Don’t read the comments. Don’t read the comments.
I read the comments.
Even though I know the comment section will turn a positive, unifying celebratory or otherwise docile post into an argument, I still scanned and didn’t have to go far.
In this case it was a post by a celebrity in the outdoor field, which equates to someone that is likely unknown to the general public, but would get a star on a sidewalk in Bozeman.
He was celebrating the defeat of the public lands sell off, which was scary, and took an enormous response from a bipartisan audience to get removed from an enormous, and still scary bill.
The commenter detonated one of the most common discourse killers that starts with “that’s what you get when … ”. This person took a solid win that galvanized so many different user groups and made it divisive. This is common; someone always takes it upon themselves to filter a post, headline, story or ideas through their political view and come up with a divisive hot take.
He missed the point.
Instagram and Facebook were awash in criticism, if not rage, over the prospect of selling public lands to help with the federal deficit and ease the country’s housing issues.
It was clear the sell off would not open up affordable housing for the working class or make any meaningful impact on the deficit. It was a thinly veiled attempt to provide more land to the elite class or corporations that value their bottom line above all else.
Every four years, emboldened by election results, the worst of both parties crawl out of the darkness into the shadows to inflict their will on the American people. It is never 100 percent what either side voted for and the elected officials benefit from keeping us divided. Social media has empowered politicians to think that election results entitle them to their most extreme whims and their loyalists encourage them.
That’s not everyone in Congress, of course. Most Americans can only name a handful of senators (welcome to the spotlight Sen. Lee) or representatives which means most are either doing their jobs or are quietly partisan, which is different than actively antagonistic.
When there is unification, it’s exciting.
We the people want to use our public lands. We the people don’t want to pay exorbitant amounts of money to access small strips of private land for a chance to experience whatever perverted version of nature exists within the property lines. We don’t want the European model.
Alaskans enjoy more public land than any other state both as total acreage (of course) and by percentage. Almost 96% of Alaska is owned by the federal government (60%) or state which means it’s accessible, though subject to various regulations depending on whether it’s state or federal land.
A few thousand acres in Alaska wouldn’t seem like much, especially if it’s in a region most Alaskans won’t or can’t afford to visit. But it’s the principle. A little over time becomes a lot.
Southeast Alaskans know it only takes a few acres of land in particular hands to add thousands more tourists and dozens more daily buses. It might be helpful for the overall economy and lucrative for individual interests, but there is always a cost. The same goes with ruined spawning habitat for salmon or decimated habitat for wildlife.
To see people who don’t use public land the same way, who don’t exercise freedoms in the same way, beat back a bad idea makes me hopeful that we can apply similar energy to other aspects of the country rather than constantly engaging in a bitter tug of war.
• Jeff Lund is a freelance writer based in Ketchikan. His book, “A Miserable Paradise: Life in Southeast Alaska,” is available in local bookstores and at Amazon.com. “I Went to the Woods” appears twice per month in the Sports & Outdoors section of the Juneau Empire.
