If you've been paying attention to RideApart in recent months, you've undoubtedly seen my coverage of public land issues. It's a fight I'm determined to keep fighting, as public lands are what I've enjoyed, continue to enjoy, and hope to preserve for my children and their children to enjoy for years and years to come.
You've also likely learned that when it comes to public land issues, no side of the aisle is without issue, as both Democrats and Republicans just can't seem to get it right, i.e. leaving public land alone.
Most recently, I talked about how my current home state of Utah's legislature and attorney general were suing the Bureau of Land Management, hoping to get their day at the Supreme Court, for control of over 14 million acres of public lands. And how if they succeeded, that'd be one of the biggest public-to-private land grabs in centuries, as Utah's elected officials have shown nothing but disdain for the public's right to its lands.
Little did I know that it'd be handed further ammunition just a week or so later, and by the very department it's suing. For what it's worth, I don't think the BLM was planning on doing just that when it released its final draft management plan for Utah's Bears Ears National Monument, but in doing so, and not listening to the vast majority of public comment, it absolutely played right into the hands of the very politicians it's striving to keep those lands from.
Long sigh.
First reported by my friends at Outdoor Life, the management plan was finalized by the BLM earlier this week. It's yet to be ratified, and there's another public comment period where we can voice our opposition to said plan (a 30-day protest period, to be precise), but this is the plan they're going for as of the time of writing.
Now, most of it is pretty even-handed, as it leverages tribal and indigenous points of view and management expertise to help understand, preserve, and maintain the roughly 1.3 million acres that make up the national monument.
However, where it goes off the rails is in how it deals with closing off-road trails, something that you've likely seen on social media being fought tooth and nail over by a wide variety of groups.
According to the draft management plan, roughly the entirety of the 1.3 million acres would see either closures or reduced OHV use. Specifically, 591,185 acres would become closed altogether for OHV use, while another 483,917 acres would see its OHV use limited.
Within the Bears Ears National Monument, there's USDA Forest land, too. However, that would also be affected by this management plan, with a further 46,430 acres fully closed to OHV access, and another 242,677 acres only allowing limited access. There are exceptions, but they're few and far between.
Hunting on the Monument's land, however, stays intact even though recreational shooting does not, as outlined by Outdoor Life. But retrieving said game is going to be a problem, as it's unclear whether or not hunting is part of those exemptions.
A host of incredibly popular OHV routes lie within Bears Ears that UTV drivers, dirt bikers, ATVs, and off-road 4x4ers all use to recreate on. And, as mentioned above, hunting is still part of the area, which is accessed routinely by hunters through the use of those OHV vehicles.
I mean, not everyone has a horse.
These proposed closures (before this proposal was finalized this week) have become a focal point for a lot of folks who've understandably believed that the feds were aiming to drastically reduce the public's access to these public lands. And they were right.
But now, we're fighting a war on two fronts.
On the one hand, you have one side of the aisle that's aiming to increase public lands, reduce our impact on our environment, and work with indigenous tribes which, on the face of it, isn't bad.
However, by restricting the methods by which people travel, recreate, and enjoy these public lands, we reduce the public's access to said public lands. We all recreate how we'd like, but there are other considerations to understand, as not everyone can backpack, hike, or use a horse to utilize these public lands. Some folks are disabled.
However, on the other hand, this situation has been co-opted by a bunch of greedy, public-land-hating politicians who are going to use this fight, as well as this final draft, as a means of hoodwinking the public into their own scheme to gain control over federal land.
As mentioned at the top, Utah is currently suing the federal government, but doing so under the guise that the feds don't have the right to own land within state borders. It's a tactic that they're aiming to get in front of a very pro-States' Rights Supreme Court.
But the reasoning behind their lawsuit isn't so that the State could manage its own public lands. Utah, as well as nearly every other state with BLM land, doesn't have the resources to do that. Neither does the BLM, but that's a story for a different day. No, instead, Utah's legislative body has always maintained that it would rather sell off its public land to developers for a quick buck, and damn the consequences.
It's an ideology that's suspiciously similar to the one that Project 2025 puts forth...
And now, with this closure of OHV access to a lot of popular trails, those same politicians that are actively working to strip you of your public land rights have been given a golden gift, as their campaign is one that could very well attract those disillusioned recreaters.
I mean, who'd blame them for siding with the same state that is deceitfully promising to return their public land management to the state's voters? That's of course not what they're actually going to do, but that's the promise they're giving lip service to.
While I understand the BLM's goal in reducing human impact on both an environmental level, as well as on cultural areas that are precious to indigenous tribes within Bears Ears National Monument, I can't help but wonder why they didn't use any of the other alternative plans?
There were a handful of others that, while not the best for all OHV trail use, wouldn't have closed so many corridors. Compromises, as it were, between the parties involved. Instead, this seems to be the most restrictive option, and the plan that'd cause the most headaches in terms of public outcry.
Again, I'm sympathetic to the BLM and its tribal partners. The United States did them dirty for centuries and I'm glad they're finally getting to be part of managing public land. But in proverbially salting the Earth with this plan, they've made enemies of the public they serve. They've handed the other side, the folks who want no public lands to exist so they can strip mine, extract, and pollute on, a rallying cry to send their case all the way up to the Supreme Court.
I just don't get it.
Hopefully, the public will use the 30-day protest period to voice their displeasure. I'm not sure if that'll work or not, but it's part of the process of a democratic society. I urge everyone to voice their opinions there. Not to Utah's legislative branch, please, as those folks aren't friends of public land, as expertly outlined by Backcountry Hunters and Anglers. But to the BLM directly as, at least they believe you and I have a right to public land.
