A Campaign of Ideas – Access And Use Of Public Lands
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
In our series of expanding on the list of Top 10 Critical Areas, identified by Farm Bureau members participating in a recent ranking process of things that they believe should be addressed in the 2010 election process, “Access and Use of Public Lands” came in as the number two priority, trailing only the “Growth of the National Government”. When you live in a state, like Nevada, that has 90 percent of its land under the management and control of bureaucratic officials, being able to make use of lands is a natural critical area.
States dominated by private property have the ability to take advantage of economic drivers, including agricultural, which come from production derived from those lands. Nevada also benefits from agricultural production (livestock grazing) that comes from public lands, but in many ways it’s like conducting everyday activities with one-arm tied behind your back. The only real certainty associated with use of the lands under the management of the Bureau of Land Management or U.S. Forest Service is that whatever needs to be done by way of resource management will be done in the most complicated and inefficient manner possible. You can also count on there being no shortage of onlookers who have nothing to contribute but their financial resources to attempt to prevent worthwhile and beneficial actions from taking place.
You can also count on elected officials, especially those who are elected to go back to Washington, D.C. to pander to the population segment who want to have management of public resources carried out with a “Thou Shalt Not” approach, locking vast tracks of property completely away from active management activities. Constant legislative initiatives have been underway involving Wilderness advocates who suggest that the most appropriate management actions are to do nothing and aggressively regulate to make sure that doing nothing is anything but a passive pursuit.
Another aspect associated with the use of public lands is the ability of federal management agencies to control everything through the use of permits. Because of this control mechanism all use is held hostage to an assortment of conditions and considerations which place those who are paying and attempting to make use of the lands at the back of the line with all types of bureaucratic hoops that must be navigated. Again, certainty is anything but certain and last minute anythings, especially hair-brained legal challenges can and do turn upside down processes and sound management outcomes.
From the perspective of using the 2010 election process, as a mechanism for change, candidates vying for election to serve in Washington, D.C. need to be questioned on their positions regarding responsible use and management of public land resources. These same candidates should be asked directly their points of view regarding further expansion of Wilderness areas or other types of limited use land designations. Funding for resource management agencies is another consideration that candidates should be questioned about, seeking to identify where their perspectives might be on how management actions should be supported.
On a state level, candidates interested in you vote should be questioned on their positions of natural resource use and management. State agencies can be advocates for responsible use or roadblocks, depending on their policies and approaches to interact with federal counterparts. Elected leaders, such as a Governor, can play instrumental roles in setting the stage for productive interactions, promoting responsible use, but sending clear signals that state interests are served through management which seeks to enhance resource conditions for economic benefit as opposed to faulty ideas that promote non-use.
In our series of expanding on the list of Top 10 Critical Areas, identified by Farm Bureau members participating in a recent ranking process of things that they believe should be addressed in the 2010 election process, “Access and Use of Public Lands” came in as the number two priority, trailing only the “Growth of the National Government”. When you live in a state, like Nevada, that has 90 percent of its land under the management and control of bureaucratic officials, being able to make use of lands is a natural critical area.
States dominated by private property have the ability to take advantage of economic drivers, including agricultural, which come from production derived from those lands. Nevada also benefits from agricultural production (livestock grazing) that comes from public lands, but in many ways it’s like conducting everyday activities with one-arm tied behind your back. The only real certainty associated with use of the lands under the management of the Bureau of Land Management or U.S. Forest Service is that whatever needs to be done by way of resource management will be done in the most complicated and inefficient manner possible. You can also count on there being no shortage of onlookers who have nothing to contribute but their financial resources to attempt to prevent worthwhile and beneficial actions from taking place.
You can also count on elected officials, especially those who are elected to go back to Washington, D.C. to pander to the population segment who want to have management of public resources carried out with a “Thou Shalt Not” approach, locking vast tracks of property completely away from active management activities. Constant legislative initiatives have been underway involving Wilderness advocates who suggest that the most appropriate management actions are to do nothing and aggressively regulate to make sure that doing nothing is anything but a passive pursuit.
Another aspect associated with the use of public lands is the ability of federal management agencies to control everything through the use of permits. Because of this control mechanism all use is held hostage to an assortment of conditions and considerations which place those who are paying and attempting to make use of the lands at the back of the line with all types of bureaucratic hoops that must be navigated. Again, certainty is anything but certain and last minute anythings, especially hair-brained legal challenges can and do turn upside down processes and sound management outcomes.
From the perspective of using the 2010 election process, as a mechanism for change, candidates vying for election to serve in Washington, D.C. need to be questioned on their positions regarding responsible use and management of public land resources. These same candidates should be asked directly their points of view regarding further expansion of Wilderness areas or other types of limited use land designations. Funding for resource management agencies is another consideration that candidates should be questioned about, seeking to identify where their perspectives might be on how management actions should be supported.
On a state level, candidates interested in you vote should be questioned on their positions of natural resource use and management. State agencies can be advocates for responsible use or roadblocks, depending on their policies and approaches to interact with federal counterparts. Elected leaders, such as a Governor, can play instrumental roles in setting the stage for productive interactions, promoting responsible use, but sending clear signals that state interests are served through management which seeks to enhance resource conditions for economic benefit as opposed to faulty ideas that promote non-use.
Posted by Doug Busselman at 8/25/2009 7:16 AM 
Categories: 2010 Elections
Tags: 2010 Election Natural Resources Wilderness Responsible Use Public Lands
Categories: 2010 Elections
Tags: 2010 Election Natural Resources Wilderness Responsible Use Public Lands
Comments