Western states eye federal lands - again
The ultra-right ‘remedy’ for public lands.
In September, Southern Utah University hosted a debate in Cedar City, Utah, over the management of public lands. Close to 250 people packed the auditorium on a Thursday night as two University of Utah professors, Bob Keiter and Dan McCool, debated two state legislators, House Speaker Becky Lockhart and Rep. Ken Ivory.
Utah is ground zero this year for an attempt by some Western states to claim federal lands. The professors argued that public-land management by federal agencies, however messy it might appear, remains necessary, given the costs and the myriad interests involved, and that a land transfer would certainly fail in court. Lockhart replied that federal mismanagement was responsible for bark beetle infestations and devastating wildfires. Flashing a photograph of a dead bull elk that had been caught in a fire, she railed: “This is a representation of the animals that are slaughtered because of lack of management.” Ivory pointed to a map of the United States that contrasted the West’s vast public lands with the East’s obvious lack of them. “Why the difference?” he asked, rhetorically.
The answer, of course, has to do with federal land purchases from France, Mexico and Russia, between 1781 and 1867, as well as the seizures of territory from Native Americans, all of which created U.S. public lands. But Ivory, a business lawyer and the newest champion of federal-to-state land transfers, did not delve into any of that. Instead, he denounced the federal government’s “one-size fails all” management policy, saying the states could do better on their own.
Comments about this article