Caty_Enders

Hey! Thanks for the question. It depends on how public land is designated in the first place. If the land is national (e.g. National Forests, National Parks, BLM land), it’s under federal/Congressional purview. State and local governments can and do lobby Congress, however, for changes in the protections for land within their borders. For example, Utah state government has pushed pretty hard for the reversal of Bears Ears National Monument. We also just published a story on county governments advocating for the removal of National Monument protections so that uranium mining can be expanded around the Grand Canyon. There’s also a lot of public land under state control, of course, though our series is largely looking at national public land. State land is more vulnerable to being sold off, as we saw with Elliott State Forest in Oregon this spring. About 70% of national public land transferred to the states in the form of land grants has been sold off and privatized. But chipping away at public land protections doesn’t seem hugely popular in Western constituencies. When legislation/resolutions come up at the state level to support land transfer, they generally get hammered down by local opposition. Does that answer your question?

Thanks—you're totally right to point out that mismanagement of national lands happens on both sides of the aisle. We haven't covered Reid and the General Mining Law. This is going to sound like a lame answer, but I mean it sincerely: I appreciate you bringing it up, and I'll be looking into it. EDIT: TBC, I'll be looking into the Reid/General Mining Law story. We're definitely covering land mismanagement on both sides of the aisle.

Hm, interesting. It sounds like they might have an inholding in the forest. Sometimes small sections of private land can cut off huge quantities of public land and prevent access. If it's mixed use land—even if a timber or oil or gas company has leased it—the public should still have access. They shouldn't be allowed to deliberately obstruct public right of way. If you want to send me more info, we can look into it: [first name].[last name]@theguardian.com. Many thanks!

Hey! Elliott actually seems pretty representative of what happens when public land is transferred to the states. Historically, 70% of national land transferred to the states in the form of lands grants has been sold off. These historical land grants were meant to generate revenue for the states—agreed. But states often don't have the budget to manage public land and keep it public. And it seems like the state's management choices played into the lack of viability as a mixed-use area. After all, local groups advocated for limiting timber cutting, which resulted in a loss of revenue for the state. This piece from Willamette Week touches on that. (Edited to include a link!)

US public land is pretty darn unique in its breadth and accessibility. The whole National/State dynamic creates issues that are largely American. But rolling back protections on public land isn't unique at all. You'll find it all over the third world. If you visit Zimbabwe, for example, you'll find aggressive mining around National Parks leaving toxic methane clouds that you can drive through for hours. What I keep hearing from from big game hunters that are fighting land transfer in the US is that America's public lands are like nothing else on earth—they've traveled the globe to hunt and now they're fighting like hell back at home because nothing compares to what we have here. Ours to lose sort of thing.