|
Management of the BLM's Public Lands System The government has control of
over one-third of the nation's land, and 398 million acres of that is controlled
by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM 6). This land hold a wide diversity of
resources, from timber, and grazing lands found on the surface to a mass of oil,
natural gas, and minerals laying below the earth. The history of these lands is
hardly a dull story, because it is the story of the taming of the Wild West.
Should the BLM though, still be controlling these lands under the same laws that
where put in affect to establish the “Western Frontier.” I feel that a radical
reevaluation of these laws needs to take place, in order to adapt them to the
changing demographic and technological environment of our society. The laws that
are remaining are allowing companies to hurt the land, which is against the
mission statement of the BLM. The BLM mission statement say, the Bureau is
responsible for the balanced management of the public lands and resources and
their various values so that they are considered in a combination that will best
serve the American people. Management is based upon the principles of multiple
use and sustained yield; a combination of uses that takes into account the
long-term needs of future generations for renewable and nonrenewable resources.
These resources include recreation, land, timber, minerals, watershed, fish and
wildlife, wilderness, and natural, scenic, scientific and cultural values. (BLM
7).
Therefor by allowing these old laws to remain they are pulling away from
there mission statement. Throughout the 80's the Bureau of Land Management
developed a host of programs and emphasized a number of others - outdoor
recreation, wildlife and fisheries, toxic materials management, and wetland
enhancement, to name a few - but there are still many problems that must be
addressed. Due to the increasing demand for outdoor recreation, there has been
an overcrowding in our local, state, and national park. There is the demand for
BLM to do more in outdoor recreation. Eight of the 10 states with the highest
population growth between 1970 and 1980 were states with substantial acreages of
public lands administer by the BLM. (BLM 12) The visitation to those lands has
increased nearly three-fold in the past 20 years, and there is an expected
increase of between 40 and 60 percent by the year 2000. (BLM 12) The amount of
people that visit our park system each year is having a profound effect on the
ecosystem of the park. An ecosystem can only absorb the effects of a small
number of man made facilities on it. The number of large complexes that the
public wants in their parks have effects that extend beyond there immediate
boundaries. Yellowstone Park has to dispose of nearly 7000 tons of garbage every
year. (Houston 3) The BLM needs to expand efforts to maintain facilities to
protect public investments and the health and safety of the visiting public.
Also, provide additional facilities with Federal funding and private sector
concessions to meet the growing outdoor recreation demands. This would allow
more destinations for the public that are seeking an outdoor experience, causing
the crowding to become less dense because the users would be more widely
distributed. Setting more public lands aside for parks would preserve that land
for the future, because a park on BLM lands would require a greater
on-the-ground presence, to monitor its use. A problem that is closely related to
that of outdoor recreation, is providing a suitable habitat for the large
diversity of animals that lives on the BLM's Public Lands System. Many of these
animals are available to the hunter, trapper and fisherman; some are threatened
or endangered; most contribute to the pleasure of wildlife viewing; all
contribute to the ecological diversity of the Public Land System. (BLM 14).
With
so much land under the control of the BLM, the bureau manages more wildlife
habitat than any other agency or group in the United States. The wide diversity
of lands that is under their control supports over 3,000 species of animals and
an untold number of land and invertebrate species. Public lands wildlife and
fisheries resources are important to the American Economy. For instance, during
the 1985-1986 season, over 5 million hunter use days occurred, with hunters
spending an estimated $145,000,000. As for fishing there where over 3 million
days at an estimated $55,000,000 spent by fishers. (BLM 14). Wildlife also
contributed to enjoyment of the public lands for millions of campers, hikers,
photographers and other users. These “Nonconsuptive users spent over 230 million
hours on the public lands ands waters during the 1985-1986 season. The money put
into the system by these Nonconsuptive users was estimated at around
$200,000,000. Surely it can easily be seen the economic value of wildlife, but
there is also an indescribable entrinsic value that can be given to them to. But
improving habitat for wildlife improves more then just the wildlife, it helps
out the whole ecosystem. For instance wetland habitat improvements for wildlife
also improve water flow and water quality for downstream users. Vegetative
manipulation projects intended to improve big game forage also improve livestock
forage and watershed conditions. So it should be easily seen that habit
improvements for the sake of wildlife would be not only a profitable change, but
also an environmentally sound change. Another change that needs to occur on
Federal Lands is a change of the General Mining Law of 1872 which was passed
while the West was still being settled. The 1872 mining law opens most public
lands for mining if prospectors find gold, silver, copper or other valuable
hardrock mineral deposits. The laws goal was to encourage the region's
development, Congress offered public lands for the taking by enterprising
homesteader, stockmen, miners and loggers. (Arrandale 531) The frontier closed a
century ago, but the law still remains. On May 16, 1994 Secretary of the
Interior Bruce Babbitt was forced by the mining law to sell 1,949 acres of
federal lands in Nevada to a Canadian-based mining company.
The land that was
sold held a gold supply of an estimated $10 billion. Surely the deeply indebted
United States Government would prosper from a sale of that much gold, but by law
the government was forced to sell it for $5 and acre. The government received
less then $10,000 for the deal. (Arrandale 531) In relation to the mining law
the government does not require the miners to restore mined site once the
minerals are gone, preventing wastes from polluting surrounding lands and nearby
streams. Former Interior Secretary Stewart L. Udall says, The hardrock mining
industry has traditionally been able to ‘externalize’ costs, as economist say,
simply by abandoning its played-out mines rater then reclaiming them. Arrandale
534) The fact that there is 500,000 abandoned mines, proves that is true. These
mines are polluting 32 states because of the use of the new heap leaching
technology that uses cyanide solutions to extract gold from ore. The EPA is now
spending $40,000 a day to control cyanide leaking form a Summitville Colo., gold
mine that a mining company abandoned. (Arrandale 534). I feel that the United
States Government needs to amend the mining law, so that it can address some of
the previously mentioned problems. I feel that companies should be allowed to
remove viable minerals but I they should have regulations placed on them. The
U.S. Supreme Court and state courts have upheld state regulations of oil and gas
operations to prevent waste. (Kusler 147) Since minerals are of a fixed supply I
feel that they should be regulated for future use. The mines that do extract a
predetermined amount of minerals, would also be required to restore the sight
back to the natural state of the land. Not only would they be required to return
the surface of the land, but also the underlying ground, so as it is not
polluted. But they would not receive this land for a mere $5 and acre, I propose
that they be charges a curtain percentage of the gold removed as rent for the
land, for as long as they mine the land. Upon incorporation of all of these
laws, which none of the current mines would be excempt from, I feel there would
be a reduction of mines. With less mines mineral supplies would be preserved,
and the price of minerals would go up, returning profit to the remaining mines,
and supporting the government. Another area of the land managed by the BLM is
rangeland. Since rangelands account for nearly 162 million acres of public land
the nation's rangelands are a vast source of renewable resources.
Among many
other values the range supports about 4 million head of livestock which is an
important element in the economic well-being of many rural communities and the
almost 20,000 operators who depend on public land grazing to support them. BLM
is principally seen by the public as manager of the public rangelands. The
approval from the public for the BLM then is mostly related to their management
of the grazing lands. Support for the BLM is basically based on the management
and conditions of the range lands that are under their control. So the BLM sets
below-market livestock grazing fees and loose federal regulations of how
ranchers mangage sheep and cattle on public lands. Ranchers now pay $1.98 per
animal unit month(AUM)- enough forage to feed one cow and a calf, five sheep or
a horse for a month. On the other hand privately owned ranges in the West leased
for nearly five times that amount, an average of $9.25 per AUM. (Arrandale 534)
Having fees this low give an incentive for the rancher to put more animals out
to graze on the deteriorating land. Why graze one cow on private land, when you
can graze at least four on government land. Of course this is the classic
Tragedy of the Commons. Why should the ranchers care is they are destroying the
public lands when they can move to a more productive spot when their land is
destroyed. Because of this taxpayers spend millions of dollars subsidizing the
damage of public lands. Clearly grazing does belong on public lands, because if
done correctly you are simply harvesting a natural renewable resource. But when
you allow money hungry cattle ranchers to graze as many cattle as they please,
you begin destroying the land. So I feel that there should be an environmental
assessment of the grazing lands, to determine a sustainable AUM for the land, to
insure there is no further damage sustained by the land. Once this is determined
you can charge them a fair price that is competitive with the price of private
land.
This way the government could produce more revenue for it self, while
again protecting the land. These are just a few of the changes that need to
occur on the public lands. And some simple and broad solutions to the problems.
You could not even start to give all of the issues and possible solutions for a
single one of the problems that I addressed in a paper of this length. But for
an overall solution the government needs to redefine it's older laws, so that
the government can have better control over public lands. Included with the
changing of the laws would be a price increase for the resources that the
government is basically, at the present time, giving away. When this occurs it
may help with the huge debt of the country, and by different means then taxing
the common people of the country. This would require the rich mining companies,
to actually pay for the gold that they are removing from the ground. And with
all these regulations in place, and strict guidelines to the extent of
extraction of natural resources, the environment, and ecosystems will improve.
|
