Start with the fact that the federal government owns a massive amount of land in the West, about half the acreage of the 11 westernmost states. That includes 53 percent of Oregon, 67 percent of Utah, and 81 percent of Nevada:
/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/5871835/Map_of_all_U.S._Federal_Land.jpg)
Federal lands that, let's be honest, were granted by the Spanish and weren't snapped up in the land rush when the government was giving away 40 acres to anyone willing to go there. 'Member that scene in Far and Away? Know why the federal government owns pretty much all of Nevada? 'cuz there's nothing productive that can be done with Nevada. That red stuff? Yeah, that's the big empty. Drive across it. You'll see. Also not shown in this article: constant attacks by "Westerners" on the Forest Service and BLM funding, so that they can leverage gigantic timber sales, or the fact that the Mining Act of 1872 is still in effect allowing large corporations to strip mine federal land for $5/acre. This whole fucking narrative is tired. 1) Yahoos do something stupid 2) Everyone calls them yahoos 3) the Right, finally incapable of obfuscating the yahooity, performs sleight of hand to point at the Big Bad Federal Gummint 4) A public conditioned to believe there are two sides to every story starts debating states' rights and other bullshit that has nothing to do with armed yahoos descending on a fucking visitor center 5) The yahoos get their biographies ghost-written and published on Regnery, launch a book and publicity tour and start raking in $10k per appearance as motivational speakers 6) 100 GOTO 10 ...and it's all such tired, tedious bullshit. Know the difference between a wildlife refuge and a ranch? A) you can visit a wildlife refuge B) any money made by the ranch doesn't profit you in the slightest C) wildlife refuges don't make the rich richer D) wildlife refuges don't desertify the land E) wildlife refuges aren't the property of privileged white rednecks because more privileged white rednecks gave it to them after they stole it from privileged Europeans who put fences up across territory that the indigenous citizens considered a common good I fucking hate this shit. People should be smarter than to publish it.The Mineral Policy Center estimates that mining companies extract $2 billion to $3 billion in minerals from public lands every year. From 1872 to 1993, mining companies produced more than $230 billion from lands claimed under the Act, according to the Mineral Policy Center.
I'm gonna respond to you as an ex-Westener, liberal, and conservationist. 1. Our lands came from Mexico. Spanish colony had practically nothing to do places outside of the California missions and cities of what is now New Mexico. While M coco wasn't much more involved in these lands, they were 'given' to the US after the Mexican-American war. However, around that time, there were some of white people living there, largely French and Anglo-saxon fur trappers. 2. 40 acres is fine and dandy in Nebraska or Kansas, where the Homestead Act passed in the 1860s was first applied to on a large scale. 40 acres ain't shit in most of Colorado. Commerce has tended to rely more on movement than on the Great Plains. No one claimed the land not because it was useless, but because that wasn't how the economy was working there. Mines would run out, timber plots would run out, game would run out, even grazing would run out. Trying to sustain yourself on just 40 acres would have been impossible. 3. So, instead of homesteading, systems developed for shared use through much of the West, like National Forests today. (Interestingly, it is in the 1860s that we see the first beginings of preservationism and National Parks with the Yosemite Grant, alongside conservationism and homesteading). National Forests are vital for Western economy. I think commuter trains on the East Coast would be a viable analogy. Imagine suddenly, there were new rule about who could use the trains. A lot of people's livelihoods would be destroyed, and even more would face new difficulties in earning a living, because this shared resource is no longer shared. 4. The West has become corrupted. I think you're saying by big business, a lot of Westerners would say by the federal government, I say by both. It isn't (just) big business that's upset with government regulations. It's my friends with 40 acres they can't ranch on because it wouldn't sustain a herd by itself. It's towns drying up because the mines are bare and the rights are gone. It's my grandfathers best friend holding onto his couple, bare square miles because all he has is the land and nothing to put on it or take from it. 5. You know what else is the difference between a wildlife refuge and a ranch? The refuge isn't sustaining a family (often an extended family). The refuge isn't putting the grass-fed beef on your plate. The refuge isn't actively poltically protecting the area against the encroachment of big mining, ranching, and lumber. These aren't just "privileged white rednecks" whose complaints and desires can just be brushed off as backwards. They're the people on the front lines for conservationism and against fraking, pollution and resource depletion. They're not liberal or conservatives, but Americans, many of whom are struggling to make ends meet while providing food for the cities and yahoos.
And I'm going to kick the shit out of you as a life-long Westerner, liberal, conservationist and grandson of 3rd-generation dirt farmers that ranched, farmed, logged and then gave it up to work for The Man. 1) You are utterly and completely mistaken. Those of us who grew up in New Mexico were required to learn New Mexico history back to Cabeza de Vaca. "Mexico" became a country in 1810. El Rancho de las Golondrinas was settled in 1710. Arizona and California are no different. 2) My grandparents dirt farmed on 8 acres near Claunch. They sharecropped with 4 other families on 50 acres. Go do a google image search on Claunch, NM. I'll wait. 3) Tell that to the barbed wire and shotgun shells I grew up with. 4) The west is the west. If your minerals are gone and the towns are drying up, MOVE. That's why my grandparents are no longer in Claunch, NM. There is no part of your deed that guarantees you clear skies, gentle rain and mild frosts. 5) I'm not sure where you get off assuming I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about. I'm not sure where you get off leaping from your buddies to a farmer with twelve thousand acres of land on a lake. But I'll say this - condescend to me again and I'll be even crankier.
1. I learned Colorado history because I grew up there and Mexican history because I went to a bilingual school. I'm pretty sure I granted that the Southwest had a Spanish presence, and if not, I should have. Because they were there by 1710. However, the Spanish system of colonization was sufficiently different from the English system that it's almost weird to use the same word. There was Spanish control, but not too any Spaniards. New Spain extended up through to parts of Wyoming and Idaho. In those parts, French names are far more prevelant than Spanish names because they were the ones who were there. Unlike Spain, Mexico encouraged large scale immigration to its northern areas. Though again, not so much in the North. So, maybe our mistake is taking "the West" as just one region. 2. I'm not entirely sure what I was looking for in the image search, but it looked like a standard Western town (btw, how is Claunch pronounced?). I'm sure life wasn't the easiest for your grandparents, nor the generations before them. I assume the point is they survived on 8 acres. And in some places in the West, I'll say that's possible. But again, I think maybe we make the mistake of assuming a uniform West, which we both k ow doesn't exist. Because there were no farmers near my town, because the land wouldn't support it. 3. The barbed wire fence is the exact fight that's occurring in Oregon, but with the government instead of private land owners. So, same assumption again. 4. Moving can be a luxury, not everyone can afford to. And if they continued to have access to federal lands they wouldn't need to move. 5. I know you know what your talking about, your klienbl00 for fucks sake. I just question your conclusions. I realize now that I should have started my fifth point differently, because the way it is allows it to be taken as a question of you and not your ideas. That wasn't my intention at all. We've had different experiences with the West, and those experiences have created our biases. I don't see the purpose of discussion or debate as convincing the other person, but for presenting multiple interpretations to observers, or for future reference. So, I'm sorry if it ended up being condescending.
Exactly. Until 1872, there was no precedent for the federal government setting aside land. The job fell to the states and local governments although it largely wasn't seen as the job of the government at all. In fact, before the Revolution, Thomas Jefferson privately purchased a natural bridge and the land surrounding it in Virginia for protection for posterity. The first action by the federal government to protect a large area of land was the Yosemite Grant in 1864, in which Congress ordered California to protect the Yosemite Valley and Mariposa Grove. With Yellowstone however, the area was still in Montana Territory. Following pressure from railroads to protect it (to entice travelers to a northern transcontinental route), Congress agreed to set it aside. There was no state government to give the park to though, and so Yellowstone was declared a National Park. By this time, most of the land out East had been either privatized or protected by the states. In fact, all National Parks east of the Mississippi are from donations to the Parks Service.Does this just mean there are less federal parks and more state and city owned parks?
And every state, from Colorado to the west, gained statehood after 1876. So the Federal Government has these shiny new powers, and applies them liberally to the newest states in the Union, whereas prior to that, it was up to local state and city governments to have the foresight to protect their lands themselves. That's a really interesting dynamic to consider...
The Federal Government isn't the only organization that plays a part in resource management. Nature Reserves can be maintained by counties, states, and even private parties.