BLM Gives Americans 15 More Days To Comment On New Land Grab Rule, But Won’t Show Up To Hear Their Concerns

Federalist, ^ | JUNE 19, 2023 | Tristan Justice

[george76]

While the bureau put more days on the public comment calendar, the administration still has announced no plans to hold additional meetings.

After outcry from Western constituencies and their representatives in Congress, the Bureau of Land Management has extended the public comment period on its proposed public lands rule that threatens to upend those Americans’ way of life.

The new rule proposed in March establishes a framework for “conservation leases” elevated over other uses such as mining, grazing, and gas development. The agency guidelines, which were created without a congressional vote, would implement a radical departure from the “multiple use mandate” outlined by Congress in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA).

The multiple use mandate requires the BLM, which presides over 245 million acres, primarily in the West, to make lands available for a wide variety of uses for maximum benefit. Conservation leases are poised to choke off millions of acres from those uses.

[READ: New BLM Rules On ‘Conservation Leases’ Will Fundamentally Transform Public Land Management]

In the agency’s tour promoting the proposed public lands rule, federal officials ignored red state constituents and planned meetings in urban city centers far away from the ranchers most likely to be impacted. Out of the five hearings scheduled on the new rule, just three were in person: in Denver, Albuquerque, and Reno.

Republicans on Capitol Hill demanded the agency not only extend the public comment period, but also hold meetings closer to those whom the new rules would directly hit — such as ranchers whose livestock graze on public land.

“The administration’s proposal will have considerable implications, fundamentally changing the way the BLM carries out its multiple use and sustained yield mandate under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLMPA),” wrote Republicans on the House Natural Resources Committee to the Interior Department last month. “Given the potentially significant impacts of the proposed rule, stakeholders and the public should be afforded additional time to consider and provide feedback on the proposed changes.”

On Thursday, the bureau announced federal officials will continue taking public comments for an additional 15 days until July 5. The 15-day extension falls 60 days short of the full 75 days called for by House Republicans.

Republicans Governors Kristi Noem of South Dakota and Mark Gordon of Wyoming railed against the BLM measure at a House hearing last week. Gordon, nearly half of whose state is owned by the federal government, called the framework on conservation leases “boneheaded.”

House lawmakers also heard from a panel of witnesses who raised concerns about the BLM guidelines jeopardizing opportunities for true conservation.

“Agriculture is conservation,” said Nevada Director of Agriculture J.J. Goicoechea. “If grazing is [removed] from these landscapes, ranches will go under, landscapes will be taken over by invasive species and will burn. Wildlife will suffer and multiple use will become impossible.”

In a statement to The Federalist, House Natural Resources Chairman Bruce Westerman of Arkansas called BLM’s 15-day extension “lip service” to constituents in Western states “who deserve far more from the BLM.”

“Given the level of resounding opposition we heard at our hearing last Thursday and for weeks prior, extending a comment period by only 15 days does not even begin to address our concerns,” Westerman said. “Our letter asking for a 75-day extension has gone unanswered and the BLM evaded our questions about holding any further listening sessions.”

While the bureau put more days on the public comment calendar, the administration still has published no plans to hold additional meetings with key stakeholders in red state areas.

The new rules appear to come straight from the college playbook of BLM Director Tracy Stone-Manning, whose 2021 confirmation was controversial thanks to her history as an ecoterrorist. Stone-Manning’s 1992 graduate thesis condemned grazing on public lands and promoted a Chinese-style child cap.

[MeneMeneTekelUpharsin]

The federal agencies are literally running the country.

[cuz1961]

Kings forest

I made that observation to my bosses at both the usfs and blm regarding charging campground fees,,,,

,,. They were not amused.

Probably why I was never able to progress beyond n.t.e.180’s .

../-/

[Justa]

PPL should call their Representatives and demand they cut their funding. They’ll listen to that.

[sauropod]

Ping to those that may still be interested in this sort of thing.

[sauropod]

Isn’t it though?

[AuntB]

The hits just keep coming!

Thanks for the ping, sauropod.

I’m too old to face down federal agents and violent envirofreaks. Can’t take a punch anymore!

[Organic Panic]

Let me guess. Government grants to “charities” to pay for “conservation leases”

[ridesthemiles]

I think they CONTROL IT-—THEY DON’T OWN IT & THEY DO NOT PAY ANY TAXES ON IT.

Nevada has over 80% of the land mass controlled by the Feds-—with NO taxes.

[CedarDave]

See also:

Contentious committee hearing on BLM proposed rule, support of HR 3397 and

New BLM Rules On ‘Conservation Leases’ Will Fundamentally Transform Public Land Management

NM list PING!

I may not PING for all New Mexico articles. To see New Mexico articles by topic click here: New Mexico Topics

To see NM articles by keyword, click here: New Mexico Keyword

To see the NM Message Page, click here: New Mexico Messages

(The NM list is available on my FR homepage for FR member use; its use in the News Forum should not be for trivial or inconsequential posts. Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from the list.)
(For ABQ Journal articles requiring a subscription, you are allowed a number of free article views.)

[Wuli]

Cut the national debt. Sell all federal lands not now in specific use for military lands, other federal structures, existing minerals, mining and lumber leases, or national parks. Give away only now existing “conservation” sites to the states, for them to keep as is under their authority and care, or otherwise do with as they wish.

[13foxtrot]

Progressives are doing everything they can to eliminate rural commercial viability.

They want to force everyone to move into high-density housing in the cities while turning the rural wild areas into playgrounds for the rich.

Also, eliminating grazing lands (e.g., open range leases) will remove natural beef from the diet of dirty commoners and make it luxury item for the elite. The poors can eat vat grown meat or plant based protein.

[george76]

Kill off family ranchers, then no affordable - free range - food.

[13foxtrot]

Kill off family ranchers, then no affordable - free range - food.

Yep. That is the point. The elite will have their Waygu beef. wild copper river salmon, live cooked lobster, and so on, because they will be able to afford it. The rest of us can eat bugs.

[oldbrowser]

The Federal Govt. does not own the land. They are just managing it on behalf of the American people.

Which they are entirely unqualified to do.

[Wallace T.]

There have been times, under the younger Bush and Trump, when the GOP controlled the House, the Senate, and the Presidency. Yet no serious move was made to return BLM and National Forest land back to the states. Perhaps both Presidents had more important things to attend to, but the Senate and House leadership did absolutely nothing.