PD Editorial: Interior head nominee's mixed message on preserving public lands

Congressional Republicans wasted no time this week passing rules that will make it easier for the federal government to turn public lands over to the states. President-elect Donald Trump and his Interior Department nominee now get to prove they really are Roosevelt Republicans.

When Trump chose Montana Rep. Ryan Zinke to head the Interior Department, there was a glimmer of hope that federal lands were safe. Sure, Zinke is no tree hugger, but Trump wasn’t about to appoint one.

Zinke is skeptical about climate change. He’d like to see more agricultural and commercial uses on federal lands. He’d curtail environmental regulations like the ones that protect endangered species. And he’s supported curtailing the Antiquities Act, which presidents since Theodore Roosevelt have used to preserve some of the nation’s most precious lands.

Despite all that, he has a surprisingly strong voting record for a Republican on conservation and public land issues. He’s even partnered with Democrats on some conservation issues.

Most important, he had opposed measures to sell off or transfer federal lands to the states. He voted against the GOP’s 2016 budget over the issue and resigned as a delegate to the Republican National Committee because the party platform called for such sales.

Then, inexplicably, he supported the GOP measure to make such transfers easier. His spokesperson said that Zinke’s position hasn’t changed, but actions speak louder than words.

The notion that the federal government should not own any - or at least not much - land has become conservative dogma. At its most extreme, it manifests as the armed occupation of a national wildlife refuge in Oregon.

If confirmed as Interior secretary, Zinke will have President Trump’s ear on this issue, and we hope he returns to his better instincts about protecting public lands.

On the campaign trail, Trump opposed giving up federal land management. “I don’t like the idea because I want to keep the lands great, and you don’t know what the state is going to do,” Trump said in an interview with Field & Stream magazine. “I don’t think that’s something that should be sold.”

Federal lands belong to all Americans. They therefore should be managed by and for all Americans. When states and localities take control, local interests become paramount, often to the detriment of preservation for the greater good.

Republicans itching for local control need to recognize the costs involved. It’s one thing to say that California or its counties might better manage the Mendocino National Forest or the Point Reyes National Seashore. It’s something else entirely to pay for responsible management. One wildfire or landslide could wind up breaking the bank. When Utah looked at the cost of managing federal lands in that state, it estimated $275 million per year.

Worse, cash-strapped communities could be tempted to sell off lands or development rights to backfill budgets.

Federal public lands are held in trust for the people of today and generations not yet born. They are places for quiet reflection, recreation and preservation of natural beauty. Zinke and Trump say they know that. They can prove it by resisting their own party’s worst instincts and truly being Roosevelt Republicans.