Do you realize the efforts some people will put forth to visit and travel foreign lands? This world really is an amazing place, with all of it’s natural beauty and splendor, but none of it is any more beautiful and wild than some places right here in the United States of America. I think it is important that we realize that and appreciate it for what it is. To that end, President Theodore Roosevelt 
began the efforts to preserve some of our most beautiful areas, declaring them to be national parks. These efforts led him to declare five different areas as national parks; Crater Lake, Oregon; Wind Cave, South Dakota; Sullys Hill, North Dakota (later redesignated a game preserve); Mesa Verde, Colorado; and Platt, Oklahoma (now part of Chickasaw National Recreation Area). They are also the biggest reason he is known as the conservation president and I think his efforts were admirable. I say all of this as a preface, because I want my readers to know I do appreciate the wild and natural beauty that lies between the borders of America.
One of the biggest reasons our country does not produce enough of it’s own oil is the efforts by environmentalists and other groups to keep our country and wildlife as pristine as possible. Set up as part of the Interior Department, the Bureau of Land Management is charged with doing just that. They control the mining and drilling leases, as well as any leases that are handed out for cattle grazing. According to some estimates, they control some 253 million acres of land, designated as America’s public lands. They also control 700 million acres of subsurface estate that lies under federal, state, and private lands. No matter how you look at it, they have control of a lot of real estate. Looking at it on the surface, one would think 253 million acres would be enough land to be under federal control, but the Obama administration is not satisfied with this control. It appears they are wanting to place some of these lands completely off limits for almost every kind of use. I base this conclusion on an article I read this morning in the Wall Street Journal. According to the author, the Obama administration has issued a directive that has a lot of people worried about the direction the BLM is headed. Let’s take a quick look.
An Obama administration directive designed to preserve more public lands as wilderness is stirring anger in the West, where ranchers, sportsmen and energy companies say they could lose access to acreage they count on for their recreation and livelihood.
The regulatory change, initiated this month, directs the Bureau of Land Management to survey its vast holdings stretching between Alaska, Arizona, California and Colorado, in search of unspoiled back country. The agency can then designate these tracts—potentially millions of acres—as “wild lands.”
Protections will vary from site to site, but in general such lands will be shielded from activities that disrupt habitat or destroy the solitude of the wild, according to the Interior Department. That might mean banning oil drilling, uranium mining or cattle grazing in some areas. It also could mean restrictions on recreational activities, such as snowmobiling or biking.
The administration’s initiative reasserts a power the BLM used extensively in the 1970s and 1980s to designate stretches of prairie, desert, mountain range or river basin as wild and to limit human intrusion on those landscapes. The agency largely relinquished this practice in 2003 to settle a lawsuit by the governor of Utah, who was seeking to block the BLM from setting aside 2.6 million acres in his state as wilderness.
The administration’s move overrides the 2003 agreement and asserts that preserving the wild qualities of remote lands is a “high priority.”
Let me reiterate my desire to see the natural beauty of our country preserved. I can not stress that enough. However, if the use of these “wild lands” is restricted even further by the BLM, possibly to 
the point of keeping everyone out, then what is the point? How can we enjoy the natural beauty if we are not allowed to visit or play in these areas? At this point in time, no one knows how far they will go in protecting these lands, but it is troublesome that they have this kind of power, with no immediate Congressional oversight. In other words, they can and will enact this directive without the approval of Congress.
Presently, House Republicans say they have plans to hold hearings on the new policy and possibly cut funding to prevent the BLM from moving forward with the directive. All in all, I think it is something that needs to be looked at very carefully, as I think the implications may be more far-reaching than we may realize. If you will look closely at the quote from the Wall Street Journal, you will find that the practice was mostly abandoned in 2003. As it stated, the governor of Utah had to take the federal government to court to prevent them from an action that would basically be the seizure of state lands. I really do not intend to stir the fire with this, but does this not go to the very root of the issue of states rights? At the very least, I think it is something that should be discussed.
This is emblematic of the President’s approach to policy making – do it through regulatory agencies, with as little accountability as possible. As we saw with the FCC and the internet, as well as the Gulf drilling moratorium, the administration will ignore court orders to proceed with his agenda. It will be very difficult for Republicans to stop this.
I didn’t mention the FCC and the EPA in the post, but I did have it on my mind as I was writing. It seems to be Obama’s preferable method of operation.
I agree with Country Thinker on this was Larry. Their plan is to disregard the constitution and the courts and press forward. I call it establishing a foothold. If they are driven back by the courts or constitution they will adjust and counter with another plan. Until the States wake up and start pushing back in larger numbers, I’m afraid this will continue to happen. Children need parameters and right now the child is the federal government and the parent is the State. The States are failing to define parameters for their child. So therefore the child (federal government) is going to try to get away with as much as possible.
Thanks for the comment, John. Just considering the Bureau of Land Management, it’s amazing to see the path from inception to present day. Did you know they have 10,000 employees and an annual budget of $960 million? All of that, just to manage federal lands. I think it’s safe to say they are well beyond the scope of the federal government.
I remember studying about the NAU (North American Union) and much was written about land grabs being necessary in order to initiate the last phases of the NAU including trucking routes from the south (Mexico and below) to the North (Canada). Perhpas this has nothing to do with the NAU, but I had come to believe that Obama does nothing if not with a purpose. Maybe not one I share, but he does always have a purpose to his madness.
You could be right, Dominique.
Halting timbering has been one of the most destructive decisions in wildlife management. Until 100 years ago, forest fires were and could not be stopped. The land reseeded itself, and browse was soon available for habitat. It was the circle of life. Lumber is now skyrocketing in cost. Proper land management can co-exist with developing natural resources. Unless we want to return to being hunters and gatherers, we will need to accept this reality.
You make a very valid point, Bunkerville. A pristine forest is much more susceptible to a forest fire than a forest that is properly managed. If the BLM has learned anything from the past couple of decades, it should be that leaving forests alone just doesn’t work.
Remember all of the gigantic forest fires back in the 90′s? The Fed wouldn’t let loggers thin out old or dying trees, and also tore out the roads. The old and dying trees became kindling, and the fires were awful. That, and without the roads, there were few means to get men and equipment in to fight them.
I remember those fires well, Matt. As I mentioned in my reply to Bunkerville, leaving forests alone is not the answer. It just doesn’t work.
LD, I agree, this is a very serious matter, even realizing that we want protection where protection is due. After awhile, we have to ask, how much is enough. And then we have to ask why they have the right to take private land. That’s not the American way. Linking this in my morning news and views tomorrow.
Happy New Year to you and yours LD!
Thanks, Maggie and Happy New Year to you and your family as well.
As Country Thinker said, this is becoming a pattern with this president. More and more he looks to be bypassing the Congress in order to get things done and I hope that the Republicans do indeed hold hearing on this.
WE THE PEOPLE had our say on Election Day last November.
But the Obama administration is going to rule by fiat and by regulation.
Just think of how valuable all this oil will be in 100 years when we finally repeal these actions and access the oil. Either that or Liberals want there to be oil available for the next group of life forms that evolve after we all kill one another from nuclear war!
So that’s what they are up to? They’re just saving up the oil. Who would’ve thought?
The story I heard is that they also want to declare border areas off limits-meaning border patrol will not be able to pursue anybody in those areas with mechanized vehicles. My guess is that the illegal alien and the drug smuggler will ignore the designation.
From the Department of Agriculture “The United States has a total land area of nearly 2.3 billion acres.
Major uses in 2002 were forest-use land, 651 million acres (28.8 percent);
grassland pasture and range land, 587 million acres (25.9 percent);
cropland, 442 million acres (19.5 percent);
special uses (primarily parks and wildlife areas), 297 million acres (13.1 percent);
miscellaneous other uses, 228 million acres (10.1 percent); and
urban land, (where most of us live) 60 million acres (2.6 percent)”
http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/EIB14/eib14fm.pdf
Americans ought to be entitled to live on the land. Right now the PEOPLE occupy only 3% of America’s land. Why should the Federal Government be entitled to 30% of it and have a budget of another $50+ million this year to buy even more land?
That $50 million could create a LOT of self sufficient villiages WITH training programs to prepare unemployed and homeless people for jobs. This could be done with only 3% more land than we occupy now.
By withholding land the government creates a scarcity that allows the banking industry to charge more interest and to benefit large corporations.