“Too Much Land”? The Real Cost of Senator Mike Lee’s Public Lands Position

When Utah Senator Mike Lee recently removed controversial language from the federal budget that would have enabled the sale of vast public lands, some might have called it a win. But his justification for the removal reveals a deeper, more troubling outlook on the role and value of public lands in the American West:

“I continue to believe that the federal government owns too much land, land it is mismanaging and, in many cases, ruining for the next generation.”

This statement isn’t just a policy position; it’s a worldview. And it’s one that fundamentally misunderstands the purpose, promise, and potential of public lands.

The Myth of “Too Much Land”

Let’s unpack the first part of Senator Lee’s statement:

“The federal government owns too much land.”

This idea may sound appealing to those who believe in smaller government or local control, but it’s based on a misunderstanding of both history and current land policy.

First, the term “owns” is a misnomer. Public lands are not federal assets to be traded, liquidated, or privatized like surplus inventory. These are public trust resources, managed on behalf of the American people by agencies like the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the U.S. Forest Service, the National Park Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. These agencies are stewards, not owners, guided by laws like the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and others.

Public lands are not federal property. They are America’s commons, held in trust for all citizens across generations.

Second, this land isn’t just a blank space on a map. These are real places with real meaning, where families graze livestock, where sportsmen hunt and fish, where hikers find solitude, and where Indigenous peoples carry on cultural traditions thousands of years old.

When politicians say there’s “too much” public land, what they’re often saying is that there’s too much land not being developed or controlled by private interests.

This argument has deep roots. Political movements, from the Sagebrush Rebellion to recent legislative efforts, have long sought to transfer or privatize public lands.

But this vision is out of step with the values of most Americans, especially in the West.

Polls consistently show that people, across political lines, support keeping public lands public. They want clean water, healthy wildlife, and landscapes their kids can explore without a price tag.

So when Senator Lee says there’s “too much” public land, the real question is: Too much for whom?

• Too much for families that need affordable places to camp and fish?

• Too much for ranchers who rely on grazing allotments?

• Too much for shrinking wildlife habitat?

• Too much for small-town economies that depend on tourism and restoration jobs?

• Or too much for private interests who want to close the gate behind them?

Public land isn’t the problem. It’s the promise. It’s a vision of a country where the most beautiful, wild, and storied places remain open to all.

And that’s not “too much”, that’s exactly enough.

Mismanagement or Manufactured Crisis?

Senator Lee’s next claim is that these lands are being “mismanaged” and “ruined.”

That’s a serious accusation, and one that demands more than just rhetoric.

When you look at the facts on the ground, especially in rural areas, the biggest threat to public lands isn’t mismanagement, it’s underfunding, neglect, and disinvestment.

Public land offices manage vast landscapes with small teams, aging equipment, and limited budgets. They’re expected to handle everything from wildfires and recreation to grazing and cultural protection, without enough resources.

Field staff often can’t stay overnight due to liability rules, must drive long distances, and face tight overtime limits. This isn’t failure by staff, it’s a failure of leadership and funding.

And while agencies are doing their best with what little they have, Congress continues to shrink budgets while demanding more work.

Instead of investing in solutions, more staff, better equipment, and community partnerships, Lee’s approach is to blame the system and propose selling it off.

That’s not reform. That’s abandonment.

If you underfund a school, cut its staff, and then blame it for poor performance, that’s sabotage. That same logic is now being applied to public lands.

What’s being ruined isn’t the land, it’s our capacity to care for it. And that’s a crisis being created, not by land managers, but by lawmakers who see public land as expendable.

What Selling Land Really Means Let’s be clear: selling public land is not a solution. It’s an irreversible act with enormous consequences.

When land is sold off, it is lost to the public forever. That means:

• Hunters lose access to places they’ve used for generations.

• Ranchers may lose grazing allotments tied to those landscapes.

• Tribal nations may lose access to sacred sites and cultural resources.

• Outdoor guides, outfitters, and local economies lose business, especially in places that rely on tourism and recreation.

• Fire managers lose critical access for wildfire response and fuel management.

• Small Western communities die when public lands are stripped away. This is a sure-fire way to kill the small Western towns that rely on public lands for recreation visitors, and the ranchers who use those towns for fuel and supplies.

And perhaps most importantly, future generations lose the right to connect with the land. They inherit a smaller, more privatized country.

This isn’t hypothetical. History is filled with examples where “disposal” of public land for short-term financial gain has led to long-term environmental degradation, community disenfranchisement, and costly cleanups, often at taxpayer expense. Opening the door to wholesale land sales, as proposed by Senator Lee, is a dangerous escalation.

Public Lands: America’s Greatest Land Co-op

Federal land management is one of the most democratic systems of land stewardship on Earth. Public lands are managed by agencies funded through our taxes, agencies that exist solely to serve the public interest. Every American pays into this system, and every American is entitled to enjoy the land and have a voice in how it’s managed.

Think of it like a massive cooperative: we all chip in, and we all share the benefits. The rangeland rancher, the weekend hiker, the tribal elder, the scientist, the dirt biker, the birder, and the 4th grade classroom doing a Junior Ranger program, they all have a stake in these lands.

And crucially, we all have a say. Resource Management Plans, environmental assessments, and major project proposals all go through public comment periods. The system is built on transparency, science, and civic input. If you want a seat at the table, it’s there. But you have to show up.

Public land managers serve as mediators. They balance the needs of diverse, and sometimes competing, user groups: ranchers, tribal governments, OHV riders, conservationists, outfitters, local businesses, and recreation visitors. When agencies are staffed and supported, they become a vital thread holding rural communities, public values, and the land itself together.

Because land managers must balance multiple uses and perspectives, the direction of a management plan often reflects who shows up. That’s why it’s so important for all voices to engage. If you care about how the land is used, protected, or accessed, whether for grazing, cultural heritage, solitude, or sport, you need to be in the room, on the record, and part of the conversation.

“Locked Away”? A Fear Tactic, Not a Fact

Senator Lee claims:

“Under Democratic presidents, massive swaths of the West are being locked away from the people who live there, with no meaningful recourse.”

This is more than misleading. It’s fearmongering, and it’s simply not true.

Modern land protections do not mean locking the public out. In most cases, access remains open, grazing continues, and recreation is often enhanced with better signage, trailheads, and visitor services.

Designations like National Monuments, Wild and Scenic Rivers, or Wilderness mean land receives more careful management, not less access. These designations exist to ensure natural, cultural, and recreational values aren’t lost to unchecked development or industrial extraction.

Protections often bring more resources to the ground. Federal designation can unlock funding for infrastructure, habitat restoration, staffing, and interpretive programs, things local offices can’t always provide on their own.

Designating land for protection is not locking it away; it’s choosing to care for it. It’s about keeping these places intact so future generations can experience them as we have, unfragmented, untamed, and full of possibility.

Land protections don’t shut down family ranching. In many cases, they safeguard agricultural operations by limiting industrial threats and creating long-term stability.

So no, land protections don’t lock the West away. They keep it open for hunters and hikers, for livestock and wildlife, for rural families and urban visitors, for tribal nations and scientists, and for the next generation waiting to discover it all.

Public Lands Fuel Local Economies, When We Fund Them

If Senator Lee and others are serious about “putting public lands to work for American families,” the solution isn’t to sell them, it’s to support them.

We already have the blueprint. It starts with properly funding the agencies that manage our lands: BLM, Forest Service, Park Service, and Fish and Wildlife Service.

These agencies don’t just maintain trails and issue permits; they are economic engines that support livelihoods, build infrastructure, and create jobs that cannot be outsourced.

Agency jobs are local jobs. These offices hire wildlife technicians, rangeland specialists, fire crews, planners, maintenance workers, and cultural resource experts, many of whom raise families in the communities they serve.

These workers don’t just manage land, they weave themselves into the fabric of rural life. They coach sports, attend town halls, and support search and rescue. They are trusted neighbors.

Public land visitation brings dollars. Families camping for the weekend, hunters, birders, paddlers, they all spend money in rural economies. Fuel, food, lodging, gear, guides, that revenue stays local.

According to the U.S. Department of Commerce, outdoor recreation generates over $1 trillion in economic output, and growing.

Private sector growth follows. Public land management supports contractors, small businesses, youth corps, and nonprofits. When agencies are funded and active, that work flows directly into the community.

Relationships matter. When agency staff are present and supported, collaboration thrives. When they’re understaffed or absent, trust erodes, and opportunity with it.

The bottom line: Public lands already work for American families. But to keep delivering that value, we must invest in the people and programs that manage them.

Let’s not sell the solution. Let’s fund it.

A Legacy Worth Keeping, for People and Wildlife

In his press release, Senator Lee said:

“I look forward to helping [President Trump] achieve [his promise] in a way that respects the legacy of our public lands and reflects the values of the people that use them most.”

But just a few lines earlier, he called public lands broken and excessive. That’s not legacy, it’s contradiction.

You can’t respect the legacy of public lands by dismantling them. You don’t protect what you propose to sell off. You don’t reflect people’s values by denying the reasons they care about these places.

To truly honor the legacy of public lands, we must recognize their value, not in theory, but in practice.

These lands already work:

• They support rural families.

• They create opportunity.

• They protect watersheds and wildlife.

• They offer a connection to place, culture, and history.

• They anchor economies rooted in tradition and potential.

They are not underutilized. They are underfunded. They are not a burden. They are a national inheritance. They are not a problem. They are a promise.

And yes, they reflect the values of those who use them. Ranchers, conservationists, tribal members, educators, hunters, anglers, hikers, and scientists all depend on these lands in valid and diverse ways. Our system is built to hold these tensions; that’s its strength.

The legacy of public lands isn’t perfect management, it’s enduring purpose: to preserve access, promote stewardship, and serve all Americans, for generations to come.

Let’s stop treating public lands like a liability and start honoring them as the living gift they are.

A gift for people. A gift for creatures. A gift for the future.