Democrats on the House Natural Resources Committee illustrated a blatant misunderstanding of the purpose behind Wednesday’s hearing on land management rules while also showing they don’t understand the point of representative government.
House Republicans offered a platform to key stakeholders Wednesday to hear from those most likely to face severe consequences from a sweeping new proposal from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).
In March, the BLM unveiled new rules to establish “conservation leases” within the framework of the Federal Land Policy Management Act of 1976. The nearly 50-year law stipulates that federal lands must be managed under a “multiple-use mandate,” ensuring that public property is available for a wide range of activities, from mining to grazing. The new rules, however, threaten to unilaterally eliminate the multiple-use doctrine at the direction of unelected bureaucrats. Wyoming rancher and State Senator Brian Boner told The Federalist the proposal would be “detrimental” to any rancher who grazes on BLM land.
[READ: New BLM Rules On ‘Conservation Leases’ Will Fundamentally Transform Public Land Management]
Lawmakers Wednesday heard testimony from a panel of four witnesses from western states where the rules will have the most impact. Of the 245 million acres managed by the BLM, more than 90 percent lie in the nation’s 12 western states. Republicans brought forward Montana Prairie County Commissioner Todd Devlin, Nevada Director of Agriculture J.J. Goicoechea, and Arizona Mohave County Supervisor Chairman Travis Lingenfelter to testify on the agency proposal. Democrats called New Mexico Public Land Commissioner Stephanie Garcia Richard
