Save Our Public Lands
America’s public lands deserve protection — not destruction. Yet destruction is their likely fate under the radical policies of the Trump administration.
For over a century, these lands — our national parks, wilderness areas, wildlife refuges, monuments, and the last undeveloped lands in the National Forests and Bureau of Land Management — have been national treasures to people of all descriptions. As such, they’ve been protected as a great gift to future generations.
Until now.
For starters, this administration and Republicans in Congress have moved recently to sell off vast chunks to private interests. On April 4, Republican Senators voted down an amendment to the budget reconciliation bill that would have prohibited selling off public lands. Then, on May 7, Republicans on the House Natural Resources Committee passed an amendment to the budget bill approving the sale of over 600,000 acres in Utah and Nevada — a huge and unprecedented giveaway to extractive industries, who will mine or drill that acreage, and to the ultra-wealthy, who will buy it for vacation homes. And on June 11, the Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee budget reconciliation bill included extraordinary give-aways aimed at privatizing up to 3 million acres of public lands.
At the same time, Trump’s Interior Department is aggressively pursuing ways to industrialize, privatize, and monetize the public lands. But these places, rich with ecological values, are held in trust for us to conserve and deliver intact to future generations. If our public lands are now mined for coal or drilled for oil and gas, forms of energy production whose environmental harm is well understood, their natural values will be permanently degraded or destroyed. This policy amounts to theft from coming generations.
Despite the administration’s rhetoric about wanting to reduce the deficit, their actual goal is to dispose of these lands — to remove them permanently from the public domain. This serves an ideology that reflexively favors private ownership over public. Whether by diminishing long term protections on the public lands, promoting their immediate development, or selling them outright, that goal is achieved.
What’s wrong with this policy?
First — once it’s gone, it’s gone forever. Any land pulled out of the public domain for development will never be returned. As a result, whatever natural gifts that place provided — open space for people to roam, wildlife to thrive, birds to sing, trees to grow, waterways to flow, and much more — will be lost, stolen from the future.
Second — it’s a slippery slope. We lose environmental protections not by a single onslaught, by a one-time tsunami of destruction, but by small, continuous nibbles. If we lose a piece of land today for an appealing idea (for example, deficit reduction), then tomorrow we will hear an equally appealing idea to develop the neighboring piece. Then the next day, even more land will be needed for another reason. And so on. The process of destruction by nibbling will never end — until there is nothing left to devour.
Third — this crisis is an excellent opportunity for conservationists to expand support for nature. Let’s use the current threats to build new alliances with the many hunters and fishers, farmers and ranchers, campers and birders who cherish open lands. As well as people who want healthy lives for themselves and their children — folks who will join the fight for clean air, good water, and places for all people to enjoy the wonders of nature.
Fourth — if wise and caring people don’t stand strong now to protect nature, who will? We need to defend the water, the trees, and the wildlife of the public lands. To protect all those forests, rivers, canyons, meadows, oceans, and wetlands for the future.
Fifth — nature has no voice in this debate. This is, alas, the tragedy of how most people think about nature. The whole framing of the debate is human-centric — the very same approach that has caused so much environmental destruction on this planet. Questions like “Shall we sell off public lands? What current purposes do they serve? What resources can they provide?” are driven entirely by human desires of the moment. Lost in that conversation are the needs of other creatures, the enduring values of places, and the essential and inspiring songs of nature.
Moreover, when we discuss these issues narrowly, we are missing an enormous opportunity in our evolution as a species — a species that calls itself sapiens, the Latin word for “wise”. Let’s view this challenging time as an invitation to raise our awareness to include our fellow creatures and the whole world we share. To become our highest and best selves. To live on Earth more sustainably, more ethically, and more graciously.
