(May 15, 2025) – Washington D.C. – From mule deer and pronghorn on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands in the West to wild turkeys and trout on U.S. Forest Service (USFS) lands in the east, for many of us, America’s federal public lands are the bedrock of our access to our sporting traditions. For millions of individuals, it is this network of federal public lands where deep connections to fish, wildlife, and the outdoors are born and where families forge lifetime memories. To those who rely on federal lands to hunt, fish, trap, or target shoot, particularly in the West, where more than 70% of people rely on federal public lands to participate in our cherished pastimes, the concept of losing access to these lands is distressing. Spurring this unease amongst sportsmen and women are recent public statements and actions undertaken by policymakers in Washington D.C. that seek to sell-off and dispose of certain federal lands in Nevada and Utah. Rest assured, the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation (CSF) is fighting to ensure that any actions related to the sale of public lands do not result in a loss of opportunity for our time-honored traditions and the fish and wildlife that call these lands home.

Public lands belong to all Americans whether you live in Maryland or Montana – you are an American taxpayer, and these lands belong to you. The deep connection we have with our fish and wildlife resources is realized, in many cases, through our federal public lands. Any disposal of federal lands must therefore be addressed in a thoughtful and transparent process. However, there is another side to this story, and that is that many communities, especially in the west, can be limited both spatially and financially by the networks of federal lands that surround them. As such, CSF recognizes, and in the right circumstances supports, the need to conduct small, strategic federal land exchanges or sales that in return ultimately benefit sportsmen and women by improving access somewhere else. But the details and process matter.

CSF is not anti-disposal or sale by principal, but we are pro-process and transparency. When done correctly through an appropriate and transparent process that leverages the existing authorities and tools already in the toolbox, land disposals and exchanges can meet the needs of local communities to build affordable housing, a new fire department, or a public school, while also ensuring that federal public lands continue to serve as a critical asset for sportsmen and women to enjoy the outdoors.

But, when efforts to sell or dispose of federal lands are unexpectedly added to a piece of legislation that requires a lower degree of Congressional passage than normal legislation, it causes concern. In this case, a late night, unexpected amendment to a budget reconciliation bill, which requires only a simple majority of 51 votes in the Senate compared to the normal threshold of 60, to potentially sell off and dispose of certain federal lands is problematic. CSF is more than willing to have discussions with decision-makers about how we can meet the needs of local communities while ensuring sportsmen’s access is not lost in the process; however, we believe there are a number of existing authorities we should use rather than trying to address this issue through an expedited process such as reconciliation.

One of these tools is the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), which guides federal land management and also the process to dispose of federal lands. Under FLPMA, there is a very clear process for how lands can be disposed of by considering the economics and difficulty of managing certain lands, biological value, such as a key big game migration corridor, recreational value, such as supporting hunting and fishing, and to determine if the land could serve important public objectives, such as affordable housing. Importantly, FLPMA also requires that disposal of public lands can only occur when other options cannot be feasibly achieved and when the need, like housing, for disposal outweighs other public objectives, such as outdoor recreation.

The challenge with FLPMA is not that it is a weak federal authority, the real issue is that this process has long been under-utilized. Opponents of the FLPMA process will often argue that the process is lengthy and bureaucratic. Despite our frustrations with processes that may seem bureaucratic, it is important to ask the question “Why is this process in place”. In the case of federal public lands, this lengthy and thorough process is in place because once a parcel of federal land is sold or disposed of, it is unlikely that the parcel will end up in public hands again, potentially resulting in a net-loss of access for sportsmen and women, unless replaced with a parcel of equal or greater conservation and public access value. Again, CSF welcomes the opportunity to have conversations about opportunities to meet the needs of local communities while also ensuring that federal land sales or disposals are offset somewhere else to avoid reducing access for sportsmen and women.

Notably, FLPMA also allows the BLM to exchange public lands when the public interest is “well served”. For example, the BLM conducted over 300 exchanges during a 10-year period from 2006 to 2015, which involved more 150,000 acres, demonstrating that when we are measured and calculated, we can deliver land exchanges that result in a win-win for local communities and users of public lands.

Another existing process to address the challenges facing local communities is the Federal Lands Transaction Facilitation Act (FLTFA), which CSF worked hard to see reauthorized in the 2019 Dingell Act. The overarching goal of FLTFA is essentially to sell lower-value lands in exchange for high-value lands. Under FLTFA, the vast majority of proceeds (96%) from a land sale go into an account that is then used to acquire higher value lands and to improve access to existing public lands. Unfortunately, portions of the reconciliation bill seek to send the revenue of land sales into the general treasury rather than reinvesting the proceeds to offset the potential loss of wildlife habitat and recreational value.

FLTFA helps support local needs and the goals of sportsmen and women simultaneously. For example, FLTFA allows for us to dispose of low-value conservation and recreation lands near growing towns where these values are limited because of low wildlife populations and/or safety concerns related to target shooting. In exchange, through utilizing the FLTFA process we can improve access to higher-value lands that truly meet the needs of sportsmen and women.

Lastly, it is also important to recognize the role that federal lands play in local economies. In 2022, sportsmen and women spent more than $144 billion on hunting and fishing related expenditures alone, much of which supports local economies through purchases at restaurants, gas stations, and sporting goods stores. Federal public lands often serve as the primary driver to local tourism, which can fuel the economies of many of our small towns and communities.

Supporting federal public lands and local communities is not a binary choice. We can do both, provided we do it correctly. It is a complex, nuanced issue, and is not without real-world consequences if conducted in a rushed, discreet manner. If we are serious in our commitment to supporting federal public lands, and those who rely on them such as sportsmen and women and local communities, we need to utilize the authorities we already have which allow for careful analysis in the decision-making process to best conserve our fish and wildlife resources, promote sportsmen’s access, and support local communities’ economic and social needs.