Protect Our Public Lands: Why You Should Comment by November 10
If you recreate, explore, or ride on America’s public lands, the Bureau of Land Management’s Public Lands Rule permanently changes what “multiple use” means — and not for the better. This rule undermines the foundation of balanced management that has guided the BLM for nearly fifty years. That’s why it’s critical to submit comments by November 10 urging the Department of Interior to withdraw the rule.
What the Rule Actually Does
The BLM claimed the Public Lands Rule simply “elevated conservation” alongside recreation, grazing, mining, and energy development. But in practice, the rule redefines “conservation” as a stand-alone multiple-use mandate — something Congress never authorized under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA).
Under FLPMA, multiple use means managing lands for the balanced combination of various uses — recreation, grazing, timber, minerals, and wildlife habitat — without prioritizing one use over another. Conservation has always been a management goal, not a use category with legal standing equal to all others. By rewriting that definition through regulation, the BLM effectively tipped the scale toward preservation at the expense of access and productivity.
The new rules defining the evaluation and implementation of Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) is another way to eliminate motorized access on the BLM lands. The establishment and reinforcement of Research Natural Areas as type of ACECs is another red flag to closing public lands for public use.
Even worse, the rule introduces a new mechanism — the “conservation lease.” These 10-year leases could be granted to private groups, corporations, or even foreign-funded entities, giving them effective control over large areas of BLM land. Lessees could dictate which activities occur — potentially excluding off-highway vehicle (OHV) use, overlanding, hunting, or grazing. There is no clear statutory authority for these leases, meaning the agency has invented a new land-management tool outside of congressional oversight.
Why It Threatens Access for Off-Roaders and Other Recreation Users
If you enjoy motorized or trail-based recreation, the danger is immediate:
– The rule repeatedly references “casual use recreation,” a term historically interpreted to mean non-motorized activity. Under conservation leases, that language could justify excluding OHV travel from huge areas of public land.
– By giving “conservation” equal status under multiple-use law, BLM can now justify closing routes or restricting vehicle access — not as temporary mitigation, but as a legally co-equal use priority.
– Conservation leases could overlap existing recreation areas, grazing allotments, or permitted events, effectively privatizing management decisions that have always been made through public planning.
– Because this new priority isn’t tied to Congress, it sets a precedent for future administrations to reshape land use without a single vote from elected officials.
Why Your Comment Matters
Public comments are the most direct way to tell the BLM that this rule violates both the spirit and the letter of FLPMA. Every individual comment builds the administrative record that courts, Congress, and policymakers will later review. If we fail to speak up, the record will suggest the public supports this dramatic reinterpretation of multiple use.
You can strengthen your comment by including these points:
- Congress never defined “conservation” as a use under FLPMA; this rule unlawfully expands agency authority.
2. Conservation leases privatize management of public lands and could exclude legitimate recreation activities.
3. Motorized recreation is not “casual use,” and the rule’s terminology risks permanent closure of access routes.
4. True multiple use means balance, not prioritization of one interest over others.
5. The current rule has so many flaws and red flags that revising it should not be an option. Withdrawing or rescinding the rule completely is the only path to lawful, congressionally authorized management under FLPMA.
The Bottom Line
Our public lands belong to all of us — not to corporations, outside groups, or bureaucratic constructs that distort the meaning of multiple use. Defining “conservation” as a mandated use tilted public-lands policy toward exclusion and away from shared access. Combined with untested conservation leases, this rule could lock away millions of acres from the very citizens who fund, maintain, and steward them.
The current administration and the BLM have now recognized that the Public Lands Rule was a gross overstep in public lands management, and has proposed withdrawing the Rule established under the prior administration, but we need your comments supporting the withdrawal.
The deadline to make your voice heard is November 10. Submit your comment today and stand up for balanced management, open access, and the principle that public lands should remain public — for all responsible users.
2 Ways to Submit your Comments
- Click on this link to submit your comments directly into Regulations.gov. You can also upload word or pdf documents directly on this page.
2. Go to BlueRibbon Coalition’s Comments page to learn more and submit comments there.
