Of Sandboxes and Cemeteries

“Philosophers are people who know less and less about more and more, until they know nothing about everything. Scientists are people who know more and more about less and less, until they know everything about nothing.” (Konrad Lorenz)

Keeping the quote above in mind, I offer the following:

Given what is going on right now near Burns, OR, might it also be said at least the second part of this quote applies to those from "outside" that specific area regarding what is actually going on? I mean, there are all KINDS of people weighing in with their perspectives on what's going on, what precipitated it, and what needs to be done.

By the same token, perhaps it should also apply to most of those "inside" the area, as well, especially those holding the Wildlife Refuge in their "standoff" with the government even as we speak? After all, those folks have their own "unique" perspectives on what's going on, what precipitated it, and what needs to be done.

But I digress.....already? Really? Damn! Get yourself back on track!

There's a map going around on Social Media Networks that shows the amount of Federally owned land in the U.S.

Very interesting map, to be sure. 

Taken at face value, it would appear there is a disproportionate level of Federally owned lands in every single state in the West. The quote that accompanied this map:

Percent of land owned by the federal government. No wonder Westerners think this is a big issue and Easterners can’t understand why this is a problem.

The implied message, from what I could gather, is that Easterners don't understand the problem because they aren't as "affected" by Federal land ownership as Westerners are, thereby also implying that these lands are "closed off" to the affected states and their citizens. Even more insidious is an underlying current of resentment based in a conspiracy mentality held by more than a few people that the government is trying to expand its land ownership by taking away land from private owners. This one kind of gets my shorts in a knot! Really? Seriously? Can anyone, anyone at all, realistically believe this? I mean, c'mon. The Federal government has a hard enough time managing the public lands they ALREADY have oversight over with the budgets they get that keep getting SMALLER almost every year! Taking over MORE land? Give me a break!

But, once again, I digress....Gotta stop doing that.

From what I've been reading, and based in large part on that conspiracy mentality, Federal landownership is at the crux of the Bundy Bunch's takeover of the Malheur Wildlife Refuge, the sentencing controversy over the Hammond family convictions notwithstanding. The more I research the issue of Federal landownership, the more a conclusion must be drawn that the Bundy Bunch cannot withstand the litmus test of accuracy and veracity in how they're approaching this issue. In fact, they fail it miserably!

It's easy to blame an entity, in this case the Federal government represented by that villainous Bureau of Land Management, for perceived wrongdoings, especially if we don't understand, much less have only a rudimentary knowledge of, how and why public lands came to be in the first place.

It's much LESS easy to actually learn something about the history and development of how something comes to be the way it does because that, necessarily, requires work. Not physical labor, but, rather, mental labor, critical thinking, and (probably most important of all) assessment of circumstances the evaluation of which is devoid of personal bias. That's not an easy thing to do.

For example, we all engage in comparisons, equivalencies of a sort, to try and help illustrate points we are trying to make. Some are pretty good. Others, not so much. Some are even ferreted out as being "false equivalencies".

My point being we ALL do this at certain times in our lives. Yeah, even me.....

I don't know how good a comparison either of my equivalencies that follow might actually be, whether they are "false" or not, but here's my first comparative example: "Sandboxes".

Many of us had sandboxes as we were growing up. We played in them. We invited our friends to play in them. We also denied others from playing in them, especially if we didn't like those "others". In other words, there were boundaries. We established them. We enforced them to the "best" of our individual abilities.

Taking it a step further, there were also parks in a lot of towns, both large and small. Those parks were open to the public. They were owned, operated, and maintained by the towns, themselves. They had boundaries, too. However, those boundaries were there not to keep people in or out, but to denote where the park was and to let people know how big it was.

Some parks were larger than others. Some had playgrounds with all kinds of structures intended for children to have fun and play. Many of them had sandboxes in which children could play. 

The boundaries of these sandboxes were to keep the sand in, to kind of "protect" it in a way, not to keep kids out. No one child was excluded, at least they weren't supposed to be.

The park provided for multiple uses, including the sandbox. The sandbox was more narrowly focused on providing a place for children to play in the sand within a smaller boundary......together. 

The sandboxes were geographical areas within those parks. Neither the park boundaries nor the sandbox boundaries were mutually exclusive of each other. They both served a purpose. Think about that. Entities within entities, both there for public use albeit one more focused use than the other.

Yeah, I know....now I'm waxing philosophic. Nope. I don't claim to be a philosopher, but I'm kind of thinking this may reflect the first part of the quote at the beginning of this essay. Does that mean I know "nothing about everything"? I hope not, but I digress....again.

Focus Dude....Focus! Narrowing the scope a little: 

Sand, ownership, and operational maintenance..... 

The sand in all of those sandboxes, whether those sandboxes were private or public, was there to be used, in this case by children. 

Kids will be kids, will they not? They don't really understand the limitations of the boundaries of the sandbox. If they want to throw a handful of sand at someone else, they'll do it. Unless, of course, their parents are watching. Then they might have second thoughts about that kind of behavior....or not.

Let's say, though, some children engage in a sand fight. Sand is flying everywhere especially outside the boundaries of the box.

Questions ensue. Many questions ensue.

Who's going to put all that sand back in when the fight is over, and the kids get taken home to get cleaned up by their parents?

How much sand is left within the boundaries of the box?

How's it going to get replaced?

How much of the sand got "contaminated" by dirt the sand got mixed in with outside the sandbox?

How much will it cost to replace the sand that was lost?

Is there enough sand left in the box to keep it functional for other kids coming to play tomorrow?

How much sand will need to be added to make it functional again?

And, probably most important, who is responsible? No, really....who is responsible for all of this? Every item? Every aspect of damages caused by one person, or group of people? Who...is...responsible?

If the sandbox is privately owned, the parents have a few options at their disposal. Replace the sand at their own expense. Replace the sand and make their kids pay for it out of their allowances. Don't replace the sand and teach those kids a lesson they'll never forget! There are more, but you get the picture.

If the sandbox is publicly owned, it's a whole different ballgame. The town is made up of its residents, all of them. Some might be willing to overlook the "crime" that was committed and just make the repairs necessary and take those costs out of the budget...somehow. Others may decide that signs should be posted saying "NO SAND FIGHTS ALLOWED - VIOLATORS WILL BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR REPAIRS", or some such. There are more, but, again, you get the picture.

Do you see where I'm going with this yet? I hope so.

The comparison to public lands should be obvious to even the most ardent opponent of Federal ownership of public lands for multiple uses including, you guessed it, ranching. One of the primary reasons, and there are many more than just this one, for setting aside "public lands" is because ranchers overgrazed and abused the very arid lands they turned their livestock loose in. These are lands whose ecosystems really aren't well suited to ranching operations for the most part. Add to that the fact there are competing species vying for the little forage there is, and, well.....

Truth is, all those sandbox considerations for operations and maintenance factor into the public lands scenario. ALL of them!

There's a widespread movement in western states to wrest control and management of Federally owned public lands from the Federal government and cede it over to the individual states to do with as they see fit. Once the land is ceded over, it's gone, irrevocably lost to the rest of us. And, to be clear, no it isn't going to be sold to those states if those states have their way. It'll be ceded over.

Once it's gone, it's gone. There's no going back. There's no "putting the sand back in the sandbox", metaphorically speaking.

Those lands will be re-purposed. No, you say? Think about it. States are, like most government entities, "cash strapped". They think they can manage things better than the Federal government, and perhaps they can. That does not, however, belie the fact their funding sources are more "limited", shall we say, than are Federal coffers simply by virtue of the fact their constituent base, also known as their tax base, is much smaller.

Unless Federal grants are available to "help" those states manage what are now considered to be "state lands", those states will seek ways to lessen the financial burden imposed by virtue of the fact they, and they alone, are now responsible to operate and maintain those new state lands, to put the "sand back in the sandbox", so to speak. This nation has a hard enough time agreeing with "block grant" programs to states for welfare programs without adding this into the mix. 

So, what's the alternative? 

They'll do so by, dare I say it, raising taxes on state residents......oh, NO!

Or they'll do it by opening those lands up to....you guessed it....ranching, logging, and mining.

Anyone see even a modicum of irony here?

If states open their own public lands up for ranching, logging, and mining does anyone think for one second they aren't going to charge fees for these uses?

If fees don't work, if fees don't raise enough revenue to do required operations and maintenance, would selling off those state lands to those private entities be an option? That goes for state parks, too. There are costs associated with operations and maintenance. Those costs must be offset somehow. On Federal public lands, those costs have been documented to be far greater already than revenue being realized from all sources of land use.

What's lost in all of this kind of rhetoric is the fact, and yes it is a fact, that you and I will have lost any and all access to those lands if this specific scenario plays out unless, of course, we get permission from the private owners....a hit or miss proposition, at best.

Cemeteries:

Now I bet you're wondering how "cemeteries" fit into all of this, right? Sit back and hold tight because here we go! My second comparative example for purposes of this essay: "Cemeteries".

Most municipalities have cemeteries. We honor those interred in all of them. We tend the grounds in which our loved ones are interred. We keep them neat. We keep the grass trimmed, and we make damned sure no weeds are allowed to grow. 

Some cemeteries are out in rural areas. Most of them do not get the same care those in towns get. Some of the more rural cemeteries do, in fact, sometimes get overgrown and neglected.

But here's the thing....how many cemeteries, urban or rural, have no fences? There are some, to be sure. I'd wager there are far more that do have fences than do not. Even with that being said, the boundaries of a cemetery are distinct; marked either with gated entrances or by some kind of marker(s) somewhere to let people know this is a place for solemnity, honor, and respect.

Now, imagine, if you will, people riding ATVs through that cemetery, tearing down the fences, riding over the grave sites, doing donuts and wheelies, ripping up the landscape, making all kinds of noise. 

That happened. Only it wasn't in a municipal cemetery. It wasn't in a rural cemetery. No sirree. It happened in a remote area of public lands in Utah. Yep. It happened. It happened in direct defiance of rules, regulations, and prohibitions on recreational use for that specific area. Those rules, regulations, and prohibitions on recreational use for that area were put in place because that area was sacred ground....for Native Americans. It happened to Native American sacred ground. Sacred ground. Remember the Bundy standoff in Nevada? Remember Recapture Canyon in Utah? 

I guess the question we should be asking ourselves is along the lines of why should municipal and rural cemeteries, those we consider to be sacred grounds receive any more special treatment than those of Native Americans, the Indigenous Peoples of America? In remote areas of public lands? Public lands that are designated off-limits to recreational use? Public lands that are sacred grounds? Solemnity? Honor? Respect? Where were any of these in Recapture Canyon? Seriously, where...were...they? Anyone? 

Finally, there's a movie documentary called "Unbranded" ya'll might just want to watch. It's available for free on Netflix. I haven't seen it anywhere else unless a fee is paid.....go figure! There's also a Facebook page of the same name, "Unbranded". No spoiler here. All I'll say is this movie addresses multiple land uses as they relate specifically to the wild mustang population on public lands. The rating system on Netflix went to 5. If I could, I'd rate it at 10! It's that good! So, just do it!

Finally, there's a very good publication titled America's Public Lands: origin, history, future. This publication was put together mostly by U.S. Bureau of Land Management retirees. Yep, those folks. Who better, really, to talk about management of Federally owned public lands than those tasked with doing so. Sorry, rhetorical question. Doesn't even merit a question mark in the overall scheme of things. And, therefore, I did not give it one. This publication goes into detail on operational costs and maintenance of Federal public lands versus revenue brought in from multiple uses intended to offset at least some of those costs. If that doesn't help increase awareness of what it would require of anyone else to do the same thing the Federal government does in managing our public lands, I don't know what will.

And that, folks, brings me right back around to the original quote I shared in the hope that we, you and I, are never at that point where we, any of us, basically get to a point in any of this where we learn more and more about less and less until we know everything about nothing.

Truly....the more we know......

Until next time......

* Comments on this blog are moderated.