What’s up with the resurgence of Privatization Concern?
I’ve gotten on FB for birthdays and received a few ads, I’m a bit wary of clicking because who knows what I might be automatically signing…
Also
Does anyone know if there is some specific proposal out there? Like I said, I don’t want to clicks, because who knows..?
***********************
I did see this High Country News and the Maroon Bells thing…
The Forest Service is poised to hand off one of the West’s most visited landscapes
Since I live near Pike’s Peak which has been managed by a city since 1948, and no one seems to complain about it. With all due respect to Mr. Weiss, I think it’s a fear-mongering stretch and a half to say that this is a “test case for privatization”.
Here’s the history.
In response, Pitkin County will take over management in 2027. Critics see this as a harbinger of further privatization; the Forest Service did not respond to requests for comment.
“This is the camel’s nose under the tent. The Trump administration wants to sell off lands wherever it can and privatize lands wherever it can’t. So this is the test case for privatization,” said Aaron Weiss, executive director of the Center for Western Priorities.
Roaring Fork Valley residents and organizations appear to support the county even as they criticize the conditions that forced the transfer. “The county is responding to unfortunate circumstances on behalf of our community,” said Will Roush, executive director of Wilderness Workshop, an environmental watchdog group based in the Roaring Fork. “The real tragedy is this administration’s failure to adequately invest in and staff our federal land-management agencies and the places that are so fundamental to our state’s identity.”
And yet, the budget is not set by the Administration, and we all know that the White River (and pretty much all forests) are underfunded. When Scott Fitzwilliams came to the White River from Region 5 in 2009. he said he was shocked by how much lower the recreation budget was than in California.
And HCN does the usual stuff..
The agency lost almost 6,000 employees in 2025, and President Trump’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2027 would slash its budget still further, cutting it by 75%. The White River National Forest has lost a third of its year-round staff since 2024, going from 169 to 111 employees, according to an analysis by Aspen Journalism.
Doesn’t mention the prior gain of 6K employees, the budget deficit (pre-Trump Admin), or the fact that we have no reason to believe that this Trump budget will go any farther with the Appropriators than the last one.
I have two hypotheses for why the sudden privatization flurry…1) after all the dire warnings, the fire season is over, so there’s a need for new fear fodder, or 2) it’s all about getting people riled up for the mid-terms. Other hypotheses?
***********
- City and County of Denver / Winter Park Recreational Association, Colorado — Holds a long-term ski area term special use permit for Winter Park Resort on Arapaho National Forest lands.
- Various counties and municipalities partner for trail systems, shuttle operations (e.g., Hanging Lake in Colorado), or local recreation management through cooperative agreements that may include SUPs.
Other forests (e.g., Ozark-St. Francis in Arkansas) list “Access Special Use Permit Applications” and “State Parks Special Use Permit Applications,” indicating counties or local entities apply for road access or facility management.
In a sense, aren’t ski area permits a form of “privatization of public lands”? Just asking…because the SUP is not to a county but to a private corporation?
For those curious, here is the history on Pike’s Peak according to Google AI
The City of Colorado Springs has held the federal special use permit to operate and maintain the Pikes Peak Highway since June 7, 1948. [1] The agreement was struck with the U.S. Forest Service after a previous private 20-year license held by industrialist Spencer Penrose expired. When the road initially reverted back to the federal government, it fell into severe disrepair due to a lack of maintenance funds. To solve this, the Forest Service issued the special use permit to Colorado Springs, allowing the city to take over maintenance and implement a toll system to fund its upkeep. [1, 2]
The concessions on Pikes Peak are officially outsourced by the City of Colorado Springs to the hospitality corporation Aramark. While the city manages the physical road and infrastructure, the concessionaire is responsible for day-to-day guest hospitality services on the mountain.*****The concessionaire partners directly with the city to manage visitor impact on the alpine tundra. They lead training programs for staff and maintain waste management and sustainable day-to-day practices, helping the peak maintain its high-level “Gold Standard Hospitality” environmental designation from Leave No Trace.
Do I think that some of these groups are making hay out of the privatization possibility? Yes, I do but I think it is a little too easy to dismiss the issue entirely. Do you know how many times I have heard from politicians that the States do a better job of managing their forests? One of them is in charge of the Senate right now.
So, I think it is a little too easy to say it will never happen. Who had the following on their bingo card two years ago? A Chief that came from the timber industry, a total reorganization of the WO and RO’s, throwing out the Manuals and Handbooks and coming up with who knows what, no more tree marking or boundary marking, all sales to be advertised at base rates (basically the elimination of KV), rescinding the Roadless Rule, taking a wrecking ball to Travel Management, neutering NEPA, firing a bunch of employees, a proposal to move fire out of the Forest Service. I am sure I am missing some things.
So, if you can honestly say that you could have predicted all of that, I need you to give me some lottery numbers. So, all of this is happening, but privatization, nah, it will never happen. Granted, if it was proposed at a large scale, I am sure there would be a lot of pushbacks, but does that matter with this administration? They started a war that no one wanted and now we’re all paying $4.50 a gallon.
It has been interesting to watch how groups like the Backcountry Hunters and Anglers have really pushed back against rescinding the Roadless Rule and privatization. That’s great, glad to have them on the right side. Now, Trump cooks up a couple of EO’s for hunting and fishing to appease these people.
So, privatization, will it happen? If I had to guess, I think some small proposals will be cooked up but not at a large scale. However, I think it would be foolish to dismiss it altogether. Hopefully I am wrong.
The specifics I’ve seen include data centers on public lands, negotiating with a private developer for a little of Yosemite NP, some more suburban lands recently sold to Las Vegas (and eyes on federal lands for housing policy), and there’s the fact that “privatizing” can be used to refer to permitted developments that exclude the public (and maybe even removing restrictions that would have prevented that from occurring). (“sell off lands wherever it can and privatize lands wherever it can’t.”) This Administration would like it to happen, and they aren’t afraid to break norms and the rules (as Dave noted) to get what they want (they’ve lost 70% of their court cases). And you can argue about whether a compliant Congress is complicit with this Administration, but failing to fund maintenance is part of the argument to divest. That’s the big picture. Yes, it helps fundraising, but also awareness-raising, because you’re never sure when you’re going to need that.
If data centers are privatization, wouldn’t any energy development that excludes the public for safety be privatization? Or how about ski areas or scout camps…?
And failing to fund.. well we’ve been arguing for 50 years that the agencies are underfunded.
I’m sure there are individuals in Congress who believe that..but last time the previously much hated by some Ryan Zinke led a group of R congressionals against it. https://zinke.house.gov/media/press-releases/congressman-zinkes-statement-public-land-sales-removal-senate-reconciliation
Like I said, that dog won’t hunt. I think the key thing here is 1. assuming enough folks in Congress and the Admin have the will and power to make it happen.. I mean real privatization.
Or 2. redefining “privatization” so it covers all kinds of things, including wind and solar installations, special use permits for counties, or ski areas, or even, heck concessionaires at recreation areas.
The BLM land sales in Vegas are allowed under SNPLMA of 1998 majorly pushed through by Harry Reid, and it was bipartisan according to google AI
Having its own (bipartisan) bill suggests to me that it can’t be expanded, nor a “camel’s nose under the tent”.
Conveying lands to other governments is hardly “privatization” but the word plays much like calling everyone you disagree with a “fascist”, “white supremacist”, etc.
There are various proposals to transfer lands, such as Nevada HR2317, which is a complex of tenure adjustments involving different governmental entities and is being supported by at least the TCRP. Wyden/Merkley are sponsoring legislation, which I’ve not read yet, to convey some tens of thousands of acres of existing federal land managed by the USFS to the Grande Rhonde Tribes. There was a proposal to transfer the Kisatche NF to a parish, but I believe that bill is dead. I think there may be some others involving Tribes that I’ve seen proposed, but I can’t cite them off the top of my head.
Funny, I haven’t heard much from the “Not One Acre” sloganeers on these proposals, particularly the one(s) involving the Tribes, as part of their manufactured crises/fundraising & development programs.
The “On Common Ground” podcast makes a strong case that the provisions for oil and gas leasing and mining in the Big Beautiful Bill were far worse and received far less push back than the Mike Lee land sale. I tend to agree. Industry doesn’t need the land privatized if they get sweetheart deals and are allowed to use public lands however they see fit.
https://www.colorado.edu/center/gwc/2026/08/17/common-ground-american-inheritance-podcast-launches
So are you against all “industry” on federal lands? What falls into that category for you? What makes a “sweetheart deal” in your view?