Recent efforts from states to transfer federal lands mean risks for hunter and angler access & wildlife habitat management
This past August, leading Utah officials petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to hear Utah’s case that argues for the transfer of Bureau of Land Management acres to state ownership. The action was recently backed by amicus briefs filed by Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Iowa, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming.
While the Utah filing is limited to “unappropriated lands” managed by the Bureau of Land Management, their brief clearly justifies and rationalizes the transfer or sale of all federal public lands. If the U.S. Supreme Court decides to take up this case, it is very possible that their decision would set a precedent that makes all 640 million acres of federal public lands, including National Parks, vulnerable to transfer to state ownership.
“This is a lose-lose situation for states and all Americans for which these lands are held in the public trust,” said Joel Webster, chief conservation officer for the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership. “There have been several efforts over the past four decades to sell or transfer federal lands. None have been successful, and all have been unpopular. States simply do not have the resources to manage the vast acres that make up federal lands.”
Currently, lands managed in trust by states in the West, including Utah, are legislatively mandated to generate revenue to support trust land beneficiaries, such as public schools. This means that most state lands are managed for maximum profit, often benefiting private interests. Public access is also not guaranteed on state trust lands. Hunters and anglers in Montana successfully opened their state trust lands after decades of restricted access, whereas state trust lands in Colorado are open to the public only if the acres are actively enrolled in an access lease. Long-term conservation of these lands to benefit public access and enjoyment, as well as managing fish and wildlife populations, is not secure.
Utah’s latest proposal is not new and evokes memories of similar proposals from the early 2010s. These proposals received massive pushback from hunters and anglers, outdoor recreationalists, outdoor businesses, and conservationists. In response to long-term opposition, bipartisan lawmakers recently introduced proactive legislation that would require congressional approval for the sale or transfer of most federal lands. The main arguments against land transfer proposals remain unchanged.
If granted ownership of federal lands within their borders, states would be wildly underfunded and understaffed to manage them. They would also lack any clear mandate for what that management should look like as the lands would no longer be governed by federal multiple-use laws. Without the resources or mandate to manage world-class hunting and fishing destinations for wildlife or recreational access, these important areas could be sold to the highest bidder.
Local and state economies could also take a serious hit if federal lands were transferred to the states. Counties across the West receive millions of dollars in federal revenue based on the amount of federal public land within their borders through programs such as Payments in Lieu of Taxes and laws like the Mineral Leasing Act and the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act. Thousands of BLM, National Forest, and National Park Service jobs would be eliminated in rural communities, and public land-driven outdoor recreation tourism would cease.
New financial burdens would extend into fighting fire and post-fire mitigation, a battle that seemingly intensifies every year in the West. The 2024 wildfire season in Wyoming alone has burned well over half a million acres, draining the state’s $39 million wildfire suppression account. That figure is on top of tens of millions of dollars spent by federal firefighting efforts. These burn areas are now prone to the spread of invasive weeds, requiring millions of dollars in mitigation efforts. Transferring federal lands to states would put the cost of wildland fire fighting and post-fire mitigation on the backs of limited state budgets.
There are many complex challenges to managing millions of acres of federal public lands for multiple uses. However, the blunt instrument of sale or transfer will not solve the problems states have with federal agencies. This brash action will in fact only exasperate states’ present management and budgetary issues. Collaboration, as it has been for decades, is the way toward successful and lasting resource development, wildlife habitat management, and public access.
“TRCP recognizes that there is tension over how some federal public lands are managed, but the sale or transfer of public lands is not the answer,” concluded Webster. “We believe that the best way for people to address these challenges is by rolling up their sleeves and finding common ground. TRCP is committed to being a part of that dialogue, and we encourage others to take a similar approach.”
Learn more about this issue HERE.
The TRCP is your resource for all things conservation. In our weekly Roosevelt Report, you’ll receive the latest news on emerging habitat threats, legislation and proposals on the move, public land access solutions we’re spearheading, and opportunities for hunters and anglers to take action. Sign up now.