Citizens in a democracy should be skeptical when any government agency says it needs a new rule, especially when it says the rule won't interfere with existing rights or uses but will "enhance" the agency's efficiency and decision-making consistency.

Why does an agency need a new rule to be efficient? Why does an agency need a new rule to make science-informed decisions?

A recent rule salvo from a federal agency is the Bureau of Land Management (BLM's) proposed "Public Lands Rule." The BLM listed this rule in the Federal Register on April 3. The 75-day public comment period ends on June 20. The first public hearing was a Zoom webinar on May 15. I attended. A public, in-person meeting is scheduled for May 30 in Albuquerque at the Indian Pueblo Cultural Center.

Under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), the BLM is charged with managing the 245 million acres of public lands under its jurisdiction. That management is subject to a mandate to manage those lands for multiple uses. Historically, "multiple use" has included activities such as recreation, range, timber, minerals, watershed, wildlife and fish and natural scenic, scientific and historical values. A central feature of the BLM's proposed "Public Lands Rule" is to transform "conservation" into a "use." That is, under its proposed rule the BLM will issue "conservation leases." Conservation, however, is not a use. It is an objective. The BLM should have already been managing "uses" on our public lands in a way that promotes conservation. Has it? If not, why not? Why, as BLM claims, is a new rule going to make it more efficient or allow it to make better decisions? What's going on? What's the real agenda? Who's behind it?

Agency rules and regulations should be fully exposed to the sunlight. We have to assume a new rule has a purpose, even if the rule-makers shroud or minimize what it is. Rules should be clear on their face and also have boundaries, so they are predictable in application. Rules have a life, one that may extend well past the tenure of existing, even well-intentioned rule-makers. And rules should be followed. Too often we have seen agencies that find their rules incompatible with current political agendas ignoring them. The Forest Service's refusal in 2022 and 2023 to follow its own rule (codified in the Code of Federal Regulations) on how to remove cattle from the Gila Wilderness is a case in point. APHIS/Wildlife Service's abandonment in 2022 of an 18-year old rule on the evidence required to show a Mexican wolf depredation on livestock is another.

We should demand accountability from the BLM about its proposed rule. What's the real purpose? Why is it necessary? What will the impact be on how New Mexicans use the lands now under BLM management? The public hearing is on May 30 in Albuquerque. Insist on real answers, not political pablum or undefined buzzwords.

Tom Paterson,
Catron County rancher
Chair, Wildlife Committee, New Mexico Cattle Growers' Association

Luna, NM 87824