The controversy surrounding the transfer of ownership of public lands in the west from the government to states is a very important issue in congress and around the country in current times that may not get enough press but would have a major impact on many people’s lives in the west and all around the country. While this issue is just recently emerging in congress in 2017 surrounding the election of Donald Trump as president and the new takeover of the Republican party, the ownership of lands in the west has been an issue dating back to the late 18th century in the original purchase of lands past the original thirteen colonies.

In current day, the U.S. owns nearly thirty percent of lands in the U.S., which tallies up to about six-hundred fifty million acres (Maughan). A large portion of these lands is made up by National Parks, National Forests, monuments, and wildlife refuges. However, two-hundred forty-seven million of the acres is ultimately maintained by the Bureau of Land Management, otherwise known as the BLM. A large portion of these such lands were originally attained through transactions such as the Louisiana Purchase in the late eighteenth century and early nineteenth. Since such purchases, the lands run by the BLM have been nearly one-hundred percent public and unmanaged up until the Taylor Grazing Act in 1934 (Maughan). The act came in response to the overgrazing and erosion of public lands in the west resulting from the chaos from ranchers and homesteaders for nearly fifty years since the attainment of land by the BLM. The public land had been abused by grazers to the point where the land was possibly damaged forever, as grazers had been fighting for leases of the land on mostly first-come, first-serve policies which lead to states wanting to intervene and acts to be proposed to congress. For the first time, many policies included switching the federal land ownership to state ownership to eliminate over-grazing through taxing and official leasing. While many organizations and populations opposed of the idea, the ownership of federal lands for grazing and farming purposes skyrocketed, going from nearly sixteen percent of private lands in 1916 to mid-thirties in the 1920’s. At one point, it was brought to congress to make all public lands in the west private but the proposal was denied and was further lead to the passage of the grazing act. 

The Taylor Grazing Act officially ended homesteading and the claiming of public land for grazing and farming usages which had led to such erosion of lands. The act involved the U.S. Secretary of Interior hired to determine the classification of public land for grazing use and the enactment of grazing fees and policies for such uses. The agency put in charge was known as the U.S. Grazing Service as they administered the fees and policies, yet, however this resulted in many disputes in congress for what the fees would be and such policies. The service lasted about a decade, and eventually President Theodore Roosevelt created a new agency known as the BLM to be put in charge. This was the origin of the BLM, as they were given more power and jurisdiction than the Grazing Service and were ultimately put at the helm of all of these public lands hurt by overgrazing and all public land minerals. Eventually, the “Federal Land Policy and Management Act” was passed in 1976 and the BLM was given its duties that it follows to this day. 

In 2016, like in the late 1800’s, the idea of public lands in the West being transferred over to private ownership and state ownership became a large idea at hand by many GOP members and congressmen. Many representing the Republican party made it known that they wanted to privatize lands in the west and sell them off to developers for private uses such as mining, wind uses, and other large developing money-makers. Also, this would put states in charge of all once-public lands such as esteemed National Parks, Forests, Monuments, and Refuges, which is an expensive and large duty for historically under-budgeted states. This would put many longtime public lands in private hands that have been used for hunting and fishing purposes for decades, thus eliminating all public access to these such lands. However, many Republicans seek the value of possible mining and developing uses for lands and the benefit of taxing such lands, as all Federal lands are not to be subject to taxing under the “Federal Land Policy and Management Act”. Such arguers see the value of lands from a monetary benefit value.

Overall, those in favor of the transfer are generally wealthy Republicans seeking to take control of nearly all National Parks, National Forests, BLM lands, and other federally owned lands in order to sell off the land for economic profit. This profit would most likely be earned though means such as fossil-fuel private industries (Tobias). In other words, these particular efforts by Republicans would utterly destroy the conservation effort.

The conservation effort in the west has been a very serious part of the dynamic of many of the National Parks, forests, and BLM lands for the last several decades. Many of the lands in the west have experienced over-grazing issues, natural disasters, and selling off for privatization and industrialization which in turn has led to diminished numbers in species and animal habitats all throughout the west. The federal government, through the BLM, funds to support these environments and beautiful lands all throughout and pays for committed laborers to work daily to conserve and survive the land spectacles in the west. However, many of these programs are already extremely under budgeted and struggle to fund their efforts. With that being said, our National Parks and forests continue to be some of the most heavily visited and enjoyed properties in the United States. According to a study done by the Harvard School of Business, it was found that the total economic value of the National Park Service to the American public is around $92 billion (Haefele). $62 billion, roughly two-thirds of the entire value is credited to be towards National Parks themselves, while the other third is said to be National Park Service programs. Given those numbers, it is evident that the American public benefits from the service of the National Park System and everything that they offer. 

While many tend to forget about the value that the National Park System provides to the entirety of the U.S., it is important to remember and highlight just some of the esteemed National Park destinations around the country that would be put into extremely underbudgeted state hands under the transfer. According to National Geographic, some of the most visited parks consist of The Great Smoky Mountains, The Grand Canyon, Yosemite National Park, the Rocky Mountains, Zion National Forest, Yellowstone National Park, Acadia National Park, and the Tetons (NatGeo). Many of these destinations help to personify the U.S. for what it is and what it stands for, as it is one of the greatest privileges on earth to be able to enjoy oneself and cherish the alluring public lands. While not all Americans make take advantage of this opportunity and pleasure, it is certainly close to many people's hearts. Many will ask how this affects them, if they do not hunt, fish, hike, camp, or generally venture to their nearby public land, but according to the same study done by the Harvard School of Government, a survey shows that nearly "ninety-five percent of responding households indicated that protecting National Parks, including historic sites, for current and future generations was important to them" (Haefele). While we are not all outdoorsmen and women, ninety-five percent of us feel the need to protect National Parks and the services for which they offer.

It is important to also reach out and take a look into how the transfer would affect the lives of those who are directly impacted by it on an extreme level. Many outdoorsmen and women have heavily spoken out against the clause. Avid sportsman Buzz Hettick, a lobbyist for the Backcountry Hunters and Anglers group, stated, ""Anytime there's even a whisper of anybody that wants to transfer federal lands to the states, you're going to raise the ire and the hackles of the outdoor community ... in particular hunters and fisherman" (Siegler). Ultimately, for those who like to enjoy certain lands for hunting, fishing, and conserving would see those same lands being developed to oil refiners fossil-fuel industries if the land were to be transferred. Dan Finnerty, a southwest Oregon field Representative for Trout Unlimited, a non-profit organization serving to conserve trout and salmon fisheries, in a video entitled "Federal Public Lands: No Transfer to the States" profoundly speaks out against the proposed idea from some Republicans while standing in a waist-deep flowing river in the middle of a National Park in Oregon (BC Hunters and Anglers). His video thus shows the emotion and adoration certain individuals have toward the conservation of our lands and the steps for which they would go to speak out against the transfer. 

Speaking out against the land transfer was brought to a bigger stage earlier this year in February regarding certain companies reaction to the state of Utah's congressional delegation and governor's efforts in favor of the ownership transfer to states. Companies in the outdoor-retail industry such as Patagonia, North Face, REI, and Black Diamond participate one of the world's largest Outdoor Retail trade-expositions in Salt Lake City, Utah, which brings in nearly fifty-thousand tourists and an estimated forty-five million dollar revenue each year to the city (Barbash). However, in a form of revolt, the companies have aligned together and announced an interest in a location change from the state of Utah to a more environmentally-minded state such as Colorado. This proposition comes from their disagreements with the legislation in Utah, as the companies are strong supporters for the land to remain in public hands. A speaker from one of the outdoor industry corporations stated, "It is clear that the governor indeed has a different perspective on the protections of public lands from that of our members and the majority of Western state voters, both Republicans and Democrats — that’s bad for our American heritage, and it’s bad for our businesses" (Barbash). The companies backing of keeping public lands public helps to convey the message to a much greater audience, as their sales tend to reach out to all sorts of types of people, whether outdoorsy or not. Those who invest in their products are able to be informed on this problematic issue and not give into the legislative viewpoint on the issue, but want to agree with the outdoor company for where they are getting their clothing from. 

From a political standpoint, the issue has been in and out of debates and conventions dating back to the early 1900's, but recently has surfaced itself to becoming a much more controversial topic than it ever was in the past. In July of 2016 at a convention, a Republican committee voted to include the order to return federal lands to the states on their series of things to bring to congress. The vote was so close that Senator John Barrasso had to ask the committee to stand to vote instead of voice (Snopes). While many would assume that President Donald Trump would side with the same principles and proposed propositions by the GOP, dating back to presidential primary voting season, Trump spoke out against the transfer. His pick for Secretary of Interior, congressman Ryan Zinke, also is in favor of keeping public lands public (Nijhuis). Many were relieved to remember Trump's son, Donald Trump Jr., is an avid sportsman and conservationist. In an interview with Field and Stream, when asked if he was in favor of the transfer of nearly six-hundred and forty million federally-owned acres to the states, Trump was on record as saying, "I don’t like the idea because I want to keep the lands great" (Nijhuis). With that in mind, it is important to know that Trump's opinion differs from the rest of the traditional GOP platform's. While Trump Jr. has stated that he would like to see refunding of many public programs such as the National Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in order to keep the public lands in good shape, his elder has a differing view on the topic (Nijhuis). Unfortunately, Trump's recent proposal includes the defunding of public lands which does not favor the programs and employees who are in service to maintain the lands. However, it is relieving and important that Trump himself is still for keeping the lands public. 

Through thick and thin, keeping public lands within the hands of those who have maintained them for many years and put their lives work into servicing their beauty so that all can enjoy them, is the right thing to do. The lands belong to the people, not the states. While there will most likely always be an ongoing debate for who's ownership is at stake, it is extremely important that the land spectacles and destinations that have been enjoyed by people for so long continue to be able to be enjoyed and preserved. The freedom to have the ability to venture throughout the lands is a staple to what the U.S. represents. Woodie Guthrie says it best in the famous U.S. folk song anthem, 

"This land is your land this land is my land,

From California to the New York island;

From the red wood forest to the Gulf Stream waters,

This land was made for you and Me" (Guthrie).
