Federal Land Grab Sparks Controversy Among Burro Advocates

Protecting America's wild lands is a noble cause, but recent developments have stirred controversy. A federal lands package, quietly included in the National Defense Authorization Act, has raised concerns among wild horse and burro advocates. This provision restricts natural resource production on vast areas of federal land, prompting a coalition of 50 interest groups to call for its removal.

The coalition, which includes Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, Wild West Institute, and the American Wild Horse Conservation (formerly American Wild Horse Preservation), argues that the land grab would severely impact public lands and the wildlife inhabiting them, including wild horses and burros. They have urged Congress to reconsider the provision, stating, "This kitchen-sink approach to legislation, lacking in deliberation and shaped solely by political calculus, belies the very serious consequences of the provisions. The price our public lands at large must pay in exchange for a few modest wildernesses designations is simply too high."

Myron Ebell, energy and environment director at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, warns of the economic impact on rural communities. He states, "This is a back room deal locking up federal land so it cannot be used to produce natural resources, such as energy, minerals, livestock, and timber - a devastating economic effect on people in the rural West." Ebell also highlights the National Park Service's existing maintenance backlogs, questioning the timing of this provision.

The provision proposes creating eight new parks across 10 states, expanding seven existing parks, designating 245,000 acres as wilderness areas, and withdrawing another 289,000 acres from natural resource production. Ebell concludes, "This is what happens when secret deals are made in back rooms during lame duck sessions."

The $585 billion National Defense Authorization Act passed the House with a 300-119 vote and is expected to pass the Senate. However, opposition remains strong. Sen. Ted Cruz, a Texas Republican, criticizes the decision to include the land grab in the act, stating, "The decision to attach an extreme land grab to the NDAA is a disservice to members of the armed forces. With the military’s shrinking budget, it is offensive that this bill would be used to fund congressional pork."

Originally Posted By The Washington Times