Public lands should remain public; there’s no question about that. As someone who deeply values our public lands and the opportunities they provide for hiking, ranching and economic development, I am in full agreement with my colleagues who are frustrated by the federal government’s mismanagement of these lands.
For too long, bureaucratic red tape and outdated policies have limited access and left communities in the West at the mercy of agencies that don’t always understand our needs because they’re in Washington.
But I do not agree with the idea that the solution is to sell off wide swathes of public land.
Selling public lands en masse would cut off future generations from the beautiful lands we’ve grown up with. It would take critical economic drivers away from rural communities. And it would break the promise that these lands belong to the American people, not just anyone with the money or connections to buy them.
But it’s not completely black and white, thankfully. In some cases, strategic land transfers make sense, and I support them when they serve the public well. The difference is intent. Strategic actions solve specific problems. Selling off public lands as a catchall response to mismanagement abandons the very values we’re trying to protect.
A good example is last year’s transfer of 30 acres from the Bureau of Land Management to Mesa County to support economic development. That action, under legislation known as the CONVEY Act, was thoughtful and community driven. It’s the kind of limited, locally supported land exchange I would be proud to support – not a blanket policy to off-load millions of acres to anyone who can pay for it.
We also need to recognize the West is changing, and fast. Wildfires are more intense, droughts are longer and invasive species are harder to contain. Our land management practices need to evolve to meet the challenges that face our constituents. That includes empowering agencies to use modern tools, hiring more front line personnel and making smarter use of technology, all with accountability to the public.
This is not a binary choice between keeping everything exactly as it is or selling everything off. We can protect access, improve stewardship and respect local voices, simultaneously.
Instead of giving up on public lands, we should be focusing on how they’re being managed – or mismanaged. We need to modernize the outdated systems, improve transparency on actions being taken and bring decision-making closer to the communities most affected. We need stronger collaboration with counties, ranchers and conservationists, not one-size-fits-all mandates from Washington, D.C. Simply put, the decisions for the public lands out West should be made out West.
I’m committed to working with anyone, from either party, who is serious about getting this right. Westerners understand what it really means to care for the land they live on and around. We live it every day. That’s why the right path forward isn’t to give up on public lands – it’s to fight for smarter policies that keep them working for the people they serve.
Let’s protect what makes the West special, fix what’s not working and ensure our public lands stay in public hands. The American people share this land together, and it’s imperative that as a governing body we work to maintain it together.
Rep. Jeff Hurd represents the 3rd District of Colorado in the U.S. House of Representatives. Reach him or a staff member at hurd.house.gov/contact.
