In a move that could reshape the future of conservation across the American West, the Trump administration has initiated a rollback of the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) Public Lands Rule — a policy that, until now, recognized conservation as a formal and equal use of federal lands alongside energy development, grazing, and recreation.

The implications for Colorado are profound. The state is home to roughly 13,000 square miles of BLM-managed land, much of it ecologically sensitive and vital to wildlife corridors, watershed health, and outdoor recreation economies. The rollback threatens to diminish protections for these landscapes, including critical habitat for species like the greater sage grouse, whose survival depends on intact sagebrush ecosystems spanning over 1,200 square miles of Colorado’s public lands.

The original rule, finalized in 2024 under President Biden, marked a historic shift in federal land management. For the first time, conservation leases were permitted — allowing nonprofits, tribes, and other entities to pay for the right to restore or protect land, just as oil and gas companies pay to drill. It was a pragmatic recognition that conservation is not merely a passive activity but a proactive investment in ecological resilience and public benefit.

Now, under Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, the Trump administration argues that the rule unduly restricts economic development and undermines the BLM’s multiple-use mandate. The proposed reversal would eliminate conservation leasing and relegate environmental stewardship to a secondary role — a return to a model where extraction dominates and preservation is incidental.

This shift is not without controversy. During the rule’s public comment period, over 92% of respondents supported the conservation framework. Western governors, tribal leaders, and outdoor industry advocates praised its balance and foresight. Critics of the rollback warn that it prioritizes short-term industrial gains over long-term ecological and economic sustainability.

In Colorado, where outdoor recreation generates billions annually and public lands are central to cultural identity, the rollback feels especially discordant. It risks undermining collaborative efforts between ranchers, conservationists, and local governments who have worked to protect landscapes while supporting livelihoods.

The Rocky Mountain Dispatch urges federal officials to reconsider. Conservation is not a luxury — it is a necessity in an era of climate volatility, biodiversity loss, and growing demand for outdoor access. Public lands are not merely commodities; they are commons, entrusted to us for responsible stewardship.

Colorado deserves a future where its wild places are valued not just for what can be extracted, but for what can be preserved.