Martin was the co-founder of The Smokey Wire’s predecessor A New Century of Forest Planning back in 2009. Note: it arrvied in my inbox nicely formatted, any formatting issues are my fault.
Martin Nie is Professor of Natural Resources Policy and Director of the Bolle Center for People and Forests at the W.A. Franke College of Forestry and Conservation at the University of
Montana. He writes here as a public citizen and is in no way representing the University of Montana or the Montana University System.
A post in response to the Smokey Wire’s coverage and criticism of the op-ed written by former Chiefs of the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), as published in the Denver Post on April 13, 2025. I
was heartened by this letter and the willingness of former Chiefs to speak out and defend our National Forests and public lands writ large. I was dismayed, however, in how the piece was
covered and the statement that widespread fears of divesting and privatizing public lands is standard “fear-mongering” that so exhausts some contributors to the blog.
“Oh for Gifford’s sake! Here we go again with the standard privatization fear-mongering…State’s don’t want them [i.e., public lands], and the private dog (except for local housing) won’t hunt,” states Sharon Friedman, making clever reference to the first Chief of the USFS Gifford Pinchot.
***
Cambridge on Fearmongering: “the action of intentionally trying to make people afraid of something when this is not necessary or reasonable.”
***
Current fears about the divestiture and privatization of federal public lands are anything but fearmongering. I hope to write more substantively about this when given a moment, but a few
scattered comments and observations.
First is to at least recognize the history of public lands and the centrality of this debate through the years. Public anxiety is deeply rooted in the past. We could go back to where most public
land histories begin—not with Indian Title—but with the story of federal acquisition, disposal, and retention of federal public lands. Or to the gilded age or progressive-era to see the tensions
between public goods and concentrated wealth and the implications for our shared lands (as told in meticulous detail by John Leshy in Our Common Ground: A History of America’s Public
Lands.).
“For Gifford’s sake”? No. Pinchot would be all over the Chief’s letter, just as he warned his peers about the dangers of privatization, corporate control, the “Economic Royalists,” State
ownership of National Forests, and “concentrated wealth’s…strangle hold over the general welfare” back in his day (Gifford Pinchot, Breaking New Ground, 1947, p. 508). My lord, his
third principle of conservation is “to see to it that the rights of the people to govern themselves shall not be controlled by great monopolies through their power over natural resources.” (Ibid;
see also the collective work of Char Miller, including Gifford Pinchot: Making of Modern Environmentalism).
Pinchot also saw the relationship between state ownership and control and the move towards privatization. He writes in 1920:
“It has been my experience that a Legislature can seldom be induced by considerations from outside to take action against the opposition of interests dominant in the State” [and] “[j]ust as the waterpower monopolists and grazing interests formerly clamored for State control, well-knowing they could themselves control the States, so now the lumbermen will be found almost without exception against Federal and for State control, and for the same reason.” Gifford Pinchot, “National or State Control of Forest Devastation,” Journal of Forestry (Feb. 1920).
The general period of disposal, goes the usual narrative, ends with passage of the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976, where Congress declares a national policy that:
The public lands be retained in federal ownership, unless as a result of the land use planning procedure provided for in this Act, it is determined that disposal of a particular parcel will serve the national interest.
Some limited options here for disposal, which are now being fully exploited. 1976 is still a good demarcation point for the Sagebrush Rebellion, where most histories and contemporary writing
about privatization begin.
But calls for land transfers to States and related privatization schemes start way earlier and these earlier battles are a more helpful guide for today’s variation. They were most famously tracked
and analyzed by the writer and historian Bernard DeVoto, whose writing for Harpers is just as relevant today than it was when he was targeted by the FBI and McCarthy for being a public
lands-loving Communist. He traced all the innovative land grab schemes of his day, many of which were framed as federal transfers to States: “The plan is to get rid of public lands altogether, turning them over to the states, which can be coerced as the federal government cannot be, and eventually to private ownership.” (“The West Against Itself,” Harpers, 1947).
My sense is that DeVoto was the first to expose the strategy of defunding, defaming and discrediting public land agencies as a pretense to sell the idea of why it is necessary to fix the
(manufactured) problem by transfer or divestment. It’s the story of the old Grazing Service, whose budget was slashed by 60 percent at the end of its days, what DeVoto called a “classic
demonstration on how to assassinate a federal agency.” He also detailed how the “skinning knife” would be used on the USFS: “The idea was to bring it into disrepute, undermine public
confidence in it by every imaginable kind of accusation and propaganda, cut down its authority, and get out of its hands the power to regulate…” (“Two-Gun Desmond is Back,” Harpers, 1951).
It’s also part of a larger story brilliantly told by Nate Schweber in This America of Ours: Bernard and Avis DeVoto and the Forgotten Fight to Save the World. My point here is that these are not new tactics or concerns. The case for and against the privatization of public lands and National Forests was also a major theme of scholarship and wonky policy analysis throughout the 1970s and 1980s. This had a particularly economic-oriented flair (see e.g., the collective work of Marion Clawson, including The Federal Lands Revisited (1983). Heated exchanges in the scholarly literature, conferences and symposia, and elsewhere were common and provided some of the ideas and reasoning now being used by those pushing transfer or privatization (see e.g., Adrien Gamache, Selling the Federal Forests (Symposia at College of Forest Resources, University of Washington, 1983). Here is where you find unsettling discussions of how best to convey our public lands to private interests, from highest-bidder to first-in-time, first-in-right.
But let me pick up the pace to get to present-day:
*Instead of an economic framing and arguments for efficiency, different legal strategies are used post-FLPMA to challenge the Constitutionality of public lands in the 1980s through 2000s, all to force their transfer or sale. From Equal Footing and Enclave Clause to Tenth Amendment and everything in between. They fail.
*Utah passes a resolution seeking the transfer of public lands to State ownership in 2012. The language comes from the American Lands Council, providing template cookie-cutter bills and
rhetoric that spread throughout the West and are introduced into every State legislature other than California. How would transferred lands be managed? As State trust lands (which are not public lands)? Will there be protections against disposal and conveyance to private interests? Most fail to say and those that do fail.
*Political protest and confrontation. The Bundy’s and Bunkerville. The occupation and seizure of Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. A district court in Nevada calls it “simply delusional to
maintain that all public land within the boundaries of Nevada belongs to the State of Nevada.” (Bundy v. Nevada, 2019).
*Okay, States can’t force the disposal of federal lands. So Utah’s Representative Jason Chaffetz introduces congressional legislation authorizing the disposal of 3.3 million acres of federal land.
*He loses big. #Keep It Public and related campaigns go bigger.
*The transfer and privatization movement learns a lesson and changes tactics. Instead of directly seeking land title and ownership, the movement produces bill after bill that would transfer
control over public lands to States and non-federal actors. Control instead of ownership. The power to make decisions without the costs of firefighting, roads, culverts, and so on.
*Along the way, Republican Party platforms, as a matter of course, contain planks calling for the sale and/or transfer of public lands. At the federal and state level. Do party platforms matter?
Not really but Project 2025 most certainly does. It says little about the National Forest System but its chapter on the Department of Interior was written by William Perry Pendley, the (sort-of)
Director of the BLM during the first Trump Administration and author of “The Federal Government Should Follow the Constitution and Sell Its Western Lands” (2016).
Fearmongering? States don’t want them?
*Let’s jump to present-tense and start with Utah’s Hail Mary throw to SCOTUS and now the lower court in State of Utah v. U.S (2025). Building on decades of futile legal arguments, the
State changes course and challenges federal ownership and management of ~18.5 million acres of “unappropriated land” in the State. “The time has come to bring an end to this patently
unconstitutional state of affairs” says the State. Utah is joined by several others, including Idaho, Alaska, Wyoming and the Arizona legislature….and other public land powerhouses like
Nebraska and Texas. The lawsuit now covers tens of millions of acres of public land. What lands are “unappropriated,” a term not used in the Constitution or found in the major public land statutes? Answer: Those lands managed as multiple use. My elk camp is on “unappropriated public lands.”
*The zone is flooded with Executive and Secretarial Orders that wreck purposeful havoc on our public lands. Engineered chaos. The civil servants hired to fulfill the tasks required by statute are
let go, rehired, lather, rinse and repeat. The agency is given new marching orders in Executive Order 14225 (Immediate Expansion of American Timber Production) and related step down
guidance, but not with the resources and personnel. The press releases and talking points of the future: the USFS can’t get the job done and that’s why it’s necessary to transfer or privatize these lands or their management.
*Who now has special access in the Department of Interior? The Political Economy Research Center (PERC), a think tank out of Montana that just can’t seem to escape the views of its prior
leadership and his calls for the privatization of federal public lands (Terry Anderson, “How and Why to Privatize Federal Lands,” Cato Institute, 1999).
*For Senator Mike Lee, Chair of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and long-time champion of land transfer to the States and privatization, public lands are better viewed as
“Underutilized Space.” His HOUSES Act (the Helping Open Underutilized Space to Ensure Shelter Act) aims to privatize federal lands to increase available housing in the West. (Not as
sweeping of plan as is Homesteading 2.0, a similar vision advanced by the American Enterprise Institute and one that would auction off 850 square miles of developable BLM land.)
*Republicans in the House of Representatives, led by House Natural Resources Chair Bruce Westerman (R-Ark) debate sales of public lands in the budget reconciliation, as a way to fund tax
cuts and build housing. It dies in the Senate. (E&E Daily, 4.2.2025).
***
I’ll stop here and will fill in the details and gaps later. Or Maybe we crowdsource this chronology?
But this isn’t fearmongering. The public has every right and reason to be twitchy as hell when it comes to the transfer and privatization of public lands. It’s like when I had to eat lunch with bullies at my cafeteria table in grade school, I always kept my elbows up and one fist free. At the very least, I was aware of my surroundings and the context in which I ate. And context matters here too because the privatization threat is like knapweed and cheatgrass and not limited to auction-like proposals or threats via arcane budget rules and processes. The corner-crossing case in Wyoming is illustrative and you couldn’t get a better cast of characters to illustrate the new gilded age and what it means for our public lands (see Iron Bar Holdings v. Cape et al., 10 th Cir. 2025).
Now some might say that I need to relax because these proposals are deeply unpopular and keep losing in venue after venue and that the past is not prologue. But this is only because of constant public pushback and organizing—what some call fearmongering. It isn’t. It’s the latest chapter, and the most serious chapter, of public lands in my lifetime.
Thank you Dr. Nie. You are right on!
Martin does an excellent round-up of the history. However, it seems to me that this historical argument could go either way. In the late 70’s, I worked in Sagebrush Rebellion country and have also been observing this history. Certainly if something has been discussed for 70 years or so and never happened, the case needs to be made that this situation is unique.
I can’t think of a bad idea that hasn’t been discussed by one side or another in the House, so I don’t find that the idea selling of off land “has been discussed in the House” particularly motivating me to become unusually concerned. In fact, if we look at our friends at CAP, it wasn’t too long ago that they were saying it’s Trump’s idea to sell them for the Sovereign Wealth Fund.
EOs.. I don’t think theses are precursors to selling off land and if every agency has a target of reduction – including the Farm Services Agency, it’s hard to say that the FS and BLM are uniquely targeted.
As to PERC.. they supported the Public Lands Rule! Which some of us were concerned about as giving industries outsized control over federal land. Here’s what Brian Yablonski said specifically about your assertion (and shouldn’t he know)?
I think the idea of state control is a bit of a slippery slope. All the Western Govs want is a government to government relationship according to WGA. I actually see the Utah and Alaska concerns about ignoring the wishes of the States by the Feds, and in the case of Utah, Wyoming and Idaho, actually going against the wishes of the elected officials. And if control instead of ownership is bad, it sounds like Tribes shouldn’t have “control” either. What should happen when States and Feds disagree, or when Tribes and Feds disagree? I would think the answer would be “they should work it out.” That’s what the WGA says. I think if all Administrations worked that way, many of the tensions would go away (think Monumentizing in Utah, Public Lands Rule, Rock Springs RMP, Lava Ridge Wind and so on.). It almost seems like (some) D Admins poke sharp sticks in the eye of R Governors, and then jump on them when they respond.
For me, I would say to both sides, work it out.. and that’s basically what the letter from the Western Govs says.
If Administrations did that, we could all move on to other (possibly more productive) things of mutual interest and agreement.
But my basic point is political, not historical. I would guess that most Trump voters (not to get into whether he is a real R or not) don’t want to sell off federal lands. I guess that by the presence of Trump signs and RVs and ATVs in my hood and the direction they go when they leave (toward the NF). If the Trump folks are politically astute, which can be argued, for sure, they are aware of that, and won’t go down that road.
I think it’s fair to say there are valid concerns of certain interests pushing to divest/transfer/privatize, just as there are valid concerns of certain interests pushing to lock public access and use out of public lands through unilateral monument declarations. One could even make the case at least some of the push for state/private control is a direct response to large monument declarations. Divestiture and privatization are threats. Lame duck Monument designations are reality.
Perhaps the solution is for Congress to restrict the Executive Branch’s ability to do either without the consent of the people through their elected representatives. A compromise might still allow Presidential declarations in the event we somehow missed identifying important antiquities over the past 115 years, but the next session of Congress must endorse the Monument or it expires and can only be re-designated through Congress.
Apples and bananas (sorry Raffi).
Monuments remain open to lots of the public; rarely the case for private lands.
Monuments could be undone; divestiture is forever.
Thank you for the comment Mr. Turnblom. We likely differ on this point but I can understand your criticism towards the Antiquities Act. Of course, right now, at this moment, I’m all about limiting Executive authority and reminding Congress of its Constitutional authority to “make all needful rules and regulations….”. I do think it’s important to note, however, that Congress could amend or repeal the Antiquities Act whenever it chooses to do so. (I suspect we’ll get the National Monuments EO today or tomorrow and the Antiquities Act litigation during Trump I will resume).
This might warrant a longer post and conversation, but for all of its history and problems and controversy, the Antiquities Act has provided to Tribal Nations important substantive and procedural protections that were missing under discretionary multiple use management. It’s recently been an important tool used by the President to protect tribal rights and interests on federal lands and waters. I’d hate to lose the ability to institute these types of governing arrangements, just like I’d hate to not have the Grand Canyon, just one of several National Parks that began as Monument designations.
One of my main policy concerns well beyond forest management is people who are “right now, at this moment” all about limiting Executive authority – but as soon as their chosen color is in control they want the Executive to act as broadly as possible.
The Grand Canyon (declared in 1908) is a convenient bullet point in favor of the Antiquities Act. People generally don’t like to talk about Grand Teton (declared in 1943), which was so controversial it led to Wyoming’s exemption from the Antiquities Act since 1950. Compare either of those to the recent patchwork expansion of Cascade-Siskiyou NM as an example, and it’s like apples and chia seeds. As I said above, let’s allow a President to declare a Monument if it’s TOO IMPORTANT TO WAIT. If it truly is, Congress will concur. If not, it can wait until Congress does.
Is it TOO IMPORTANT TO WAIT when there is a reasonable threat of developments with irreversible effects on resources that can be legitimately be protected by the Antiquities Act? Especially when Congress can reverse any decisions it doesn’t like.
Sharon, thank you for running my piece and for running the TWS after all these years. It’s a great service and valuable resource, now more than ever. There is a lot in your comment deserving greater attention than what I can offer now. But a few things.
First, I stand by my measured comment regarding PERC. Your quote only proves my point, the organization can’t seem to escape from its past proposals to privatize our public lands. Furthermore, some of its more recent contributions—such as comparing state trust and federal public land management and the relationship between private property and public wildlife—doesn’t help assuage public fears.
Second, and this is a more complicated one, is your comment about state control versus ownership and that it is reasonable to extend the type of Consultation done with Tribes to State governments, as per the testimony provided by Western Governors Association. Here, I don’t know where to even begin. For starters, I’m all about intergovernmental cooperation of transboundary resources. It defines much of my work, especially focused on tribal co-management. But let’s bear in mind that State governments already have dozens of statutory-based authorities and opportunities and revenue-sharing arrangements that are not at all applied to Tribal governments. This disparity in many ways is a defining feature of federal public lands and wildlife law. Consider the LWCF, Pittman-Robertson, Dingell-Johnson, PILT program, and so on. Consider all the cooperative federalism schemes and provisions provided in public land laws that apply to States and not Tribes. It is systemic. And consider this theme in the history of NFS law and management, from the sharing of revenues under the 1908 Act (and Secure Rural Schools) all the way through recent iterations of Good Neighbor Authority. Tribal exclusion and disparate treatment. I think this is important context for understanding WGA’s call for Consultation.
Martin, we’ll have to agree to disagree about PERC. I agree with them on some policies and not on other policies, but I can’t dismiss an entire organization because of something like “they can’t seem to escape..”
My concern was not about the general complicated relationship between States and Feds, but generally that if our goal was to avoid the back and forth of Monumentizing and deMonumentizing, RMPing and changing RMPs, approving projects and having them unapproved, that the State views often provide a consistency that is lacking in the wild swings from one Admin to another.
I think the way to peace about federal lands (and for all to work together and spend less time fighting) is for Admins to seriously consider the views of States on federal land management issues. My experience with BLM for example is that we were required (with a joint NFS/BLM plan during that somewhat-revolutionary period) to visit State DNR with our preferred alternative and listen seriously to what they had to say. If that only happens when State and Fed Admins match, I think that’s a problem.
One example is we hear now that Monuments should stay the same because there are no minerals under them.. which for some is true and was an argument for not Monumentizing (what are we actually protecting the Monuments from?). If the problem is pothunters and OHVs seems like it would have been a better deal to hire more law enforcement folks, which possibly everyone could have agree on. It makes a person wonder “what really was the point?”
Thanks for this commentary by Dr. Nie. I really resonate with this post. I worked for the Forest Service during Sagebrush Rebellion in Nevada and worked closely with FS’ Office of General Counsel on responding to this as well as the Shovel Brigade on the Jarbidge, the disputes over federal roads and other conservative backed land grabs. A dark part of capitalism is a firm belief that everything should be privatized. Ironically I have worked for and with state and local government agencies and they don’t have the budget/ capacity to manage federal lands. Not that we feds do such a marvelous job. But I agree with Dr. Nie on the insidious schemes of Project 2025 and how the Trump administration is slowly implementing them. As an old timer like me, Sharon, you like to go back to previous federal reorganization efforts of past administrations but this one is unique and not, in my view, in a good way. My local newspaper the AZ Daily Star is covering the impact of the federal “emergency” order on Coronado and it looks like mostly confusion. Orders to up the cut and previous plans showing very little suitable timber for cutting. I am not willing to give this administration the benefit of the doubt that you are. Combining or eliminating ROs has always made sense to me but I sincerely doubt there is much good faith effort it improved efficiency behind current administration moves.
Maybe picking up on Sharon’s last sentence, are Trump folks politically astute? There seem to be a lot of statements from a lot of voters along the lines of “we didn’t vote for this,” but very little response from the government they elected that suggests they would change the road they’re on.
I’d be interested in hearing Martin’s thoughts about a rather striking exception to this – that all four Montana Republican congressionals and one from Idaho have taken public positions against divesting federal lands. Is this gamesmanship or show votes, or is it a crack in MAGA? It seems to suggest the forces that have stared down this policy for decades are still there, ready and willing.
Not to side with Sharon, though. Even if the probability is low, the cost of such an irreversible decision would be so extreme that we need to take it seriously and not dismiss it as “fearmongering.”
Here’s some more ammo to fight it with: https://dailymontanan.com/2025/04/19/gamble-for-montanas-future-report-says-transferring-federal-lands-to-state-would-cost-billions/
I would say that Congressionals coming out and saying they’re against it fits with my own observations of people likely to be similarly inclined.
Thank you Jon. Yes, I absolutely believe that the Montana scene and delegation are some of the most important “fingers in the dike.” The statements made during the reconciliation process provides a case-in-point. The Montanans were the clear outliers.
Not to be parochial, but federal public lands and wildlife are such high profile, salient issues in Montana and the #Keep It Public coalition has a different and more diverse, cross-cutting vibe it seems to me. The integration of environmental, conservation and hunting-fishing voices, values and interests make it a potent political force (a lot of flannel and camo). The campaigns that started in 2012 are now reinvigorated and access to public lands and waters was a central theme in the last election, as you know.
I won’t wade into the “cracks in Maga” comment. But I think this summer is when most citizens, Republicans and Democrats, will see the costs and implications from what is happening to our public lands this spring. Maybe abstract now, but not in June and July. I’m looking forward to those conversations and observations from my most frequented trailheads and camps in Montana. However naive, my hope is that once again public lands can help unify and coalesce, as they have in the past.
A. can you point me to “the statements made during the reconciliation process” and who said them? Because I am not sure that Montana is an outlier.. how did you determine that?
Excellent post, Martin. In my opinion….
Just because past efforts of large sales or transfers of federal land have failed doesn’t mean future efforts won’t be successful. Past efforts were merely practice for today. Battles have been won, but the war is far from over. Laws can change, past court decisions can be changed and dictators ignore both laws and courts. Never say never.
Trump has no reason to care about popular opinion as this is his last term. It seems his primary motivators are power and money, not what is best for society. There are many examples that can lead one to believe this, but again, those examples are beyond the scope of this forum.
I believe it takes continuous vigilance and resistance, when necessary, to keep federal lands federal. Voicing concerns about the potential for the sale and/or transfer of federal lands to state or private entities is not “fear mongering,” rather it is a call for resistance to hopefully prevent it from ever happening. What is the damage of voicing these concerns?
Thank you for contributing a welcome context, historic background, plus your personal experience to help clarify the murky waters of private interests (Kato, American Enterprise, etc.) competing to wrest control of our public heritage from America’s progeny… very much appreciated–as are the added comments above.
Thank you for publishing this informative an well written piece by Martin Nie.