UC Davis Student Challenges BLM’s Restrictive Land RuleNate MyersOctober 28, 2025
University of California–Davis student Ashley Burton recently submitted a erudite public comment to the Bureau of Land Management urging the agency to rescind the Biden administration’s Conservation and Landscape Health Rule. Writing as a representative of CFACT Collegians, Burton emphasized the need for land-use policies that balance environmental conservation with economic prosperity—arguing that excessive federal restrictions hinder both wildlife management and American industry. Her detailed comment below highlights how empowering local small business owners like farmers or ranchers, private conservation groups and individuals offers a more effective path forward for responsible resource use:
“My name is Ashley Burton. I represent Collegian’s for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) at The University of California, Davis. I am making this comment as a young American concerned with promoting American prosperity and balancing the importance of conserving natural resources with human development. I’m concerned that the Conservation and Landscape Health Rule does not pursue and effectively balance these priorities. Therefore, I support the plan to rescind the Conservation and Landscape Health Rule.
Although the Biden administration enacted this rule in the name of conservation and protecting the environment, it did very little to protect wildlife and actually placed unnecessary constraints on a variety of crucial American industries that brought America noteworthy success, such as natural gas and timber. The ruling restricted access to public lands that can otherwise be properly used and managed with conservation in mind. This ruling minimized access to those key resources in American society and even cut the jobs of those who worked in those fields, simply to proclaim it as a ‘no use’ land, which doesn’t truly help anyone, causing additional trouble for hard-working Americans. Oregon Public Broadcasting even states that, as of September 2025, conservation leases have yet to be issued, making this ruling not only useless in conservation efforts, but actively hostile towards economic development.
Additionally problematic, the rule slows down the procedures of safe and appropriate development with public land. The reliance on third party entities to grant public land access to the commercial sector, often implementing biased and stringent application criteria intentionally designed to hamper development efforts, is a waste of time and effort for all involved. As each party can have different criteria of what constitutes conservation and restoration, the Bureau on the other hand is uniquely specialized in providing access to public lands with consistent and well-informed guidelines. The Bureau has the ability to do this independently and far more efficiently, simply by rescinding this ruling and allowing companies and to responsibly access our nation’s natural resources and selling other tracts to good-faith actors such as farmers, ranchers, and non-profit conservation organizations such as private land trusts. The government should be empowering individuals and corporations to make a difference, not mandating edicts from on high. The current ruling adds unnecessary obstacles and red tape that makes the land management process financially cumbersome for some of America’s most crucial industries. The Bureau has proven before this ruling was enacted to be perfectly capable of managing the land while balancing environmental conservation with human prosperity.
Considering these concerns with the Conservation and Landscape Health rule enacted by the Biden administration, it would be more efficient to rescind the rule. Rather than involving third parties and adding unnecessary obstacles to public land management, the Bureau can do this responsibly, as they did before the ruling, continuing to balance the mutually understood importance of conserving resources and fostering human development. This balance, when done efficiently, will lead to a measurable and steady increase in American economic prosperity. Economic mobility is part of the American dream that millions of people look forward to and cannot be truly achieved without access to cheap energy and consumer goods, all of which are produced from our shared natural resources. These concerns and this perspective of public land use should not be controversial as most people across political parties recognize the importance of balancing human growth and conservation. This is a matter of allowing the Bureau to do what it was intended to do- manage public land.
I hope this comment is helpful in making a decision.
University of California–Davis student Ashley Burton recently submitted a erudite public comment to the Bureau of Land Management urging the agency to rescind the Biden administration’s Conservation and Landscape Health Rule. Writing as a representative of CFACT Collegians, Burton emphasized the need for land-use policies that balance environmental conservation with economic prosperity—arguing that excessive federal restrictions hinder both wildlife management and American industry. Her detailed comment below highlights how empowering local small business owners like farmers or ranchers, private conservation groups and individuals offers a more effective path forward for responsible resource use:
“My name is Ashley Burton. I represent Collegian’s for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) at The University of California, Davis. I am making this comment as a young American concerned with promoting American prosperity and balancing the importance of conserving natural resources with human development. I’m concerned that the Conservation and Landscape Health Rule does not pursue and effectively balance these priorities. Therefore, I support the plan to rescind the Conservation and Landscape Health Rule.
Although the Biden administration enacted this rule in the name of conservation and protecting the environment, it did very little to protect wildlife and actually placed unnecessary constraints on a variety of crucial American industries that brought America noteworthy success, such as natural gas and timber. The ruling restricted access to public lands that can otherwise be properly used and managed with conservation in mind. This ruling minimized access to those key resources in American society and even cut the jobs of those who worked in those fields, simply to proclaim it as a ‘no use’ land, which doesn’t truly help anyone, causing additional trouble for hard-working Americans. Oregon Public Broadcasting even states that, as of September 2025, conservation leases have yet to be issued, making this ruling not only useless in conservation efforts, but actively hostile towards economic development.
Additionally problematic, the rule slows down the procedures of safe and appropriate development with public land. The reliance on third party entities to grant public land access to the commercial sector, often implementing biased and stringent application criteria intentionally designed to hamper development efforts, is a waste of time and effort for all involved. As each party can have different criteria of what constitutes conservation and restoration, the Bureau on the other hand is uniquely specialized in providing access to public lands with consistent and well-informed guidelines. The Bureau has the ability to do this independently and far more efficiently, simply by rescinding this ruling and allowing companies and to responsibly access our nation’s natural resources and selling other tracts to good-faith actors such as farmers, ranchers, and non-profit conservation organizations such as private land trusts. The government should be empowering individuals and corporations to make a difference, not mandating edicts from on high. The current ruling adds unnecessary obstacles and red tape that makes the land management process financially cumbersome for some of America’s most crucial industries. The Bureau has proven before this ruling was enacted to be perfectly capable of managing the land while balancing environmental conservation with human prosperity.
Considering these concerns with the Conservation and Landscape Health rule enacted by the Biden administration, it would be more efficient to rescind the rule. Rather than involving third parties and adding unnecessary obstacles to public land management, the Bureau can do this responsibly, as they did before the ruling, continuing to balance the mutually understood importance of conserving resources and fostering human development. This balance, when done efficiently, will lead to a measurable and steady increase in American economic prosperity. Economic mobility is part of the American dream that millions of people look forward to and cannot be truly achieved without access to cheap energy and consumer goods, all of which are produced from our shared natural resources. These concerns and this perspective of public land use should not be controversial as most people across political parties recognize the importance of balancing human growth and conservation. This is a matter of allowing the Bureau to do what it was intended to do- manage public land.
I hope this comment is helpful in making a decision.
Thank you,
Ashley Burton“
On October 18, CFACT Collegian Nyle Torpy led a group of four other students from...
At the University of Tampa, CFACT Collegian Alyssa Bianchi gave students a flavorful lesson in...
On the bright morning of October 14, students at the University of South Florida gathered...