|
If you missed this, you may have been living under a rock. In late June, Utah Senator Mike Lee inserted a provision into the Senate’s “big beautiful bill” that would have mandated the sale of 2–3 million acres of public lands—primarily Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service land—to help finance tax cuts. Climbing areas like The Buttermilks, Ten Sleep and Shelf Road were all potentially at risk.
When I heard this news, I thought my own backyard trails and the ski area I visit with my kids might also be sold. It was hard for me to comprehend what it truly meant. The uproar from the public in response was incredible, and thankfully, Mike Lee removed the provision. The bill ultimately passed with the provision removed, which felt both like a victory and a loss.
What I didn’t fully understand was whether the talk around the bill was hyperbole. How close are we to losing these places? Did the efforts of the outdoor communities actually influence the rollback proposal? And what’s next? Can we learn from this moment to better prepare for future threats?
I called Erik Murdock, executive director at the Access Fund, who has decades of experience in public lands policy, to get some answers.
TC: What actually went down in Congress when the sale of public lands was removed from the H.R.1 budget bill this July?
EM: Four Republicans from Montana and Idaho formed a coalition that stated they would not allow for the sale of public lands. In some ways, this is how democracy is supposed to work. Individual people can actually make change, and every vote counts; the margins are so thin right now in Congress.
It was apparent that hunting and fishing were the real thing that saved public lands in this bill. These activities really resonate more with Republican voters. When the hunting and fishing community came out and said no way, it was hard to imagine this provision going through.
How did the climbing community play in?
The climbing community was critical, but really, it was hunting and fishing. That said, the Outdoor Alliance raised almost a million letters (something like 800,000). And the Access Fund reports that this was the most successful action alert ever. Additionally, hundreds of small organizations issued calls to action, and people listened.
Editor’s note: The Patagonia Action Works community mobilized over 41,000 calls to Congress. Thank you!
Are the threats over?
Yes and no. Every few years, we see a big threat. When current Congress members see what happened to Mike Lee (he got massively shut down!), they’re not going to want to mess with that. The public has spoken, and it’s clear that they want public lands to stay protected.
What do you have your sights on now?
Right now, I’m working on an analysis of the Roadless Rule. There are tons of places all across the country that are designated roadless areas, in places like West Virginia, Tennessee, Alaska, Idaho. This rule protects those places. They can be any type of land, whether its managed by Forest Service or BLM.
It’s not the same as a wilderness designation, but many valuable lands are still protected from extraction under this rule (you can’t have mining and logging without roads). If you get rid of the Roadless Rule, you get rid of these protected areas. The thing is, it’s a rule, which means you can make a new rule. This isn’t done by Congress, which is why the Secretary of Agriculture has announced her intention to eliminate this rule. It’s vulnerable because it’s not a law.
|
|
|
Extractive industries need roads to operate. In this case, a thin strip of trees was left along the main road to hide a clear-cut outside of Yakutat, Alaska. Photo: Sashwa Burrous
|
In the eyes of the administration, one of the most efficient ways to support logging and mining would be to eliminate the Roadless Rule. Now that the provision didn’t get passed, people like Mike Lee are looking for other ways to reduce the number of protected areas. Whereas public lands sell-offs are in your face, these actions are more subtle and dangerous because they happen without the public noticing.
Thanks, Erik! Any parting words of wisdom?
Stay vigilant. This worked when we all raised our voices and spoke out against the provision. Now, it’s simply a matter of staying informed in a constantly evolving and volatile political situation.
Editor’s note: Sure enough, the USDA recently announced their intention to rescind the Roadless Rule, and that means it’s time to raise our voices again.
Submit a public comment via Patagonia Action Works by September 19. The Outdoor Alliance has a great
explanation of the Roadless Rule and an
interactive map that illustrates the scope of the protections that would be lost.
|
|
|
