If a government program exists, does that mean that only its proponents should be allowed to oversee it? How is that fair or accountable?

There has been something of a recent tempest created in Washington, D.C., following the Trump administration announcement that William Perry Pendley has been named acting head of the Bureau of Land Management, an agency that controls 250,000 acres of federal lands. Pendley has been an advocate for ranchers and others in standoffs with the government over the years. He supports opening more federal land to mining and gas development. He would even like to see federal lands sold to citizens.

Conservation groups object. But, so what? Is there only one valid perspective when it comes to federal lands? Is a person not allowed to have the opinion that citizens, not government, should own these lands? Why?

Reading press reports on the situation, one has the impression that there is an environmental “gospel” according to some that the rest of us must believe or be labeled infidels. How dare anyone consider selling public lands, or allowing anyone to tap the minerals they hold?

We do not believe every acre of public lands, primarily in the West, must be sold or opened up to production. But we do believe that the first choice should be to turn over as much federal land as possible to the public. Why does the government need all that land? We live in nation founded on private property rights and free enterprise. We wish Pendley good luck in advocating for major changes.