Dec. 25, 2023
I am concerned that licensure for Natural Asset Companies will lead to adverse outcomes, like the erosion of multiple use on our Federal Lands, insofar as they will prioritize "non use" as a primary, preferred ecological benefit. There is concern about the tone taken towards agriculture in the proposed rule change, like "Agriculture is contributing to the loss of natural habitat and soil degradation." p.3 In fact, farmers and ranchers do much to improve soil health. There is concern this sets a precedent for non-use (i.e. ecological performance) by placing lands, and or grazing permits, etc. up for sale to the highest bidder. Many farmers and ranchers cannot compete with the resources of Wall Street to maintain the livelihood and continuity of their operations. There is great concern that licensure for Natural Asset Companies will lead to adverse outcomes, like the erosion of multiple use on our Federal Lands, insofar as they will prioritize "non use" as a primary, preferred ecological benefit. This directly impacts the sovereignty of this land, potentially allowing NGOs and other rouge nation actors to directly control this nations resources. How will these licensures be handled? Who will be the enforcement authority and how will they be measured or evaluated for performance and appropriateness for the landscape? Will there be governmental (DNR, BLM, USDA) oversight What are the mechanics at play? We are concerned. THIS MUST BE STOPPED FOR THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THIS NATION AND THE SECURITY OF FUTURE GENERATIONS.