Government ownership of western land creates conflicts like the one in Oregon.
"As a Plan B, the feds began to encourage the use of "open
range" and the idea of public lands in which large numbers of small
landowners would share water and grazing resources.
Eventually,
neither the government nor the settlers wanted these lands to be
privatized. Each interest group — homesteaders, ranchers, and water
owners — wanted the lands to continue to be public since each group
assumed it would be able to use its own political power to gain de facto use and control of the lands."
The ranchers don't want to buy it.
"However, it should be remembered that, generally speaking,
ranchers who use federal lands have never been opposed to the existence
of federal lands. After all, federal subsidization of water projects and federal control of watersheds has furnished ranchers with cheap water
for years, at the expense of taxpayers and urban dwellers. In dry and
high-altitude areas especially, cattle are reliant on alfalfa crops and
on other non-forage feed, which means their need for water is immense."
Privilege.
"The perennial conflicts in the West over land seizures by
environmentalists, regulatory battles, micromanagement,
and overgrazing all illustrate how much of a failure the federal land
ownership scheme has been.
With control over such immense
resources, the far away federal government does not respond to local
needs or local demand, but to national interest groups. "
Politics, not economics.
No comments:
Post a Comment