The number of mining claims on U.S. public lands is growing. A 27% increase since 2019 has brought the total to nearly a half-million.

A new study showed many are in close proximity to, and could threaten, national parks. In Montana, Idaho and Wyoming, more than 15,000 mining claims are within 30 miles of a national park or monument, according to the National Parks Conservation Association.

Beau Kiklis, associate director of landscape conservation and energy policy for the association, said claims are easy to get, based on a system dating back to 1872. He added a bill now in the U.S. Senate Committee of Energy and Natural Resources could make it even simpler.

"We're seeing agencies and institutions being dismantled and protections for landscapes being reviewed and compromised," Kiklis pointed out. "When we look at this data, our parks and our monuments, they are threatened from the possibility of future mining."

Kiklis noted mining claims are not held to the same standards of review and public process as other public land uses, and residents receive no royalties from the claims. According to the report, holders of mining claims in 2023 paid less than $10 per acre.

Kiklis emphasized it takes, on average, just three years to permit a mine.

"That's pretty fast when you think about the potential threats that are associated with mining, like impacts to groundwater and water supply for communities, wildlife migration and habitat, air impacts," Kiklis outlined. "You think about other public land uses, like recreation and conservation and so forth."

Across the northern Rockies, there are 141 mining claims within the boundaries of national parks and monuments, including Yellowstone National Park and Big Horn Canyon National Recreation Area.

Hunters and anglers are voicing concerns regarding the possible sale of hundreds of thousands of acres in Nevada and Utah.

U.S. Rep. Mark Amodei, R-NV, and U.S. Rep. Celeste Maloy, R-UT, recently introduced a last-minute provision to the massive budget reconciliation package being considered in Washington - which would allow public lands in both states to be sold to local governments or private entities.

Backers say it could help address the housing shortage and grow industry presence.

But Devin O'Dea, Western Policy & Conservation Manager with Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, said the decision sets a negative precedent.

"This process, this way, and budget reconciliation is not the way to go about this," said O'Dea, "particularly because it circumvents established laws that dictate when public lands are sold, that money goes back into conservation and access through the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act."

O'Dea said the current method will bypass that legislation and direct money straight into the general fund, which he said is concerning.

Amodei says Nevada's vast public lands could jeopardize the state's economic growth and adds the reconciliation process presented a "rare" opportunity to advance land disposal requests.

House Speaker Mike Johnson wants to pass the legislation out of his chamber by Memorial Day.

O'Dea added that because the amendment was introduced at the eleventh hour, there was no time for debate. He called that dangerous for democracy.

"Democracy is founded on having a difference of opinion and discussing it," said O'Dea, "and then voting and moving forward."

Dan Johnson, Nevada public lands manager for Trout Unlimited explained that, while some of these public lands had been previously identified for disposal in locally driven lands bills, they were balanced out with conservation.

He said that is not the case with this proposal.

"When there are threats to our public lands," said Johnson, "we step up, because while we might not all be scientists, there is a connection you build with these lands and you end up learning them through lived experience in a very intimate way."

According to recent polling, a majority of voters in both Nevada and Utah oppose giving up control over national public lands.




get more stories like this via email

Correction: An earlier version of this story attributed a quote to Rep. Zinke which was made by Alex Blackmer. (5:05 p.m MST., May 12, 2025)

Montana lawmakers this session voted down a bill supporting the transfer of federal public lands to states but a similar conversation is growing on the national stage.

Last year, Utah sued the United States, claiming the state is deprived of "sovereign powers" because the federal government owns public lands there. Rep. Tom Millett, R-Marion, brought a resolution to fellow lawmakers in support of Utah. It failed 66-34 and received no public comments in support.

Alex Blackmer, senior communications manager for the advocacy group Wild Montana, said such efforts point to a larger trend.

"All of this really goes hand-in-hand with what we're seeing at the federal level," Blackmer observed. "Which is this attempt to dismantle regulations, to dismantle the agencies, dismantle all of these things that have been the foundation of our way of life."

In Congress, the House Committee on Natural Resources has passed a Republican budget package including an amendment to authorize the sale of thousands of acres of public land in Nevada and Utah. Rep. Bruce Westerman, R-Ark., chair of the committee, said the package would "save billions and deliver American energy dominance." Rep. Jared Huffman, D-Calif., called it "breathtakingly reckless."

Also last week, Rep. Ryan Zinke, R-Mont., and more than a dozen other lawmakers launched the bipartisan Congressional Public Lands Caucus to help conserve and maintain access to public lands.

Blackmer noted Zinke has been "pretty outspoken" in support of public lands.

"We certainly appreciate any efforts of elected officials to take a stand to keep public lands in public hands," Blackmer acknowledged. "But I think time will tell how that actually shakes out."

Zinke served as U.S. Interior Secretary during the first Trump administration before stepping down amid allegations of misconduct. At a news conference launching the caucus, Zinke said land sales should not be in the federal reconciliation bill.


get more stories like this via email

The Mississippi River is the drinking water source for 20 million people and its starting point in northern Minnesota has new protections following completion of a deal to preserve several thousand acres of forested land.

The Conservation Fund and Northern Waters Land Trust said the deal, years in the making, covers more 8,200 acres across nine counties between Walker and Duluth.

Emilee Nelson, associate Minnesota state director for The Conservation Fund, said her group purchased a larger chunk of land in 2020 and since then, the Land Trust worked to secure state funding for the acreage in the deal. She pointed out downstream, the river has seen surrounding land converted to other uses, which takes away key buffers.

"The importance of leaving forests on the landscape really helps to soak up water that hits the landscape like a sponge," Nelson explained. "It helps to filter any sort of debris before it hits the Mississippi River."

Separate plans are being finalized with county governments to ensure permanent management and public access to the lands. Nelson emphasized it should benefit hunters and anglers, while protecting wildlife habitat. She added the timing is important with political pressure on the landscapes for possible industrial uses. Rep. Pete Stauber, R-Minn., is part of the push, citing the need for jobs.

Nelson pointed out with such a deal, local timber companies can still benefit from effective forest management, including the need to clear out dying trees.

"When we own it, we would contract with local loggers to help do prescribed thinnings, and to then deliver lumber to local mills, like in Bemidji," Nelson noted.

Organizations involved in the deal said it will protect jobs in the outdoor recreation and tourism sector.