three years beating back these proposals, and we can never celebrate for long. Even now, numerous proposals are pending in Congress, including a recently passed provision in the Senate budget resolution that could potentially make it easier to sell off public lands. There’s a new wave of bills aimed at transferring the decision-making authority over public land management from federal agencies to individual states—a move that’s as good as transferring ownership.
Consider, for example, “The Federal Land Freedom Act,” which would eliminate the federal mineral leasing program and let states decide whether to industrialize valuable fish and wildlife habitat without being constrained by those pesky federal environmental laws, such as the Endangered Species Act and NEPA. It makes you wonder if lawmakers simply don’t understand what’s okay and what is not when it comes to our public lands. Yet, sportsmen and women have made our views crystal clear time and time again, putting a stop to bad proposals like the now-infamous H.R. 621, which would have sold 3.3 million acres of public lands to help balance the budget.
We’re not above giving decision makers a refresher, especially if it means we can all roll up our sleeves and take on public lands challenges in a way that makes sense. So, here it is in black and white: We want to keep public land public and well-managed. It’s really as simple as that.
America’s hunters and anglers are concerned with access and overwhelmingly oppose any largescale sale or transfer of our national forests, BLM lands, and national wildlife refuges. But we recognize that there are certain small tracts of isolated and inaccessible public lands that make sense to let go through land exchanges and sale-purchase arrangements where the result might be more cost-effective management or increased access to public lands. For these targeted transactions to work, there must be a thorough public process and the proceeds must be used to acquire strategically important public lands with high-conservation or access values. The Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act is a shining example of how to do this the right way.
Sportsmen and women also support the authority of state conservation agencies to manage fish and wildlife populations on federal lands. We do not support, however, handing the decision making authority for public lands management over to state governments, especially given that there’s a history of shortsighted management with many state lands. A better model is where positive coordination between federal, state, and local agencies can help improve public land management decisions and reduce conflict. One great example is the Good Neighbor Authority, which allows states to conduct meaningful habitat improvement projects on federal lands, while decision-making authority remains with the Forest Service.
Finally, Congress cannot keep starving the federal agencies of the funding they need to manage our public lands and expect better management, especially as the costs of managing our public lands continue to increase. For example, the Forest Service now spends more than half its annual budget fighting fires (up from less than 20 percent two decades ago.) Our public lands are the backbone of the $887-billion outdoor recreation economy and deserve investment, not constant cutting.
Lawmakers know where we stand. With constructive solutions on the table, it is time to put away the unworkable proposals and coordinate better to improve the management of our public lands so that future generations can enjoy them as we have. We encourage the constructive path, but we won’t stop sounding off on bad ideas, as long as they keep coming back.
Whit Fosburgh is the president and CEO of the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership in Washington, D.C.
Cheers,
Mark
Ye Shall Be Free To Roam......
I have highlighted some of the important points that Fosburgh makes. (Seems like he understands what TR wanted with public lands, unlike our current TR poser Zinke....)
BY WHIT FOSBURGH, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR Whit Fosburgh is the president and CEO of the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership in Washington, D.C.
I’ve just spent a week at my hunting camp, enjoying the outdoors with my family and friends—a great reminder of the uniquely American landscapes and traditions at stake for those of us who work in conservation policy. Hunting season always seems to be over as quickly as it starts, but the same cannot be said of some truly terrible policy ideas that seem to linger endlessly.
This is especially true of efforts to eliminate or seriously undermine America’s 640 million acres of public lands, places that one-third of all American hunters depend on for their access.
Many groups, businesses, and individuals in the hunting and fishing community have spent the past three years beating back these proposals, and we can never celebrate for long. Even now, numerous proposals are pending in Congress, including a recently passed provision in the Senate budget resolution that could potentially make it easier to sell off public lands. There’s a new wave of bills aimed at transferring the decision-making authority over public land management from federal agencies to individual states—a move that’s as good as transferring ownership.
Consider, for example, “The Federal Land Freedom Act,” which would eliminate the federal mineral leasing program and let states decide whether to industrialize valuable fish and wildlife habitat without being constrained by those pesky federal environmental laws, such as the Endangered Species Act and NEPA. It makes you wonder if lawmakers simply don’t understand what’s okay and what is not when it comes to our public lands. Yet, sportsmen and women have made our views crystal clear time and time again, putting a stop to bad proposals like the now-infamous H.R. 621, which would have sold 3.3 million acres of public lands to help balance the budget.
We’re not above giving decision makers a refresher, especially if it means we can all roll up our sleeves and take on public lands challenges in a way that makes sense. So, here it is in black and white: We want to keep public land public and well-managed. It’s really as simple as that.
America’s hunters and anglers are concerned with access and overwhelmingly oppose any largescale sale or transfer of our national forests, BLM lands, and national wildlife refuges. But we recognize that there are certain small tracts of isolated and inaccessible public lands that make sense to let go through land exchanges and sale-purchase arrangements where the result might be more cost-effective management or increased access to public lands. For these targeted transactions to work, there must be a thorough public process and the proceeds must be used to acquire strategically important public lands with high-conservation or access values. The Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act is a shining example of how to do this the right way.
Sportsmen and women also support the authority of state conservation agencies to manage fish and wildlife populations on federal lands. We do not support, however, handing the decision making authority for public lands management over to state governments, especially given that there’s a history of shortsighted management with many state lands. A better model is where positive coordination between federal, state, and local agencies can help improve public land management decisions and reduce conflict. One great example is the Good Neighbor Authority, which allows states to conduct meaningful habitat improvement projects on federal lands, while decision-making authority remains with the Forest Service.
Finally, Congress cannot keep starving the federal agencies of the funding they need to manage our public lands and expect better management, especially as the costs of managing our public lands continue to increase. For example, the Forest Service now spends more than half its annual budget fighting fires (up from less than 20 percent two decades ago.) Our public lands are the backbone of the $887-billion outdoor recreation economy and deserve investment, not constant cutting.
Lawmakers know where we stand. With constructive solutions on the table, it is time to put away the unworkable proposals and coordinate better to improve the management of our public lands so that future generations can enjoy them as we have. We encourage the constructive path, but we won’t stop sounding off on bad ideas, as long as they keep coming back.
Whit Fosburgh is the president and CEO of the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership in Washington, D.C.
Cheers,
Mark
Ye Shall Be Free To Roam......
