There are two present universal truths in American politics. The first is that despite everything that supposedly separates the American people, our public lands aren't one of them. There's an inherent love and belief in these open spaces, a belief in that anyone and everyone can use them, and that they should be protected against greed at all costs.
The second is that the current administration, along with a number of politicians who supposedly represent those same people who are diametrically opposed to their sell-off or leasing, hate the idea of public lands even as a concept.
Yet, after they've been defeated time after time on the topic and shown with concrete proof that this is truly a losing battle, they've continued their attacks on public lands. Whether that's through the 'Big Beautiful Bill,' their current attempt to rescind the 'Roadless Rule,' the cutting of staff at the Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service, DOGE's attacks on the Department of the Interior, they cannot help but look to find ways to sell off, lease, or otherwise do away with our public lands.
And the latest salvo, one instigated by Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum, is one aiming to rescind the Biden-era 'Public Lands Rule,' something that was celebrated by nearly everyone in the outdoor space, Republican and Democrat alike, when it was introduced.
Honestly, it doesn't make a lick of sense. That is, unless they've already promised these lands to their corporate and political billionaire backers. Because not a single American wants this, and that's the only thing that makes sense.
Burgum's announcement that he intends to rescind the 'Public Lands Rule' comes after multiple losses for the administration on the public lands field, as it's been soundly defeated by public outcry numerous times. First, they were defeated in the House of Representatives when all language on public land sales was removed from the 'Big Beautiful Bill.' Then, when it was added back to the reconciliation text by Utah Senator Mike Lee—who remains the chief proponent of public land sales—the entirety of the outdoor industry and populace rose up to have that language removed once again.
It was a beautiful thing to behold, as everyone reached across their respective lands and groups and niches to say in one voice, "Not one acre." But that obviously hasn't stopped the administration's quest to sell off or lease our public lands to extractive industries, and opening these areas up to be developed to "unleash our energy potential."
According to the statement by the Department, "The Department of the Interior is proposing to rescind the Bureau of Land Management’s Public Lands Rule, aligning with Secretary Doug Burgum’s commitment to restoring balance in federal land management by prioritizing multiple-use access, empowering local decision-making and supporting responsible energy development, ranching, grazing, timber production and recreation across America’s public lands," adding, "The 2024 Public Lands Rule made conservation (i.e., no use) an official use of public lands, putting it on the same level as BLM’s other uses of public lands. The previous administration had treated conservation as “no use,” meaning it the land was to be left idle rather than authorizing legitimate uses of the land like grazing, energy development or recreation. However, stakeholders, including the energy industry, recreational users and agricultural producers, across the country expressed deep concern that the rule created regulatory uncertainty, reduced access to lands, and undermined the long-standing multiple-use mandate of the BLM as established by Congress. Now, the BLM proposes to rescind this rule in full."
As with everything about public lands in recent months coming from this administration, as well as the politicians who've supported these acts against them, they're conflating "no use" with not publicly accessible, which is a lie. These lands are still accessible to you and me, and not only that, they are also used by wildlife for migration corridors, used by us to hike, hunt, camp, dirt bike, and shoot, and are only cordoned off from mineral, gas, and grazing because not every acre of public land needs those industries on it. I mean, I just spent four days in the backcountry looking for elk, and not only were grazing cattle and sheep everywhere, they dominated the landscape in some parts.
Moreover, in his statements about rescinding the rule, Burgum claims, "The most effective caretakers of our federal lands are those whose livelihoods rely on its well-being. Overturning this rule protects our American way of life and gives our communities a voice in the land that they depend on." That, however, isn't what's happening here. The communities he's talking about aren't getting a voice, they aren't being given the tools to manage these lands properly, they aren't being gifted anything as the states have been piss-poor managers of public land, in that they're required by law to sell them off in order to fund schools, among other projects. And the vast majority of states are looking at fewer and fewer parcels they own because they've already sold everything off.
So these communities of locals who directly utilize these lands are being bulldozed over by the extractive industries that Burgum's trying to gift our public lands to. Something he'll do at a fraction of the price that he'd sell these lands to you and me for.
According to Alison Flint, Senior Legal Director at The Wilderness Society, "With this announcement, the administration is saying that public lands should be managed primarily for the good of powerful drilling, mining and development interests. They’re saying that public lands’ role in providing Americans the freedom to enjoy the outdoors, and conserve beloved places for future generation, is a second-class consideration. They’re saying these things even though most BLM lands are already open for energy development, and even though a huge wave of bipartisan support for public lands conservation played a key part in defeating a proposal to sell off millions of acres in the budget reconciliation fight just a couple of months ago."
Likewise, Act Now for Public Lands pointed out that "In 2023 alone, outdoor recreation generated $1.2 trillion in economic output–two times the economic output of agriculture and forestry, or one-and-a-half times that of oil and gas development and mining." So the idea that we need to unleash anything when these lands are already producing more economic activity than mining, energy, agriculture, or forestry is tantamount to purposely lying to the American people.
Moreover, it shows their true colors in that they hate public lands as a concept. That you or I own something they can't. It's as simple as that.
Thankfully, there's a 60-day comment period that we, the people who love the outdoors and public lands, can use to voice our disdain toward Burgum's push to rescind the rule. And we can, like previously, voice our concerns to our elected representatives, both in the House and the Senate, as well as those interested parties like our Governors and other elected officials who can put the screws to the Department and its war against public lands.
I know we've already fought a couple battles on this front, and you might be tired of this bullshit, I know I am, but we have to keep fighting if we want to still hunt, fish, hike, camp, dirt bike, ATV, UTV, and everything else we all love to do on our public lands.
