From the massive granite monoliths in Yosemite to the rolling hills of South Dakota where bison roam free, America’s public lands provide recreation, enjoyment, and opportunity for millions of Americans. 

About 30 percent of the nation’s land is owned and managed by the federal government, with 10 percent managed by the Bureau of Land Management. For many, including myself, BLM land evokes images of open spaces out West where you can camp or explore for free. However, BLM land encompasses much more than that. The agency’s very mission is “to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations.”

Now, what exactly “use” means has been the topic of controversy recently. At the center of this debate is the Biden Administration’s 2024 Public Lands Rule. Historically, “use” has meant leasing out public land for energy development, timber harvesting, recreational activities such as fishing and hunting, and grazing. Prior to this rule, conservation was not recognized as an authorized “use” on public lands, leaving no mechanism for conservationists or the private sector to lease land for that purpose.

The public lands rule established conservation as a valid use of BLM lands, placing it on equal footing to traditional extractive or recreational uses. It allowed land to be leased for restoration, habitat improvement, management, and mitigation projects. 

Last month, the Trump Administration’s Interior Department reignited this debate by proposing to rescind this rule, which would remove conservation as an eligible “use” for BLM land. What the rescission proposal gets wrong is the difference between conservation and preservation. Conservation is the management of natural resources for sustainable use, whereas preservation is the protection of those resources from human activity altogether. Conservation requires active use, including restoring rangelands, conducting prescribed burns, improving wildlife habitat, and preventing erosion or the spread of invasive species. Conservation isn’t about locking land away; it’s about caring for it so it can continue to support people and ecosystems for generations to come. This definition of conservation aligns closely with the BLM’s mission statement. 

In a webinar a few weeks ago hosted by ConservAmerica, several experts discussed what the proposed rescission would mean for the future of America’s public lands. Jonathan Wood of the Property and Environment Research Center (PERC) emphasized that the Public Lands Rule represented a market-based approach to conservation, one that treats stewardship not as regulation, but as voluntary use. By allowing conservation leasing, the rule gives individuals, nonprofits, and companies the ability to invest directly in restoration and land management projects. This structure invited private capital into conservation, helping fund the care of millions of acres without expanding government spending.

Rob Sisson of ConservAmerica noted that this approach reflects the original multiple-use vision articulated by Theodore Roosevelt and Gifford Pinchot: maintaining the land’s health while providing economic opportunity. Rather than restricting access, the Public Lands Rule expanded the range of responsible uses, empowering those who care about these lands to take part in their upkeep.

Certain opponents of the rule fear that recognizing conservation as a “use” risks giving the federal government too much discretion, and may lead to future Democrat administrations favoring conservation. But this interpretation overlooks the rule’s protections: conservation leases could not override existing uses like grazing or energy development, and any new leases would have to pay fair market value for the land. Fair market value sets the lease price at a rate that reflects the value of the land and any future uses the lease may displace, thereby putting the land to the market test of its highest potential value for all users, allowing conservation and traditional extraction to compete.

If the market is open to all participants and functioning well, it shouldn’t matter whether land is leased for oil production, grazing, or habitat restoration. All are legitimate, productive uses that contribute to the health and value of our public lands. Conservation leasing extends the same opportunity to those who wish to invest in stewardship rather than extraction. It allows private actors to voluntarily fund projects that improve soil health, restore native vegetation, or prevent catastrophic wildfires. Rescinding this framework not only shuts the door on private stewardship and innovation but also undermines the principle of multiple use that has guided land management for more than a century.

The Public Lands Rule was never about locking up land or excluding traditional uses; it was about giving people who care about these lands another way to participate in stewardship. Removing conservation as a valid use sends the wrong message. It implies that land management is less valuable than production. In reality, healthy public lands depend on both. Recognizing conservation as a valid “use” honors America’s conservation legacy and ensures that our shared lands remain productive, resilient, and accessible for generations to come.

The views and opinions expressed are those of the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of C3.