Mountains aren’t less steep if you have a higher income. Rain doesn’t preferentially fall on those with certain ethnic backgrounds. A higher level of education does not correlate to ability to hike more miles in a day.

Time spent in the outdoors is time spent exploring the core of what it means to be a human animal, a part of nature. Once there, the various advantages and disadvantages that are so critical to life in our various man-made social constructs tend to be minimized. Experience in the outdoors is an equalizer, where the unforgiving forces of nature treat everyone with the same indifference.

It’s no mystery then, why time outdoors is such a great way to decompress, to recuperate and rejuvenate, to team-build, to learn leadership skills. Put people from all walks of life into an environment where everybody is just a little out of their daily element, where time slows, schedules can be forgotten, basic resources such as food, water, and shelter become common pursuits that you can’t just pay for, and simple survival becomes a tangible objective, and we let the usual barriers between us fall.

For many of us, time outdoors is also spiritual. Whether or not a person ties their experience to belief in or recognition of a supreme creator, the outdoors offers places where we can experience true awe, where we measure ourselves against the grandeur of a mountaintop view, the power of a waterfall, an intimate forest glade, or a wildlife encounter, and feel both humbled and inspired. Time spent surrounded by the wonder of creation can, for some of us, lift the soul more than time in any church.

If time in the outdoors is to work its magic, however, it needs to be something we can all enjoy. A universal human experience shouldn’t be put behind fences and privatized for the benefit or profit of the select few. To do so eliminates the idea of nature as an equalizing basic human experience, and reintroduces the hierarchy of social inequality that is so pervasive elsewhere. Wilderness areas cease to become a public escape, and instead become an extension of the man-made societal construct separating the haves and have-nots.

I live on the east coast, where public lands are few and far between. For many, public municipal or urban parks are the only accessible access to nature. For those more fortunate, it’s still challenging to find immersion in nature. Views without man-made structures are almost impossible, and even the most remote areas are often still within earshot of traffic on an Interstate highway and airliners overhead. It may be viewed as hypocritical that someone like myself, living in a part of the country that’s already been largely parceled into private ownership, should suggest that the same not happen elsewhere, specifically in the west. I’ll accept that – I’m not in a position to dictate the use of every parcel, and I recognize that some of our public lands, while accessible for outdoor recreation, are primarily focused on management of natural resources. There’s a need for that, and there’s a need to manage public lands. But there’s also a need for wilderness.

That said, I contend – and I’ve said before – that there are many things in this world, in this country, that have intrinsic value that cannot be measured in terms of the profit they might yield. It is the function of Government to protect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all, and when it comes to public lands that is inclusive of both management and conservation, as well as protecting access to things that increase general welfare and the common good.

There are many legitimate reasons to leverage public resources to increase public welfare, but that doesn’t seem to be the motivation behind Congress looking to sell 250 million acres of public land, with few restrictions, “to any interested party”. Rather than public good, this appears to trade the public good for private profit to those that can afford it. It is right, just, and essential that we question and understand the motives and the expected outcomes of such a decision.

Again, I live far away from the acreage in question. The land proposed for sale all lies within Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington and Wyoming. My voice is only one, and it may very well be uninformed with regard to the impact and utilization of a specific piece of land. I may be wrong in this. But speaking both as someone who has witnessed the value of access to the outdoors AND as someone who has limited wilderness opportunity, it seems it would be a shame to lose a public resource to the highest bidder, with very little stated objective than to turn land into profit.

Ask questions, make your voice heard, and get answers from elected representatives. A decision this significant shouldn’t take place without vocal public engagement, but we the people are going to have to demand to be heard, as it seems apparent that very few in our Government are actually interested in soliciting our opinions.

Get Out There