EDITOR:

A recent letter warning of a “liquidation” of America’s public lands paints an alarming picture, but it’s one based more on fear than fact.

The claim that the Senate budget reconciliation bill mandates the sale of 3 million acres of federal land is misleading. No such mandate exists. While Congress occasionally considers land sales as a way to offset spending, these sales are small in scope and still subject to existing laws like the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, which requires public review and environmental safeguards.

It’s simply not true that there are “no rules” governing these transactions. Federal land sales must comply with the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Water Act, and other key protections. No legislation has eliminated these safeguards.

Calling this a “liquidation” of public lands is a massive exaggeration. The federal government manages about 640 million acres. Selling or reviewing 3 million acres, less than half of one percent, doesn’t amount to a fire sale. These parcels are typically isolated, underused, or costly to manage. In many cases, returning them to productive private or state use makes economic and practical sense.

The letter also makes unfounded claims about environmental laws being dismantled. The Antiquities Act, Endangered Species Act, and Clean Air and Water Acts remain in place. While there are efforts to reform how national monuments are designated, especially when millions of acres are locked up without local input. Reform is not repeal.

The idea that federal agencies are being “dismantled” is equally misleading. Budgets and staffing levels shift over time, but this is not new or unusual. In fact, the 2020 Great American Outdoors Act, passed with broad bipartisan support and signed under a Republican administration, committed $9.5 billion to restoring national park infrastructure.

Yes, private parties may benefit from some land transfers. That’s not inherently bad. Ranchers, foresters, and local governments can often manage land more efficiently than Washington-based agencies. Studies from organizations like the Property and Environment Research Center show that state-managed lands often perform better economically and ecologically than federally managed ones.

Public lands are valuable. But reviewing the status of small, low-value parcels under strict safeguards is not a threat. It’s responsible management. Let’s stick to the facts and avoid spreading unnecessary fear.

Gregory Tolman Sr.

Escanaba