In the San Rafael Swell, Utah                                                                                                                                    (Mike Painter)

 
October 28, 2025

Dear CalUWild Friends —

CalUWild will be celebrating its 28th anniversary next month. So first of all, many thanks to all of you for supporting the organization. We are part of a large coalition of groups within California, across the West, and across the country working to protect our national public lands. It has been—and continues to be—a worthwhile endeavor.

One of CalUWild’s primary goals since its founding has been to explain how our system of democracy works, and how people can work within it to be effective advocates for important issues. As we see daily, though, the system is under attack, and there is no more critical issue facing us right now than defending it.

As you know, we’re in the middle of a federal government shutdown, and almost everyone is impacted one way or another. Most government employees are furloughed, without pay. Our national parks have been left open, though without much staff, meaning that there are people taking advantage of the situation, BASE jumping in Yosemite, camping illegally, and driving in closed areas, all while restrooms are left uncleaned and garbage piles up. However, a clear indication as to the priorities of the administration, as if there were any doubt, is that federal employees who process permits for mining or oil and gas operations continue to work.

So please, stay informed and do what you are able to keep things strong and functioning into the future.

The items below are the most important lands issues, among many, that you can have input on.

 
With November and December approaching, it’s getting time for CalUWild’s Annual Membership Appeal. It’s the only time during the year that we ask for financial support from our members. We do have expenses that need to be taken care of, and they aren’t getting any less (as you undoubtedly know for yourself). If you’d like to get a head start and save us some time and effort, full information about contributing is at the bottom of this email. As always, there is no obligation, but we appreciate your consideration.

 
Best wishes,
Mike Painter, Coordinator

 
IN WASHINGTON, DC
1.    Public Lands Rule Rescission
          COMMENTS NEEDED
          DEADLINE: Monday, November 10
          (ACTION ITEM)
2.   Utah’s Sen. Mike Lee Introduces Four Bills
          Undermining the Wilderness Act
          And National Parks
          (ACTION ITEM)
3.   Forest Service Roadless Issues
          (ACTION ITEM)

IN THE PRESS & ELSEWHERE
4.   Links to Articles and Other Items of Interest

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

IN WASHINGTON, DC
1.    Public Lands Rule Rescission
          COMMENTS NEEDED
          DEADLINE: Monday, November 10
          (ACTION ITEM)

The Department of the Interior has announced that it is accepting comments on its proposal to rescind the Bureau of Land Management’s Conservation and Landscape Health Rule, commonly known as the Public Lands Rule. The Rule was adopted last year, and many parts were never fully implemented. In announcing the proposed rescission, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said: “The Public Lands Rule exceeded the BLM’s statutory authority by placing an outsized priority on conservation or no-use at the expense of multiple-use access, threatening to curtail grazing, energy development, recreation and other traditional land uses.”

As with almost everything this administration says, this is simply false. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) specifically states that:

What the Rule does is clarify that conservation is a “use“ to be considered on the same level as other uses, such as mineral extraction, oil & gas production, grazing, logging, and recreation. The Rule tried to restore some balance to the policies and procedures that prioritized resource extraction above most other uses, which BLM had long espoused and engaged in. The widespread opposition by extractive industries and ranchers at the time it was proposed was a clear sign of this imbalance. But despite that opposition, public support for the Rule was overwhelming, making its proposed rescission a huge step backward.

Please submit comments before November 10, using the talking points below. Many of them are slightly adapted from those developed by our friends at CalWild (formerly the California Wilderness Coalition).

As background, the New York Times had an article about the proposal: Trump Moves to Scrap Biden Rule That Protected Public Lands (gift link for non-subscribers). The Wilderness Society has prepared a map of BLM lands across the country, showing the extent to which the West is managed by the BLM. And as this map shows, a huge percentage (almost 85%) of it is open to oil and gas leasing. So it can hardly be said that conservation uses are a major impediment to resource extraction.

•   Request an extension of the comment period, given the ongoing government shutdown.

•   State up-front your opposition to the proposed rescission of the Public Lands Rule.

•   The Rule clarifies what is already in the Federal Land Policy & Management Act: That conservation is a duty of the BLM just as much as resource extraction and grazing. Conservation is a use, not a “non-use,” of BLM land. The Rule gives clear instruction on how this mandate is to be implemented.

•   Despite complaints from extractive users, over 90% of commenters supported the Rule when it was originally proposed. Supporters included Western lawmakers, local officials, governors, legal scholars, scientists, Tribes, and a diverse group of other stakeholders including hunters, anglers, and businesses. Extractive users had the same opportunity to comment then. Rescinding it now totally ignores the input of the vast majority of commenters.

•   The Public Lands Rule defines the term “high-quality information,” ensuring that BLM bases all if its management decisions and actions on the best available science.

•    The Rule respects the U.S. Government’s special relationship with Tribal Nations. It directs BLM to meaningfully consult with affected Tribes during decision-making processes and to identify opportunities for land co-stewardship. The Rule also provides guidance for respecting and considering Traditional Indigenous Knowledge, clarifying that it qualifies as “high-quality information” that should be considered alongside other information that meets BLM’s standards.

•   Contrary to BLM’s messaging, the Rule does not prioritize conservation over other multiple uses. It also does not preclude other uses where conservation use is occurring. Many uses are compatible with different types of conservation use, such as sustainable recreation, grazing, and habitat management. The Rule also does not enable conservation use to occur in places where an existing, authorized, and incompatible use is occurring.

•   Outdoor recreation on public lands contributes hundreds of billions to the U.S. economy each year and supports millions of jobs. Eliminating the Rule jeopardizes these thriving sectors by reducing recreational access and degrading places that people love to visit and recreate in. The Rule directs BLM to manage its lands and waters to support sustainable outdoor recreation experiences for current and future generations.

•   The Public Lands Rule helps ensure that BLM does a better job at meeting its legal obligations to prioritize designating and protecting areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs) which are areas where special management attention is needed to protect important historical, cultural, and scenic values or fish and wildlife or other natural resources. The Rule also guards against BLM staff making arbitrary and unsound decisions to remove existing ACEC designations.

If you are interested in delving into issues more deeply, an excellent “Comment Guidance” by topic may be found here.

 
Comments may be submitted on this page at Regulations.gov

or by U.S. Mail to:

 
2.   Utah’s Sen. Mike Lee Introduces Four Bills
          Undermining the Wilderness Act
          And National Parks
          (ACTION ITEM)

Though he was forced to remove his public lands sell-off language several times from the Big Bad Bill earlier in the year, Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resources, has still not gotten the message that Americans overwhelmingly treasure their public lands and want to see them protected. Earlier this month he introduced four separate bills that undermine basic environmental laws such as the Wilderness Act. All four are also cosponsored by Sen. John Curtis, the other Republican senator from Utah.

S.2967 — Border Lands Conservation Act
This misleadingly-named bill does nothing to “conserve” the border, though it claims to protect the borderlands from the effects of illegal entry. What it would do is open up all lands within 100 miles of both the Mexican and Canadian borders, including designated wilderness areas and national parks, to unfettered access by the U.S. Border Patrol. It allows the construction of walls and roads, as well as the installation of surveillance systems.

As evidence that the bill is unnecessary, the Border Patrol has stated in years past that conservation laws have never interfered with its ability to perform its necessary tasks, and that it is able to cooperate fully with the various land management agencies to enforce the laws and protect the environment.

You can read Sen. Lee’s statement upon introduction of the bill here. The bill has eight Republican cosponsors, only one of whom is from a border state. Our friends at Wilderness Watch released the following statement in response to the bill: Senator Mike Lee’s Border Bill guts the Wilderness Act, potentially impacting all Wilderness areas in the U.S.. SFGate published this comprehensive article: ‘Shameless’: Utah senator revives crusade against public lands.

S.2968 — Outdoor Americans with Disabilities Act
This bill uses disability as a wedge to open up lands to road building by defining “disability-accessible land” and then requiring land managers to revisit previous travel management plans to comply with that definition, and restrict road closures that reduce disability access. It exempts closures from analysis under the National Environmental Policy and Management Act (NEPA).

The bill was introduced without support from disability advocates, and in fact, some groups have spoken out against it. The Americans with Disability Act already makes provisions for people to access public lands. You can read more about the bill and the opposition to it here.

S.2969 — State Motor Vehicle Laws in National Park System Units Act
This bill would require that state law apply to the use of motor vehicles on roads within all national park units in that state. The National Park Service has generally prohibited the use of off-road vehicles (ORVs) on paved roads, and dirt bikes, all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) on other dirt roads and trails.

S.2970 — OHVs in Capitol Reef National Park Act
This bill authorizes the use of ORVs on many roads currently closed to ORV use in certain areas of the Capitol Reef National Park, Utah.

You may read Sen. Lee’s statement on the introduction of these last three bills here.

 
Please call Sens. Alex Padilla and Adam Schiff to voice your objections to all four bills.

 
3.   Forest Service Roadless Issues
          (ACTION ITEM)

Regarding the Roadless Rule Rescission, which we wrote about last month, the Forest Service reports that it received a total 625,931 submissions (likely somewhat of an undercount) before the deadline last month. A big Thank You to all who commented.

 
Regarding the Roadless Area Conservation Act (RACA), H.R.3930, we picked up three House cosponsors from California since our last Update. Please call their offices to say Thank You.

Both Sens. Padilla and Schiff are Senate cosponsors.

 
CalUWild’s website contains a full listing of California Senate and House cosponsorships for RACA and Utah’s Red Rock Wilderness Act, as well as phone numbers for their Washington, DC offices. As always, if your representative is listed as a cosponsor for either bill and you haven’t already thanked them, please do. (Offices never get enough thanks for the good things they do.) And if they’re not listed, please call and that they become a cosponsor for either or both bills.

 
IN THE PRESS & ELSEWHERE
4.   Links to Articles and Other Items of Interest

If a link is broken or otherwise inaccessible, please send me an email, and I’ll fix it or send you a PDF copy. Gift links are temporary links from some websites, allowing non-subscribers to view articles for free for a limited time. As always, inclusion of an item in this section does not imply agreement with the viewpoint expressed.

California

Alaska

Arizona

Nevada

General

 
 
 

Support CalUWild!

Membership is free, but your support is both needed and appreciated. Dues are not tax-deductible, as they may be used for lobbying activities. There are several ways to contribute:

A tax-deductible contribution may be made by check only, payable to Resource Renewal Institute, CalUWild’s fiscal sponsor.

Suggested levels

__ $20 Limited
__ $30 Regular
__ $60 Supporting
__ $120 Outstanding
__ Other ________

If paying by check, please include your address if it is not on the check, or print out and enclose a membership form. All checks should be mailed to:

CalUWild
P.O. Box 210474
San Francisco, CA 94121-0474

 
 

As always, if you ever have questions, suggestions, critiques, or wish to change your e-mail address or unsubscribe, all you have to do is send an email. For membership information, click here.

Please “Like” and “Follow” CalUWild on Facebook.