BLM attempting to Rescind Public Lands Rule

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) announced on Sept 10 its intent to eliminate the Public Lands Rule, opening a 60-day public comment period that could roll back protections and restoration efforts on millions of acres of public lands, including landscapes that border more than 80 national parks.

The Public Lands Rule, adopted after overwhelming public support, brought long-overdue balance between conservation and extractive use in public lands management. The rule was created to address a historic imbalance that leaves 80% of BLM land open to oil and gas development and vast areas open to mining, often at the expense of public access and conservation uses.

It is a terrible idea to rescind the Public Lands Rule.  Eliminating the rule would put the health of parks, wildlife and watersheds and the integrity of cultural resources on a path dominated by industrial development.  These lands provide world-class recreation, from climbing  hiking,  fishing, camping, and exploring.  They serve as critical wildlife corridors.  

Without the Public Lands Rule, these lands would prioritize even more extraction and development, putting our clean air, water, and open spaces at risk.

Conservation is a valid, essential use of public lands under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA).

The BLM is accepting public comments until November 10, 2025. Your voice is needed now more than ever.
Comment methods:

https://www.regulations.gov/commenton/BLM-2025-0001-0001

or
https://actnowforpubliclands.org/

Bump.  This one needs to stay on top.  

Oh great so much winning under Trump.

Comment submitted. Thank you for posting this.

Thank you for the link!

Here we go again. These attempted actions will not cease with the current administration. 

Public lands are for we the people, not the greedy oligarchs! Stop this mad tyranny! Do not let them rob our public access and rape the lands in order to pass on profits to the rich and to woo clients into the new $250 Billion ballroom paid for by our tax dollars.

the shittiest administration since the Biden administration

bernard wolfewrote:

the shittiest administration since the Biden administration

Much worse in terms of raping and pillaging our public lands.

bernard wolfewrote:

the shittiest administration since the Biden administration

Yea having a somewhat compassionate person in the White House who invested in American infrastructure and green energy, what a shitty occurrence. 

In case you are wondering what the justification is for repealing this rule, here it is spelled out in their own words:

The BLM is charged by statute to regulate the “use, occupancy, and development” of public lands in accordance with the principles of “multiple use” and “sustained yield.” 43 U.S.C. 1732. (1) But the Conservation and Landscape Health Rule identifies conservation—a non-use—as a productive use for leases and permits. This is contrary to the BLM's mandate and statutory authority. Conservation is not a “use” under the statute.

The Rule ultimately vests too much discretion in individual authorizing officers to preclude other, productive uses, such as grazing, mining, and energy development, as incompatible with the goals of the restoration or mitigation under the lease, potentially over large tracts of public land.

Thanks for posting this Tom.

For everyone who cares about this issue, understand as soon as politics becomes part of this discussion our supreme overlords will banish the thread to the politics forum and hardly anyone will ever see it again.  Free speech, who am I to determine the conversation, blah, blah, I'm just the messenger.

It's super frustrating and counterintuitive, but if we care about getting comments submitted that demand protections for public lands, we'll keep our thoughts on POTUS' past and present in the politics forum and just keep boosting this thread to the top of the "Latest Posts" page.

Bumping for visibility on a critical issue. It's exhausting to have to hear about yet another attack on public lands motivated by short term profit but that's the point - to succeed through attrition and apathy. 

The hard truth is that you need to......  comment

Here's what I wrote in case it's helpful:

"Conservation, including preservation, restoration, and ecosystem maintenance, is a "use", just like grazing, mining, timber extraction or recreation, and must be considered to be of potentially equal value when managing public lands. The CLHR codifies this fact and is critical, particularly because it allows for public participation in making management decisions. Rescinding the CLHR would be a regression in the management of our public resources, restoring unequal access to and consideration of the wishes of minority, for-profit interests, whose goals may often be counter to the best interests of the public. The BLM's statutory mission includes “multiple use and sustained yield"; the CLHR is consistent with that mission, as well as with the interests of the United States as a whole. Two other points: the CLHR clarifies designation and management of ACECs, including lands that are particularly threatened by climate change, and it allows for “restoration leases” to further ecosystem health goals. These latter objectives are critical to meeting BLM’s mission of multiple-use and sustained yield."

CLHR is the “Conservation and Landscape Health Rule”; ACEC is “Area of Critical Environmental Concern.”

bumping for support and to follow

I'm working on a piece for a local radio show about this rule and proposed rescission.  This involves carefully reviewing the original 1983 BLM regulations, the minor revisions made over the last 40 years and the major changes adopted in 2024. I'm only about 5 hrs into this analysis but here's what I have so far.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/13UIKj8DnCOGlXqvCb8m4WK9IhuE7SytmKkP8SK3rZGw/edit?tab=t.0

The TLDR: the Public Lands Rule is the first step in shifting the BLM away from "extraction-first" focused management in response to the overwhelming body of evidence that our nation's ecosystems are in decline.  It's flawed- sometimes lacking in hard requirements, leaving open problematic loop holes- but it's adoption changed the framework BLM operates under. 

BLM is still in the business of extracting resources from our public lands, but finally they are required to make sure we extract at a rate and in a way that isn't destroying the land. No more stealing from the future to pay timber and mineral CEOs today. 

In an ideal world BLM would be dissolved and all federal public lands would be managed by one coherent department instead of the current patchwork- or perhaps a USFS and a US Grassland and Desert Service.  There would be enforceable conservation requirements that ensure degradation of public lands stops and is reversed in an efficient manner. But until that greater change is made, this rule simply acknowledges the common sense approach of not destroying the things that provide us value.

Pete Nelsonwrote:

Here's what I wrote in case it's helpful:

"Conservation, including preservation, restoration, and ecosystem maintenance, is a "use", just like grazing, mining, timber extraction or recreation, and must be considered to be of potentially equal value when managing public lands. The CLHR codifies this fact and is critical, particularly because it allows for public participation in making management decisions. Rescinding the CLHR would be a regression in the management of our public resources, restoring unequal access to and consideration of the wishes of minority, for-profit interests, whose goals may often be counter to the best interests of the public. The BLM's statutory mission includes “multiple use and sustained yield"; the CLHR is consistent with that mission, as well as with the interests of the United States as a whole. Two other points: the CLHR clarifies designation and management of ACECs, including lands that are particularly threatened by climate change, and it allows for “restoration leases” to further ecosystem health goals. These latter objectives are critical to meeting BLM’s mission of multiple-use and sustained yield."

CLHR is the “Conservation and Landscape Health Rule”; ACEC is “Area of Critical Environmental Concern.”

Can I copy paste this as my response? 

Andy Shoemakerwrote:

Thanks for posting this Tom.

For everyone who cares about this issue, understand as soon as politics becomes part of this discussion our supreme overlords will banish the thread to the politics forum and hardly anyone will ever see it again.  Free speech, who am I to determine the conversation, blah, blah, I'm just the messenger.

It's super frustrating and counterintuitive, but if we care about getting comments submitted that demand protections for public lands, we'll keep our thoughts on POTUS' past and present in the politics forum and just keep boosting this thread to the top of the "Latest Posts" page.

Well our overlords also delete posts in the politics forum

Emil Briggswrote:

Well our overlords also delete posts in the politics forum

And discussions about MP and the “overlords” have their own secret place to die quietly. Let’s keep the this thread focused on BLM policy and at the top.

Looks like it's time for another generation to read Monkey Wrench Gang. Only this go around, try to learn why Abbey promoted anarchy. 

For years I have suggested that state and local ownership of these lands is much better off at the state level than with the centralized power of DC. You have a much better chance at affecting policy with local people and not rely on the parade of narcissistic sociopaths who take turns making our lives worse out of DC.

Decentralization is always preferable to Centralized Power. 

State control means paying 35/day or buying a 500/year state parks pass to do anything anywhere. While I know the yuppie Sprinter fake dirtbag losers won't care because they'll just pay 5000/ year and have their unlimited access to the Western public lands, regular poor working class me finds the idea repulsive