Today, Rep. Rob Bishop (Utah)’s Federal Land Action Group (FLAG) meets once again to plot further ways to transfer our American public lands over to states and private hands.
Does that storyline sound familiar? If it does, it’s because that’s exactly what the armed militant extremists who illegally occupied the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge for nearly a month were demanding. The Malheur militants were demanding that public lands be turned over to local control; FLAG wants the same, but is just using slightly different tactics—like insider, one-sided conversations and expensive studies—to achieve it.
And make no mistake—many members of FLAG actually do have documented sympathies to the Bundy extremists. Take for example Rep. Rob Bishop himself, who was once quoted as saying “We should try to transpose as much land to the state control as is humanly possible.” On the surface, Rep. Bishop tries to pass off land transfers as a logical idea. Yet, much like his recent Public Lands Initiative purported to be a collaborative compromise, public support for land transfers is a farce created to skew public opinion in his favor while he swindles taxpayers.
The Malheur militants complained about government waste and theft, yet ironically the illegal occupation of Malheur cost over $130,000 a day in lost revenue, closed schools and offices, and diminished recreation income. That’s much like land transfers, where the state would have to shoulder all of the land management costs and which would be hugely, and perhaps prohibitively, expensive for already-struggling state budgets.
What’s more, not only would the process be expensive, but it would take away a big economic driver for rural counties: federal lands themselves. A recent study found that rural western counties with more federal land performed noticeably better by four key economic indicators than did counties with fewer public lands. That’s something that those rural counties can’t afford to give up.
Why is FLAG having such a one-sided, insider conversation with no diverse membership and no witnesses who hold ideas different than their own? It can’t be because they’re representing their constituents—because land transfers are not a popular idea. In fact, 68% of likely western voters are against transferring federal lands to the states—probably because they know that means that they, as taxpayers, will end up footing the bill without any benefits in return.
It’s time for Rep. Rob Bishop and his fringe friends to stand up for their constituents, instead of backing armed extremists. The jig is up—land transfers are a bad, expensive idea, plain and simple.