‘Public Land, Private Profit’

I wish to commend your staff writers and newspaper on the series of articles on public land management or mismanagement (“Public Land, Private Profit: Inside the Bureau of Land Management,” Part I, May 21-24).

Hopefully, it will remind and bring to the attention of the powers that be locally and in distant Washington, D.C., that remedies are in order to correct many of the abuses.

In my studied opinion a good beginning would be to:

Enact legislation changing the 1872 mining law to a leasing system modeled after the Canadian system that appears to be working well.

The grazing debacle, if it can be depoliticized, can be easily remedied, modifying the Taylor Grazing Act and existing law, not by pacifying pressure groups.

The BLM, sometimes referred to as the Bureau of Land Mismanagement, should be required and permitted to manage the public lands as required by law.

Many will agree with me that we are the victims as well as beneficiaries of the system, the laws and the land we live in. While the Environmental Protection Act of 1969 has done and will continue to do much good--it has in my opinion done harm also--in some areas. Because of the said act, government agencies, and that includes the BLM, were flooded with “environmental types” of every description who preempted and overwhelmed the more legitimate role of the lands and mineral specialists--many of whom were concerned and knowledgeable about environmental issues and matters.

JOSEPH F. RUDYS

Moreno Valley