Public Land Policy Should Serve All Users Not Just One Vision

By Rachel Gabel | Commentary, The Denver Gazette

The Bureau of Land Management is proposing to rescind the Conservation and Landscape Health Rule, which was issued as a final rule last May. The rule, which puts conservation at the same level as other multiple uses like recreation, mineral extraction, grazing, and energy development, came out of the Joe Biden administration and earned fierce opposition.

It would have allowed the well-funded who are opposed to, for example, grazing, to gather BLM leases and “conserve” the land by rejecting all other multiple uses. This flies in the face of the statute set forth by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, FLPMA, that charges the BLM with regulating the “use, occupancy, and development” of public lands in accordance with the principles of “multiple use” and “sustained yield.” Allowing conservation as a use is inappropriate because it precludes other uses and users.

According to FLPMA, multiple use should include management that uses a “combination of balanced and diverse resource uses that takes into account the long-term needs of future generations for renewable and nonrenewable resources, including, but not limited to, recreation, range, timber, minerals, watershed, wildlife and fish, and natural scenic, scientific and historical values; and harmonious and coordinated management of the various resources without permanent impairment of the productivity of the land and the quality of the environment with consideration being given to the relative values of the resources and not necessarily to the combination of uses that will give the greatest economic return or the greatest unit output.” Public lands are to be managed for the benefit of all users, not locked away from all other beneficial uses by the highest bidder.

Just as many things do, public land policy suffers from the pendulum of changing administrations and the uncertainty that is forced on multiple users, most notably public lands ranchers. A slew of Western Colorado public lands are carefully stewarded by ranchers and have been for generations and their steady, careful care of the public land they graze shouldn’t be left to the whims of egregious policy decisions from administrations like the Biden administration. Land cannot be managed for the greatest benefit in chunks of four or eight years and offer any consistency or allow for best practices for the land or its stewards.

The Public Lands Council works hand in hand with the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association to advocate in D.C. for public lands ranchers and all users who believe in the Congressional Act that is meant to guide land management by the BLM. The director, a good Wyoming-raised ranch woman named Kaitlynn Glover, was at the group’s annual meeting last week in Arizona. Last year the meeting was hosted here in Colorado and the weight of the 2024 election and the egregious decisions tossed around like confetti by the previous administration left a black cloud over the gathering. This year was different, with the hope of reason at the forefront.

READ THE FULL ARTICLE AT THE DENVER GAZETTE

Editor’s note: Opinions expressed in commentary pieces are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the management of the Rocky Mountain Voice, but even so we support the constitutional right of the author to express those opinions.