The discussion of public land use has always seemed to be an “us vs them” sort of debate.  Environments vs ranchers vs recreationalist vs loggers... It seems that everyone has their own agenda and priorities for the lands that impede the uses of someone else.  That is until recently.  Now all their voices are coming together to say one thing, “Our public lands are not for sale.”

Not long after taking office, President Trump commented that he would use the country’s assets to not only get the nation out of debt but to also build wealth.  Among those assets, he included the 640 million acres of BLM and Forest Service public lands, one third of all US land, and 47% of the western states.  From capitol hill in Washington DC, the millions of acres may seem like unnecessary wasteland, but for those hunters, anglers, ranchers, miners, loggers and recreationalists, those lands are their homes and way of life.

It wasn’t clear how this plan to carry out the sale of US public lands until May when members of the House of Representatives slipped the proposal in the HR 1 bill, also known as “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” (OBBBA).  The bill is a budget reconciliation bill, addressing tax policy, border security and immigration, defense, energy production, the debt limit, and adjustments to SNAP and Medicaid, a number of points that congress needs to address.

But amongst all the budget adjustments and tax credits was language concerning the “mandatory disposal” of public lands.  The proposed land sale would require land sold be used for housing or “associated community needs” in an attempt to make “housing more affordable for hardworking American families” according to Utah Senator Mike Lee.

Fortunately a number of representatives advocating for the continued multi-use of public lands removed the section concerning sale before the bill was passed in late May.  Representative Zinke from Montana commented on Facebook, “Once the land is sold, we will never get it back. God isn’t creating more land. Public access, sportsmanship, grazing, tourism… our entire Montanan way of life is connected to our public lands.”  Zinke considered selling off public lands to get out of debt as “folly” and unproductive.

The victory protecting public lands was short lived, though, as a number of senators reintroduced the mandate in the Senate bill, proffering significantly more lands to be put on the chopping block.  The current language states that at least 0.5% and no more than 0.75% of BLM and Forest Service lands would be put for sale.  Those percentages may seem small, but in the end up to 1.8 million acres of BLM land and up to 1.4 million acres of Forest Service land could turn from public ownership and use to private.

Thus far there is very little information on how the federal government would go about the land sales aside from the direction that the land be used for community needs and affordable housing.  The lack of information leaves a lot of room for questions, like who is eligible to purchase the land- private individuals, townships, corporations or even foreign countries?  Would the land be sold to the highest bidder or at a flat rate across all parcels of land?  How would increased housing in rural America actually alleviate housing shortages and affordability?  

The cattle industry has its own concerns over the land disposal as significant swaths of land eligible for sale are the very allotments they run cattle on.  Of the 248 million acres managed by the BLM, 62% are considered grazing acres.  49% of the 95 million acres managed by the Forest Service are also considered grazing lands.  Communities across the west rely heavily on the use of public lands for grazing and the rippling effects of such losses would be devastating.

Perusing the proposed map of eligible acres, I found our own local BLM permitted lands could potentially be put up for sale and it led to even more questions.  First I wondered if anyone that was proposing these sort of acres be turned into affordable housing had ever seen it first hand.  While I love our desolate acres to graze cattle on, occasionally hunt, hike or ride ATVs, living in these backwoods would
be challenging.

Finding suitable sites to build a home on are few and far between.  The hurdles of housing on the range continue when trying to get water, power, and usable roads to the site.  And I can’t believe that anyone that is struggling to afford a home would have the means to pay the travel expenses of living so far away from schools, groceries, and work.

Next I wondered how we would ever compensate for the loss of resources to feed America.  Without those permits, we would never be able to run the amount of cattle we do.  We depend on rangelands to summer our cattle while we put up hay to last through the winter months.  Ranchers all throughout the west would have to do similarly, taking a huge toll on the final product count hitting the grocery store.

Finally I wondered what it would do to the wildlife that live in the area.  On a daily basis we see a variety of birds, deer, elk, coyotes and more.  With their habitat turned into homes, they would quickly be pushed out.  If this scenario played out on ranges all across the west, the migration and total numbers of wildlife would be completely altered and distorted.

It’s still widely unknown if this proposal could ever be a reality. Hearing the outcry against public land sales, senators are already beginning to reevaluate and reconsider their agenda.  But the concern still remains- can we afford to ever sell our public lands?