Conservation groups sharply criticized the rollback.
“By rolling back the public lands rule, the administration is admitting loudly and clearly that they think public lands are just there for corporations and for their donors to profit from,” said Tracy Stone-Manning, the president of the Wilderness Society, who served as the B.L.M. director during the Biden administration.
Athan Manuel, the director of the Lands Protection Program at the Sierra Club, said it was “very frustrating” that the rule was being scrapped before it could have a significant impact. It would have “restored some balance to a bureau that we used to call the Bureau of Logging and Mining or the Bureau of Leasing and Minerals,” he said.
After proposing to rescind the rule in September, the Trump administration solicited public comments for 60 days. Of the 43,746 public comments it received, nearly 98 percent were opposed to rolling back the regulation, according to an analysis by the Center for Western Priorities, an advocacy group.
For instance, tribes in northwest Alaska wrote that the move “threatens to fragment habitat” for salmon, caribou and other species that they rely on for hunting and fishing. And Mike Mershon, the president of the Montana Wildlife Federation, wrote that the proposal would leave federal lands in the state more vulnerable to drought, floods, wildfires and invasive species.
Still, some public comments were supportive of rolling back the rule. Janet VanCamp, then the chair of the Board of Commissioners in White Pine County, Nev., a Republican-leaning area, wrote that the rule would have hindered efforts to thin forests to prevent wildfires. And Leslie Tanner, a fifth-generation rancher and farmer in Wyoming, wrote that “it’s been a source of infuriating frustration to witness the infestation of conservation lunatics take control of our lands.”
