[BobL]

I remember the early days of Reagan, when he was trying to sell off federal lands. The Left had a cow and I wondered back then what the big deal was...since the the management of the lands seemed to be reasonable.

But now, after Clinton and Obama LOCKING UP much of those lands, I see that the Left was thinking long term the whole time...and needed Reagan to back off so that the lands would be available when the stars lined up (Obama and Clinton’s terms).

The only option is for the feds to get their hands off the lands. Ideally, give them over to private hands, but certainly states. The feds do have a right to some lands, such as on the border, military bases, etc., and I don’t mind them keeping most of the older national parks - but the rest of the land simply NEEDS TO GO.

[sphinx]

You've put your finger on the current issue. Until the last couple of decades, federal land managers in the western states tended to view themselves as partners in economic development. The feds were pro-logging, pro-mining, and pro-agriculture. The Forest Service, for example, had this wild idea that trees were a renewable resource and that controlled logging with reforestation was a good thing for foresters to support. And so on, in other sectors. Yes, there were tensions. The feds always wanted to protect the crown jewels in the National Parks and Monuments, and the feds undoubtedly insisted on a higher degree of environmental stewardship than a pure free market would have produced, but within those constraints, the federal land managers wanted to help people make a living off the land.

As late as Reagan, the legacy culture of the federal land agencies was therefore multiple use and sustained use. But that has changed. The left went on a crusade to lock up federal lands. The left today wants federal lands managed as parks and wilderness areas, essentially as nothing more than vacation destinations for easterners and Californians on holiday. The people who actually live in Montana or Idaho or Utah are of no account, excepting of course the enclaves of jet setters in their exclusive ski resorts. We've reached the point at which locals no longer regard the feds as reliable or trustworthy partners; the feds are more likely to be regarded as enemies. I imagine that there are still many federal employees in the field, and some hidden away in headquarters as well, who hold to the older view, but the Democrats have worked hard to institutionalize the new non-use ideology. It will be hard to put Humpty Dumpty back together again.

If it were up to me, I would set aside the national parks and monuments (i.e., protect the crown jewels) and then privatize much of the federal estate that has traditionally been leased for economic use. This could be done with suitable 21st century environmental safeguards; no one wants to repeat the mistakes of uncontrolled sprawl development. (One Las Vegas is one too many; no more boomtown cities in the desert ....) Start with a midrange goal: for example, no state should be more than a quarter or a third federally owned. (Let future generations worry about whittling it down from there, if it seems appropriate.) I would use the proceeds from land sales to expand federal park holdings in the eastern half of the country, which are clearly underserved in this area. Start with historic sites, floodplains, and waterfronts, of which the east has an abundance. Aside from the intrinsic importance of saving such sites, this would be good politics. We will get a lot further with privatization of BLM lands in the West if we can put it in the context of a strong, affirmative national parks and national forest initiative in the rest of the country.