The Management of Public Land in the American West

There is a considerable gap in policy and action with regard to the management of public land in the American West. Most of the land in the East of the United States ( U . S ) is in the hands of private owners, but the case is different for land in the western parts of the U.S. Two federal organizations currently manage nearly half of all the land in the U.S. These are the U.S Forest Service (USFS) and The Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Together, both organizations maintain control of over 300 million acres of land across the American West (Fretwell & Regan, 2015). By definition, the American West comprises of the 13 most western states in the U.S. The states include Alaska, Oregon, Wyoming, Montana, Washington, Utah, California, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Hawaii, Idaho, and Nevada. These states are some of the least densely populated states in the U.S . Alaska is the least populated of all the states with an average population of 1.3 people per square mile (Davis, 2018). A large chunk of the land in the West is under the federal government . This limit s full exploitation of the resources on the land without the federal government’s involvement. States also exercise some control through their State Trust Lands. Primarily, the federal management of public land entails leasing it out for grazing, lumbering and mining of minerals under specific environmental guidelines. State Trust Lands also employ the same strategy but at a much smaller scale since the land under their management is significantly less in size. There is an inevitable difference between how the two approaches to land management go about their land management activities. This poses the question of which of the two strategies is ideal for managing public lands in the American West. This essay seeks to answer this question by exploring how the different agencies exercise their mandate. Ultimately, individual states should have greater control of public land in the American West as opposed to giving this mandate to the federal government. 

History of Land Management in the American West 

The management of land in the U.S began even before the birth of the nation. British colonialists carefully managed the harvesting of wood to make sure that a steady supply was maintained for the construction of naval vessels. After independence, land management continued through acquisition from native peoples via war or purchase. There was a great impetus to acquire land and dispose it through sale or h and it over to private hands as a means of generating revenue and encouraging settlement across the mainland U.S. Land management took a different direction in the 1860s with the creation of ‘reservations. ’ This term meant that any land categorized as a reservation had to be set aside for public use and could therefore not be sold into private hands (Nie, 2008). The policy was inaugurated in earnest in 1872 with the creation of Yellowstone National Park. This was a first not just in the U.S but also in the entire world. The move ushered a new era in the area of conservation. The year 1872 also saw the enactment of the General Mining Act to encourage prospecting of minerals within the borders of the demarcated public land . 

The 1880s saw further developments that shaped the management of public land in the U.S. Great concern had been mounting over wide spread deforestation across the U.S. To counter this, Congress gave the president powers to create forest reserves. The motive behind conferring such powers on the president was to enable him to officially demarcate areas where tree populations would be protected from over - exploitation. The national forests were then transferred to the Department of Interior and were to be managed by the USFS. The Forest Service was created in 1905 as the agency charged with the management and care of forests as well as conservation of any species that were under any threat of over-exploitation. In 1907, the Congress decided to retract the executive powers bestowed upon the president to create protected forest spaces unanimously. Four years later, Congress enacted the Weeks Act that allowed for the purchase of private land for the intent of conservation across the eastern part of the U.S. The Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 established the Grazing Service. The Grazing Service had one essential mandate which was to help manage the grazing of livestock and prevent over-grazing and land degradation of public lands across the American West.

The creation of the BLM superseded the Taylor Grazing Act BLM . The BLM was created through the merger of the old General Land Office and the Grazing Service in 1946 (Fretwell & Regan, 2015). The mandate of the BLM was an amalgam of both functions of the now-defunct constitutive bodies that had merged to form it. The BLM became the federal organization charged with the responsibility of caring for and managing the most extensive spread of land in the entire world. The Federal Land Policy Act that was established in 1976 made it official that lands under the management of the BLM would be retained under federal jurisdiction and federal ownership.

Federal Land Management 

The management of public land in the American West is focused on economic activities that are meant to cover the costs of managing the extensive tracts of land with the potential of adding to the federal coffers of the nation’s exchequer. This policy mainly revolves around a number of economic activities that are meant to benefit the immediate surrounding population as well as corporations that show a capacity to successfully exploit the resources without leaving the environment exposed to adverse effects. Federal land management revolves around but is not restricted to the following activities ; 

Grazing 

The BLM issues thousands of licenses annually to grazers that allow them to graze large herds of cattle on federal land. The total number of licenses as of 2013 was 18000, with access to over 155 million acres of grazing lands (Fretwell & Regan 2015). Historically, the American West had a culture synonymous with the grazing of cattle over vast expanses of land. It is for this reason that the BLM and USFS traditionally had a great relationship with large-scale ranching entities across states in the American West. Since grazing is historically interwoven into the economic and cultural fabric of its people, the BLM and the USFS have over the years maintained a working relationship with communities . This allows them to access these lands through a license fee that grants them access to pasture and water. This relationship is crucial to the operations of American ranchers in the Western states.

Timber 

Public lands managed by federal bodies account for 20% of the total number of timber produced in the U.S (Fretwell & Regan, 2015). The BLM, USFS and other federal agencies play a crucial role in offering timber companies the opportunity to harvest timber as an economic activity for various uses across the nation. The USFS and BLM manage over 100 million acres of forest cover and are responsible for maintaining the health of these forests especially because forest land offers crucial habitats for many unique and endangered species of bird and wildlife across the U.S 

Mining and Mineral Exploitation 

The American West has a long history of mining activities. Since the gold rush era in California , the American West has always captured the imagination of many individuals when it comes to the promise of a fortune. While those days may be long gone , the BLM is in charge of managing mining claims in over 700 million acres of land across the U.S. The se mining claims are for the prospecting and mining of numerous reserves of gold, silver, phosphates, oil, and natural gas across agency-managed public lands. The BLM oversees the production of approximately 63,000 oil and natural gas wells within the lands it manages (Fretwell & Regan, 2015).

Recreation 

The USFS and BLM have seen increased numbers of visitors to its lands on an annual basis. However, this has proven to be financially unprofitable since the agencies involved often record a low return for every dollar spent. For example, between the years of 2009 and 2013, the USFS saw a return on investment of 28 cents for every dollar spent, while the BLM is not fairing any better with a return on investment of 20 cents for every dollar spent (Fretwell & Regan, 2015).

State Trust Lands Management 

State trust land agencies are responsible for the management of state trust lands across the 13 states in the American West. Across several states, state trust lands boast activities similar to those of federal public lands. The difference is that state trust lands on average provide a better return on investment compared to public lands managed by the federal government agencies ( Fretwell & Regan, 2015). State trust lands also allow a wider array of economic activities that make them more financially viable. This has placed state trust lands at a distinct advantage over federal public lands as they can monetize a broader range of activities since more activities are permitted. State trust lands allow for commercial development, leasing for conservation, agricultural development and even transfer into private hands through sale in particular cases. Therefore, it makes more financial sense for individual states in the American West to have a more considerable amount of control in public lands as opposed to giving this mandate to the federal government. 

Advantages and Disadvantages of State Trust Land Management Over Federal Public Land Management 

Advantages 

Management practices 

As opposed to state trust land agencies, federal agencies have no incentive to adopt best practices since there is no immediate reward for being fully effective. Effective management often requires investments in manpower, training, and equipment. This would need the federal government to invest heavily on a regular basis which at present seems quite unlikely. This attribute is an advantage for state trust land agencies. 

Pollution 

Widespread land degradation and environmental disasters such as forest fires are some of the challenges that environmental agencies have to deal with on a regular basis. A good example is the fact that the BLM is the second largest waste handler after the U.S military (Fretwell & Regan, 2015). Environmental issues often place a high cost on the operational expenses thus requiring federal government intervention which costs the taxpayer s more.

Bureaucracy 

Multiple layers of approval in the decision-making process imply that decisions often take a long time to be approved through the chain of command of federal agencies. This undermines the ability of agencies to respond quickly to sudden, essential needs. Another danger is the fact that federal agencies spend more time on mundane administrative activities that involve many manhours and paperwork instead of dedicating more time to the actual reason that they exist in the first place. The scenario is different for state agencies whereby the decision-making process is considerably short. 

Disadvantages 

Federal land management enjoys the advantage of being able to call upon the federal government to fund its activities or meet budget deficits. In contrast, state trust land agencies do not enjoy such an advantage since states often prioritize other demands in the interest of public safety and wellbeing (Davis, 2018). Federal agencies also enjoy priority when it comes to inter-agency corporation. The USFS and BLM can draw on the strength of other agencies in coordinating a response to emergencies and any other unforeseen demands in their operations. This lacks in state agencies. Lastly, federal agencies enjoy the benefit of federal oversight from their parent agencies. For instance, the USFS is under the oversight of the Department of Agriculture while the BLM is under the management of the Department of Interior. This means that the needs of these agencies are of national importance because of their reach, size, and potential to affect many people in communities across the U.S. State agencies do not enjoy this advantage. 

Conclusion 

Significant differences exist between state trust and federal land management. Based on the facts presented, it is quite clear that state trust land management is more efficient and better placed to manage public lands in the American West. Thus, transferring federal public lands to the care of state trust lands would yield a higher return on investment and ease the burden on the taxpayer.

References 

Davis, C. (2018).  Western public lands and environmental politics . Routledge. 

Fretwell, H. L., & Regan, S. (2015).  Divided lands: State vs. federal management in the West . Property and Environment Research Center. 

Nie, M. A. (2008).  The governance of western public lands: Mapping its present and future  (pp. 72-73). Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.