But I completely disagree that it should either become a National Park or get privatized. There are other classes of public land you are leaving out and that is National Forest, National Grassland, and National Monuments. BLM is, in general, less restrictive than all other types of public land (e.g., National Parks & National Forest). Nearly all public land in Colorado (my state) is not a National Park [1]. This includes most of our outdoor recreation opportunities (e.g., ski areas, hiking areas, most 14ers, rivers for rafting, etc).
What's wrong with another class of public land that can be grazed, hunted, and fished (unlike most National Parks)? Dispersed camping is nearly always allowed, without permit, in BLM land. This leads to fun weekend outings along the lines of "this canyon looks cool, let's take the 4WD road to get close and camp by it for a couple nights" without needing a developed camping area. If anything, I could see an argument for moving BLM from the Department of the Interior (NPS land) to the Department Agriculture (USFS land). But western people who enjoy the outdoors would be really pissed of all public land was suddenly a National Park with an entrance fee, the usual restrictions, and vastly more limited recreation opportunities.
And what makes you say BLM land is over grazed compared to similar private land? BLM land is, in general, scrubby & dry. You are given Animal Unit Month allocations on BLM land. The ranch base of operations and perpetual renewal policy do seem unfair to newcomers. But then again, the number of farmers & ranchers has been declining heavily for the last 100 years.
[1] http://csfs.colostate.edu/colorado-forests/colorado-land-own...
Sure, I agree that there are other designations and functions. We should move toward one of those functions or perhaps a new one -- unrestricted land owned by the federal government for whatever a bureaucracy sees fit is not a good use of the land. It would still be better to be owned by the Forests Service and treated differently/less restrictively than other parks. "Wild Park" or something, where hunting and recreational activities are allowed but farming and commercial activities are not. And then sell the less interesting and more profitable lands to private buyers.
I've spent a lot of time in BLM land, particularly around Steens Mountain in Oregon, which is beautiful. It's a great example of something that should be put in the National Parks category -- pave that damn road and get the grazing cows out of Pronghorn territory.
Not to mention, the BLM maintains those trails and the surrounding land. The forest service does not (it will close trails instead of making changes which make them safe for the riders and the land), and the private entities certainly do not.
Some of the public land being sold (which also occurred under the Bush administration, as an aside) is right next to public parks, where lots of wild animals and other fragile ecosystems are in place. It would suck to watch the land around Yellowstone national park strip-mined for a few ounces of gold.
To say that agriculture is good for the land on average is just an outright lie.
No one said that, but it doesn't have to be bad. And with the BLM, it is.
Farmers have an inherent interest in keeping their own land profitable, which is an incentive that never applies to leased BLM land. Same with ranchers, which is what BLM land is more commonly used for.
> I cannot comment on how poorly the BLM manages land
That should be your first step. It should be noted that ranchers do NOT want the land to be privatized, because it's less exploitable.
http://wildhorsepreservation.org/media/ranchers-want-our-pub...
Agricultural land is not going to be perfectly managed anywhere anytime soon, if that's what your standard is, but private property is managed less terribly. It should be obvious that people are better incentivized to care for their own property than the government's -- why is that so hard to believe?
You have only even attempted to demonstrate that some private farms are mismanaged -- where have you shown that the damage that objectively occurs on BLM land is less bad?
No. I think this is the tip of the iceberg for giving publicly own lands to the private sector, at no gain to the people and a large gain to the new landowners for oil and mineral rights.
If you look on the web, you can find that some of these pushes to transfer public land are driven by campaign donations.
If the complaint is overgrazing, then make a push to stop leasing it for grazing.
They're not giving it away for free as I understand it. When the government takes money, the people get better stuff, according to at least one political party. However the current cheap lease rates are doing no good to the taxpayer: http://people.oregonstate.edu/~muirp/wpubland.htm
> you can find that some of these pushes to transfer public land are driven by campaign donations
So? See my previous comments -- some of this land is very profitable, and some of the land is great for recreational purposes. Why not try to find land where these least intersect and drive land designations in that way?
Aren't there differences between public use of national parks and BLM land? e.g., most national parks have quite strict rules for camping, while the BLM areas are much more flexible and relaxed? Personally, I think it's great that the two options exist and are distinct. I don't want to discount your general point, but more so wonder if ALL of that land should be set aside for purely private or NP use.
(Arches NP has put backcountry camping on hold. In the best areas of Zion NP, there are fixed camp sites that are quickly reserved in advance, or camping is not permitted. Tourist attractions are getting busier and busier with each year, so BLM options for backcountry overflow make sense to me.)
I'd be worried that it's easier/cheaper to privatise these lands than the reverse.
Private land in the US is barb wired, often with no access at all. (This is different from private land in Europe, where the norm is that a forest, in private hands would not be barb wired, and there are sometimes easements for recreational use.)
Devil's Rope: http://99percentinvisible.org/episode/devils-rope/
The freedom of BLM land makes it great.
Once these spaces are privatized, there's no going back.
I love national parks, but the restrictions (while necessary for something that popular/unique) remove a bit of the joy from a natural experience.
Even a more permissive national park (Joshua Tree, for example) feels like a relief after something stricter like Zion or Arches. That said, I can understand why they are very careful with those latter two because they are seriously special places.
It's a hotly contested subject, but evidence (and logic) shows the balance favors private land, where owners actually have an incentive to maintain it -- crazy concept, right? Here's a broad survey that evaluates the frequency and magnitude of overgrazing on federal land:
The BLM is a relic of 19th century expansion. All of that land should be sold to private buyers or designated with a function, such as being transferred to the National Parks Service.
Edit: As others pointed out, it should also be noted that this is less than 1% of BLM land... they should be transferring more. The story itself is liberal sensationalism.