OCR Text |
Show Page 4 July 1966 UTAH FARM BUREAU NEWS Public Land And The Future When it comes to a discussion of the public lands there is usually a conflict of ideas. What are. these ideas and opinions? What has helped form the attitudes of the parties involved? We will briefly try to explore some of these attitudes in order to gain understanding. The BLM Attitude Originally most of the land in the United States as it expanded was owned by the Federal Government. This land was sold, offered for homestead and ceded to the states. Putting the land into private hands provided a tax base for needed revenues. In many states the government today has practically no holdings. The government gave to the states, in most cases, two sections in each township for When the Mormon settlers colonized their own use. the Utah area, it was Mexican territory and nobody else seemed to want it. The United States acquired the land and when Utah achieved its statehood, four sections in every township were, ceded to the state. Much of that land has yet to be selected by the state. This was not the choice rich soil of Kansas or Iowa. Homesteaders didnt rush in large numbers to acquire the land. Consequently, nearly 25 million acres were in government hands when the BLM . was created in the In latter days homestead and early forties. desert entry applications have not been received The highest use of our natural resources is essentially the same, whether embodied in public or private lands; that is, to provide the basis for employment, homes, education and all other things necessary to V. Allen Olsen the highest achievement of the members of the families of America. .a-rol- e. A with much encouragement. In 1965 some 1800 acres were awarded in' homestead and desert entry patents. The BLM utilizes range improvement practices on some of the land and spends money in a variety of ways to manage the land. Grazing permits are issued along with mining, s gas and oil development and lumbering. - Some revenue is returned to the state. The BLM has developed an irhpressive set of figures that appear to indicate that BLM payments return more to the state than would be received if the land were on the tax rolls. But that would assume that the land would remain unimproved in private hands. More on that in the section on The Forest Service Attitude better position. Economic hardships are attributed by some of these people to the fact that the public lands in their vicinity stymies growth and progress. in a much Depart- ment of Agriculture and is charged with managing the National Forests. It is unlikely that any change in ownership of these forests will ever take place so their role is fairly clear. That is until multiple use comes into play. There are laws which would permit grazing and lumbering in the national forests. But who, when, where and how much seems to be an open question. In the words of the Forest Service, There are some instances where one and only one land use may be warranted or desirable. Most of us want to see preserved intact those lands that have unique The Multiple Use Attitude The BLM and the Forest Service permit between their jurisdiction grazing, recreation, lumbering and natural scenery, original wilderness, or historical or scientific values. Such special lands are administered with no thought of using resources as continuous crops, or of reaping material gains or benefits. As outdoor museums and recreation re- are invaluable national assets. Some people rightly term them lands of single use. To serves they use them for other purposes would destroy the reason for their existence; i. e., to provide recreation and knowledge to so many of our citizens. However, in large forests set aside for broader reasons we cannot say that any single use suffices or is to be practiced to the exclusion of other uses. Areas in these forests suited to recreation, grazing, watershed protection, or the production of commercial timber may receive particular emphasis . in the s Many county officials complain that being surrounded by public land puts the community in an unnatural tax situation. This land provides the county no tax revenue. Money returned by the BLM and Forest Service for grazing permits and other uses goes directly to the state and in Utah, ends up in the uniform school fund. Many of these communities feel that if the land were in private hands, their communities would be ranchers attitudes. is a division of the jft The County Attitude of-thi- The Forest Service utilization of the major resource, but even here other resources' in the area are to be considered, used, and protected though they may not play as primary The difficulty seems to be that decisions concerning use are made by local officials and do not necessarily follow any pattern. What is. good for the goose in one forest is not necessarily good for the gander in another forest. A mineral development. Range improvement is carried on by these agencies. Projects such as pinyon-junip- er eradication, fencing, erosion control check dams, contour furrowing, livestock water developments and reseeding to provide maximum sustained production of forage for livestock and wildlife consistent with such other resource values as watershed protection. It is the official attitude of these agencies that where it is practical, multiple use of the land shall be made. The highest and best use of the land is the criterion that guides decisions. There are many, however, that will argue that the official view of the highest and best use is anything but realistic. It would appear that in many cases the security of investment of a permittee, whether rancher, mine or lumberman, is in conflict with the department views of highest and best use." |