Friends of Nevada

[desert wanderer]

They are Nevada's version of Natures Conservancy.

Private organizations buying up and running public lands, for friends and profits.

This is one gripe I guess I'll never understand. It's the very basis of the American Way, the American Dream and capitalism - If you want something and can afford it then buy it and do whatever you want with it and if you make a profit then you're a good buisnessman. What's wrong with that? Ted Turner does the same thing. He owns several huge ranches all over the west and many are wildlife preserves.
I don't get it, would you rather the Saudis and Japanese buy up these same lands? If land is on the market someones going to buy it. That's America.

Yuccahead, Capitalism has no relevance in public lands. They are for; "the public", set aside FOR the public. When special interest groups and private enterprise start to run public lands, then insert their own dogma and philosophies, public lands cease functioning as lands for the public. They shouldn't be for sale to anyone, and that includes domestic and foreign interests. So your question "would you rather the Saudis and Japanese buy up these same lands", should be legally moot.
It shouldn't even be a/in question.
I realize and understand environmental concerns. As the years pass, there's undoubtedly, incrementally, more and more damage caused by irresponsible and over-usage of the desert. Responsible and in places, restricted usage has to be implemented. Especially in historical, scenic, and sensitive areas of the desert.
I myself, quit riding dirt bikes out in the desert many years ago. I prefer the peace, quiet, and soul-restoring solitude of the desert. Not everyone feels or thinks the way I do. Many enjoy off-road pursuits. As long as they confine themselves to appropriate areas, and minimize their impact on desert flora and fauna, the off-roaders have as much right as I do to have fun out there.
When special interest groups, and private groups start to usurp public lands, only the pursuits THEY deem acceptable, can utilize and enjoy the desert areas impacted by them. At that point, the land is no longer public.
It's a perplexing and difficult balance to achieve. You have on one hand, the slow destruction of desert beauty, and the locking up of large tracts, and restrictions, on the other hand.

I don't have any easy or sure solutions, but selling off tracts of land goes against what they were created for to begin with.

[LeeVW]

Excellent post, Desert Wanderer.

I have a bit to add. Yuccahead said, "If you want something and can afford it then buy it and do whatever you want with it and if you make a profit then you're a good buisnessman.".

That's a very conservative viewpoint, and it doesn't work in today's liberal political climate UNLESS the entity purchasing the land has the same philosophy as those who control it (the government). I define Liberalism as the will to control, to restrict, to limit. In other words, it is possible to purchase land and turn it into a preserve of some sort. As long as you limit access to the land, you are in good because of the perceived preservation. Try purchasing some acreage for off-roading and see how far you get. This is NOT a two-way street!

Alas, the above paragraph is probably moot, because I agree with Desert Wanderer that public land should remain public and not be controlled by special interest groups. Unfortunately, that's not how American politics works.

Lee

[desert wanderer]

Excellent post, Desert Wanderer.

I have a bit to add. Yuccahead said, "If you want something and can afford it then buy it and do whatever you want with it and if you make a profit then you're a good buisnessman.".

That's a very conservative viewpoint, and it doesn't work in today's liberal political climate UNLESS the entity purchasing the land has the same philosophy as those who control it (the government). I define Liberalism as the will to control, to restrict, to limit. In other words, it is possible to purchase land and turn it into a preserve of some sort. As long as you limit access to the land, you are in good because of the perceived preservation. Try purchasing some acreage for off-roading and see how far you get. This is NOT a two-way street!

Alas, the above paragraph is probably moot, because I agree with Desert Wanderer that public land should remain public and not be controlled by special interest groups. Unfortunately, that's not how American politics works.

Lee

Thanks Lee, for your kind words. Your post was excellent as well. In my post, I was a bit verbose, perhaps. I could have simply said; PUBLIC LANDS ARE FOR THE PUBLIC, period. I doubt that the folks that crafted the initial concept of public land, could ever conceive of the hodge-podge of political ideology, political agenda, and conflict it has now become.
BUT to be fair, they probably didn't think the desert wilderness, (and once hinterlands), would be defaced and degraded either, to the extent that it has in some areas.

[Sandman]

.......And yet, our public lands are being given away to private corporations to exploit for profit energy generation projects.

I believe private corporations should supply their own capital and buy their properties from the private sector instead of relying on corporate socialism at the expense of the US citizens and taxpayers. Once the wind or solar "farm", oil or natural gas field goes into operation, the American public is prevented from using these former public lands. We also must pay market value for the product produced.

[desert wanderer]

.......And yet, our public lands are being given away to private corporations to exploit for profit energy generation projects.

I believe private corporations should supply their own capital and buy their properties from the private sector instead of relying on corporate socialism at the expense of the US citizens and taxpayers. Once the wind or solar "farm", oil or natural gas field goes into operation, the American public is prevented from using these former public lands. We also must pay market value for the product produced.

Great post Sandman! I hadn't realized that our lands were being used for energy generation projects. That's unconscionable, and should be stopped immediately. It seems as though if it's not one thing, it's another,affecting our deserts negatively!

[spiny]

Seems to me that there is there is a fallacy in the way this thread evolved from the second post, when Mrs. Oroblanco said the Nature Conservancy is an example of "Private organizations buying up and running public lands, for friends and profits."

It's my understanding that TNC buys private lands, not public lands. If you know differently, please cite examples. TNC sometimes sells the private lands it has acquired to federal, state, or local governments for conservation purposes. Other times, it resells the lands to ranchers ard other private individuals with conservation easements attached to the title. In a few cases, it add the lands to its own reserve system. Again, these lands were not purchased from the public land system.

Some people don't like TNC and other environmental organizations to buy private lands, just as some don't like Ted Turner buying private lands for reserves or environmentally sustainable ranching, but the point is that they are putting their money where their mouth is and buying PRIVATE lands, not public lands. The only examples I know of where the federal government sells public lands is in the Las Vegas metro area, where the BLM sells some lands for development purposes.

Like it or not, capitalism is all over the public lands. BLM and the Forest Service lease public lands for grazing, mining, oil and gas drilling, logging, energy develpment, and sundry other commercial purposes. That accounts for the condition many of these lands are in.

[Sal]

You may remember that the US government GAVE 1 square mile of land to the railroad corporations for every linear mile of track laid across the country. That's where CATELLUS came from.

[Brew]

You may remember that the US government GAVE 1 square mile of land to the railroad corporations for every linear mile of track laid across the country. That's where CATELLUS came from.

And that is also why private property boundaries are often overlooked. Many areas of the Sierra Nevada Mt. Range are checker boarded with RR property and not posted.

Brew

[Sal]

most if not all of the "railroad land" has been sold off to private landholders in parcels of 5 to 80 acres. When you trespass on private property with your vehicle you are impacting someone's hard-earned vacation getaway.

[Mrs.Oroblanco]

Desert Wanderer,

Good post - and probably better than I would say it. I have a few pet peeves, and I always find it difficult to be diplomatic about those topics.

Public land for the public - is a biggie for me. (I think I've said that before )

I have to say I agree to the nth degree - public land should be for the public, all the public. Here is the additional issue with these environmental groups - first - they don't pay - they use YOUR money, and mine to "take over" the responsibilities of the government officials, and manage, along the line, to "own" it. The BLM or whoever had that piece of land will still call it public land - your tax money will still go to support those public lands, but, the Department of the Interior will take your tax money, and, then, pay it to the environmental groups, like Nature's Conservancy, to take care of that parcel of land. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the government people are still getting paid the same amount of money to oversee less land. THEN, in order for the environmental group to "take responsibility" for taking care of that land, the government pretty much agrees to let them make all the decisions - which means, most of the time, that only THEIR kind of recreation is acceptable - hike THEIR trails, look at THEIR ponds and old buildings. Plus, they get to tear down and take away historical items - you know the ones - the ones we are not allowed to touch - eventually become the ones we cannot even see. They tear down buildings, and walls, close off old springs, set up offices and have people LIVE on these parcels - free of charge - well, not really free, because we get to pay for it, and they get to deduct it from taxes, OR, they call it NON-PROFIT.

It gets much worse than that. That's just the surface scratching. One of the problems, is that these environmental groups and our government, are creating MORE enviromental destruction with their methods. If you have 2 horses in a good sized corral, they could survive for quite awhile with the grass. If you take away half the corral size, they aren't going to fare as well. Then add 5 more horses. What do you end up with - no food and lots of manure.

That is exactly what they are doing to us. They are making the size of the corral smaller, and smaller and smaller, while our population is growing and growing and growing. This causes much
more destruction than if we had the extra 10 million or so acres they have taken away - in just one state.

And, compromise is no longer an option. When you compromise - it means you (we) lose. If you have 100 acres, and the government wants 50 - and you compromise, and they only take 20. For us, that is no compromise - because we LOST 20 acres. This is what they have been doing over
and over and over.

But, I believe there is a method to that madness. The method is to put us into a smaller and smaller place, until there are too many for the available resources - then they step in and say - oh, look at all the damage they are doing - we better stop them all-together. So, they are causing what they are saying they want to stop.

The government authorities are supposed to be the stewards of OUR land - if they are not doing their jobs, or they are passing it off to environmental groups, then we don't need to be paying the government authorities - the country needs to take back the public land.

Something that they don't like to bring up, but is very, very true. The people who take care our land the very best - are the people who use it. The ranchers, the miners, the recreationists - they all have a reason to see it preserved - what motivates - what really motivates, the tax-free people who
give tours to their friends, sell occupancy permits, and put up Keep Out signs, and change roads to "routes" - what's their real motivation. If you look into alot of these environmental groups, you will find alot of power, alot of political power, and lots of money. It's got to be nice to have a 2.4 million acre playground for your friends, don't you think? Heck, its not even on their dime.

Well, I do believe this has turned into a rant. Sorry for that, but, I have spent many, many years investigating, and learning, and contacting and spending money, etc., on our loss of our public lands - but - its only a loss for some. Its a
bonanza for some others.

Beth (Mrs. O)