Congress should stop acquiring more federal land for the park system and start maintaining what we’ve already got.
Terry Anderson, Hannah Downey
When does more access present a "tragedy of the commons"? National Trails Day is a good time to reconsider the tradeoff between more access and resource stewardship.
Using the LWCF to acquire land—without first addressing the billions of dollars in deferred maintenance on the existing federal land—will threaten the ecological health, public accessibility and economic productivity of these precious lands.
Federal funds from the LWCF are limited to land acquisition and cannot be used for the care and maintenance of existing federal lands.
Nearly half of the West is owned—and badly managed—by the feds. States want to step in. Writing for the Wall Street Journal, PERC's Shawn Regan provides an overview of the issue.
As the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge debate heats up again, Shawn Regan, writing for Reason, looks at how The Aubudon Society has managed to earn mineral royalties while also protecting bird habitat.
A former backcountry ranger, PERC research fellow Shawn Regan weighs in on the national parks' proposed entrance fee hikes. Fee revenues help parks address critical needs without relying on Congress for appropriations.
Today's Sagebrush rebels want federal lands transferred to states, while environmentalists want more federal control. Both sides should be careful what they ask for.
When environmental groups buy ranchers' permits, there's no need for the feds to start rustling up trouble.
In the West, nearly half the land is owned and controlled by the federal government, compared with only 4 percent in the East. Holly Fretwell explains why that difference affects the ability of western states to determine their own destiny.