The Conservative Roots of Effective Conservation

The creation of public lands in general is not a progressive tradition. It is an American tradition; one that cannot be co-opted for political points.

By Taylor Tougaw, Director of Government Affairs at the American Conservation Coalition Action (ACC Action)

There exists today a pervasive myth that environmentalism is a priority of the left and that conservatives are the antagonist to all things good and just in the environmental world. This couldn’t be further from the truth, and it’s time to end this trope once and for all.

Many attribute the true beginning of the American public land system to Teddy Roosevelt and his creation of the National Park system and Forest Service. Roosevelt, as the thinking goes, was a progressive in his time, and so the creation of public lands is a progressive milestone. The reason people view him as a progressive is quite an interesting example in cherry-picking; It is true that he had significant impacts in breaking up corporate monopolies, advocated for minimum wages, and employed aggressive use of bureaucratic red tape in reining in railroads and food safety standards. However, his Progressive Party, created to run against President Taft, was progressive in the same way that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is truly Democratic. Roosevelt was a fierce champion of military intervention all across the globe and was a big fan of hunting rare species, including killing nine white rhinos, which are now extinct. He was also the architect of a federal land system that was intended to be used for sustained yields of timber and other resources. It seems odd that progressives don’t claim this portion of Roosevelt’s legacy.

It is this world–the practical, real world–in which modern progressives are entirely alienated. The Forest Service today was created by Roosevelt, but largely designed in form and function by Gifford Pinchot, Roosevelt’s first forester. Pinchot was a true conservationist in that he believed in maintaining lands for the continual use of the American people. Therefore, the intent of the Forest Service was to maintain a consistent yield of timber for generations in perpetuity. In other words, the sole reason for its creation was sustained logging–not camping, not hiking, and not scenic views or biodiversity. It is timber sales that initially drove the funding of the Forest Service today–not progressive activism. When the Forest Service began collecting more revenue than expected in its first couple of years, Congress grew uncomfortable with an executive bureau having its own independent “blank check.” Congress quickly passed legislation requiring all timber and grazing revenues to be deposited into the U.S. Treasury, forcing the Forest Service to rely on annual congressional appropriations for its budget.

The Bureau of Land Management dwarfs both the National Park Service and Forest Service in acreage and designated usage. Originally created as the General Land Office, the intent of this office was to get rid of land by selling it to homesteaders. Yes, the original intent of the BLM was to dispose of land. It was combined with the U.S. Grazing Service in 1934 and maintained a broad scope of functions, including livestock grazing, mineral extraction, railroad construction, and permanent housing settlement. Any other use, like hiking, camping, hunting, or general biodiversity, was secondary. It wasn’t until 1976 that the BLM gained its multiple-use designation which put other uses on par with–not above–the originally established goals.

Environmental activists have gone to extreme measures to prevent Roosevelt-style conservation from taking place. In the 80’s and 90’s, radical environmentalists engaged in what is called monkeywrenching to prevent the logging of old-growth forests. This involved sabotaging logging equipment, tree spiking (which is incredibly dangerous), and living within tree canopies for months. While perhaps a noble goal, any claim that the creation of public lands was a progressive policy platform by modern-day standards is nonsensical. Today’s progressives vehemently despise any form of public use or benefit on public lands that were designed for that very thing. Just look at President Biden’s attempt to implement the Landscape and Conservation Health rule which would have allowed conservation leases on BLM land, far outside what BLM is currently allowed to be used for. While we at ACC think that rule was actually onto something good, it just goes to show that progressivism has nothing in common with Roosevelt’s ideal of land management.

Let us pause for a moment to make it clear where ACC stands on these lands. Our nation has come far from Roosevelt and we have learned much about biodiversity and have come to appreciate the natural wonders of our public lands. I personally have hunted BLM land, hiked Forest Service land, and have camped and fished all of them and more. We support the multiple uses offered to us on all of these lands.

Our intent here is to show that the creation of public lands in general is not a progressive tradition. It is an American tradition; one that cannot be co-opted for political points.

Tragic examples of misaligned environmental priorities abound today. A poignant example is the Ballona Wetlands Restoration project. This was a state-led plan to restore over 400 acres of the heavily degraded Ballona Wetlands near Los Angeles. The goal was to remove millions of cubic yards of dirt which had been dumped there during the construction of Marina del Rey, thereby returning the area to a tidal wetland, and reestablishing the endangered species that call tidal wetlands home. Unfortunately, a coalition of right-wing interest groups funded by millions in dark, foreign donations blocked the project.

Just kidding! That was actually the Sierra Club, champions of the environment, through a subsidiary they created called Ballona Wetlands Restoration Committee, and they blocked the project in tandem with other “environmental” groups like Animal Protection and Rescue League and Grassroots Coalition. They claimed that, by using a bulldozer to restore the wetlands, it would cause more harm than it would solve. You cannot make this up. In reality, today’s leftists align much more closely with John Muir, whose descendants at the Sierra Club, Center for Biological Diversity, and Environmental Defense fund continue to make a mess of public lands and environmentalism as a whole. Perhaps my favorite example of this behavior is the prevention of removing dead trees. Following catastrophic wildfires in states like Montana, Oregon, and California, the U.S. Forest Service frequently introduces “post-fire restoration” projects. These involve logging dead trees, replanting native trees, and thinning dense forests to prevent future fires. Groups like Center for Biological Diversity routinely sue these projects to block them, claiming that “thinning” is just a euphemism for commercial logging on public lands. Perhaps my favorite quote from CBD in the above link is: “We’ve known for a long time that burned forests are great at storing carbon, but not when they’re logged.”

Yes, these progressive groups claim that lumber mills are actually interested in logging dead, burnt-out husks of trees, and that burnt-out husks of trees are better at storing carbon than…alive trees. Nevermind the fact that wildfires release 5 to 8 billion tons of carbon every year. The scar on the landscape from the 1996 Buffalo Creek fire in Colorado has still not recovered. There is no new growth, and the dead trees were not removed. It’s been thirty years, but we can thank the environmentalists for preserving its “natural state.”

Environmental groups are also to thank for suing clean energy projects like the Biden Administration’s Western Solar Plan, SunZia’s “Green Energy Super Highway” transmission line, and shutting down the nuclear plant in New York. When it was closed, they claimed that its energy would easily be replaced with renewables. Instead, every watt that the nuclear plant produced was replaced with natural gas and New York’s emissions rose by 29%.

Funding

Conservatives are almost entirely to thank for the funding and maintenance of public lands as well. Virtually every single state Department of Natural Resource budget is funded primarily, if not entirely, by hunters and anglers, of which almost all are conservative. Idaho receives 57% of its total department budget from a combination of resident and nonresident tag and license sales alongside taxes on sporting goods. This includes federal funding from Pittman-Robertson (PR) and Dingell-Johnson (DJ) taxes. PR taxes are levied on shooting supplies like guns and ammunition, and DJ taxes are levied on fishing tackle, both almost exclusively paid for by conservatives. Tennessee’s state DNR budget, managed by the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, operates on a similar model. Tennessee receives 81% percent of its wildlife agency’s operating budget directly from hunting and fishing license fees and federal allotments from PR and DJ excise taxes. Every single wildlife management area, all of which have proved to be the single most effective tool in amazing restoration success stories like the white tail deer and turkey, are funded by hunters. Activists will often protest and block hunter’s access to public lands to the point of being arrested, despite hunters providing 70% or more of state DNR budgets.

These are just examples, but the formula stays true for every single state in the union. Colorado, Mississippi, Virginia, Montana, Wisconsin, Utah, and everywhere in between are entirely funded by state models that are overwhelmingly comprised of hunting and fishing conservatives.

At the federal level, conservatives are again to be thanked. The Land and Water Conservation fund was permanently and mandatorily funded by Republicans at $900 million per year. The Legacy Restoration fund was also created by Republicans. The Good Neighbor Authority, largely hailed as one of the country’s best stewardship programs, was created by Republicans. The Good Samaritan Act, a genius way to incentivize abandoned mine cleanup, was a Republican bill. Both the BLM and Forest Service create billions for the federal treasury via extractive resources which progressives seek to block, but conservatives actively encourage and promote.

This matters because oil and gas revenues pay for the $900 million in mandatory spending (that Republicans mandated) every year that goes directly to the Land and Water Conservation fund, used to buy more public land. When liberals block oil and gas projects, they are blocking the largest source of public land funding that exists which is, once again, overwhelmingly operated by conservatives. At least 50%, some figures put it higher, of deep blue New Mexico’s state budget is funded exclusively through oil and gas.

Without conservative initiatives, we would have no public lands at the state or federal level.

Land Sales

A persistent critique of Republicans is that we want to sell off our public lands. Simple logic would dictate that this would make no sense since conservatives are the primary beneficiaries of public lands, but we don’t do common sense these days. The reality is that a significant amount of BLM land in the west only exists because no homesteaders wanted it and it was never claimed. It’s very poor quality land and offers few, if any, recreational or commercial value. Today, we pay BLM staff to monitor martian, barren land. This isn’t true of all BLM holdings; I have hunted gorgeous and stunning properties in Northern Colorado. However, saying that Republicans want to sell off these gorgeous and productive lands is completely false.

Likewise, Democrats love selling land. President Biden’s Secretary of the Interior, Deb Haaland, put up tens of thousands of acres for disposal through the Resource Management Plan (RMP) process and nobody batted an eye. The Bears Ears National Monument RMP would have transferred 1.3 million federal acres to tribal authority for management. The aforementioned Western Solar Plan would have allowed 31 million acres to be developed for solar panels. The Royal Gorge/Lakeview RMP would have sold 19,000 federal acres outright. The Colorado River Valley / Grand Junction would have disposed of 10,000-15,000 acres. The Lakewood Field Office RMP would have sold 7,500 acres. The Rock Springs RMP would have sold ~2,500 acres. The Royal Gorge RMP would have sold 12,000 acres. Comically, the Biden admin opened 27 million acres of pristine Alaska wilderness so that tribal Vietnam veterans could each have 160 acre plots of housing. The absurdity is beyond belief. Land sales are bad when Republicans do it, but it’s okay as long as it’s millions of acres in Alaska for urban sprawl.

Closing Thoughts

Conservatives have always–from the very start–been true conservationists and have contributed significantly to the health of our lands. Conservatives also know how to engage with the land directly rather than from behind a computer screen. It is hunters who know how to track a deer; anglers who can find a trout in a hole; ranchers that can read their horse, and grizzled backpackers who know never to sleep under a widowmaker.

Taylor Tougaw is the Director of Government Affairs at the American Conservation Coalition Action (ACC Action). He previously worked in the House of Representatives for six years working on conservation and energy issues.