The straw-grasping began almost as soon as the shock wore off. Conservationists began searching for a sign that Donald Trump might care about something other than money and winning. They dug up a January 2016 interview with Field and Stream and Outdoor Life, where he said that he doesn’t like the idea of divesting federal lands by transferring them to the states, and that he doesn’t believe public lands should be sold. His full quote twice repeats the idea that we have to be great stewards of this land and “hunters and fisherman and all of the different people that use that land” do “such a great job.” You can hardly blame the environmental community from latching on and hoping he meant what we mean when we say “stewardship.”

And then Trump nominated Montana Rep. Ryan Zinke for Secretary of Interior, and a few conservation organizations again held out hope that Zinke’s votes against public land transfer would bode well for the Department. But on January 2, 2017, Zinke joined with the majority in the House of Representatives to vote for a bill to ease federal land transfers, claiming that such transfers would be budget neutral and removing the need to account for the revenue values the federal lands provide. In his confirmation hearings for the Secretary post, Zinke said he “absolutely” opposed the sale of transfer of public land, but out the other side of his mouth that he was willing to revisit decisions by the Obama administration to halt coal leasing, ban oil and gas drilling in most of the Arctic and set aside parts of the West as national monuments under the Antiquities Act.

Willow Lake. Wind RIver Mountains, WY. Photo taken Sept. 7, 2014. Copyright Ralph Maughan

Being against the sale and transfer of public land is meaningful only insofar as the natural resources of those lands aren’t also transferred for the economic benefit of extractive interests, as the Zinke/Trump agenda seems to favor. Public land serving as cheap resources for industry is a welfare program of the worst kind, and utterly ignores the civic cost of diminished habitat values and ecosystem function that are engendered by industrialization. Keeping public lands public entails keeping management focused on multiple uses, including the invisible “use” of cleaning our air and our water, supporting pollinator migrations, and maintaining a sense of wonder and wildness that these lands do best when freed from human intervention.

Thus, while it appears possible – and even, on better days, likely – that the next Department of the Interior will maintain the federal domain of public lands, it seems unlikely that Interior’s version of stewardship will include making space for predators like gray wolves and grizzlies, or those iconic sentinels of the sagebrush, the greater sage-grouse. It seems that the pro-industry rhetoric and “all of the above” approach to energy development is going to cut hard into the heart of the West, and that any species that get in the way of human plans for the land will be removed as impediments to progress.

It also seems that what the Executive Branch won’t do, the Legislative Branch will happily undertake. In addition to the bad public land bill that Zinke-as-Congressman got to endorse at the beginning of the session, the House and Senate are cranking out alarming bills at an alarming rate. From the efforts to strip federal protections and allow trophy hunting of wolves in four states to generalize threats to repeal and replace the Endangered Species Act, to the host of rollbacks being pledged through the Congressional Review Act, the progressive public policies safeguarding our future are facing unprecedented pro-industry hostility.

With control of two branches of government and certain influence on the judiciary through a Supreme Court seat, the checks and balances we all learned about in primary school could further devolve into scales heavily weighted towards those with the biggest balance in their checkbooks. And though industry-led plunder of natural resources is nothing new, we’re at a tipping point on climate and planetary ecological resilience that has no parallel in human history, a reality that apparently isn’t registering with the decision-makers.

Which brings us back around to the hunters and fishermen that Trump so favors as stewards of the land. There surely are hunters and anglers that understand the complexity of ecosystems and the need to protect high-quality habitat for the species they harvest for food, but the Trump Brothers’ trophy hunts of elephants and leopards don’t count as evidence of a land ethic. Such triumphant and total exploitation of nature’s bounty doesn’t fall under my definition of “stewardship,” but it is likely the model we can expect from the incoming President. I tremble for my countryside.

Conservation groups need to stop grasping at straws of solidarity and fight like hell every step of the way.

This commentary first appeared at KCET as part of a series from KCET and Link TV writers and contributors reflecting on how the incoming president will shape, change, and redefine the future of California.

Tagged with:
 
avatar
About The Author

Greta Anderson

Greta Anderson is a plant nerd, a desert rat, and a fan of wildness. She is the Deputy Director of Western Watersheds Project.

5 Responses to Privatized or Not, Public Lands Will Suffer Under Trump

  1. avatar Kyle says:

    We hear you Greta! What would a real-estate mogul and struggling actor from Queens know or care about public lands, ecology, or the fate of the planet?

    The true colors have been on display for years and the latest appointments prove only that we are entering a dangerous new phase. Anyone who thinks Zinke is a Ted Roosevelt is deluding themselves.

    The Donald’s recent executive order restarting Keystone and DAPL are just the beginning. The cowardly rule change devaluing public lands is just a baby step.

    These people would dig up their grannie’s grave if they could make a quick buck. Because the GOP has pushed so far and so hard, we’re likely to see some home-grown radicalization emerge with plenty of monkey-wrenching in the near future. What other choice does a patriot have?

  2. avatar timz says:

    “President Trump wil live to regret his actions this morning,” said Michael Brune of the Sierra Club, promising “a wall of resistance the likes of which he never imagined”

    Where was this “Wall” when Obummer signed the death sentence for wolves?

    • avatar Ida Lupine says:

      Yes timz, and it’s about to happen all over again in the Great Lakes/WY by Democrats again! Talk about slow learners, no one wants to acknowledge it – deja vu all over again.

      I just hope another delisting doesn’t slip under the radar while everybody is clamoring about Trump. Or that we be told it is the price to pay for Democracy!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Calendar

January 2017
S M T W T F S
« Dec   Feb »
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031  

Quote

‎"At some point we must draw a line across the ground of our home and our being, drive a spear into the land and say to the bulldozers, earthmovers, government and corporations, “thus far and no further.” If we do not, we shall later feel, instead of pride, the regret of Thoreau, that good but overly-bookish man, who wrote, near the end of his life, “If I repent of anything it is likely to be my good behaviour."

~ Edward Abbey

%d bloggers like this: