When Biden’s Bureau of Land Management isn’t preoccupied with divorcing itself from multiple-use management of public lands, it finds other ways to alienate its constituents and further stray away from its mission. How so? By prioritizing “equity” over actual conservation efforts.
Recently, the BLM, a subsidiary of the Department of Interior, unveiled its Blueprint for 21st Century Outdoor Recreation to fundamentally “transform” public lands access and recreation across the 245 million acres it oversees.
The 28-page strategic document, yet to be adopted as official agency policy, boasts a few valid points. Nevertheless, its emphasis on “equity” dramatically concerns me, and it demands urgency to move from “reactive” to “proactive” management.
Ironically enough, this Interior Department and its sister land agencies are employing reactive management policies. Current DOI leadership reacts to lawsuits to change longstanding lead usage policies on U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lands and ignore the science recommending Greater Yellowstone grizzly bears be managed, for example. Secretary Deb Haaland - an original Green New Deal backer - often reacts to pressure from preservationist, anti-hunting environment groups to ignore “no net loss.” The DOI-affiliated Alaska Federal Subsistence Board closed 60 million public land acres to hunting last year. The list goes on and on.
Tell me how alienating true conservationists - including hunters and anglers funding the bulk of conservation funding in the U.S. - is inclusive and welcoming. It isn’t.
The BLM press release also claims the Blueprint “advances the Department of the Interior Equity Action Plan” to offer “a new path forward that promotes equitable access to outdoor recreation opportunities while conserving, protecting, and enhancing BLM’s one-of-a-kind resources and experiences.”
What is this DOI Equity Action Plan, and where does it derive from? As I noted at the Independent Women’s Forum, this “equity” plan, naturally, derives from President Joe Biden’s Day One executive order on “Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government.”
To no one’s surprise, the document heavily emphasizes “environmental justice” - a notion that doesn’t deliver justice to people or nature. Who will be tasked with advancing DOI’s “environmental justice” mandate through the BLM Blueprint? Should it become policy? The Justice40 Initiative, one of the entities helming DOI’s Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility (DEIA) Council, will help carry out this mandate.
Per the White House, Justice40 is “is a whole-of-government effort to ensure that Federal agencies work with states and local communities to advance environmental justice and spur economic opportunity by delivering at least 40 percent of the benefits from Federal investments in climate and clean energy to disadvantaged communities.”
Why are DOI and BLM aligned with this radical agenda? It has no bearing on their respective missions.
There’s an apparent identity crisis at DOI and sister agencies BLM and USFWS. Under the Biden administration, they prioritize fighting the “climate crisis” and advancing “equity” over expanding public land access, promoting wildlife conservation, and engaging hunters and anglers.
Back in February, the Washington Times broke a story involving FWS employees undergoing “Acknowledging Eco Grief and Developing Resilience” counseling sessions.
The news outlet described these “eco-grief” sessions - offered to employees in the southwestern U.S. region - as four-hour workshops for staff “struggling with a sense of trauma or loss as they witness a changing environment.”
No, this is from The Onion. Sadly, this is the state of environment and conservation in Biden’s America.
Rep. Harriet Hageman (R-WY) addressed the House of Representatives on this matter and summarized these sessions as “another instance of the insanity of wokeism.”
The House Natural Resources Committee, helmed by Rep. Bruce Westerman (R-AR), has threatened to pull funds on “blatantly partisan ideology sessions”—claiming it’s a misuse of taxpayer dollars and strays from species conservation.
Something is rotten in these D.C. agencies overseeing lands, waters, and wildlife issues. Now, they’re eager to taint outdoor recreation.
As someone actively involved in the outdoor industry, I try to do my part to get more Americans fishing and hunting.
I’ve mentored up-and-coming outdoor communicators and journalists. I’ve volunteered for several conservation groups and boards over the years. And I try to pay it forward by teaching kids and young adults across different backgrounds how to fish.
Why? I want to share my love of the outdoors with others. Fishing, hunting, hiking, camping, and shooting sports teach self-reliance, independence, and reverence for nature without inducing anxiety as preservationist environmentalism does.
Sporting activities need new blood from outside rural areas to sustain and exist going forward. Having more hunters and anglers will perpetuate conservation funding to bolster habitat restoration, wildlife management, and hunter-education programs. And yes, we can reach new audiences without leaning on a misguided progressive “whole-of-government approach.” The outdoor industry is tirelessly working to broaden our reach.
The Great Outdoors is wide open. Fish and wildlife welcome us all to chase and admire them. What outdoor recreation doesn’t need is “equity” creeping into our ranks and dividing our community.