Prior to the second Trump administration, I'd tell you that there were a lot of problems with how our public lands were managed by the federal government. And I'd tell you, they did a lot right. What I wouldn't tell you is that because of those issues I saw, we should just do away with them. That the bad outweighs the good. That we should give them to the states or sell them off to extractive industries or oligarchs.
But that's how folks like Utah Senator Mike Lee, Utah State Representative Celeste Maloy, Department of the Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, and next likely head of the Bureau of Land Management, Steve Pearce, see our public lands. They despise that we have free access to them, and desperately want to see them all sold off.
It's been a near-constant fight since the Trump administration took office in terms of keeping our public lands in the public's hands. We saw the proposed massive sell-off in the One Big Beautiful Bill, the opening of the Ambler Road after years of litigation, the near seizure of the Johnson Valley, the fight to close Bears Ear and Grand-Staircase Escalante (which I just visited over my children's spring break), state AGs arguing that they have the right to seize federal land, and oh so much more, I honestly can't keep up with all the threats.
The latest threat, however, is a big one, though it's cloaked in the sort of wool-over-your-eyes rhetoric that might sound reasonable at first, but as soon as you scratch the surface, you see it for what it really is: a knife to the throat of our public lands. I'm talking about how the Trump administration wants to move the Forest Service HQ from Washington, D.C., an agency the administration has already gutted, to just over my mountains in Salt Lake City, Utah, along with a host of other changes.
Folks, this is a terrible idea. And here's why.
"Today, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Forest Service announced it will move its headquarters to Salt Lake City, Utah, and begin a sweeping restructuring of the agency to move leadership closer to the forests and communities it serves," states the US Department of Agriculture's press release, adding, "For an agency whose lands, partners, and operational challenges are overwhelmingly concentrated in the West, the shift represents a structural reset and a common-sense approach to improve mission delivery."
Now, first, that sounds not too terrible, right? D.C. is far and away from the West, and the priorities in D.C. don't always represent the priorities of Western states. Special interest groups inside D.C., politicians, lobbyists, big-money pockets, they can all get in the way of doing right by how our public lands are managed as multiple use, and can often lead to conflict with state priorities and agencies. Those are all real problems we face with how we manage public lands, full stop.
But the goal of this move, along with the shakeup in how these lands are managed, isn't one to better serve the public, it's to more easily circumvent the public's ability to access, manage, and keep our public lands public.
First, let's talk about the move. Utah is ground zero for the public lands sell-off campaign. Headed by public lands enemy number one, Mike Lee, and supported by a cadre of characters throughout the state, Utah politicians have become central in divining (I use that word specifically) the game plan of public land sell-offs. These are true believers in the idea that the federal government should not hold land, and that it should be given to the states to do with as they wish, which is to sell our lands off to the highest bidder or to their buddies for pennies on the dollar.
Even as the public has pushed back with all their might on public land sales, something that doesn't have an ounce of support for, Utah's politicians have continued their attacks. So, placing the new HQ in Salt Lake City is basically taking lambs to the slaughter, as the folks who'll likely be employed by the agency here already despise that the agency even exists. And the political whims of Utah's delegation will absolutely be felt within those halls. It won't, in fact, be an agency that's designed to help bridge the gap between what's needed in Western states and what the federal government wants. It'll just be a free-for-all.
Then there's the directive of "streamlining" the service itself.
"Establishing a western headquarters in Salt Lake City and streamlining how the Forest Service is organized will position the Chief and operation leaders closer to the landscapes we manage and the people who depend on them, "said Secretary Brooke L. Rollins, "This includes supporting our timber growers across the country, including those in the Southeast by prioritizing a regional office and promoting policies that boost timber production, lowering costs for consumers. In the past year we have returned the Forest Service to the leading forestry and fire management organization in the world. Proper forest management means a healthy and productive forest system that provides affordable, quality lumber to build homes right here in America and it means preserving and protecting the beautiful landscapes we are blessed with across this great country."
Did you catch the real priorities of Rollins' statements? Not multi-use. Not off-roading. Not hunting or angling. Not backpacking, camping, climbing, rafting, or any other form of recreation. Not the things that put actual money into the government's pockets. But timber production. Strip mining. And laying barren to pristine ecosystems all under the guise of lowering costs to consumers, which none of this will do.
But the real catch is that the Forest Service will move from regional zones to a "state-based organizational model" which is "designed to shift authority closer to the field by organizing leadership around state-level accountability, supported by shared operational service centers and a unified national research enterprise." As such, there will now be state directors who oversee Forest Service operations, along with a host of underlings, which is aimed at simplifying "the chain of command, strengthen local partnerships, and give field leaders greater ability to respond to conditions on the ground." That's a load of bullshit, though.
Western states have long wanted total control over federally managed land. Not because they do it better, but because they'd be able to sell it off to whoever they want, as they're required by law to do so. What this move to State Directors does is do this by de facto, as it puts states ahead of federal interests, and the larger public land users as a whole. All while gutting the agency from the inside, so when none of this fully works, they can point to it not working, our lands being mismanaged, and say "We should actually just sell them off!"
A reminder, though, public land usage accounts for $1.6 trillion in annual revenue by the American people, as well as tourists. These are by no means unproductive parcels. In fact, they support whole-ass industries worth billions and billions of dollars. What this is is just another attack on our public lands.
So here's what I need you all to do. If you love off-roading, if you love fishing or hunting. If you love camping and hiking and climbing and rafting and everything in between, call your congressional representatives. Call your senators. Call your governor. Tell them you don't support this, and that you support public lands in public hands, not the grifters and sell-offs that currently reside in these roles. Because if we don't, we're going to have nothing left to ride, fish, hunt, climb, or camp on.
