Arizona opinion: New BLM director wants to sell our public land. That's wrong

Public lands are not an abstract idea for people living in Arizona. The most recent data from the Outdoor Industry Association shows that outdoor recreation continues to be a major and growing part of the economy. In Arizona alone, it contributes over $14 billion annually and supports more than 110,000 jobs, accounting for about 2.7% of the state’s GDP. A poll found that nearly 80% of voters say outdoor activities such as hiking, fishing and hunting are an important part of their lives. As someone who spends more than 100 days a year outdoors, nearly all of it on public lands, I can attest to this as well.

In Arizona, public lands are where people hunt, fish, hike, ranch, camp and spend time with friends and family. They are places where wildlife has room to thrive, livestock grazing is permitted, and natural resources can be developed. These lands serve many purposes, as they were intended to.

Who manages public land?

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is responsible for managing these lands under a multiple-use mandate established by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA). Under this mandate, decisions are not made for a single outcome or purpose. Wildlife habitat, recreation, grazing, energy development and resource extraction must all be considered together to achieve balanced, durable management. For this reason, leadership and the decisions made within the Bureau of Land Management matter.

In May, it was announced that the BLM’s 2024 Conservation and Landscape Health Rule, commonly referred to as the “Public Lands Rule,” was rescinded. This rule required the BLM’s land-use decisions and other actions to be guided by conservation and development having equal importance. This rule sought to clarify that conservation should be considered alongside other uses under the BLM’s existing multiple-use mandate established by FLPMA. Thus, the rescission of the Public Lands Rule reflects the current administration’s view of the role conservation should play in federal land management.

Those placed at the helm of the BLM should be able to evaluate competing uses objectively. When reviewing a nominee for BLM leadership, we should expect to see a commitment to balanced, multiple-use management — one that includes wildlife conservation, recreation and responsible development, rather than prioritizing a single use. Their record on public land sales, stakeholder engagement, and their ability to manage 245 million acres for diverse interests should be carefully considered.

New BLM director said he wants to sell off public lands

Steve Pearce, who was confirmed May 18 as the 20th director of the Bureau of Land Management, has a well-documented background demonstrating his opinion of public lands. In his words during his congressional career, “The federal government owns roughly 650 million acres of land… Over 90% of this land is located in the Western states and most of it we do not even need.”

In the past, he co-sponsored the Hunting, Education, and Recreational Development (HEARD) Act in 2016, which proposed selling select federal public lands to support education and recreation funding. In some cases, transferring or selling parcels of federal public land may make sense when done with public input and through established processes. In this case, however, his interest in the HEARD Act is better understood through this context: in 2012, Pearce described federal public lands as “starving” state education revenues and that “if we want to reverse the trend, we’ll reverse this trend of public ownership of lands,” arguing that western lands should have been “returned to the states.” Most federal public lands in the West were retained by the federal government at statehood, not transferred to states.

He also supported efforts to limit executive authority under the Antiquities Act of 1906 to designate national monuments. Additionally, he has longstanding ties to the oil and gas industry, including his oilfield services company, Trinity Industries. And, in his confirmation hearing for the director position back in February, when Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) asked Pearce about his history of advocating for public land sell-offs, Pearce said, “I’m not so sure that I’ve changed.”

Pearce won’t protect our public lands

This all reflects his perspective on how public lands should be used. He appears to view their greatest value as stemming from their sale, not in their boon to the outdoor recreation economy or benefit to the millions of Americans who recreate on them with their families every day.

In Arizona, an imbalance in land management can have real-world consequences. Development in inappropriate areas can significantly impact native wildlife, including elk, pronghorn and bighorns in northern Arizona and jaguars, black bears and mountain lions along the southern border. Recreational access can also be affected, as seen in ongoing challenges near the southern terminus of the Arizona Trail.

At the same time, energy and mineral development are part of the BLM’s mandate. The role of leadership is not to favor one use over another, but to ensure all are considered in a way that is sustainable for future generations. I hope that Steve Pearce’s decisions as director of the BLM reflect the full multiple-use mandate, rather than emphasizing a narrower set of priorities — especially as it relates to the very real possibility of mandated large-scale land selloffs. Effective land management is not about short-term solutions, but about long-term sustainability.