The mission of the Public Lands Foundation, according to the statement on the first page of their Summer 2019 Newsletter, is to keep America’s public lands in public hands, which, of course, means keeping them in the hands of the federal government.
The belief is explained in a position statement. Political orientation: Liberal.
The organization has many members who have retired from the BLM, according to the page with other position statements. Where do they come down on other issues?
Centralized Government – PLF opposes the relocation of the BLM headquarters from Washington, D.C. to Grand Junction, CO, which is consistent with the principle of subsidiarity. Political orientation: Liberal.
Climate Change – “…the warming of the Earth’s climate system is unequivocal as is now evident from observations of global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level,” according to their position statement. Political orientation: Liberal.
Wind and Solar – PLF says they are needed to alleviate greenhouse gas emissions from traditional energy conversion technologies. Political orientation: Liberal.
Illegal Immigration – PLF believes that policies should be changed so illegal aliens can enter the country legally “…through established ports of entry…instead of…crossing fragile public lands on foot and in vehicles.” Political orientation: Liberal.
Public-Lands Ranching – PLF supports it. They are as hostile to WHB as the ranchers, see item 7 on page 4 of their position statement.
Wild Horses and Burros – PLF believes the “WHB program is unsustainable” and that roundups should be increased “…to achieve AML as soon as practical, selling, without limitation, un-adopted WHBs that have been gathered.”
How would you classify the last two statements, given they were written by a left-leaning organization located just outside of Washington D.C.? How closely do they correspond to the beliefs of current BLM administrators and staff?