New House of Representatives Rules Just Made it Way Easier to Sell Public Lands

I'll say it again, but politicians hate public land.

Photo by: AdobeStock

By: Jonathon Klein

Jan 08, at 8:13am ET

Comment

I find it increasingly frustrating that so many of our elected officials will publicly claim they support public lands, fish, hunt or otherwise recreate on them, and who's states are benefited due to public lands thanks to tourism or in other ways, and will actively campaign to remove our access from them and sell them to the highest bidder. It's maddening, to say the least.

And, as always, I'll state both sides of the aisle have engaged in these practices. All are mealy-mouthed lawmakers, only serving themselves and their corporate owners, or so blind to reality that they cause more harm than good when they try to advance public land issues.

The latest salvo against public lands, however, comes from the Republicans in control of the U.S. House of Representatives who, in a bold move ahead of this year's session, passed a new rules package that allows the federal government to sell off said public lands easier than it used to be. Those public lands include all federally-held BLM, Forest Service, and National Park/Monument lands, in a move which echoes Utah's current land-grab federal lawsuit.

Just the sort of good news for a new year.

The new rules, which passed 215 to 209 largely along party lines, states, "In the One Hundred Nineteenth Congress, for all purposes in the House, a provision in a bill or joint resolution, or in an amendment thereto or a conference report thereon, requiring or authorizing a conveyance of Federal land to a State, local government, or tribal entity shall not be considered as providing new budget authority, decreasing revenues, increasing mandatory spending, or increasing outlays."

What all that means is that politiicans wouldn't be able to fight land transfers, sales, or whatever using budgetary means, i.e. if the federal government decides to sell land, it doesn't have to consider how much revenue its losing from the sale. That's revenue from tourism, recreation (hunting, fishing, dirt biking, camping, UTVing, etc), and other means. In short, they can plug their ears to the long-term downsides of a sale—i.e. they'll actually lose revenue, which is a provable fact—for incredibly short-term gains from said sale.

Again, these people hate the idea of public lands, even if its economics prove they're not just sustainable, but actually cash-positive. Public lands make states and the feds money. By the truckload. And public lands are universally loved by the public. But public ownership is the enemy of corporate greed. If you don't believe that, just look at "Project 2025's" statements on public lands, or Utah's (as well as other states') fight to claim ownership of federally managed public land, and their past sell-offs to developers and mineral and gas companies.

But if those in the House of Representatives use this power, which they're likely going to do, we'll all lose the lands we use to dirt bike, four-wheel, camp, hunt, fish, and more. We'll lose our snowmobile routes and backcountry hikes. We'll lose our public lands. All because a handful of politicians are owned so wholy by corporate interests that they don't care what happens to these pristine places. They just see dollar signs like some cartoon robber barons.

Which is why I want to leave you with a quote from Aldo Leopold, who faced similar issues in his day.

In speaking about the felling and sawing of an old oak tree in A Sand County Almanac, "The oak laid on wood just the same, even in 1915, when the Supreme Court abolished the state forests and Governor Phillip pontificated that 'state forestry is not a good business proposition.' (It did not occur to the Governor that there might be more than one definition of what is good, and even of what is business. It did not occur to him that while the courts were writing one definition of goodness in the law books, fires were writing quite another one on the face of the land. Perhaps, to be a governor, one must be free from doubt on such matters.)"

Maybe it does occur to these politicians that public lands are good and good business? But they don't care since it isn't the thing that's lining their pockets. I suggest you call your representatives, as well as join the fight because if we don't, say goodbye to all your favorite outdoor places.