Policy Corner: The Public Lands Rule: The Significance of Conservation

Bryan Pride • June 5, 2025

Since April 2024, America's public lands had something they'd never had before: a rule that treated conservation as equal to all other land uses. The Public Lands Rule, introduced by the Biden Administration, formally recognized conservation as a legitimate practice of multiple use, putting conservation on equal footing with recreation, grazing, and resource extraction. Built on decades of management experience and guided by science, data, and Indigenous knowledge, it gives land managers tools to maintain healthy ecosystems while supporting all the diverse ways we depend on public lands. It acknowledges a simple truth: conservation must be valued equally to all other land uses. 


Now there is growing pressure to rescind it.


Why This Matters


The environment around us is free-flowing, it's not confined to state borders or county lines. When mining operations contaminate watersheds in Northern California, it impacts the local businesses who depend on healthy rivers downstream, the agricultural communities that rely on clean water, and the families who've been camping along those waterways for generations. The Public Lands Rule recognized this interconnected reality and gave land managers agency to address problems before they spread across California's diverse landscapes, protecting the long-term viability of grazing allotments, recreation areas, and rural livelihoods that all depend on healthy public lands.


This interconnected reality is exactly why the Public Lands Rule matters. The Rule is designed to ensure that the places we depend on, whether for weekend camping trips, or cattle grazing, stay healthy enough to support these uses long-term. When an area becomes overgrazed and doesn't recover, access to those grazing allotments is permanently lost, reducing ranchers' ability to maintain their livelihoods and harming local food production. Poor use or overuse of our public lands creates ripples of negative impact that hurt all communities. 


The Rule's main objective is simple but revolutionary: make sure our public lands stay productive for everyone who depends on them, rather than degrade them. The Rule created practical tools that built in accountability and prioritized future generations' access to healthy public lands. 


Restoration Leases: 10-year agreements allowing a variety of entities such as, conservation groups, tribes, and nonprofits to restore damaged landscapes—fires restoration, restoring wildlife habitats and cleaning up abandoned mining sites that currently scar some of our most beautiful public lands.


Mitigation Leases: A tool that allows land users or other entities to offset impacts from their activities over specified time periods, creating partnerships between different land users and conservation groups to address environmental impacts on public lands. 


Strengthened Protection for Critical Areas: Clearer guidelines for protecting Areas of Critical Environmental Concern—the most special and fragile places that often provide the best wildlife viewing, the cleanest water sources, the most pristine camping experiences and the richest biodiversity.


The False Dichotomy: Multiple Use vs. Conservation 


The main argument being used to encourage the rollback of the Public Lands Rule is "multiple use", the legal principle requiring Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands to serve many different purposes. The current Administration claims the Public Lands Rule hinders multiple uses of public lands. Why? The Rule calls for restoring degraded areas and making science based decisions. Contrary to their actual meaning, the current Administration interprets "restoring" and "science based decisions" as "locking up land". Land locking, where access gets completely cut off, is a real concern in some areas—it prevents both recreation and grazing. However, land locking is not what the Public Lands Rule promotes. In reality, it is promoting land healing. 


Take grazing for example. The Rule empowers BLM to use restoration leases in conjunction with existing grazing permittees to restore degraded rangeland. Monitoring who is grazing where and the number of permits issued for specific areas is a means to ensure sustainable grazing and prevent overuse. Many ranchers and land managers supported the Rule because they understand that healthy land is productive land. Overgrazing and environmental damage hurt their livelihoods too. 


The same principle applies to fire recovery. When public lands are damaged by sweeping wildfires, there is a need for active restoration: replanting native vegetation, stabilizing soils, removing hazardous debris. Restoration has to take place before safe recreation, grazing and other uses can resume. At times, restoration requires temporarily limiting access to burned areas as they recover. The goal is to allow for our lands to recover and heal before we start depending on them again with our multiple uses. Land restoration is not just limited to grazing or extraction; it is essential for recovering from wildfires. 


Whether it's grazing, recreation, or extraction, the Public Lands Rule isn't about stopping these uses, it's about understanding that healthy ecosystems are prerequisites for multiple use, not obstacles to it. You can't have sustainable grazing on degraded rangeland, quality recreation in fire damaged landscapes, or responsible extraction without considering long-term impacts


We Are Public Stewards


The Public Lands Rule represents a historic shift in how we value conservation, its potential rollback is a setback. But the vision it represents, conservation as a form of legitimate multiple use, remains essential and is not gone. As stewards of these 245 million acres, we have the power to practice conservation in our own actions and advocacy. Every time we practice Leave No Trace, support local businesses that operate responsibly on public lands, and make our voices heard in land management decisions, we're building the foundation for balanced stewardship that benefits everyone. 


Our public lands belong to all of us, which means we each have the power, and responsibility, to be good stewards of the lands we love. 


-Bryan Pride (bpride@tuleyome.org)

Certified California Naturalist

Policy Director

RECENT ARTICLES

Wildfires and California Oaks – Nature and You Lectures

By Geoff Benn • October 7, 2026
Blue oaks on the Berryessa Peak Trail. Photo by Geoff Benn. Our September Nature and You speaker was Tuleyome Education Associate Geoff Benn, who gave a lecture on one of his favorite subjects, California’s amazing oaks. In the lecture, Geoff discussed how California’s oaks evolved and how they deal with a range of challenges, including drought, fire, and diseases. If you missed it, be sure to check out his talk here. 

Welcome Interns!

By Geoff Benn • October 7, 2026
Interns Deana Martinez, Yaquelin Gonzalez, Gabriella Limon, Ben Hubbard, and Keira Lazaro at Woodland Regional Park Preserve. Tuleyome is excited to welcome our largest ever cohort of interns, including four Horticultural Interns and one Communications Intern! Our Horticultural Interns are paired with volunteer mentors at Woodland Regional Park Preserve where they learn about managing invasive plants and monitoring populations of rare native plants. This year’s mentors are Jennifer Hogan and Teri Barry, both longtime volunteers and leadership team members at the Preserve. Our Communications Intern works closely with Program Director Nate Lillge to shape and execute our communications, including social media, e-newsletters, and more. Keep reading to meet each of our interns: Horticultural Intern Yaquelin Gonzalez has lived within the bounds of Sacramento County her whole life, where her mother’s garden and love for rock collecting sparked her appreciation for nature. Her desire to enter the environmental field was further fueled via nature-based field trips during elementary school. After high school, she began studying at American River College and eventually transferred to the University of California, Davis in 2025 to study Environmental Science and Management, focusing on Ecology, Biodiversity, and Conservation. Here, she has gained an interest in soil science as well as plant ecology and hopes to pursue a research career in restoration ecology. In her spare time, she likes to go on nature walks, play the guitar, read, bake, and listen to podcasts. Horticultural Intern Ben Hubbard grew up in Roseville, California where he spent a lot of time outdoors with friends, competing in sports, hiking, as well as instructing elementary school field trips about the environment, specifically wetlands. He just recently transferred from Sierra College to the University of California, Davis and is working towards completing his Bachelor’s degree in Environmental Science and Management with a specialization in Ecology. When he completes his education, he hopes he can make a difference in the world and help to preserve wildlife and natural land for the next generation to enjoy as much as he has. When he’s taking a break from studying you can find him practicing with his recreational sports team, grabbing a coffee, hiking, enjoying a good story, or just hanging out with friends. Horticultural Intern Keira Lazaro is a third year undergraduate at University of California, Davis where she majors in Environmental Toxicology. She’s specializing in pharmacology and biotechnology with hopes to work in a research lab on specific pathogens that attack native California crops. She is also a part of the University Honors Program in Davis and is taking the first couple of steps towards her fourth year signature work on the oxidation chemistry behind electronic cigarette devices, specifically with exposure in indoor environments. Keira grew up in Los Angeles County and hopes to find a career in Southern California once she graduates. When she is able to go back home she spends most of her free time at the beach or hiking. Communications Intern Gabriella Limon grew up in Bishop, California, within the Sierra Nevada and Owens Valley where she became connected with wildlife and stewardship. She spent her later teenage years in Southern California and committed to the University of California, Davis, where she is currently pursuing a Bachelor's Degree in Environmental Policy Analysis and Planning with a focus on conservation management. In addition, she is also a scholar staff member of the UC Davis Women’s Resources and Research Center where she provides STEM-based programming and academic support to students of marginalized identities. Gabby is especially passionate about wildlife justice, land protection, and environmental education. She spends her free time writing, playing video games, tide pooling, hiking, and logging critters. Horticultural Intern Deana Martinez grew up in Arbuckle, California, surrounded by rice fields and almond orchards, which grew her interests in agriculture. She is currently in her 4th year at the University of California, Davis, where she is pursuing a Bachelor’s Degree in Entomology with a Soil Science minor. Along with classes, she is involved in a Nematology research lab, working with plant parasitic nematodes and their interactions with common crop systems in California. She has also held a student position with the Plant Biology research greenhouses as a technician for the past 3 years. Outside of school and work, Deana enjoys hiking, reading, and spending time with her family.

Policy Corner: California Fights Back on Endangered Species Protections

By Shai Demus • October 7, 2026
California’s condors and sea otters are two of conservation’s great comeback stories – species that were once on the brink of extinction and have rebounded thanks in large part to the Endangered Species Act (ESA). That 50-year-old law is now facing one of the most significant rollbacks in its history, and California is fighting back in court. Last week, Attorney General Rob Bonta, joined by a coalition of 21 state attorneys general, filed two lawsuits challenging the Trump administration’s recent changes to the ESA. At the center of the fight is a single but enormously consequential change: the administration rescinded the longstanding definition of “harm” under the Act – a definition that, since the early 1980s, has made it illegal to destroy or damage the places endangered species live, breed, and feed. Without it, habitat destruction itself may no longer count as illegal “harm” to a species, even though most biologists agree habitat loss is the single biggest threat facing endangered species today. The changes don’t stop there. The administration is also making it easier for federal agencies to avoid designating “critical habitat” for at-risk species, and it has eliminated automatic protections for newly-listed threatened species – meaning wildlife officials must now write custom protection rules for each species one at a time. That’s a heavy lift for an agency that has reportedly lost more than a third of its staff, and which currently has 400 species waiting for a protection decision. Why this matters here at home California is home to more threatened and endangered species than any other state. It’s natural to assume the state’s own Endangered Species Act would fill any gap left by federal rollbacks – but legal experts point out that California’s law, as written, doesn’t clearly protect habitat at all. It primarily prohibits killing or injuring individual members of a listed species, not damaging the places they live. That means the very thing under threat federally – habitat protection – may not have a reliable backstop at the state level either. What this means for our work At Tuleyome, so much of what we do, protecting oak woodlands, wildlife corridors, and watershed habitat across our region – depends on the basic principle that a species' home matters as much as the species itself. A condor or a Clear Lake hitch can’t survive court-ordered protection from hunting alone if the habitat it depends on is quietly bulldozed, drilled, or logged out from under it. This lawsuit is about defending that basic principle at the federal level, and it’s a reminder of why local land protection and legislative advocacy matters now more than ever – because the safety net above us may have real holes in it.