I'll be honest, I've been trying to put this story together for a while now. But due to the firehose of news revolving around public lands and public land access, it's been tough.
Whether it's the laying off of thousands of Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service, or other federal workers, or the constant drumbeat of "Drill, baby, drill!," in addition to attempted land grabs and sell-offs; all of this has made it difficult to put this story together.
Things have been changing within hours of White House-sent Executive Orders, and keeping up with all that's happening feels like a Sisyphean task. And that's coming from someone who spends a good deal of his time reporting on public land access. But since the powersports community as a whole relies so heavily on it, preservation of that access is paramount. I'd also hate for the many off-roaders, hikers, campers, climbers, hunters, fishermen, and also my own children to not have the same public spaces that I truly love.
I'm sure that Kaden McArthur, Backcountry Hunters & Angler's Director of Policy & Government Relations—with whom I spoke what feels like three years ago, but was actually two weeks prior to publication—is exhausted. The group has spent decades fighting for public land access for all, and it doesn't plan on throwing in the towel any time soon.
"So much of this is not new," says McArthur, adding, "We've seen these attacks, these same attackers for decades at this point. Going back a number of years with folks, mostly out west, but across the country who just have a deep philosophical opposition to the idea of federal public lands, yet these are the landscapes that provide so many opportunities for folks that hunt and fish and recreate in a number of different ways."
That philosophical opposition has largely come from folks within the extractive community. In other words, the oil and gas producers, the housing developers, and the politicians who enable them and who are patrons of these executives. For just a few examples, see Utah's failed Supreme Court Hail Mary to seize control of federal land, Wyoming's recent attempt at state-level seizure, or really all of Project 2025.
"The intensity of that anti-public land sentiment ebbs and flows [from these actors], it was really boiling up between the years of 2012 to 2017. And then kind of died down for a while but it's pretty clear that in the last year or so that those efforts have been reinvigorated," furthers McArthur.
Speaking about Utah's frivolous lawsuit, engaged by Attorney General Sean Reyes and Governor Spencer Cox, McArthur said, "A lot of them run off the same old playbook, and some of them are new. But you know, this lawsuit from the state of Utah is a little bit different than what we've seen before. In many ways, it looks similar to past iterations, going straight to the Supreme Court, as this is something that's under the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court given that it's a state-to-federal government issue."
He then added, "But then you have kind of this idea that there's some ambiguity and some distance between what the state of Utah is saying and what their lawsuit actually portrays. When folks actually take a look at it on the surface, they're arguing to have 18.5 million acres transferred to the state of these so-called unappropriated BLM lands. But when you get under the hood, to be clear, this lawsuit is asking the question of whether or not the federal government has the constitutional authority to own public lands, period, and that's a very different question."
It's a question that obviously haunts Backcountry Hunters & Anglers, as well as myself and countless others within the public lands space. It should haunt your dreams, too.
Right this very second, over 5,000 federal employees within the public lands space have been laid off by President Trump and his best buddy, Elon Musk. More are likely coming. And all of these firings are under the lie that is 'trimming the fat' and 'finding corruption within the federal government.' What's also frustrating, however, is that there is likely fat to be trimmed; just not like this.
I don't necessarily agree with how the federal government manages public lands or makes decisions. But in going about it in the way they have this time around, they've taken sledgehammers to much of the infrastructure that allows the federal government to manage public lands.
They've fired backcountry forest firemen. They've sent away those who manage avalanche controls and monitor avalanche-prone areas. They've gutted the services that manage national parks and monuments, as well as the services that help maintain public land access and trails. And they've cut funding to countless departments and services that help maintain our public lands' biodiversity and ecosystems, which, for you hunters and fishermen, means you may not fill your tags in the coming years.
More than that, these cuts are intended to disguise their true objective: The disposal of public lands. Project 2025 makes it pretty clear that that's their end goal.
"I think there's a philosophical disagreement that a lot of Westerners have. But that said, when you look at the polling from how folks out West feel about public lands, it's the general public feels very differently than decision-makers," says McArthur. Public land approval ratings are seemingly fixed, and have been fixed for years, above 70% for years now. McArthur added, "There's a lot of history here. In the past, the Republican Party has had a national platform that called for the disposal of federal public lands. So I think you have some degree [to which] industry interests that are working in tandem with elected officials, and then I think that provides space where elected officials might not understand what their constituents are asking for."
That ask being: Keeping federally-owned public lands in the hands of the feds instead of the hands of the state, who've proven time and time again that all they want to do is sell it off.
See the current House of Representatives rules for the 119th Congress that make it easier for the federal government to sell off public lands. They're further enabling this by making these lands unmanageable. By cutting staff, services, and more, they're making it easier to make the case that the federal government shouldn't be in the business of managing land. They want to make everything terrible so people get more upset with the federal government's management so they could argue that the states could do it better. See also: The current state of the US Postal Service, and attempts to make it fail so it, too, can be privatized.
After my speaking with McArthur, and after the layoffs, Backcountry Hunters & Anglers put out a press statement. It reads in part, "You’ll soon see the results of these tragic cuts – trails and roads in disrepair, trash-strewn campgrounds, reduced wildfire resiliency, and a staggering blow to the stewardship of our fish and wildlife resources. We also can’t speak of these cuts without mentioning the terrible impacts of these firings on the public servants at these agencies – and their families – who have dedicated their lives to safeguarding our shared public resources. This announcement follows news from last year that the USFS will be unable to hire non-fire seasonal employees due to a budget shortfall. Lawmakers have sought to underfund and short-staff these agencies in an attempt to promote the transfer or privatization of our public lands."
There are bright spots through the fire and the flames, however. Recently, Congressman Ryan Zinke introduced the Public Lands in Public Hands Act.
For those who don't know Zinke, he represents Montana in the House of Representatives, and was also the Secretary of the Interior under Trump during his first term. He's a staunch conservative, too.
But he's also been steadfast in his belief that public lands should remain a public resource throughout his career. "We have a number of champions in the Republican party who do care a lot about public lands. And we're certainly trying to use that as a gateway to allow more folks to feel emboldened as they can also exhibit the same sentiments," said McArthur. Zinke is "a good example" of that and "has been a champion of keeping public lands in place."
Partnering with Democratic Congressman Gabe Vasquez from New Mexico, The Public Lands in Public Hands Act is designed to maintain "public access to public land by banning the sale or transfer of most public lands managed by the Department of the Interior and U.S. Forest Service except under specific conditions and where required under previous laws. The bill also requires Congressional approval for disposals of publicly accessible federal land tracts over 300 acres and for public land tracts over 5 acres if accessible via a public waterway." Whether this bill goes anywhere is anyone's guess, but it's been referred to the Subcommittee on Forestry.
Congress, though, hasn't wanted to do its job of governance for decades. So there's that.
McArthur also told me that Zinke has spoken with House Speaker Mike Johnson about public lands, adding, "In addition to that bill, Congressman Zinke has also made pretty publicly clear that he has asked Speaker Johnson to not move forward legislation that would dispose or sell or privatize public lands." But then he expanded by saying, "But that's something that we're nervous about right now."
Why? "I mentioned all of this firestorm going on at once," says McArthur, "This lawsuit by the state of Utah sort of emboldening others right now. Congress is in a somewhat unique situation where both chambers are controlled by the same party, the Republican Party, and the White House as well. And that allows for a kind of a unique legislative process known as budget reconciliation. Without getting deep into the weeds, budget reconciliation allows for a bill to be passed that cannot be filibustered in the Senate. Meaning it can be passed with 51 votes in the Senate, which typically is not the case, and making it possible for legislation to pass on purely partisan lines."
To be fair, both parties have used this power in the past for various reasons. But with the push toward the disposal of public lands, any vote on it could come down to a few people breaking with party lines in order to save them. "As I mentioned earlier, Congressman Zinke has gone out and publicly told the press as well as Speaker Johnson that, 'I don't support doing that.'
And where we agree with folks like Zinke is, 'Hey, let's make sure we keep like the most basic American ideals off the chopping block here.' With a bill like [the upcoming budget reconciliation bill] and narrow majorities in Congress, they can really only afford to lose a very select few number of votes," says McArthur.
How then, when the deck feels so stacked against the public, do we fight back and preserve the public lands and spaces we all love?
"I think a big part of it is finding grassroots organizations that you agree with as an individual. Whether they speak to a specific recreation activity you enjoy, like hunting and fishing, or biking, hiking, whitewater [rafting], or other enthusiasts who can help translate that message as it comes from Washington D.C. or as it comes from your state capital and provide the context and help alert you to opportunities to weigh," states McArthur, "Of course, anybody could do this on their own as an individual. But it really helps to find folks who are willing to sort of provide the necessary information to make informed decisions and weighing in on these things, and to amplify that voice. That's what organizations like Backcountry Hunters & Anglers have. To amplify their voices."
He added, "Especially with how fast things happen and how complicated so many of these things are. Right, we're talking about Congress using obscure budget procedures that could have enormous impacts on public lands. It's very difficult to know without having trusted sources who you can rely on to engage with these things."
As to whether there's hope for these fights, McArthur said there's always hope.
"I think it's going to be a continual struggle," says McArthur. "I know I do have hope for the future of public lands in part because it's so very evident that most Americans love this idea, they cherish this idea. They're heavily used and more people are doing outdoor recreation than ever before. These are all really good indicators that there's a public, an electorate, a citizenry that really values these places. But there's always going to be interests in privatization, folks that have, you know, philosophical opposition to the concept of public lands."
What struck me as more hopeful than anything, however, is what McArthur said next. "You know, there's a lot of turnover in the halls of Congress and the state legislatures. And certainly a lot of folks who overstay their welcome as well. But there's a lot of turnover and so there are constantly folks that need to be educated on these issues and need to be educated by their voters and need to be educated by the public. The folks that were championing attacks on public lands 5, 10, 15 years ago, a lot of them are gone and there are new folks that we're trying to educate and hopefully turn into champions for public lands. But it's a process. Over and over and over again."
While these truly disdainful Executive Orders fly furiously from the President's desk, Congressional elections are just around the corner. State elections happen more infrequently, and less on a timetable, but recalls can also occur.
And the American electorate, by and large, wants to keep public lands in public hands. They don't want these lands to disappear. They want to use them to wonder at their beauty. To ride off into the sunset on an ATV or UTV or dirt bike. They want to fish and hunt and hike and camp. They want these lands to remain public goods. And that's something that'll be tough to tamp down.
So please, go out and call your federal representatives, go out and call your state representatives, and go out and support groups like Backcountry Hunters & Anglers and others who are doing the on-the-ground work to ensure that your public lands aren't sold to the highest bidder.
Because if you don't, everyone loses.
