To Sell or Not Sell - That's the question (Or Is It?)

Road Closure on Historically used route near the South Fork of Catherine Creek, Union County Oregon - FAFA Member Dorian Cox realizing years of family use lost to cost federal policies.

A heated debate is currently unfolding across the country over whether public lands should be sold off for private use. It's an emotional topic with strong feelings on both sides. At Forest Access For All (FAFA), we too feel the tension—especially when we see federal bureaucrats treating public lands as if they were private property, closing off access through road decommissioning, gates, and other restrictions without public input.

We’re left asking a simple but profound question: If access to public lands can be restricted so easily, were they ever truly public domain to begin with?

Before 1905, when the U.S. Forest Service was established, these lands were unquestionably part of the public domain—open to all. When the idea of creating National Forest Reserves was first proposed, our ancestors were assured that access and traditional use of the land would remain protected. But fast forward 120 years, and what do we see? Roads decommissioned, trails obliterated, and historical routes erased—not to protect the land, but to fulfill the ideals of individuals who seldom set foot in these forests.

We should take a lesson from Indian Country, where tribal communities learned long ago how hollow the promises from Washington, D.C. could be. History has shown a pattern of government speaking with a forked tongue—offering reassurances while advancing policies that contradict them. Today’s debate is no different. Some policymakers claim to champion public access, yet they quietly support restrictions that serve their own values or personal interests, treating public lands as if they own them.

To us, public lands are a shared treasure. They exist to sustain communities—whether for recreation, subsistence, or spiritual connection. We believe in the right of the people to access and benefit from these lands openly and freely. Either public lands are truly public, open to all, or they are not. If they are to be regulated as if privately held, then let’s be honest about what they’ve become—no longer the public domain our forebears were promised.

That is why FAFA continues to call for the full rescission of the 2005 Travel Management Rule and the Roadless Rule. These policies, though couched in environmental language, are at the core of the problem. They enable unelected agency staff to restrict motorized access to vast areas of our national forests—often without the consent or meaningful involvement of local communities. These very rules are driving the same access restrictions that many legislators now claim to oppose, creating a contradiction between political rhetoric and federal land management actions.

Public lands should reflect the principles they were founded on: openness, shared stewardship, and access for all. The current path dishonors those promises and undermines the very idea of public land.

https://www.facebook.com/share/18zT57gdiL/