Re:Republicans move to sell off 3.3m acres of national land,...
by prawn on Wednesday February 01, 2017 @08:49PM
(#13547369)
I'm sure it could function as a political wedge, but I like the idea of a classification like "Wild Park" with the benefits people enjoy from BLM land. Even just a name like that would attract more people. Having huge swathes of land set aside like this would be an amazing preservation for future generations.
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.