Wildlife Biologists Warning: Proceed With Caution on The BLM’s Proposed “Public Land Rule”
Hunting on public lands could change dramatically, and soon, if the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) implements the new Public Lands Rule they introduced earlier this year.
Introduced in early April 2023, the “Conservation and Landscape Health” rule would allow the BLM to lease public land to non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and private companies to restore habitat. As a wildlife biologist who has devoted my life and career to creating better wildlife habitats, I was initially excited to see reports of the new rule; however, now I’m skeptical that it may threaten access to public lands for hunters and other user groups without proper safeguards in place.
On its surface, the rule sounds like an elegant solution for completing wide-scale habitat work across the Western US, where most BLM lands reside. Projects like habitat connectivity, construction of wildlife guzzlers, prescribed fires, prairie restoration, and removing unnecessary fencing are all potential conservation practices much of the West desperately needs. Leasing land to NGOs could fund many of these landscape-scale projects.
But the devil is in the details. The BLM manages land for multiple uses with an eye toward conservation. The language in the new rule leaves the door open for the BLM to allow leaseholders to dictate what uses are compatible with conservation on their parcels, and the wording of the rule describes conservation in a way that aligns more closely with preservationism than proper conservation. Preservationists take a more hands-off approach to land management and are usually opposed to hunting and many other forms of recreation. The current verbiage of the proposal does not define or limit the breadth of jurisdiction a lessee can impose, but it’s hard to imagine the Humane Society of America or the People for The Ethical Treatment of Animals would allow hunting on a newly acquired lease. The BLM is still seeking feedback on the specific nature of the proposed conservation leasing rules, per their website.
In an email exchange with one of the board members for Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, when pressed on my concerns about the rule change, the individual pointed to examples of current land use leases and the non-issue it is for hunters and other sportsmen. “The only leases I know of that can block public access are those that can prove physical harm to the public, i.e., blasting, helicopter logging, etc.” he wrote. Unless there is a fear for public safety, he does not foresee a scenario where the lessee can alter access for the public.
While a statement like this, coming from a source so heavily invested in public land access, has done a great deal in calming my nerves on the subject, I can’t help but feel like comparing current mining and grazing leases with the proposed conservation leases isn’t apples to apples. Hunting doesn’t interfere with a grazing operation (in fact, deer and elk compete with livestock for resources), and I would bet that most ranchers are also avid hunters. A rancher understands the intricate relationship between man, animals, and the landscape, whereas hunting flies directly in the face of what HSUS and others like them stand for.
If properly executed, the rule change can be a tremendous resource for this often inadequately funded agency. When I worked as a biologist for the United States Forest Service, I was reminded daily what a poor state much of our public lands’ habitat is in. This rule change could be a massive step in the right direction, but we need guardrails to preserve our hunting heritage and tradition of multiple uses on our public lands.
When someone says “hunting is conservation,” they aren’t speaking hyperbole. Hunting plays a crucial role in the North American Model for Wildlife Conservation by serving as a sustainable and regulated method of managing wildlife populations. Many wildlife populations are balanced by hunting, preventing overpopulation and its adverse impacts on ecosystems. Hunting also generates substantial revenue through licenses, permits, and self-imposed excise taxes, which fund conservation efforts, habitat preservation, and scientific research. Moreover, hunting promotes a sense of stewardship and connection to nature among individuals, fostering a culture of conservation and responsible management of wildlife resources.
If leaseholders can restrict hunting access, hunters will have the short end of the stick, especially if it’s a contest between pro- and anti-hunting groups, between which there’s an enormous discrepancy in cash-on-hand. That’s because Pro-hunting conservation organizations, such as the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, National Deer Association (NDA), Trout Unlimited, Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, and Pheasants Forever, are funded mainly through grassroots efforts, local chapter fundraisers, and donations from members. While these wonderful organizations, many of which I am a proud member of, do significant conservation and policy work, their funding only goes as far as their donations and grant writers can get them.
Contrast that with anti-hunting organizations like the HSUS, PETA, and the Center for Biological Diversity, where many of their donors are extremely cash-dense Silicon Valley startups and Fortune 500 companies, and you can see where I get nervous. To paint this picture, compare the financial reports for HSUS to the National Deer Association (America’s most prominent NGO devoted to conserving our nation’s most hunted animal, the white-tailed deer). HSUS reported assets of over $454,000,000 in 2022 while NDA reported just $981,000. With such stark financial discrepancies, it is hard to imagine a scenario where pro-hunting organizations can outbid any of their competitors.
As someone who owns a business restoring wildlife habitat, I could stand to benefit financially from the new rule, yet, even with Uncle Sam’s paychecks on the horizon, I am uncomfortable supporting it unless the BLM incorporates a right to hunt as many states have done in their state constitution. The more familiar the American public is concerning the North American Model for Wildlife Conservation, the more they will realize what a critical piece of the conservation puzzle hunters and anglers form.
I have everything to lose and nothing to gain for speaking up against this. I am not worried about running out of private ground to manage wildlife. I am, however, worried about losing public hunting opportunities to these conservation leases. All I want is common sense and transparency. Of the 33,432 public comments for the rule change, more than 18,000 mention “hunting” — a word not mentioned once in the proposal itself.
Zack Vucurevich is a wildlife biologist and owner of Whetstone Habitat, LLC, a wildlife habitat restoration and consulting company. He is a freelance writer and author of Whetstone Weekly, a weekly digital column about conservation. His work focuses on conservation, hunting culture, and other outdoor topics. Follow him on Twitter at @ZackVucurevich and on YouTube and Instagram @WhetstoneHabitat.
