Should Senator Mike Lee really be painted as the bad guy by the outdoor industry over his latest proposal to sell some public lands?
I’ve kinda gotten away from weighing in on politics for the most part. But I figured I’d weigh in on this hot topic at the moment. Most of the outdoor industry, including hunters and granola tree huggers, hikers, greenies, flat-earthers, global warming activists, and others have coalesced to become strange bedfellows lately as they are all up in arms right now against Senator Mike Lee (R) UT. I find the outrage from most of the outdoor industry at Senator Mike Lee’s proposal to sell some federal lands a little odd.
Just to catch up on some of what’s going on. The “Big Beautiful Bill” is making it’s way through the Senate. Utah Senator Mike Lee attached a draft proposal which would seek to sell approximately 3 million acers of formerly Government owned land in 11 western states for the purpose of affordable housing and ranching. The proposal has been met with a lot of pushback and a liberal propoganda campaign to kill it with misinformation and scare tactics. The proposal does not seek to sell off yellowstone contrary to what many have been lead to believe.
It mostly seems to affect western states (11 specificly), where, in my opinion, the Federal government owns way too much land and private land ownership is a minority. In Utah for example, over 75% of land is government owned. I find that a little odd being from Arkansas where only 17% of our state is government owned and private land ownership makes up 82.7% of our states map.
Granted, no one wants to lose access to public land including me, and yes some cool things have been protected from greedy development. But is “Public land” really public land? Let a budget bill close government offices and see if you still have access to “Public” land. You’ll be promptly fined and escorted off of places like Felsenthal NWR by game wardens. It’s happened multiple times in my life yet I’ve never once needed the government office down there or most of the people that work in it and yet if the office is not open due to government shutdown, neither is the “public” land.
I’ll also add that from a hunting perspective, I’ve been on a lot of hunts, all of my life and all over the country on both public and private land. I can honestly say that the best, most successful, peaceful, fulfilling, conservation-minded hunts that I’ve ever been on, were almost without exception on private land. Yes, it is expensive and not everyone has access to that, but the government is good at one thing and that’s poor management and bureaucracy.
I’ve also always kind of found it interesting how red-blooded conservatives will rail against socialism like government provided healthcare, and other forms of overreaching policies but yet seem to turn a blind eye to the fact that public hunting on public ground is eerily similar to a socialist hunting club. That’s why you have things like 4:00 am bread line duck boat races, fist fights at trailheads, and poor hunting success rates on public land compared to private land.
It’s also my opinion that government ownership of land is largely outside the scope of the foundational purpose of the federal government. If the federal government were reigned in to only worry itself with protecting its citizens from foreign adversaries and ensuring regular interstate commerce, we’d be much better off. Should some lands be protected? Absolutely. But it’s not the most American principle I can think of to use government as a means to provide access to “the king’s forest” and it shouldn’t be normative. I’m not so sure that giving people a place to hike was the idea behind manifest destiny or westward expansion. When my great, great, great, grandparents moved to South Arkansas to homestead in 1855, they did so with the promise and hope of land ownership through sacrifice and hard work. Not just access privileges to the kings forest.
Now I think the proposal from Senator Lee is probably dead at this point although I think he may have revised it to address some of the concerns that have been raised. Which is good. It shows Mike is listening to his constituents. My hope isn’t necessarily to change anything about the bill, but I do hope people will kind of consider a different perspective on what really constitutes “Public” land and the trade off between it and private lands and whether some land should really be public. There is no perfect solution. These are just some thoughts to ponder.