Why we shouldn’t sell our national public lands

Are there really proposals to sell our national public lands? 

Yes, there are proposals coming from both state and national decision-makers.

• On May 6, the House Natural Resources Committee in the U.S. House of Representatives approved a late-breaking amendment to sell public lands in Utah and Nevada. The budget bill containing that amendment will now advance to the full House of Representatives as part of a larger budget bill.
• Nevada Governor Joe Lombardo and the Bureau of Land Management signed an agreement to share data with each other about national public land that is “available for disposal in Nevada” which may be a first step toward land moving from BLM management to the state of Nevada.
• The State of Utah sued the federal government, arguing that that 18.5 millions acres of land managed by the Bureau of Land Management in Utah should be turned over to the state of Utah.
• The Attorney General of Idaho “submitted a ‘friend of the court’ brief” in support of Utah’s attempt to take over their national public lands.
• A bill was introduced in the Montana state house to support Utah’s lawsuit. That bill was defeated in a vote on the Montana House floor.
• Another bill introduced in Montana would have allowed the state to sell large amounts of land to private landowners.
• Members of Congress are reportedly considering public lands sales as a way to balance the budget or to use the land to build affordable housing.
• In March 2025, an amendment to prevent selling public lands to balance the budget was defeated in the U.S. Senate.
• The Department of the Interior and the Department of Housing and Urban Development have set up a joint taskforce to explore using public land for housing.

Why is selling public lands a bad idea?

• It seems likely that the first lands to be sold would be Bureau of Land Management or National Forest lands, rather than well known parks or wildlife refuges. Presumably the agencies would sell areas with a low likelihood of commercial value from oil leases, mining claims or timber sales. But just because it’s not Rocky Mountain National Park doesn’t mean these places aren’t special to the people who use them. They might sell the places where Americans hunt, fish, hike or drive their snowmobiles. 
• If land was transferred from the national government to the state government, you might think that wouldn’t make a difference. It would still be public, right? But, states don’t have the financial capacity to manage a lot more land than they have now. They also may not have the “multiple use” mandate that our national government does which requires them to balance recreation with other uses. Lack of resources could lead to closing the land to visitors or selling it to private interests. In both cases, people would no longer be able to bike, hike, hunt, fish, climb or escape into nature.
• Selling land to private landowners could be devastating for wildlife. Our national agencies have to manage the land to protect wildlife habitat. Private landowners are much less restricted. 
• Finally, selling off even a little bit of public land to balance the 2026 budget sets a bad precedent. If we sell off a little public land to pay for tax cuts in 2026, will we do it again in 2028? In 2030? It could be a slippery slope.

Who opposes selling off public lands?

• According to a recent poll, 71 percent of the American public opposes selling public lands.
• Groups that represent hunters and anglers, like the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership and Backcountry Hunters & Anglers.
• The Outdoor Alliance, a group that represents outdoor recreationists.
• The Conservation Alliance, a coalition of businesses.
• A bi-partisan group of Members of Congress including Reps. Zinke (R-Montana), Simpson (R-Idaho), Vasquez (D-New Mexico) and Dingell (D-Michigan)
• Environment America and many other environmental organizations across the country