‘Public lands belong to all of us’

Editor:

Something very important has happened with public lands, and it deserves more than slogans. For months, the public was told that the BLM’s Public Lands Rule was simply about “protecting” public lands. But when you read what the rule actually created, the concern becomes much clearer. This was not just about picking up trash, improving habitat, or caring for damaged ground. The rule created a new leasing system over federal public land called restoration and mitigation leasing.

That means public land could have been leased to private individuals, businesses, nonprofit organizations, conservation groups, Tribal governments, conservation districts, or state agencies for the stated purpose of restoration or mitigation. The land would still technically belong to the public, but a leaseholder could gain a powerful role in determining what happens on that land for years at a time. That is the part people need to understand.

This was not traditional private ownership. It was something more subtle: private influence over public land management. Under the rule, once a restoration or mitigation lease was issued, the BLM could not authorize new uses on that leased land if those uses were considered incompatible with the lease’s conservation purpose. The rule said recreation and casual access would not automatically be blocked, but only if those uses were compatible with the lease. Who decides what is compatible? That is where the concern begins.

In a place like Gunnison County, “compatibility” is not just a legal word. It can determine whether people can ride, hunt, graze, guide, gather firewood, access roads, recreate with their families, or continue the local uses that have supported this valley for generations.

The Public Lands Rule also allowed restoration leases for up to 10 years, with renewals. Mitigation leases could last as long as the impact they were meant to offset. In other words, some of these arrangements could have shaped public-land access and use for a very long time.

Supporters called this conservation. But many of us saw something different: a new pathway for outside groups and well-funded interests to gain long-term influence over land that belongs to the American people.

This was not a simple fight between people who care about the land and people who do not. That is a false choice. The people who live here care deeply about the land. Ranchers care. Hunters care. Motorized users care. Hikers care. Guides care. Families who have spent generations on these roads, trails, forests, and open spaces care.

The question is not whether public land should be cared for.

The question is: Who gets to control it?

Public lands should be managed transparently, lawfully, and locally, under the long-standing principle of multiple use. That means conservation matters, but so do recreation, grazing, hunting, access, timber, minerals, energy, outfitting, and the working people whose lives are tied to the land.

The rescission of the Public Lands Rule is important because it stopped a system that could have moved public lands toward private management control under the language of conservation. The land may have remained public on paper, but practical access and future use could have been shaped by leases held by outside entities with their own priorities.

That should concern every person in Gunnison County, regardless of political party.

We do not need to choose between caring for the land and keeping it open to the people. We can do both. But we cannot allow “protection” to become a word used to remove the public from public lands.

Public lands belong to all of us.

Not just federal agencies. Not just environmental organizations.
Not just wealthy donors. Not just outside interests. Not just people with the money, lawyers, and staff to navigate federal leasing systems. All of us.

The fight is not over. BLM may still pursue separate rulemaking on Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, land health standards, and special recreation permitting. Our community needs to pay attention, read beyond the headlines, and speak up every time public access is threatened under the name of “protection.”

Protecting public lands should never mean removing the public from the land.
Lori Hodges