DENVER — The administration’s rescission of the Public Lands Rule threatens the health of public lands at a time when they face numerous challenges, such as drought, wildfire, and invasive species. The Public Lands Rule restored balance to the stewardship of public lands by putting conservation on par with other uses, including grazing, recreation, and energy development. 

“The Public Lands Rule gave the Bureau of Land Management the tools to restore and conserve degraded lands while supporting the wildlife, ranchers, hunters, and communities that depend on these lands. The rule encouraged enhanced wildlife habitat, reduced fire risk, and improved watershed health — all critical for rural communities,” said David Willms, associate vice president for public lands at the National Wildlife Federation. “At a time when our lands and waters are facing immense and interconnected challenges, such as drought, invasive species, and unprecedented use, undercutting conservation goes against public opinion and common sense.”

“The Public Lands Rule secures the important role of conservation in preserving our nation’s natural resources while empowering Indigenous-led practices and co-stewardship that’s rooted in ancestral knowledge,” said Daisy Purdy, vice president at the National Wildlife Federation. “This rule was developed over years of consultation and input from Tribes, who are the first stewards of America’s public lands. Rescinding this rule has broad ramifications for America’s water, wildlife, and the Indigenous communities that have been in relationship with these lands since time immemorial.”

“A strong energy policy can go hand-in-hand with smart conservation. Our public lands are managed for multiple uses—they support not only energy development, but also rural communities, local economies, outdoor recreation, and water sustainability in the West,” said Camilla Simon, executive director of Hispanics Enjoying Camping, Hunting, and the Outdoors (HECHO). “The Great American Outdoors Act, signed into law during the administration’s first term with broad bipartisan support, was a meaningful example of how energy revenues can be reinvested in conservation. That’s why we’re disappointed to see the Public Lands Rule being discarded entirely, rather than improved through engagement with local communities. We encourage the administration to ensure that public land management continues to reflect the full range of values these lands provide.”

“The Public Lands Rule was the product of a lengthy, robust and inclusive public process. During that process the American people made it clear that conservation is a top priority in the management of our collectively owned land. To deprioritize it now represents a short-sighted and ill-informed decision that flies in the face of what public landowners all across the country asked of our leaders,” said Jesse Deubel, executive director of the New Mexico Wildlife Federation. “The revocation of the Public Lands Rule is a direct attack on our public lands, the wildlife habitat they provide and the hunters and anglers across the country who depend on them for the things we love.” 

“The Public Lands Rule gives ranchers, landowners, and conservationists more tools for balanced use of our public lands.  This administration’s decision should dismay all Montanans who value our iconic landscapes, waters and wildlife,” said Frank Szollosi, executive director of the Montana Wildlife Federation. “We call on Congress and the Trump Administration to prioritize conservation and public input that will ensure that our lands are managed sustainably for recreational, cultural and economic benefits – not least our $3.4 billion outdoor recreation economy and $2.2 billion agricultural economy - both heavily reliant on our public lands.”

"The public lands rule allows land managers like the BLM to balance the activities on the land that belongs to all Americans", said Scott Garlid, executive director of the Arizona Wildlife Federation. "Arizonans are pragmatic. We know that prioritizing mining and energy development in some places makes sense, while prioritizing outdoor recreation and wildlife in other places also makes sense. We want both. Rescinding the public lands rule means that development on every acre is the only priority and there is no balance. That's not what Arizonans want and it's not good for America.

“Nevada is an outdoor recreation, mining, and energy development state. The Public Lands Rule was created to ensure all those activities had a seat at the federally-managed public lands use table,” said Russell Kuhlman, executive director of the Nevada Wildlife Federation. “Rescinding this rule is not only a step towards removing local stakeholder input on how Nevadans want 86% of our land managed, it will likely lead to the continued decline of our state’s wildlife habitat and clean water and air.”