The host of Open Container, Doug Schnitzspahn, takes a deeper look at the topic that inspired his most recent episode: how our public lands are at risk.
In 1980, as the nation was in the process of rejecting the Carter Presidency and readying the coming of Reganomics, the famed Idaho Field and Stream associate editor published a piece denouncing the Sagebrush Rebellion. At the time, this faux-populist movement was hellbent on transferring the ownership of federal public land in Nevada to the state and from there to private ownership.

“This, I emphasize, is public land,” wrote Trueblood. “We can wander on it at will to hunt, fish, camp, or enjoy its freedom in countless other ways.”
Trueblood also pointed out that this plot to disenfranchise the public of their lands didn’t start in the 1980s. Back in the 1940s, a cabal of western politicians tried to do the same thing and take a big bite out of the 640 million acres of public land in the US and basically give it to a few rich dudes.
Here’s the way it works: While states do an admirable job of managing the lands they do own, they do not have the resources of the federal government. They simply would not be able to manage what are now federal lands in national forests, national parks and monuments, and Bureau of Land Management lands. Many state governments demand that state lands be profitable. When they are not, the states sell them off to the highest bidder and they go into private ownership. In Western states this amounts to massive acreages: 56,262,610 acres in Nevada (or 80% of the state), 33,267,621 in Utah (63%), 32,789,648 in Idaho (62%), 29,137,722 in Wyoming (47%), 45,493,133 in California (45%), and 24,100,247 in Colorado (36%). As Trueblood pointed out, those lands are not essential just to recreation but to the idea of being American. Our public lands are a major part of our identity.
Of course this idea—that should horrify anyone who cares about the outdoors—lives on to this day.

We saw it in 2017, when the Utah legislature was dead set on taking public land away from us, moving into the state, and then into private hands. That proposal enraged the outdoor community so badly that the Outdoor Retailer show ended up leaving the state of Utah in protest. Later that year, the first Trump administration cut a swath out of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument and more or less got rid of the new Bears Ears National Monument, which was to be the first monument co-managed by Indigenous tribes. Luckily, Bears Ears was restored to its previous boundaries in 2021 under Biden. But the fight continues. In 2024, Utah filed a lawsuit with the Supreme Court in an attempt to take 18.5 million acres of public land.
This is bad news for all of us. Anyone who spends time in the outdoors has come face to face with the reality of private land and signs saying KEEP OUT; reminders that your freedom to roam and dream can be limited. When I worked for the forest service and for environmental groups all I ever heard from those who were opposed to conservation—and especially wilderness and roadless legislation—was that protecting the land meant we were going to “LOCK IT UP” and keep it from people. In fact, politicians opposed to conservation protections like national monuments and wilderness areas are fond of calling them “land grabs.” Huh?
The only land I’ve ever seen locked up—and Ted Trueblood agreed with this—is private land, Those signs make it clear: KEEP OUT. The more private land we have the less land we have to enjoy, to hunt on, to fish on, to hike on, to climb on, and most of all less land we have that could be managed for the diverse species of plants and wildlife who live on them, and with whom we share this rapidly shrinking planet.
And with the Trump administration, which was so eager to roll back public lands protections the first time around, back in office, we are headed for this conflict once again.
In the vice presidential debate last fall, JD Vance brought up the idea that public land should be used for housing development instead. And don’t think he means big public developments meant to help those in need. If you spend anytime on public land you know the private mega-ranches and mansions that border those beautiful spots where you get to enjoy your freedom—and you know you are not welcome there.
The onslaught on public lands has already begun. Just a few days ago, a Wyoming senate panel demanded the state take over 30 million acres of federal land (everything except Yellowstone National Park but including beloved spots like Grand Teton National Park and Devil’s Tower National Monument) and mineral rights in the state. Be prepared for other states to make the same demands.

The thing that really puzzles me about this movement is that more people than ever are enjoying their public lands. This isn’t a liberal thing or conservative thing. This isn’t something limited to one group or another—hippies in Chacos and hunters in full tactical gear both enjoy the same places. Our love of public land is something we agree on no matter our political ideals—we all love the time we spend outside. We need to keep them, we need to preserve them. We don’t need to turn them into free-for-alls for extractive industries or housing developments and big private mansions for those who have friends in the political system.
There is only one answer if we want to hold on to these lands. as people who love the outdoors we need to be more politically involved.
This doesn’t mean picking a party or engaging in partisan squabbling. It simply means we need to show how important the outdoors and public land are to every American. For some reason public lands and environmental policy come in very low on the things people say they care about in political discourse. I think this is simply because we don’t discuss them enough. It’s not because we don’t care about them. Of course the price of groceries and having a good job are always the prime drivers of politics and what people need from their government—but the outdoors provides jobs. It provides a living and a respite from the tough times of making a living even when times are tough.
We need more people running for office to speak up about how important time outdoors is to them and as I’ve said several times here, those people come from both parties. When it comes to political affiliation, what we do see is a difference in ways people think public lands and outdoor spaces should be managed and regulated, but that’s another discussion. No one absolutely no one wants to see the places they love locked away.
Doug Schnitzspahn is a journalist, writer, and overall lover of the outdoors. He's fought wildfires, reported on national politics, published magazines, and he once out-fished Dick Cheney. Follow him by clicking here.