Donald Trump is many things, but he is not an ideologue. As a counterbalance to what is shaping up to be an extremely ideological Republican Congress, that may end up being his best quality.

Take public lands. Which too many Republican members of Congress want to do: Take public lands and sell them off to developers or hand them over to states and localities. On the first day of the new Congress, House GOP members voted to change how Congress calculates the cost of transferring public lands to states to make it easier to get rid of them.

In a letter to Democrats, U.S. Rep Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz., said the proposed rule change would allow “Congress to give away every single piece of property we own, for free, and pretend we have lost nothing of any value.”

During the endless Republican presidential primary, Trump distinguished himself as a defender of public lands and an opponent of turning federal land over to the states — perhaps as a result of the influence of his sportsmen sons.

“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.”

That was the campaign, though, and everyone knows that campaign promises don’t always survive an election. Then Trump picked Montana Congressman Ryan Zinke to lead the Interior Department, and things were looking up for federal lands.

No one expected Zinke to be an environmental champion. Environmentalists criticized his opposition to President Barack Obama’s stream protection rule and moratoriums on coal and oil leasing on public land. He also worked to weaken the Endangered Species Act.

Yet Politico praised Zinke’s track record on conservation and public lands issue, calling it one of the strongest of any Republican in Congress. He has opposed efforts to sell off public lands, voting against GOP budgets over such provisions.

He even stepped down from the GOP platform-writing committee to protest the inclusion of a provision to transfer federal land to the states.

Then he dashed the hopes of environmentalists by voting for the new Republican rules. His spokesperson insists he still believes in preserving federal lands, but the inconsistency is glaring.

America’s public lands are treasures that should be protected and managed for all Americans — and for the future. Western states that chafe under federal control of much of their land might not like what happens if the GOP manages to transfer the land to them. A Utah study in 2012 found that taking over land management responsibilities from the federal government would cost the state $275 million a year.

Federal lands provide tremendous value beyond just economic potential. The Arapaho and Rio Grande National Forests, Browns Canyon National Monument, Alpine Triangle and other public lands in Colorado are places for retreat and recreation, too, a value not easily quantified.

If confirmed, Zinke and Trump could bring cooler heads to the debate over public lands and temper some of the worst impulses on the issue. The first test, however, was disappointing.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by e-mail or mail.