As Congress debates a sweeping reconciliation bill, one issue stirring intense controversy is the future of America’s public lands. Tensions have flared between those who refuse to consider any divestiture of federal land and those—like Senator Mike Lee of Utah—who argue that a more balanced approach is essential to support local governance, housing, education, and economic opportunity. In the middle of these competing visions stands Senator Steve Daines of Montana, who deserves praise for trying to broker a principled compromise—one that respects our national conservation legacy while acknowledging the practical needs of growing communities in the West.
As someone who has spent a career championing conservation and had the privilege of working in Yellowstone National Park early in my life, I am a proud supporter of America’s public lands. Our public lands are treasures—stewards of our natural heritage and a vital source of recreation and inspiration for generations of Americans. But that support should not come at the expense of fairness, opportunity, and local self-determination.
Today, the federal government owns and controls roughly 70% of Utah’s land—a staggering figure that places unnecessary constraints on local communities, schools, and families. And yet, when Utah voices legitimate concerns about land access and economic opportunity, it’s unfairly branded as anti-public lands or unpatriotic. That’s wrong.
I commend Senator Mike Lee for having the courage to challenge this imbalance and for standing up for the people of Utah who deserve the same access to land and prosperity as other Americans. His position isn’t about dismantling public lands—it’s about restoring balance, common sense, and equity.
Utah’s gateway communities—those towns bordering our most visited national parks—shoulder the burden of millions of annual visitors yet often lack the resources to manage that impact. Affordable housing is scarce for residents, small businesses, and even park employees. The federal government restricts nearby land from development, tying the hands of local leaders trying to build housing, schools, and infrastructure to meet growing demand. It’s not sustainable, and it’s not fair.
Consider the contrast with Montana—a state equally proud of its public lands. Just 30% of Montana is federally owned, and only 9% of that is managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Most of Montana’s public lands are in national parks and forests, which see robust public use and support. In fact, national parks receive 3.9 visits per acre, while BLM lands receive just 0.25 visits per acre. That’s not an indictment of BLM—it’s a reflection of public interest. National Parks are the crown jewels of our public lands. BLM lands are vast and underutilized by comparison.
In Utah, 42% of all land is BLM-managed, yet much of it is closed to productive uses like housing, infrastructure, and responsible energy development. At a time when Utah is facing a housing affordability crisis and rapidly growing communities, this imbalance has real-world consequences: fewer schools, fewer jobs, and less opportunity for young families trying to build a future.
The federal government should be a partner—not merely a landlord. Local communities are fully capable of managing land responsibly, just as Montana, Texas, and so many others have demonstrated. This is not a call to sell off national parks or pave over wilderness. It is a call for fairness, flexibility, and the recognition that not all public lands are created equal.
We can and must have both: a strong public lands legacy and vibrant local economies. That starts with listening to the people of Utah and leaders like Senator Lee, not dismissing them.
Let’s restore balance. Let’s trust states. And let’s build a future where conservation and opportunity go hand in hand.