WE ARE NOT ALONE - OPPOSITION TO BLM CONSERVATION RULE GROWS

OUR ACCESS TO PUBLIC LANDS IS WORTH FIGHTING FOR

OPPOSITION TO BLM CONSERVATION RULE GROWS 

 

 I first want to thank all the growing number of OHV and other outdoor recreation enthusiasts, organizations, clubs, and businesses who have answered the call to send comment letters and alert their rider networks to the BLM regarding their Proposed Conservation and Landscape Health Rule (PR).

 

I also want you to know that OHV recreation and other multiple-use interests are not fighting this battle alone.  Besides a number of OHV recreation and powersports associations submitting substantive comments urging the BLM to withdraw this ill-advised, counter-productive, most likely illegal, and highly divisive PR, we have support from the U.S. Small Business Administration and Governors from six western states that are challenging the plan.

 

SBA COMMENT LETTER

https://advocacy.sba.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/BLM-Conservation-Letter-FINAL.pdf

 

The Deputy Chief Counsel, Office of Advocacy, U.S. Small Business Administration states, that BLM’s proposed rule may be contrary to the statutory land management principles laid out in the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA). Furthermore, BLM’s proposed rule does not adequately consider the impacts to small businesses as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA).

 GOVERNORS JOINT LETTER

https://governor.mt.gov/Governors-Letter-to-Sec-Haaland-on-BLM-conservation-rule-June-14-2023.pdf

 

The Governors’ letter states, This Proposed Rule, if adopted, could fundamentally alter the future management of BLM lands to the detriment of recreation, livestock grazing, mineral extraction, renewable energy production, and other common uses on BLM lands.

 

The letter goes on to state, In 1976, Congress declared in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (“FLPMA”) that the BLM must manage its lands “on the basis of multiple use and sustained yield.

 

Yet this Proposed Rule seeks to define “conservation” as a “use” within FLPMA’s multiple use framework. This reframing of the term “multiple use” would contravene FLPMA and violate Federal case law in Public Land Council v. Babbitt, where the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals found that the BLM lacks the statutory authority to prioritize conservation use to the exclusion of otheruses.

 

The Proposed Rule could push BLM lands into a protection-oriented management regime more akin to the National Park Service than an agency statutorily obligated to promote multiple use and sustained yield.

 

The letter closes by urging the BLM to set aside the Proposed Rule in favor of a new, collaborative process with states, local governments, and stakeholders coming to the table.

 

In closing, I urge each rider, family, club, or business to send in a comment letter – by the July 5 deadline - on how this PR will affect you including any economic impacts such as loss of employment if your shop closes or if you are a restaurant that is supported by recreation tourism that might be forced to close if outdoor recreation use is prohibited.