Forgot to add this one.
First-of-its-kind tool identifies six million acres the Bureau of Land Management could advance for sale
onX and the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership today launched an interactive map that identifies lands deemed eligible for potential sale by the Bureau of Land Management. This map is the first publicly available, easy-to-use tool to inform both the public and policymakers about the locations of public land parcels that the federal government could advance for sale.
“Public lands, like those managed by the BLM, support 178.5 million outdoor recreation participants who rely on these landscapes to hunt, hike, fish, off-road, ski, climb, and bike,” said onX CEO Laura Orvidas. “The outdoor community cherishes these places, and has recently fought fiercely to keep them public. Yet the land disposal process has historically been opaque–often buried in hundreds of pages of government documents. We created this map with TRCP to bring transparency to the land disposal process, to inform outdoor enthusiasts of nearby parcels, and to encourage lawmakers to uphold existing policies that safeguard the public interest when considering any land sales.”
This map was developed using publicly available GIS data derived from 160 individual BLM Resource Management Plans in 17 western states. It reveals 6,086,900 acres of public land marked for potential sale.
“For the first time, the public and policymakers can engage with one map that spans most BLM planning areas, and see public land parcels eligible for sale in the context of other landmarks, like towns, roads, and adjoining public lands,” said Joel Pedersen, president and CEO of the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership. “TRCP is proud to partner with onX to share this valuable tool that shows specific locations of land that could be considered for sale like never before.”
The six million acres depicted in the map are not guaranteed to be sold, rather, they have been identified in BLM land use plans as eligible for potential disposal or sale. Identification of lands as eligible for disposal does not trigger immediate action, it means those parcels may be considered for sale if and when a proposal is advanced. Importantly, any future sale must go through a multi-step process that includes additional opportunities for public review and comment. By showing these parcels on a map, the public can more readily participate in any future public process.
Explore the map HERE.
Learn more about the BLM’s land disposal history and current process HERE.
I always find it ironic that every controversy ginned up by the, ahem, “professional explainers” inside the nonprofit industrial complex, are always accompanied by a fundraising campaign.
Government administration of recreation programs on federal lands lose over $3 billion annually, according to the GAO. Energy extraction and development, special use permittees (e.g., movie and event industry, concessionaires), cattlemen, farmers, etc. are all paying direct fees to use federal land. Unless recreationists are staying in a campground or parking area, they are typically paying nothing directly for their own extractive use, yet scream the loudest when they can’t access every square inch of dirt.
There are millions of acres of federal land that have been reconveyed from the public domain for a specific purpose that lack all–or unfettered–public access. Yet the focus is always on the land unavailable for the public to trample on that is behind private gates. Hunters and enviro’s especially have lost the moral high ground on this issue with their incessant claims that federal land has no value unless they have access to it in order to kill things or otherwise exploit what’s behind those fences (not to mention, force additional regulation of connected private land).
The proposed sales (through FLMPA and FLTFA) are not “opaque”; that’s nonsense. Those disposals have been on the books for decades, the recreation corporations, like Onx, just ignored them….so has the BLM. That’s why counties, including mine just last month, are rejecting new federal land acquisitions–even if we would otherwise support them–because it’s been such a one-way street for so long (BLM can acquire land in less than two years but can’t dispose of land in under 10? What a joke not to mention potential planning or NEPA issues). That’s why we need federal legislation and, possibly, litigation to force sales because the federal agencies simply won’t act when they don’t want to.
I’m certainly glad that I personally (along with many others in Grant County) was able to purchase the four or five parcels of prior domain land from the BLM years ago. I can now manage them as I see fit, borrow money on them and the county can tax it. The public didn’t have access to them before but now can, with my permission. And I can guarantee that they are more productive for water, native plants, soils, wildlife and other resources than they were before, when the BLM didn’t even have administrative access. When I show photos of those parcels to people who are screaming slogans, like “Not One Acre” (which, in my opinion, is probably one of the least intelligent but definitely appealing to the ignorant and emotionally hysterical public) they generally agree that those lands have little importance to them or the public and are probably better off sold–particularly if part of the revenue can be used to secure public access to more “beneficial” acres. Those discussions are foreclosed by the zero sum positions of those whose primary goal is continued controversy as part of their fundraising and development campaigns. I hope that their voices are marginalized and negated by more rational representatives focusing on facts rather than emotions.
“Government administration of recreation programs on federal lands lose over $3 billion annually, according to the GAO.”
Do you know if GAO considers the tax receipts from the businesses making money off of recreation? That would include everything from REI and Old Town canoes to local businesses that can’t survive without tourists.
“Unless recreationists are staying in a campground or parking area, they are typically paying nothing directly for their own extractive use, yet scream the loudest when they can’t access every square inch of dirt.”
How is hiking, biking, horseback riding, snowshoeing, driving for pleasure, etc. an extractive use?
“they generally agree that those lands have little importance to them or the public and are probably better off sold–particularly if part of the revenue can be used to secure public access to more “beneficial” acres.”
I’m curious how you came to this conclusion. Any sort of data on “they generally agree?”
“I hope that their voices are marginalized and negated by more rational representatives focusing on facts rather than emotions.”
Ultimately, land is managed by values, which are anchored by emotions. Laws are based on values. Politics… values. Science/facts inform, but don’t make decisions.
When I talk with people who have strong opinions about land management, people who think there is no other way to look at things (even when I agree with their opinion), I tell them that just as sure as they think they are right, I can line up five people just as smart as them who have a different opinion.
The minute we “marginalize voices” is when we stop being a democracy. Seems like a lot of that is happening right now.
1. Why would GAO consider tax receipts in a straight-line analysis of federal deficit spending for federally managed recreation programs on federally owned lands? Unless, I suppose, they were trying to justify continued subsidies or investments or welfare, depending on how you want to characterize that spending. Regardless, the GAO analysis is simple–how much is spent minus how much is returned in revenue. Period. There are plenty of other analyses that assess the economic impact of federally subsidized programs on taxpayers and communities, including the BLM’s own calculations of value and jobs created by the use of federal lands under their administration. In fact, a few of those numbers are frequently selectively touted by the recreation and environmental corporate exec’s in their contrived narratives of “federal land recreation is responsible for more value and jobs than agriculture and timber” and “recreation has an $11.8 billion impact on rural communities”. What they conveniently omit is that energy and minerals on those same BLM lands has an estimated impact of $219 billion, while being the only federal lands program that has a positive net revenue return to the taxpayer (and to the eco-corporations through LWCF).
2. I notice that you conveniently didn’t mention hunting in your list of what you apparently consider non-extractive uses, so we at least agree on that one. For the remainder, Google is your friend (or ResearchGate or HaithiTrust or wherever you seek your information) and there are plenty of published, peer reviewed articles from the scientific literature that describe recreational impact on natural resources. Regardless, you are either missing my point or trying to distract from it, which was about recreationists not paying their fair share of administration. Call it an extractive or passive use, or call it a sacred experience, I could care less, the point that they don’t pay relative to their demands remains valid.
3. You’re parsing my words in order to create a response that is unrelated to my point…but nice red herring. I was clear that it was my anecdotal experiences that supported my conclusion. I never claimed they were representative of a large group or anything else for that matter. In that context, it’s absurd and dishonest conversation to ask if I have data to support personal experiences. I expect that kind of response on Facebook; not here.
4. I absolutely stand on–and will defend–the principle of marginalizing and excluding the voices of what I refer to frequently as the “paid professional liars” representing some of these organizations dominating and controlling these conversations. The ones who publish photographs of high elevation, alpine basins in designated wilderness areas underneath headlines that scream “Your Public Lands Are Going to be Sold” and those who, when the first iteration of the disposal proposal was released, responded with the public campaign “there are RMP and other processes that better deal and are more fair with selling isolated tracts of land not needed for federal purposes any longer” but who are now–once the proposal was removed from the reconciliation bill–are yelling (and fundraising on) “Not One Acre” and making false claims that the RMP process of identifying and disposing of lands should be rolled back and no federal lands should ever be sold. These are also the same extremists who are litigating access across private land so they can exploit federal land, regardless of the consequences–and lying about it the entire time. So yes, I want their voices quieted, not by the tactics routinely employed by the left but by the truth.
I agree that recreation impacts the environment, but outside hunting and fishing and maybe gathering plants and mushrooms, it isn’t extractive. In order to determine if government spending on recreation infrastructure and management is deficit, it needs to go way beyond costs and direct receipts. That’s just economics 101.
I’m not sure why you brought up energy and mineral extraction as that wasn’t part of the conversation, but if you want to talk impacts… well, I’m on a board of directors of a local nonprofit that has been pulling in and spending millions of dollars cleaning up past mining impacts and we have barely scratched the surface of what needs to be done. By the way, I’m not anti-energy or mineral development. I drive a gas powered truck, my computer and phone are full of minerals and I once worked underground in a silver mine.
You are right about point 3. I misread that paragraph.
One thing you left out is the value of public lands to wildlife and clean water.
I agree that many environmental groups take liberties with how they frame issues as does industry and the federal government. My last 14 years with the USFS was as a public affairs specialist (my background is in forestry and soil science) and I can tell you that every administration likes to tell their own half truths in order to push their agendas. I didn’t buy into it and it got me in trouble many times with both the regional office and Washington office. This current administration has taken it to new levels.
I’m guessing our values are a bit different concerning the best use of public lands. I’m also guessing our values are different with how we treat people we disagree with.
So call recreation a “consumptive use” to distinguish it from an “extractive use”, it’s just semantic word games that certain use-advocates build into their false narratives when they attempt to justify recreation as the primary use of government-owned lands. Much like how they try to rationalize retention of government lands for recreation on those lands’ habitat value. It’s a dishonest conversation but it works, particularly on the gullible segments of the public who want to hear those statements to satisfy their confirmation bias.
Calculating deficit spending only requires two data points–expenditures and revenue. That’s Econ 101. What you are suggesting is cost-benefit or return on investment, which is a far broader assessment, and again, is frequently used by various beneficiaries to argue for continued subsidies. I’m happy to discuss ROI on government lands but those analyses have already been completed for the lands that are currently identified for disposal under the BLM RMP’s, so I’m not sure what you are arguing…that the federal government got it wrong when they identified those particular parcels for disposal or that government lands in general (and at least the uses you support) are so valuable that the tracts planned for disposal shouldn’t be disposed of even if they don’t have the same value?
I didn’t “leave out” the value of public land to wildlife and clean water, they are simply irrelevant to my reply and to the OP’s argument, albeit somewhat opaquely implied, that somehow the public lands identified for disposal shouldn’t be sold because of the number of recreationists who use them, while ignoring the realities of the lands to which they are referring (primarily isolated tracts without public or administrative access) and their own silly arguments justifying their own selfish self-interests.
From Business-Standard.com: “Revenue receipts can be of two types — non-tax revenue and tax revenue. Tax revenue is the income gained by the government through taxation.” Recreation creates jobs. People with jobs make income. Income is taxed. Tax is revenue.
From grammarly.com: “Semantics is the study of meaning in language—how words, phrases, and sentences convey meaning and how that meaning is interpreted.” Semantics are important. Understanding the meaning of words is rather useful in a conversation. Recreationists don’t consume land. The land, with the exception of some dirt on the soles of their shoes, stays right where it is at. Do they have an impact on the land and wildlife? Absolutely, but a housing development has an even bigger impact. Is one better than the other? Well, that’s what that differences in values comment was about.
I am quite familiar with some of the BLM lands depicted on the map and they are important winter range for deer and elk. Certainly, the map can be a first step for further analyses that involves public input. And it is okay if the map pushes peoples buttons and they speak out, that’s how the process works or at least that is how it used to work.
To call someone’s argument silly is just a nasty way of putting down someone one disagrees with. It is designed to elevate the argument in the mind of the insulter, but only creates negative feelings among those targeted. It adds nothing substantive to the discussion.
The federal government has a budget deficit approaching $2 trillion and a national debt of nearly $40 trillion (not to mention the trillions in outstanding obligations from trust fund borrowing), so how would you like to apportion the gross financial deficit of the federal government to the federal lands recreation program? Whatever metric you choose, no matter how creative or specious, you can’t get around the fact that the federal government collects less from its federal land recreation programs than it spends administering those programs, similar to the deficit in every federal land management program with the exception of energy development. Your suggestion that general tax collections should be considered as individual program revenue for the purpose of a cost-revenue analysis would have the effect of wiping out–on paper–every program deficit calculation. I find that argument pointless and beyond reason. Alternatively, if you are arguing that taxpayers should just expect federal lands programs to be run at a deficit, with those taxpayers least likely to use federal lands being obligated to pay the most for the excesses, then why are some federal land users paying directly for their use and others not? Why not just make all uses of federal lands “free” to the user, since the costs would be covered by everyone else? Since I pay federal taxes, why should I have to pay for a grazing or firewood permit but a hunter doesn’t have to pay for a killing permit or a hiker for a weed-spreading permit?
I suppose then, we’re back to your suggestion that somehow recreation is more angelic than other federal land uses and should not only be the determinant in whether federal lands are sold but should predominant over other uses (paying down the federal debt, BTW, was one of the original, primary purposes for the federal government in purchasing lands in the first place; recreation wasn’t even a designated primary use until 1979). That is the argument from the “NOT ONE ACRE” crowd that I said I find “silly”. Since you apparently prefer dictionary definitions, Merriam-Webster defines silly as “exhibiting or indicative of a lack of common sense or sound judgment”. I not only find their argument silly, but also elitist and bigoted.
The map that you refer to as being a “first step for further analyses that involves public input” presents lands that have been identified for at least 15 years as available and suitable for disposal, mostly through the RMP process. They’ve already had public comment and been vetted through the NEPA process, appeals/litigation and subsequent additional planning. It’s the ineptitude, foot-dragging, and incessant excuses of the federal bureaucrats that led to the inclusion of the sales provision in the reconciliation bill and that will most likely bring sales back in future legislation, if not also litigation.
I am also very familiar with a considerable number of parcels identified for disposal, not just professionally but personally. How is that relevant? Each parcel’s value, or lack thereof, has already been assessed and the disposition determination made based on the disposal criteria. If you’re suggesting that 15 years of study and planning should be dismissed or that we need another 15 years to make decisions because of your personal beliefs today, I simply won’t agree. I’d like to think that facts will eventually pierce the emotional hysteria manufactured by the selfish interests involved in this screaming match, but my experience says it’s not likely.
Here are the criteria in FLPMA for land sales. It’s kind of hard for me to get from these criteria to 6 million acres, so I wonder what kind of “analysis” was done in the RMP planning process (example anyone?). It seems like the only real room for large scale expansion is in the phrase “uneconomic to manage,” and the question seems to be what kind of economic analysis is necessary. I would argue that, because these “public lands” are managed for the public, all of the benefits to the public are relevant, whether or not they result in revenue to the government, or are even quantifiable in dollar terms. That idea is supported by the 3rd criterion that explicitly recognizes “recreation and scenic values” as benefits.
“Sales of Public Land Tracts
Sec. 203 [43 U.S.C. 1713]. (a) Criteria for disposal; excepted lands
A tract of the public lands (except land in units of the National Wilderness Preservation System, National Wild and Scenic Rivers Systems, and National System of Trails) may be sold under this Act where, as a result of land use planning required under section 202 of this Act, the Secretary determines that the sale of such tract meets the following disposal criteria:
(1) such tract because of its location or other characteristics is difficult and uneconomic to manage as part of the public lands, and is not suitable for management by another Federal department or agency; or
(2) such tract was acquired for a specific purpose and the tract is no longer required for that or any other Federal purpose; or
(3) disposal of such tract will serve important public objectives, including but not limited to, expansion of communities and economic development, which cannot be achieved prudently or feasibly on land other than public land and which outweigh other public objectives and values, including, but not limited to, recreation and scenic values, which would be served by maintaining such tract in Federal ownership.”
Apologies for the length, but you raise some very important points…
1. “it’s kind of hard for me to get from these criteria to 6 million acres”…I don’t find it difficult at all, even relying on the most plain reading of the criteria and congressional direction. Apparently, the BLM agrees.
2. “what kind of “analysis” was done in the RMP planning process”…I can only comment on the few RMP processes and subsequent large sale/exchanges that I‘ve been directly involved with but it seems pretty intuitive what the primary driver was for identifying lands for disposal simply by looking at the map.
3. “the only real room for large scale expansion is in the phrase “uneconomic to manage”…I disagree, whether by focusing on the first part of that subparagraph “such tract because of its location or other characteristics is difficult…to manage as part of the public lands” or linking “difficult” with “uneconomic”. Onx and cohorts estimate—depending upon which report you believe—somewhere between 6 and 15 million acres of—what they call “public” land—that is inaccessible to the public (they don’t mention how many acres are also not administratively accessible although my own ArcGIS analysis of those same lands in Oregon 2-3 years prior to the first Onx report in 2018 indicated that most also don’t have agency access). Overlaying the “inaccessible” acres and the “available for disposal acres” shows pretty clearly how they relate.
The “Not One Acre” crowd’s initial public response to the first publicly available land disposal legislative concept paper and the first iteration of the bill language was that ‘there were good administrative processes (i.e., RMP’s) that are better suited to dealing with disposal’ along with open recognition of why sales/exchanges are appropriate under certain circumstances and the benefits of doing them through mechanisms like the FLTFA. That narrative became “Not One Acre” when the hysteria exploded and momentum shifted due to their propaganda on the final bill language. Now certain actors want to rescind all the prior RMP and FLTFA commitments—based on additional lies like those “processes were opaque” –and start over, likely because they believe they can: 1) prevail on the corner crossing case and congress will fail to clarify that the intent of the Unlawful Enclosures Act was never for recreation; 2) force imminent domain through the feds; or 3) control RMP revisions. We’ll see.
4. It’s not just the criteria that you point out, the congressional declaration of policy in FLMPA also contain important direction for the disposal of statutorily-defined public land: “…disposal of a particular parcel will serve the national interest”, “public lands not previously designated for any specific use…be reviewed”, and etc. along with parts of some definitions, such as for “withdrawls”.
5. There’s additional congressional direction for disposal elaborated in the FLTFA; some of the RMP’s that I’ve read or worked on identify FLTFA parcels separately. Again, the congressional findings: Sale/exchange/acquisition would “allow for the reconfiguration of land ownership patterns to better facilitate resource management”, “contribute to administrative efficiency…”, “allow for increased effectiveness of the allocation of fiscal and human resources…” and “facilitate a more effective configuration of land ownership patterns”. As an aside, there are some interesting congressional reports on why FLTFA has not been implemented, including discussions of the BLM’s impairments, that I alluded to previously.
6. “because these ’public lands’ are managed for the public, all of the benefits to the public are relevant”…I understand the first part of that opinion conceptual but frequently disagree with it practically, for example, when certain users make false claims along the lines that “it’s not public land if the public can’t control it” or “public land only has value if we can kill things on it”, although it does beg the question that if it’s not public land under those definitions, what do they care if its sold. The second part of your statement is inarguable, if for no other reason than it’s stated repeatedly in the law. What I find disingenuous is how some try to manipulate that statement into the false conclusion that “amenity, habitat or existence values should predominate, everywhere and always”, which is directly contradictory to the law and the explicit congressional direction as to the principal uses of public land, relative values of uses, and that not all uses will be available on all lands, not to mention that congress intended that the U.S. would “receive fair market value of the use of the public lands”.
7. The current crop of scientist-public policy advocate/expert/influencers at all levels that I’m exposed to local-to-national, seem tremendously uninformed and uninterested in the “how did we get here” question, in favor of “I only value discovery” mentality. That seems to closely parallel todays woke society of new genders and ways to be offended and disadvantaged. It seems perilous, if not just incredibly inefficient, to ignore the multiple Public Lands Law Review Commission, CRS, GAO and multitude of other reports all recommending continued land sales in favor of managing according to certain persons’ current emotions, particular those conflating all sorts of unrelated concepts, not the least of which is “land identification is same as land sale” but also “land sale means sold to a billionaire” or “land sale means no more public value” and all other manner of ignorant absurdities dealt to the public, mostly by vendors using the manufactured controversy to peddle something.
8. There were land sales last year, and the year before, and the year before that and they’ll be more this year and next, notwithstanding the hyperbole, rhetoric, propaganda and outright lies propagated by certain, self-interested corporations. Those “merchants of despair” had an opportunity to become an important voice in a vital national issue and instead they chose unethical behavior and conflict to preserve their selfish interests. It reduced their public credibility, even amongst their own followers, and, as I’ve posted and defended here before, I hope they suffer long-term, negative effects because of their behavior.