I started and stopped below, having to leave town for a day. The responses were interesting – Swede lamenting his lack of ability to wrought further destruction upon our public lands with ATV’s, and Bob locating the words from PERC (Hamowy, Anderson and Leal, none of whom I have read) about how public ownership is a curse upon the land itself. No one was able to locate Professor Natelson’s words, leading me to believe that I had a psychic interaction with him that left me slightly scarred and cynical.
There are two types of land ownership – private and public. Both are necessary – private ownership so that we may enjoy privacy and harvest the resources, public so we all may enjoy the benefits. Some types of land are suitable for private ownership, some private, and some are suspended for various reasons.
Private land is used for occupancy and resource production. There are few more important freedoms than the ability to own a piece of land, to keep all others off, to have privacy. From the standpoint of public good, we need the resources the land offers, and private farms and ranches and mines are the best way to get at these resources, providing us all that we use and eat. Public ownership of resource-producing land has not shown any advantage over private. Communal farms in the Soviet Union were a sad joke. The profit motive serves us well.
But because private ownership of land is such a benefit to us, does it naturally follow that all ownership of land should be private? No, it does not. It is often more important for many of us of ordinary means to have private enjoyment of special lands. If our wilderness areas, National Parks and national forests were privately owned, there would be little access, and they would naturally exist for the benefit of the wealthy. Our most pristine and beautiful lakes would be fenced and gated, as many are anyway. Our rivers would be blocked to public use as many landowners in Montana are trying to do. It is just as important to have public as well as private land.
But what about the condition of public land – is it worse than that of private lands? Yes, and no. It depends – ask anyone in Butte, Montana about the public lands that became private now known as the Berkeley Pit. Since that land was stripped of its resources, private owners have run from it, and it is left to the public to clean it up. That’s an extreme example, of course, but the point is that when there are no resources left to exploit, private owners often abandon land with haste.
I see four levels of public land, in descending order of quality:
Wilderness: This is our most pristine land, rescued from development and preserved for future generations to enjoy – places where “man himself is a visitor”, as the law is written. Many on the right complain that resources on these lands are “locked up” – what is really locked up is private enjoyment of the commons for all time. If they were opened up to development and extraction, future generations would be robbed of something precious but not appreciated by all – the natural experience. (Often times we read of a Boy Scout or hunter who perished in a wilderness area. Edward Abbey thought that losing a few people was an important part of the wild experience – if it ain’t dangerous, it ain’t natural.) Some, like those who think it a right to ride an ATV anywhere, don’t seem to care about that. Thankfully enough of us do that we have millions of acres of wilderness. We will always have to fight to keep it, but for now, it is there for all of us to enjoy.
National Parks: These are also pristine lands, but are not “wilderness” per se, as the law that supports them mandates that the public be allowed to enjoy them as much as possible. No profit-motivated development of these lands is allowed, but lots of public money is expended to allow public access. Roads and hotels and restaurants abound, along with public facilities like museums to highlight the features. Yellowstone Park is such a place – visited each year by millions, healthy and handicapped alike, who enjoy the place – each in their own way.
National Forests: The public (especially environmentalists) are at odds with the government over management of national forests. Public land managers, industry and the conservationists perceive the lands differently. Conservationists see the forests as potential wilderness, and tend to resist any incursions for timber harvests, roads and trails, especially for off-road use. Industry sees a resources in need of development, and often exerts its influence through lobbyists and campaign contributions to exert its will over the public. Managers, on the other hand, preserve the lands as best they are able for harvest and exploitation, but also private enjoyment. There is a constant battle going on, with land managers caught in the middle. They are no one’s friend, everyone’s enemy.
In fact, what Teddy Roosevelt saw in the early 20th century was the slow but inevitable destruction of these lands. He realized that if he did not intervene, we would lose the resource entirely. Public ownership saved our national forests, but the urge to develop them so that they lose their natural appeal is still there. We have all seen private forests – no diversity, deer an enemy rather than a friend, roads all about – a sterile experience. We have also witnessed extreme development where the resources are depleted in full, leaving moonscapes and desert, ala Haiti. That was our fate before TR stepped in.
The conflict over national forests will go on in perpetuity, but public ownership has been a greater good than private ownership. Conservationists have to come to grips with the fact that resource development has to be allowed. Industry has to be forced by law to allow for the other resources, like big game, to be enjoyed by the public.
BLM Lands: Eastern Montana is largely owned by the public and managed by the Bureau of Land Management. So are wide swaths of Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, and virtually all of Nevada. BLM lands are bottom-of-the-barrel type – having little profitable use or natural appeal. I grew up in Eastern Montana, and remember May and June, still my favorite months, because they were green. The rest of the year …. not so cool.
Montana is widely perceived as a cattle state, but Midwest states have better claim to that title. Indiana outproduces Montana. The reason is that it takes so damned much land to raise one cow out here, due to the low quality of the land. BLM lands are usually managed by the public because no one else wants them. They sit idle, offering grazing acreage for ranchers, or waiting to be turned private should some valuable resource, like oil or gas, be discovered. In the 19th and 20th century much of this land was given to the public as part of the Homestead Acts – thousands of families were lured out west only to be turned away by nature and the poor quality of the land.
The land naturally had two fates – one to be turned back to public ownership after the private owner failed, the other to be congregated in huge ranches – economies of scale being the only way to justify private ownership.
I think it is BLM land that gives public land its bad name, and allows PERC and others to say that our lands our poorly managed. But that is far from the case – our public land managers are doing a wonderful job for us, managing our resources for various purposes as the law requires, all the while caught between our vigorous disputes. Gloria Flora, former Superintendent of the Lewis and Clark National Forest in Montana, was a tough administrator. But she was practically driven from office by loud and various right wingers, receiving personal threats and wide abuse. Like teaching in the inner cities, such work is a calling for only a few brave souls.
To summarize, private land ownership is our heritage and an essential right for every citizen of the world, but public land ownership is also as important. The very best lands must be publicly owned, lest they be lost to all of us and future generations. Private land often suffers when its resources are depleted. Government often ends up owning our worst and most unprofitable land, and for that reason gets an undeserved reputation as a poor land manager.
Addendum: I inadvertently overlooked one category of public land, the National Monument. This type of land comes into being under the Antiquities Act of 1906. The purpose of the act was to protect resources from looting or destruction during the time it might take Congress to act to protect them – say, for instance, a mining company coming across ancient ruins, the president has the right to step in and protect the site. A president can create a National Monument, but cannot unmake one. (Miners and oil and gas companies usually operate under the mantra STFU.)
President Clinton used Antiquities as a means of bypassing Congress and protecting some small tracts of land, including parts of the Missouri River. It was his way of giving a green hue to his very ungreen administration.
Piece of Mindful 