“], “filter”: { “nextExceptions”: “img, blockquote, div”, “nextContainsExceptions”: “img, blockquote, a.btn, a.o-button”} }”>
Heading out the door? Read this article on the new Outside+ app available now on iOS devices for members!
>”,”name”:”in-content-cta”,”type”:”link”}}”>Download the app.
On June 26, after two weeks of national backlash from climbers, hikers, hunters, and hundreds of outdoor organizations, five House Republicans announced they would vote down the Senate budget reconciliation bill in the House if it still included Lee’s public lands provision.
“If a provision to sell public lands is in the bill that reaches the House floor, we will be forced to vote no,” the five Republicans wrote in a letter this week.
Representative Ryan Zinke (R-MT) led the charge to dismantle the provision, alongside Representatives Mike Simpson (R-ID), Dan Newhouse (R-WA), Cliff Bentz (R-OR), and David Valadao (R-CA). The Republicans currently hold an eight-seat majority over Democrats in the House, so these five No votes would be enough to stop the bill from making it to the President’s desk.
Mike Lee’s original proposal earmarked more than 258 million acres of BLM and National Forest land for potential sale. This provision could have impacted more than 17 major climbing areas, including Ten Sleep, Wyoming; Sedona, Arizona; Shelf Road, Colorado; Little Cottonwood Canyon; Utah; and the Buttermilks, California.
On June 28, two days after the House Republicans’ declaration, Mike Lee announced on X that he was withdrawing the public lands sale in its entirety from the Senate budget bill.
“Because of the strict constraints of the budget reconciliation process, I was unable to secure clear, enforceable safeguards to guarantee that these lands would be sold only to American families—not to China, not to BlackRock, and not to foreign interests,” wrote Lee. “For that reason, I’ve made the decision to withdraw the federal lands sale provision from the bill.”
As ABC7 Utah first reported, it is unclear why Lee says he couldn’t secure a clear definition to prevent foreign entities from buying land when his committee was responsible for the language of the bill.
Regardless, many outdoor enthusiasts have spent the past two days celebrating the news as a triumph of public advocacy.
“Americans from all corners spoke out in unprecedented numbers,” wrote Tracy Stone-Manning, president of the Wilderness Society, on Instagram. “Every member of Congress who listened and stood up to protect access to our favorite trails, fishing holes, and campsites deserves thanks.”
A Moment of Bipartisan Unity
According to Access Fund, 14,162 climbers used the organization’s letter-writing tool to send 29,723 letters since early May, when the first Utah and Nevada public lands sell-off provision was introduced to the House bill.
“Climbers are a passionate, dedicated group of outdoor recreationists who care deeply about protecting the places where we climb,” Access Fund told Climbing. “While we anticipated strong opposition to the amendment, the scale and speed of the response exceeded expectations.”
Several major American climbing brands also joined the campaign to oppose the amendment. On June 27, Neil Fiske, CEO of Black Diamond, published an open letter, writing, “As one of the country’s leading outdoor brands and employers, we’re urging elected officials in Utah and across the nation to reject the sale of public lands under any name, and in any amount.” The company followed the statement with an Instagram campaign titled “Not One Acre.” On June 21, Patagonia introduced an online tool to help Americans call their Senators; three days later, the California-based company posted that more than 12,000 people had made phone calls.
Public land conservation has long been considered a bipartisan issue. In April, Trust for Public Land released a poll showing that 71% of Americans oppose the sale of public lands, with strong majorities across both political parties. Despite climbers’ advocacy, the only named outdoor constituents that Mike Lee explicitly acknowledged were hunters, farmers, and ranchers. On June 22, Lee wrote on X, “Hunter Nation: You spoke, and I’m listening.” The next day, he posted that he planned to remove all Forest Service land, and would reduce the public lands sale to areas within five miles of a population center, which is defined by the U.S. Census as 2,500 people. Lee’s changes were reflected in his revised amendment, added on June 25 to the budget reconciliation bill. In the new amendment, he reduced the potential land sale from 3.3 million to 1.2 million acres.
Even the most conservative echelons of the outdoor world opposed the amendment. One gun-themed meme page wrote, “Congratulations, Senator Mike Lee, you have achieved true American unity by proposing something so stupid that it transcends all other social and political divisions. Wanting to protect public lands isn’t some astroturfed, left-wing plot. I invite you to call any gun store in Utah of your choosing and ask whoever answers if they support your land sale proposal.”
Threats Remain to Public Lands
Even before Lee introduced the proposal to sell off public lands, Access Fund urged climbers to contact their Senators and ask them to vote against the bill because of its threats to environmental safeguards.
“There are still provisions in the budget bill that are harmful to the environment, democratic process and nonprofit organizations,” Access Fund told Climbing on June 29, after the amendment was removed.
In an op-ed last month, Access Fund’s Deputy Directory of Programs, Policy, and Government Affairs, Erik Murdock, wrote, “Section 80151 of the bill goes after the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which has been a cornerstone of public land management since 1970. Under this proposal, developers could pay to fast-track environmental reviews—creating a pay-to-play system that prioritizes speed and profit over transparency and public input.”
Murdock pointed to billions in cuts to conservation, restoration, and climate resilience funding, which would significantly affect “trail maintenance, erosion mitigation, sustainable infrastructure, and other on-the-ground efforts led by Access Fund’s Conservation Teams and Climber Stewards.”
He also called out Title VIII, Subtitle A of the House bill, which mandates quarterly oil, gas, and mining lease sales near more than 60 national parks and recreation areas. “Access Fund is not opposed to responsible energy development, mining, or logging,” he wrote. “But this bill removes essential safeguards and overlooks the outdoor recreation economy.”
Access Fund has not yet re-opened their campaign to reject the budget bill. “The final language for the budget bill is evolving,” the organization told Climbing this morning. “Our actions will be determined by what happens next in the Senate and how the House responds.”
