You’d think by being a conservative
Republican the belief that states have an inalienable right to own/manage/sell
off as much land as they wish within their jurisdictions.
And normally I am as staunch a 10th
Amendment supporter that is found north of the Mason-Dixon Line. (For those who
are ready to open up a Google Search, the 10th Amendment is the one
that reserves power to the states unless specifically granted to the federal
government.)
However, don’t go and assume that because a
person is both a Republican and a conservative (which I am) that he (or she)
automatically gleefully awaits congressional approval to allow states to rape
and pillage the natural resources and properties here-to-for once owned by the
commonwealth of the U.S. of A.
Such is being sought and proposed by members
of the Grand Old Party’s congressional delegation.
Some states – Utah, for example, which is
demanding 20 million acres – the transfer of federal public lands could spell “access
denied” to a whale lot of hunters, anglers, birders, hikers and other outdoorsy
types.
A deep and abiding concern to a copious
number of sportsmen, conservation and environmental groups centers on this “No Trespassing”
threat to recreational access accompanied by such alternative universe signs
saying “Fracking Welcome Here,” “Coal is Energy’s Future,” and “Beef – It’s what’s
for Dinner.”
All stuff that fulfills states’ desires to
achieve economic superiority regardless of the natural resources costs.
It’s an old story, certainly. Ever since
states beyond the original 13 were being carved out of federal holdings the
fledgling governments have ever sought more land.
And the story’s been widely covered over the
years, too. As a for instance, the libertarian think tank CATO Institute opined
on the subject back in 1997 that creating public trust lands “… would do more
to improve fiscal and environmental management of public lands than would transferring
them to the states.”
This has not stopped others from trying, of
course.
By a 51 to 49 vote (almost entirely along
party lines) in the U.S. Senate back in March, a non-binding and mostly
on-paper position stated that transferring federal land to the states in some
fashion was a right-fine, capital idea. And for the record, Ohio’s senior
Senator, Democrat Party liberal Sherrod Brown voted “nay” while Republican
Party conservative Rob Portman voted “aye.”
Still and though the budget amendment was
pretty much entirely toothless it is still a vocal shout-out that a whole lot
of powerful politicians are eager to allow the various and almost entirely
Western states to get their greedy paws on everyone’s shared federal land
heritage.
All of this being said the federal government
really has done an inept job of working with the states on many sensitive issues
of shared interest.
With a frequency that can make the most bureaucratic
of bureaucrats blush, the federal government has repeatedly proven itself to be
the bully on the land-ownership and management block.
Consequently states still chafe at wearing the
federal government’s uncomfortable saddle. Thus anything that can tweak the
nose of the federal government’s alphabetized list of land owners is a favored
tactic of virtually every Western state.
Yet these same Western states have a lot of
explaining and apologizing to do themselves. Same goes for all the armchair sportsmen
and conservation organizations that are lathered up over any and all mention of
land transfers.
The point is that folks in the West have all
too often assumed such federal lands are their semi-private outdoors
playgrounds. If anyone east of the Mississippi River wants to fish or hunt on
these federal lands then, by golly, they’ll need to pay through the nose for a
state-issued hunting or fishing license or any accompanying game tag.
Here’s a couple of for instances: A New
Mexico general hunting license costs a resident $15 but for a non-resident it
is $65. For a bear tag it is $47 and $260, respectively.
In Montana, for a resident to buy a “B-elk”
tag costs $25. For a non-resident that same tag costs $278. Remember, too, that
both sets of hunters may very well utilize federal land – land held in the
commonwealth of the United States.
Wyoming non-resident anglers don’t get off
the hook, either. For an annual fishing license a Wyoming resident pays out
$24. Meanwhile a non-resident Wyoming angler will pay near four times as much:
$92.
No one is going to dispute that states have
the right to charge non-residents more to hunt and fish. I buy that,
understanding how states are the managers of the fish and wildlife found within
their borders.
Even so, state rightists cannot have the privilege
of rummaging through the wallets of non-residents in order to discourage visitation.
Not when they also are pleading for help in preserving their personal time on
the outdoors playground owned by everyone.
So before I get all worked up about transferring
federal land to states that will assuredly divvy up the best parts to those who’ll
close the gates I want some assurances I’ll not only be welcome but that I won’t
be robbed coming and going.
Something tells me, though, not to hold my
breath.
Jeffrey L. Frischkorn
Jeff is the retired
News-Herald reporter who covered the earth sciences, the area's three
county park systems and the outdoors for the newspaper. During his 30 years
with The News-Herald Jeff was the recipient of more than 100 state, regional
and national journalism awards. He also is a columnist and features writer for
the Ohio Outdoor News, which is published every other week and details the
outdoors happenings in the state.
No comments:
Post a Comment