Federal land management agencies have seen drastic reductions in their workforce since the Trump Administration took office. Some public lands advocates warn the federal government’s actions could lead to the privatization and sale of these lands.
Tracy Stone-Manning was the Director of the Bureau of Land Management under President Biden, where she oversaw the agency’s 248 million acres. Her career began in Montana, running the Clark Fork Coalition in Missoula for almost a decade and heading up the state’s environmental quality agency under Gov. Steve Bullock. She is now the president of the Wilderness Society.
She sat down with Montana Public Radio’s Ellis Juhlin to discuss what's happening and how land management has changed from her time directing the BLM, to now.
Ellis Juhlin: So I heard you speak at the public lands rally in Missoula last month, and it wasn't very long after we saw the first round of huge layoffs at federal public land management agencies. In your speech, you summed it up as this kind of systematic process of eroding federal funding for these lands to then be able to pave the path for privatization. At the time, that was more of a hypothetical than what we're seeing now. But can you talk a little bit about how you came to that takeaway and where we find ourselves now in that process?
Tracy Stone-Manning: Yeah, it feels real. I've done some back of the envelope calculations, and with the reductions in force that is making its way through the Department of the Interior for the Bureau of Land Management, all told, it's looking to be 25 percent. And that is not making government more efficient, right? That's taking a wrecking ball to government, and these folks are our neighbors right there. They are working every day to make these lands healthier, more resilient to fire, to ensure that we get goods and services from them. And when you take a wrecking ball to government that way, you leave a broken agency behind you. And what's going to happen when the agency is broken? They're going to say, 'oh, gosh, the federal government can't manage these public lands. We need to sell them off.'
EJ: We've historically seen support for public land as this kind of third rail in Montana politics. Do you think that that mentality is something that is changing?
TSM: There were two Republican senators last week that voted in support of public lands, and they happen to be our senators here in Montana. They're the only two on their side of the aisle who cast the vote to say, 'no, we don't want to sell off our public lands.' And I think that, frankly, Montana is no different. When you look at the polls and data of what people walking around say and feel about their public lands. The numbers are really similar across the West. Here in Montana, people have just been more vocal about it.
EJ: How do you see a reduction in the federal workforce and land management dollars that the feds put on the ground in states, affecting states abilities to manage their land and to partner, and collaborate with the federal government?
TSM: That kind of over the fence work that you can do right now will be much, much harder, and we'll, we're going to see it in really obvious ways. I think come fire season, there are going to be fewer people to suit up and go fight these fires. And the state is going to notice that right away. The public is going to notice that right away. But when you look at projects happening sort of out on the prairie, at the BLM, we were able to use Inflation Reduction Act dollars to work with ranchers, to put up virtual fencing, to help with weeds, to help with better management. Everybody's happier. Ranchers, happier. Cows, happier. Grass is happier. It's just going to bring all of that to a grinding halt. And what's not going to come to a grinding halt is cheatgrass and fire and all the threats that are out there on our public lands.
EJ: There's a growing movement that kind of began gaining traction during the Biden administration looking at certain parcels of federal public lands for housing development. Obviously, the housing crisis is something that we're really familiar with here in the West, the housing affordability crisis in particular. Can you talk about the reasons for the Biden Administration supporting these propositions, and how the Trump Administration's suggestions of development on public land for housing are different or similar to those?
TSM: Sure, in the Biden Administration, the Administration was pretty clear, 'Hey, there's this problem. We need your help. Public lands need to do their part in helping to solve this problem.' And there are laws on the books that already do that. There could be five acres in the middle of a small town that used to, you know, used to have a garage on it that we don't need anymore. Or there could be 100 acres surrounded by thousands of other acres that are too isolated for the agency to manage. Those parcels are identified and put on what's called a disposal list. It's legal to sell them. They're there for the taking right now.
So, President Biden and his team said, 'could you please get on that?' What we're hearing from the Trump Administration is more than that. They're saying, 'hey, we need to sell off public lands to build affordable housing.' But here's the hard part, the really expensive part of building a house is the land. So we can't sell off land to build affordable housing, the government would need to give it away, and that's a conversation to be had, but that is separate from the conversation that's happening right now in Washington, DC, about, 'hey, we need to sell these public lands so that we can pay for tax cuts for the wealthiest, and we can also build affordable housing.' That's not what would happen.
EJ: Do you think, if the goal is to save money at the federal level, that cutting the money from public land management agencies is the best way to go about that?
TSM: No, I mean, it's a terrible financial idea to take what is truly budget dust for the United States government and do that kind of disruption, disruption that people will see and feel when they're going on their family vacation. Will see and feel when fire season comes. Will see and feel during their day-to-day lives when they … go trail running, and all of a sudden the trail is full of downed logs from a wind storm, right? And there's nobody to go clean it up.
EJ: We've also seen the Trump Administration make large steps towards opening up extraction on public lands when the workforce is reduced at these agencies. How does that affect their ability to lease to extractive industries, and what sort of impact does that have from a dollars and cents standpoint of the money generated on public lands?
TSM: Yeah, it still requires people to fill out the permits and to do the work. Now, will they cut corners with the permits because there's fewer people? Probably. And then they'll get taken to court and they'll lose, right? And that serves absolutely nobody.
EJ: I'll just ask you one final question as a kind of wrap up here, the Bureau of Land Management has a multiple-use mission to manage the land for several different purposes. And to me, multiple use is synonymous with sharing. What is the future of agreement on the sharing of public lands in a nation that is becoming increasingly polarized?
TSM: That's what gives me hope about public lands, that they are literally our common ground, and that if we can cut our peace with how we're meant to manage these lands for the future, so that they get to benefit from them, like we get to benefit from them, that is like the essence of democracy, right? And I just have faith that people in their deepest hearts are pragmatists who understand their responsibility and to the future and to these lands that we hold so dear. So there's very loud folks who are the minority. It is the majority who owns these lands in common, who can figure out how to cut our peace on these lands and enjoy them for themselves and their grandkids, and that is the ultimate expression of democracy.
EJ: Well, thank you so much. I really appreciate it, and thanks for the time.
TSM: Yeah, thanks so much for having me.
