'America's best idea is still great': Q&A with Ryan Zinke on the GOP plan to sell public lands

While Senate Republicans have sought to sell millions of acres of public lands — which the vast majority of their constituents disagree with — Rep. Ryan Zinke has emerged as a leading conservative working to kill the effort.

In May, Zinke worked to remove a proposal from the “One Big Beautiful” reconciliation bill that would have sold 450,000 acres in Utah and Nevada while it was still in the House of Representatives. Once the massive tax package moved to the Senate without the proposal, Utah Sen. Mike Lee revived the idea, upping the ante to some 3.3 million acres across 11 western states — not including Montana, which received an exemption.

Over the weekend, that proposal was also removed from the package, with Montana Sens. Steve Daines and Tim Sheehy supporting the decision. Though some doubted whether Montana’s congressional firewall could influence the rest of the Republican Party, it appears the foursome has been successful in its goal to “keep public lands in public lands.”

For Zinke — who has been criticized for his actions on public lands, such as downsizing Bears Ears and Grand Staircase Escalante national monuments in Utah — he insists selling vast acreages was never an option. Rather, he prefers to expand multiple use through better management and fewer restrictions, with some small, targeted transfers.

In an interview with the Chronicle on Friday, a day before the Senate pulled Lee’s proposal to sell public lands, Zinke reaffirmed his position is earnest and not merely a political ploy as reelection approaches.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

BDC: You’re making somewhat of a name for yourself as an ardent opponent of selling public lands.

Zinke: Well, I don’t mind being a Rough Rider on this and, as I’ve said, I’m a Teddy Roosevelt Republican, and this is a battle that needs to be fought.

BDC: Montana received an exemption in the Sen. Lee proposal, and while Daines and Sheehy have voiced their support for public lands, they really haven’t been as vocal as you on the issue. What’s driving this for you?

Zinke: I am proud to lead the charge and when I said, ‘This is my San Juan Hill’ ... this is my San Juan Hill. Those of us in the West live in a legacy of the great ones like Roosevelt, like Gifford Pinchot and John Muir. That’s the reason why a lot of us live out west because we enjoy the outdoor experience. Yes, there’s gross mismanagement and we can manage our forests better, so we don’t have catastrophic forest fires or silt in rivers. We can manage our resources better. We can better reclaim our land that’s mine, but God isn’t making any more land and once it’s gone, it’s gone. I’m glad to lead this fight. I think it’s an important fight, not only now but in the future.

I always get concerned that the Montana that I grew up in has changed. There are a lot more fence lines than there used to be. I never had a problem with putting a boat in a river. A lot of Forest Service roads have been shut down. There are a lot more houses out there. I think the challenge is that we inherited the Montana experience and now we have to look at the next 100 years. How do we manage it better? How do we make sure that our wildlife corridors are protected and make sure the systems work?

BDC: What do you think are the specifics of how the land can be better managed? Clearly, the BLM struggles to manage the acreage it is responsible for — that’s nothing new. But how can or should the private sector get involved with this? Does BLM need more funding? How can we better manage these lands?

Zinke: Not all of it is mismanaged. When a mining claim moves to a mine, the BLM ensures that there’s a bond. BLM ensures that the reclamation plan is adhered to so the public doesn’t get saddled with a Superfund site. That’s an example of good management. When the permit process is 25 years those mining permits should have been executed decades ago. Not all of it has been BLM mismanagement. Some of it has been, I would say, radical judges, other is mismanagement. In Utah, there’s a lot of frustration about the lack of access, the lack of a permit to put a pipeline in, road closures, and moving away from multiple-use to single-use. When the public is locked out of gates, that’s a problem. Our forests are a good example of mismanagement. They burn down every year. We burned more two-by-fours last year than we ever harvested. It would be nice if we had a summer that wasn’t on fire.

BDC: Do you think the decision by the Trump administration to rescind the roadless rule that prevents development and road construction on 58 million acres of national forest land equates to better management by allowing expanded timber production and fire access?

Zinke: Well, certainly not having access, and in some cases, not having working forests has led to overgrowth on it. I think they’re going to be careful and prudent about where, when and how. But in general, I support public access. That means trails and improvement in trails and roads. If you have to get a fire truck in there or crews and you don’t have a road, that puts that crew at greater risk.

BDC: One thing critics often point to is, ‘OK, Rep. Zinke doesn’t want to sell public lands but he did shrink Bears Ears and Escalante ...

Zinke: There’s not one square inch of land that went out of federal control. Not one inch.

BDC: Right, it wasn’t sold off, but it was opened to production.

Zinke: 800,000 acres of wilderness went back to wilderness; an entire national forest went back to a national forest because it was outside of the law what Obama did to create Bears Ears National Monument. The goal is the smallest area compatible with the protection of the object; that’s the law (referencing the Antiquities Act of 1906).

BDC: And from your perspective, downsizing was a way to better manage that acreage by allowing more access instead of the restrictions of a national monument?

Zinke: The recommendation for the Obama-era boundary for Bears Ears was larger than Zion and Bryce Canyon national parks combined. The critics read the headlines but don’t read the paragraphs. Under the Antiquities Act, it’s pretty simple, you have to protect an object. If there’s no object in that area to protect, then it violates the Antiquities Act. It can only be federal land, and a monument cannot be placed on private or state land.

Bears Ears also encompassed state land and that’s also against the provisions of the Antiquities Act. Their argument is ‘Well, we don’t know if there’s an object there,’ so now they’re protecting an area that they don’t know because I guess they haven’t had archeologists look. Not one square inch was removed from the federal estate. In fairness, when I was Secretary of the Interior, I added to the federal estate, and I subtracted from the federal estate around Las Vegas. I exchanged land in the best interest of the public but there was a public process to it and the public process is you have to consult with the tribes because, remember, most of the land out west was occupied by the tribes. There are a lot of cultural and historic sites that if it’s public land they have access to. If you sell it off and it becomes private property, they would not have access. You have to evaluate public access when you sell and in the case of affordable housing, we hear that come up, affordable housing is generally apartments that are tens of acres. It’s not thousands or millions of acres of luxury ranchettes. That’s not affordable housing.

BDC: Right, and Sen. Lee has made the case that in Salt Lake City and St. George, more acreage is needed to build affordable housing. At the same time, selling public land has also been described as a way to decrease the trillions of dollars the U.S. has in debt, which seems implausible. So, what do you think is actually encouraging this movement to decrease the government’s holdings?

Zinke: Sen. Lee has never been a fond advocate of Roosevelt or public lands. He reconfigured his bill to five miles around towns. Well, that’s five miles north, five miles south, five miles east, five miles west, right? That’s 100 square miles! Five miles sounds good but when you look at what it really means, it’s 100 square miles. A lot of times near towns, there are trailheads and grazing. If you’re going to sell Forest Service property or land that has timber on it that doesn’t promote sustainable harvest because it’s outside now of the federal estate where we should be promoting sustainable harvest, land management and better practices, prescribed burns.

BDC: Selling public lands has become a huge topic in the media and elsewhere online. Everyone from the far left to the far right and those in between have come together in opposition. It just doesn’t seem like a popular idea, no matter what side of the political spectrum you’re on.

Zinke: 85% of Democrats are adamantly opposed to selling public land. About 61% of the Republicans are. Somewhere in the middle are the independents. There isn’t one demographic across the board, whether it’s the elderly, young, college-educated, blue collar, there isn’t one demographic that supports selling public land.

BDC: And just so the reader can hear it directly from you: Are we seeing the real Ryan Zinke push against selling public lands in earnest, or is this just a good political move as you face a reelection next year?

Zinke: I’ve been consistent throughout my life, from a Boy Scout to a hunter and angler, from a state senator; my record has been the same all the way through. I do not support the selling or transfer of vast areas of public lands. I have supported, like if you’re going to expand a runway or if you’re going to look at affordable housing adjacent to or near town, but that’s tens of acres that I do support transferring or selling for the greater good. There might be some economic development. But I’ve always said that God isn’t making any more land and once it’s gone, it’s gone. You have to go through a public process because it doesn’t matter whether the public land is in Montana, Maine or Utah, it belongs to all Americans and they all should have a say on the highest and best use.

The idea that you’re going to take the public out of the discussion, that you’re going to arbitrarily sell public land and use the debt as an excuse ... look, public lands didn’t get us in debt and I can tell you public lands isn’t going to get us out of debt by selling it. Affordable housing is tens of acres; it’s an apartment complex. It’s not luxury ranchettes. I’ve been consistent all the way through and I’m glad to take this fight on board because it’s an important fight. It’s also inconsistent with the Trump agenda and (Interior) Secretary Burgum has said that this is not part of the Trump agenda.

BDC: And when it comes to politics?

Zinke: You’re always in an election. The only time in the House of Representatives you’re not campaigning for the next election is probably between the election and Thanksgiving. In the Senate, these guys can vote one way for four years, and then they can pivot the last two years. In the House, you’re only as good as your last vote and I’ve just come to the conclusion — and it’s not my first rodeo — that I’m just being a kid from Montana that grew up Montana, and I’m Ryan Zinke. I listen, but I don’t change on core beliefs and one of my core beliefs always has been the public lands. The reason why we live in Montana is we just enjoy the outdoor experience. Yeah, we can manage it better using the best science, better science, and get the resources that you need, but to sell it would forever diminish our state and diminish our country. We are the envy of the world, and America’s best idea is still great.