In the April 21 Travel Management Land meeting, a comment was made by a member of the audience that maybe the state of Wyoming should take over the public lands like the state of Utah is trying to do with the passing of legislation.
While we all agree that we need more time to come up with alternatives for the Travel Management Project – we need to take a step back and look at the forces that started this process to begin with and what the consequences could be for rash reactions.
The sale of federal public lands to the state of Wyoming might seen like a quick fix, but in the long term it could become an economical and environmental disaster.
Because the price of natural gas is so low and the use of coal is being threatened by the Environmental Protection Agency, the state of Wyoming’s financial stability could be heading toward a decline.
We don’t know what the future will bring to Wyoming financially and to burden the state with the enormous cost of maintaining newly-acquired sections of forest may not be the answer.
The state would be able to sell the public land to private entities which could divide or block access to the forest and ruin the ecosystem our environment relies on.
Currently, there is an amendment that has been approved by Congress which is getting a lot of attention. It is called S. A. 838. This is an amendment is to the Senate budget resolution introduced by Sen. Lisa Murkowski, of Arkansas.
The resolution does not have the force of law, but is does set policy concerning what issues Congress should address according to Sen. Mike Enzi’s office. The resolution ensures “any sale, transfer, or exchange of land between the federal government and state or local governments would not cost the federal government or raise revenues.” The resolution specifically excludes transfers involving National Park, National Preserve or National Monument lands, but does not exclude the sale of National Forest Land.
This amendment passed 51-49 in the Senate on March 26, with Enzi and Sen. John Barrasso voting in favor of the resolution.
Selling public lands as a way to balance the budget is not a sustainable option, especially considering the recent mismanagement of our national budget. Even though a law would have to be passed to sell the public land, this amendment opens that door.
Many people are alarmed by this amendment to which Murkowski responded that the amendment is to provide the federal government flexibility to manage its land holdings in the most efficient and productive manner possible, from both an environmental and economic standpoint.
Murkowski, who is the chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, has long believed that there are times and circumstances when the ownership of certain public lands can reasonably change hands.
While we may not always agree with the decisions of the federal employees who work at the forest service, they do care about the forest—not just parts of it—but as a whole. Those employees understand that the forest is not just a place to play, but is part of a bigger picture. The resources we receive from our forest are vital.
Our local District Ranger has said that the American people are asking for less government and that her budget is the result of that request. Obviously our government is not listening to us. We don’t want money cut from our forests – we want to stop the waste of money in our government.
Most of us don’t like the U.S. Government meddling in our business, especially when it comes to public lands, but the U.S. Government is the best solution we have in keeping our public lands just that – public.
We urge you, the public, to be involved in what is happening with our federal government all the time, not just when we are unhappy with the results
Reader Comments(0)