09 12 25 CWP Deputy Director Aaron Weiss Talks Rescinding of the Public Lands Rule

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:01):
Jouating his time. It is six forty nine. Many things
going on, a big story that may be gotten left
by the wayside a bit. The Trump administration is trying
to revoke a bid near a rule that restricted leases
for public lands, claiming that it violates federal law.

Speaker 2 (00:14):
The Trump administration wants the public lands to be open
for potential drilling, mining, or grazing. The conservationists to say
the rule provides for healthy habits habitats. Joining us now
on the KWA Common Spirit Health hotline as Aaron Weiss,
Deputy director for the Center for Western Priorities, a Denver
based non partisan conservation organization, Aaron, thank you so much
for your time again this morning, Good.

Speaker 3 (00:36):
Morning, pleasant, Please be back here again.

Speaker 2 (00:39):
Public Lands rule can be complicated at times. It's something
that maybe some people don't fully understand what it does
to begin with. So start with the definition and then
the impacts that we could see locally if it is
if the rule is rescinded.

Speaker 3 (00:54):
The short version is the Public Lands Rule created new
tools in the toolkit for land manager to make sure
that conservation works alongside the other uses of public lands
like grazing and recreation and oil and gas drilling and mining.
Public lands management is a balancing act, and conservation, protecting wildlife,

(01:17):
fish science is all part of that balance.

Speaker 1 (01:20):
I know some people say that rolling this back is
a good move because it returns more authority back to
the states, counties, and tribes who are directly impacted by
the management of those lands. Do you see that the
same way?

Speaker 3 (01:30):
Are no? I mean, this was all about giving those
local land managers on the ground more tools, more options
to be flexible in each individual situation. Ironically, one of
the complaints about the rule from the solar industry is
that it would give too much authority to the folks
on the ground who do that management work. I happen

(01:53):
to disagree with that. I think that giving those folks
who know the land more ability to do their jobs
is something good on our public lands.

Speaker 2 (02:01):
If the public lands rule goes away, what does that
look like? Are people reading too much into this the
battle between like tree huggers and drill baby drill advocates.

Speaker 3 (02:13):
I think it creates a situation where it makes it
harder to do the things that everyone needs on public lands.
Congress has told the Bureau of Land Management, you have
to do this anyway, so if they take away the
tools to do this protection, it makes everything else that
BLM does potentially more subject to lawsuits because they have

(02:38):
to protect these values anyway, whether or without the tools
and the toolbox. So I think there is a risk
here if this rule goes away and that recision ends
up being held up in court, that it creates more
chaos and potentially even more lawsuits down the road.

Speaker 1 (02:54):
I'm not sure if it was asked, why, but why
from your perspective do you think they're actually doing this?
Is there something more afoot with this to as Doug
Berghman or the folks, do they understand the lands and
the way that you think they should at this level?

Speaker 3 (03:06):
Well, I mean, Doug Bergham is not terribly familiar with
public lands. He's not from a public land state, and
he spends most of his time these days. He's in
Europe this week, jet setting across Greece and Italy. So no,
he doesn't understand what's going on here. And at the
end of the day, Doug Bergham looks at lands as
simply numbers on the balance sheet, and those numbers are

(03:28):
only what you can extract from the land, when in fact,
for everyone else who lives in the West. Our public
lands are the places where we go to camp and
hunt and fish and recreate and run cattle and all
of that balancing act. And from everything we've seen about
Doug Burgham, he's not interested in that balance.

Speaker 2 (03:47):
Aarin, do you specifics the numbers of what we can
expect if the public Lands Rule is rescinded? What does
it mean for our land? How much blm land are
we talking in our state?

Speaker 3 (03:59):
Well, here in Colorado, I mean we've got tens of
millions of acres and hundreds of millions at acres of
land across the country, most of those in Western states.
In terms of the actual effects, it's hard to say
because this was a toolkit. It didn't prescribe any particular
action on any acre of public lands. This was part

(04:21):
of the planning and management process. So what this by
rescinding this rule, what it does is it ties the
hands of our land managers at a time when the
Trump administration is already firing folks and making it even
harder to do their jobs. So the big picture is
this is part of the effort to really hamstring and

(04:44):
downgrade the management of our public lands. I fear so
they can argue that, well, we can't do this job,
we'd better sell them off, and that as the ultimate
goal here is something that ought to worry everyone in
the West.

Speaker 1 (04:57):
And so having said that, maybe I'm moving it too
far forward, but the notion that if that comes to thing,
they can sell it off. I'm assuming to energy companies
or companies that would want to use the land to
do the things for energy consumption, or those sorts of
industries could be.

Speaker 3 (05:12):
That could be more billionaires who want to build ranches
and block off access to public lands. Especially we're seeing
that in Wyoming and Montana. It's a huge problem. So yes,
energy is part of it, but it goes far beyond
that in terms of where the money is and who
has the ability to come in and buy up those lands.

Speaker 2 (05:31):
Deputy director for the Center for Western Priorities, it's Aaron
wis Erin. Thank you so much for your time again
this morning.

Speaker 3 (05:38):
Always appreciate it.