On Monday, January 20, the presidency of Joe Biden came to an end. During his four years in office, Biden, 82, focused on issues that impact outdoor recreation, such as the preservation of public lands and conservation.

The centerpiece of Bidenā€™s conservation policy was the , a commitment to conserve and restore at least 30 percent of federal public lands and waters in the U.S. by 2030. There are still five years left to go, but during his tenure Biden did protect more lands and waters than any president before him. Bidenā€™s track record on public lands was far from unblemished, though. He also opened public lands for the extraction of natural resources, approved a massive oil extraction project, and oversaw a boom in domestic oil production.

We examined some of Bidenā€™s actions that impacted public lands and the environment to try and determine how he compares to previous presidents. Hereā€™s what we found.

Establishing and Expanding National Monuments and Other Protected Designations

Biden used his power granted by the Antiquities Act to create or expand , which is actually fewer than some of his democratic predecessors. Barack Obama 34 monuments; Bill Clinton did 22. Republican presidents historically have not established as manyā€”Donald Trump and George W. Bush created one and six, respectively. During his first term, Trump became the first president since Dwight Eisenhower to shrink a national monument, drastically reducing the size of Bears Ears. Biden restored the monument to its original size in 2021.

Designating national monuments isnā€™t the only method for presidents to protect public land. Biden also created six new national wildlife refuges, three national marine sanctuaries, and one national estuarine research reserve. He closed roughly 625 million acres of ocean to offshore drilling off of the Atlantic coast, part of the Gulf of Mexico, the Pacific coast off of California, Washington, and Oregon, parts of Alaskaā€™s Bering Sea, and the Arctic. Biden also prevented roads from being built through the Tongass National Forest, a huge swath of undeveloped land in Alaska.

In total, Biden protected 674 million acres of lands and waters, the most of any president in U.S. history. But the drawing and redrawing of the boundaries of Bears Ears National Monument from one presidential administration to the next illustrates the sometimes tenuous nature of land conserved by executive action. Namely, that it is vulnerable to being overturned by subsequent administrations.

Opened Public Land to Drilling and Approving Oil Projects

During his 2020 campaign, Biden swore not to open any new public lands for drilling. And at first, he was true to his word, issuing an executive order that paused all new oil and gas leases. But in 2021,Ģża federal judge struck down his ban on drilling, and public outcry ratcheted up amid rising gas prices. In 2022, Biden on his campaign promise and opened Bureau of Land Management land in Colorado, Nevada, North Dakota, New Mexico, Wyoming, Montana, and Utah to drilling.

Afterward, Bidenā€™s administration approved additional oil and gas permits at a rate comparable to Trump during his first term. Biden also approved the massive, long-disputed Willow Project in Alaskaā€™s National Petroleum Reserve, which will involve drilling up to 199 new oil and gas wells over 30 years.

Many of the leases approved by Biden were sold by former presidentsā€”ConocoPhillips bought the Willow project lease . Industry experts Biden with investing in alternative energy sources that will lower demand for oil and gas in the long run, and the Inflation Reduction Act raised the cost of drilling on public lands going forward. But thereā€™s no getting around the fact that U.S. domestic crude oil production grew to , ever, during his time in office.

ā€œEvery day that you are allowing [the industry] to remain in the room, that you are indulging their fantasies about continued production, that you are allowing them to kind of peddle their false solutions and prolong their existence, youā€™re shooting yourself in the foot,ā€ Collin Rees, U.S. program manager for Oil Change International, in 2024.

Partnering with Indigenous Communities

Biden made history in 2021, when he appointed Deb HaalandĢżSecretary of the Interior. Haaland, a member of the Pueblo of Laguna, is the first Indigenous person ever to lead the department that houses the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The Biden administration included Indigenous communities in planning and decision making around public lands, reaching 400 co-management and co-stewardship agreements with tribal nations.

Biden broke new ground as a president when he became the first to apologize to Indigenous Americans for the federal Indian Boarding Schools, a program designed to eradicate Indigenous cultures through the forced assimilation of their children. One of the new monuments established by the former president was the Carlisle Indian Boarding school, which commemorates that period of history.

The EXPLORE Act

President Biden signed the EXPLORE Act into law in January 2025, after it passed Congress with bipartisan support. The legislation contains more than a dozen outdoor recreation-related initiatives rolled up into one piece of legislation, including protecting the use of fixed climbing bolts in wilderness areasĢżand streamlining the permitting process for guiding companies working on public land.

The Act doesnā€™t appropriate new funding, but it does provide directives to the various land management agencies to take on certain projects, like improving campsite infrastructure, building more restrooms on public land, and installing broadband in the national parks. Many of the EXPLORE Actā€™s provisions focus on increasing access to federal public land, extending an Obama-era initiative offering free national park passes for all fourth graders, making more infrastructure for people with disabilities, and expanding programs to get veterans outside.

Enshrining these priorities into law increases the odds that theyā€™re enacted under following administrations, but agencies like the National Park Service, Forest Service, and Bureau of Land Management have struggled for years to meet existing mandates with insufficient budgets. The National Parks Service, for example, in 2023 that they have an estimated $23.3 billion backlog in necessary upkeep of existing infrastructure.

Policies to Fight Climate Change

Biden was lauded by environmental advocates for securing the in climate adaptation and resiliency projects with the Inflation Reduction Act in 2022 and Bipartisan Infrastructure Law in 2021.

He also rejoined the Paris Climate Agreement, an international commitment to reduce emissions that Obama signed in 2016 and Trump withdrew from when he took office in 2017. Trump withdrew from the Paris Agreement again on January 20, 2025, the first day of his second term.

The Biden administration formed a program called Climate Corps in 2023. The corps was highly publicized by the outgoing administration as rebooting a popular New Deal-era jobs program, the Civilian Conservation Corps. But critics argued that the program was little more than a new label placed on existing federally-supported climate and conservation service jobs. The Climate Corps,Ģżwhich the administration initially said would create 300,000 new jobs, didnā€™t secure any funding from Congress. When it finally , it amounted to little more than a website listing statesā€™ existing climate and conservation positions that were already paid for through programs like Americorps.

Congressional Republicans vehemently opposed the Corps (Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell ā€œpure socialist wish-fullmentā€ and ā€œmake-work programs for young liberal activists.ā€) With Biden out of office, the ā€œClimate Corpsā€ heading has and the is inactive. But many of the actual jobs that had preexisted the Corps, and were briefly pulled under its umbrella, will remain.

There were some service-oriented jobs programs that created new opportunities for young people to work and gain skills in conservation and environmental stewardship during the Biden administration, mostly operating at the state level. The Maryland Climate Corps, for example, launched in 2023, and a dozen other states established or expanded corps of their own.

What Will Bidenā€™s Public Lands Legacy Be?Ģż

The full extent of Bidenā€™s impact on the outdoors may take years to fully understand. Some of his policies are likely to be undone by the Trump administration, which has to shrink national monuments and environmental regulations. His failure to follow through on campaign promises, like the Climate Corps and a ban on new drilling leases, may feel like missed opportunities.

However, the Biden administration did set a new standard for empowering tribal nations to be partners in managing the federal lands that are their ancestral homelands. And the priorities for land management agencies passed in the EXPLORE Act, which address pressing issues for outdoor recreation, are codified into law and more likely to endure from one administration to the next.

The post Did Biden Really Protect Our Public Lands? Hereā€™s His Report Card. appeared first on ŗŚĮĻ³Ō¹ĻĶų Online.

On Saturday, January 4,ĢżPresident Joe Biden signed the Expanding Public Lands Outdoor Recreation Experiences (EXPLORE) Act into law. The new legislation rolls a dozen or so existing outdoor recreation-relation initiatives into one policy, which includes approval of building long-distance bike trails, the protection of rock climbing anchors in wilderness areas, and a more efficient permit process for guiding companies.

The EXPLORE Act is focused on federal public land like national parks, national forests, and areas overseen by the Bureau of Land Management. It directs the various management agencies to improve and develop new parking lots, broadband networks, accessible infrastructure, firing ranges, and restrooms at recreation sites. It also calls for improved coordination between different federal and state agencies to contain the spread of aquatic invasive species like zebra mussels.

ā€œIt will help create more fun all across the country,ā€ Republican Congressman Bruce Westerman from Arkansas, the billā€™s sponsor, Colorado Public Radio when it passed the senate.

The legislation also puts to rest a simmering problem within the rock climbing community by officially sanctioning the use of bolts as fixed anchors in wilderness areas. This became an issue earlier in 2024 when some public areas proposed bans on permanent safety anchorsĢżin national parks and national forests. ā€œPassing this bill in a single legislative session is a testament to the growing power of the climbing advocacy movement,ā€ Heather Thorne, executive director of the nonprofit Access Fund, . ā€œIn the years to come, I hope our federal leaders continue to work together to protect public lands, the agencies that manage those lands, and sustainable climbing access, which enjoys broad, bipartisan support from legislators and climbers across the nation.ā€

Also cause for celebration among some segments of the outdoors community: a simpler, more streamlined process for guiding companies to get permits.

The EXPLORE Act includes measures to help address the housing crisis in gateway communities, such as investing in more public-private partnerships. It also reauthorizes the Forest Service to use administrative buildings as housing.

Several sections of the new law are devoted to increasing access to the outdoors, for veterans, young people, disabled people, and members of underserved communities. It renews the Every Kid Outdoors Act, a program started under President Obama that grants every fourth grader in the U.S. and their family free entry to all national parks and federal public lands for a year.

In addition to installing broadband at federal recreation sites, the act directs public land managers to modernize administrative processes, calling on the national parks to develop a digital America the Beautiful pass. It also introduces a pilot program to improve the accuracy of visitation data, particularly for historically hard-to-document activities such as dispersed camping.

ā€œTodayā€™s passage of the EXPLORE Act will supercharge the outdoor recreation industry and is a victory for our economy, our communities, our quality of life, and our shared connection to the outdoors,ā€ Jessica Wahl Turner, president of the Outdoor Recreation Roundtable, said in when the senate approved the bill on December 19. ā€œBy advancing this transformative legislation, Congress has shown its commitment to ensuring every American has access to world-class outdoor experiences, from our backyard to the backcountry, while supporting the businesses, workers, and communities who make those experiences possible.ā€

The new legislation had bipartisan support in both chambers of Congress. Outdoor policy has become a common ground for lawmakers and advocates from both parties, like the bipartisan grassroots opposition that sprung up against a plan to build golf courses and hotels in several Florida state parks this summer.

For the Biden administration, the EXPLORE Act boosts and helps solidify an already robust environmental record. The outgoing president designated seven new national monuments and expanded others during his term. In 2022, he reestablished the Federal Interagency Council on Outdoor Recreation (FICOR), a group dedicated to making the outdoors more accessible to a greater number of people. The America the Beautiful initiative boosted conservation efforts across government agencies, and his administration frequently engaged with tribal partners in decisionmaking about their ancestral lands.

The post Biden Signed the EXPLORE Act into Law, Enacting a Host of Outdoor Recreation Initiatives appeared first on ŗŚĮĻ³Ō¹ĻĶų Online.

Dear Sundog: We recently went to a wedding in a mountain resort town. We rented a condo online because the wedding hotel was fully booked. I had qualms because I know that people like us are driving up the cost of living for locals, but didnā€™t have a better option so I swallowed the qualms. After a flight delay we arrived a day late. We saw a beat-up car parked in the driveway. As we approached, two young guys who looked like climbing bums tossed some gear into the car, took a look at us, jumped in and drove off. My husband thought it was suspicious and asked me to jot down their license plate number, which I did. Inside the condo it was clear that these kids had spent the night. We called the host, who came over immediately, did a quick clean and changed the entry codes. He told us he was not the owner but a professional host who managed a dozen rentals in town. The actual owner lived out of state. It sat vacant during the off-season.

Later, the host messaged us to say that the owner had filed a police report and wanted our help to identify the squatters. My husband thinks we should hand over the license plate number. I disagree. I donā€™t have much sympathy for the absentee landlord. The kids hadnā€™t actually damaged the condo, and frankly itā€™s not my job to get them in trouble. Whoā€™s right? ā€”Very Resistant to Bending Over for Real Estate Barons Exploiting Locals

Dear VRBO REBEL: First let me commend you and your husbandā€™s coolheadedness: you did not gun down these trespassers in cold blood, which seems an increasingly common response in our country of stand-your-grounders. It appears you have an ounce or more compassion for these loafers even if they made you uncomfortable.

First, letā€™s agree that this owner is fully within his rights to press charges against these guysā€”if he can find them. They committed a crime against his property. Your ethical quandary, VRBO REBEL, is a more interesting one: must you be complicit in this version of criminal justice, especially when you see ethical qualms in the behavior of the victim. Indeed, the American justice system has long skewed to value property more highly than humanity. Hereā€™s an example: in the days of the frontier, out-of-state cattle barons owned herds of cattle numbering in the thousands that they hired cowboys to tend. Itā€™s worth mentioning that the steers and cows could only stay alive by munching off grasses on lands that did not belong to their owners. The herds were too big to manage, and invariably some cattle wandered off. Along comes some hungry cowpoke or Indigenous person who seizes a beef and slices it up for steaks. Now heā€™s a guilty of a hanging offense.

In todayā€™s West, now that beef and lumber and mining are past their prime, the most precious commodity is real estate, specifically rentable residences near some National Park or other natural wonder. When the pandemic brought historically low interest rates, speculators could snap up these properties for far more than locals could afford, and still rent them short-term for enough to cover their historically low monthly mortgage payment. Fill the place with some blonde-wood Scandinavian furniture and patterned shower curtains from Target and voilĆ : an investment that not only yields monthly dividends but will also presumably gain value over the years. The speculator wins, the visitors like yourself wins, while the actual town residents are squeezed.

Getting back to the cattle analogy, if an AirbnBaron owns so many rental properties that he canā€™t keep them properly protected from the scourge of townies, then so be it. I guess I donā€™t see using police work and courts to punish the interlopers as a particularly ethical use of taxpayer money. Just as the cattle baron should have hired more cowboys to guard his cows, so should the rental baron hire a rent-a-cop to patrol his vacant structure.

As for your own question about ratting out these dirtbags, VRBO REBEL, I say hell no. Collaborating with police was not in the agreement you signed. By paying your nightly fee, you have fulfilled your obligations, both legal and financial, to the condo owner. You are not ethically bound to join his posse and help him rope the rustlers. Burn that license plate number with a clean conscience.

Got a question of your own? Send it toĢżsundogsalmanac@hotmail.com

(Photo: Mark Sundeen)

Mark Sundeen, aka Sundog, has done his fair share of squatting in vacant buildings, such as this cabin near Death Valley, circa 1998. Heā€™s also had his share of strangers squatting in his un-winterized desert trailer. So it all sort of evens out?

The post Should I Help an Airbnb Owner Bust His Squatters? appeared first on ŗŚĮĻ³Ō¹ĻĶų Online.

It was a couple years ago, probably eightish miles up the Stuart Peak trail near my home in Missoula, Montana, when I first started thinking about it. A small tree had fallen perpendicular across the trail, no more than four inches in diameter. I had to slow my already-not-that-fast uphill trot to almost a complete stop to step over the tree.

I thought for a half-second, like I always do, that my day would be a tiny bit more pleasant if that tree had not fallen thereā€”or if someone had removed it before I started my trail run that day.

But I carried on, to the top of the peak, stepping over a couple other pieces of deadfall, a minor nuisance on the way up the trail, but a brief low hurdle on my way back down.

I remembered some mountain bikers Iā€™d run into on this same trail a while back, in the early season. Theyā€™d carried a chainsaw to cut the trees that had fallen over the winter, but of course they stopped at the wilderness boundary, where bicycles werenā€™t permitted (let alone chainsaws).

I finished my run, and repeated it several times, always encountering some deadfall. Same with some of the other trails around Missoulaā€”every year brings a few more trees down.

Every time I stepped over one, I made a mental note:

And then Iā€™d go home and never do it. Once or twice I googled electric chainsaws, but never clicked ā€œbuy.ā€

A ripped through our town in late July with winds in excess of 100 mph, and I spent two consecutive days cutting fallen branches, and hauling 15 pickup loads to the city brush pile (itā€™s a small pickup).

The first day, when everyoneā€™s power was out, I had the longest conversation Iā€™d ever had with my neighbor Nathan, standing on the sidewalk in front of his house. I mentioned how I wished I had actually bought a chainsaw instead of just thinking about it, because Iā€™d have it for this, but Iā€™d also be able to cut deadfall on trails.

“What you need,” Nathan said authoritatively, “is a Silky Katanaboy folding saw. Theyā€™re amazing. My buddy talked me into getting one and I love it.”

I googled the Silky Katanaboy. It was $245, and huge. Ideal Version of Me could wait some more, I guess.

Then my friend Kevin and I did an adventurous run/hike up Pyramid Buttes this September, and there was so much goddamn deadfall. I cursed myself, but, shrug, what are you gonna do, cut through 30 trees in the middle of your 17-mile day?

A couple weeks later, on the way up Sky Pilot, same thing. Lots of gymnastics to get up and around all the deadfall. If I were a pompous asshole, I would have huffed and said, ā€œsomebody should do something about this!ā€ But come on, I have some idea of how the world works, and you donā€™t just call the Forest Service and report a downed tree on a lesser-used trail, like youā€™re calling down to the front desk to request more towels.

I googled the Silky Katanaboy again. It was too big (20 inches long, 2 pounds), and too expensive. If I bought it, Iā€™d have to mentally record where the downed trees were, then go back, hike in with an actual backpack, and cut the trees. How about something smaller?

The Silky Gomboy Curve 240. $65. Folds down to 9.5 inches. I measured my running vest. A 9.5-inch saw would just fit. Sure, itā€™s bulky and heavy compared to, you know, not carrying a fucking saw when you go running, but Iā€™m already carrying bear spray in there, and Iā€™m also a 45-year-old middle-of-the-pack dadthlete who loves to eat baked goods. Other people arenā€™t exactly taking a microscope to my Strava times, but they might appreciate a tree not blocking the trail.

I looked online for reviews, finally finding , by Casey, a mountain biker from Montana. The review was good, but what really sold me was when he said this:

ā€œWith work and kids and stuff, I don’t get to go to a lot of trail work days, so this is one of the ways I try to give back and do my part because I use these trails a lot, so I gotta support them somehow.ā€

All told, he said, getting off his bike, pulling out the saw, cutting the tree, and moving it off the trail took 10 or 15 minutes.

I bought that saw, the Silky Gomboy Curve 240.

It fits in my running vest. I cut a piece of deadfall off a trail this week. Itā€™s not much, but itā€™s something.

The post The Ultimate, Compact Tool for Clearing Deadfall on Your Local Trails appeared first on ŗŚĮĻ³Ō¹ĻĶų Online.

Shaun White has been the face of snowboarding for two decades. So what is he doing in retirement? A lot. Heā€™s launching his own snowboard brand. Heā€™s raising money to protect public lands. Heā€™s even starting his own half-pipe competition. In this live interview from The ŗŚĮĻ³Ō¹ĻĶų Festival in Denver, former NFL linebacker Dhani Jones talks with White about life after pro sports and how the keys to his past success play a role in his future.

Tickets to the 2025 ŗŚĮĻ³Ō¹ĻĶų Festival and Summit are on sale now at early bird prices at

The post Shaun Whiteā€™s Next Twist appeared first on ŗŚĮĻ³Ō¹ĻĶų Online.

Last month, opened Boyce Bouldering Parkā€”a 6,000-square-foot expanse of artificial boulders. Carved into the edge of Pittsburghā€™s urban sprawlā€”just fifteen minutes from downtownā€”this free outdoor bouldering gym was designed with an ambitious vision: to bring outdoor adventure to all.

The park boasts more than 100 problems, ranging in difficulty from VB to V10+, which will be reset twice a year by professional setters. It is part of a $4.7 million project inspired by a 2020 Pennsylvania Environmental Council (PEC) study, which highlighted a significant lack of accessible outdoor recreation in and around Pittsburgh. To address this need, planners chose to create a bouldering park and nearby pump track, paired with upgraded restrooms and other park facilities, aiming to foster a sense of community and adventure close to home.

From start to finish, the park revitalization project was designed with climbers in mindā€”but Dean Privett, a local gym owner, consultant, and longtime setter, did more to shape the parkā€™s climbing functionality than anyone else.

Privett has been in the climbing industry for more than 13 years, designing climbing facilities worldwide, including one of his own in Pittsburgh. When he heard that Allegheny County had plans to build a free climbing-oriented outdoor park, he picked up the phone and got into the right room.

It was a good thing he did.

Lacking climbing expertise, the county was planning to install a 30-foot climbing tower with autobelays. But, in an 11th hour meeting, Privett convinced them that bouldering was a safer, more accessible, more affordable, and more climber-friendly alternative.

We arenā€™t motivated by profit; weā€™re motivated by getting folks outside.

ā€œI knew I wanted to make sure whatever got built was as functional as possible,ā€ he told Climbing. ā€œArchitect-led artificial climbing wall constructions tend to be more in the miss column than the hit column with true avid indoor and outdoor rock climbers.ā€ His company, Boulder Solutions, ultimately consulted on the projectā€” with ambitious, progress-oriented setting at the forefront of the design. By prioritizing wall shapes that support varied movement and difficulty, the wall design itself ensured that a dedicated team of setters could regularly rotate problems.

Privett and Allegheny County plan to update the routes at Boyce twice a year, aiming to keep the space fresh and challenging for climbers of all skill levels.

For Privett, this approach was crucial.

ā€œI wanted to create a range of routes that catered to the existing climbing community and also welcomed the ā€˜stumble-upā€™ climber,ā€ he said. ā€œWith the outdoor design, we could control that experience through the wall shapes and by balancing slabs with overhangs.ā€

The park currently boasts over 100 new climbs, ranging from the smaller, kid-oriented ā€œJune Boulderā€ā€”named after Privettā€™s daughterā€”to a V10+ set by IFSC World Cup route setter . Setters from , , , , and the former director of setting for the Cliffs, also contributed to the parkā€™s initial setting.

ā€œMy goal was to provide Pittsburgh with a diverse palette of climbs from incredibly experienced setters,ā€ Privett said. ā€œSo we set in a traditional commercial climbing gym methodology, maybe with a slight emphasis on fun over difficulty; we wanted to have things up there that would challenge people so they would come back.ā€

ā€œMy philosophy here was really to introduce people to it as physical problem-solving and not as a physical challenge,ā€ he added, ā€œto hopefully create that hook-line-and-sinker feel of having an enjoyment for solving a puzzle.ā€

His plan is working. On a recent visit to BBP, he heard a young girl, wearing sneakers, ask her parents to put climbing shoes on her Christmas list.

ā€œThereā€™s a bit of a mentorship barrier thatā€™s been true of traditional rock climbing,ā€ Privett said. ā€œBut here, thereā€™s a nice crossover [between communities]. When climbing is in the public sphere, and in public spacesā€”itā€™s easier for people to give it a try.ā€

Since Boyce is within the jurisdiction of Allegheny County Parks, the challenges that traditional gyms face with liability insurance were minimalā€”itā€™s generally accepted that public areas operate with a ā€œuse at your own riskā€ legal structure.

ā€œWithin commercial climbing gyms, thereā€™s a lot of liability that weā€™re obviously exposed to, but parks operate in a different realm,ā€ Privett said. ā€œThere are federal laws that protect them. They have tolerances for those types of activitiesā€”and that allowed the upkeep and route setting to be a part of the overall budget.ā€

All of that allows the park to serve its primary goal: making outdoor recreation in Pittsburgh accessible to underserved communities.

ā€œThe climbing work is emblematic of that,ā€ said Brett Hollern, Vice President for the PEC Western Pennsylvania Central Region. ā€œSo how does somebody without transportation, without equipment, having never done this before, how do they even approach recreating outdoors or climbing? We bring that experience to them.ā€

Privett echoed the sentiment: ā€œIn places like Pittsburgh, itā€™s just much less common to think about climbing as an activity that you would or could want to do. But our industry could benefit from more awareness around what climbing is. Itā€™s all of our job to educate and introduce people to it.ā€

Hollern hopes that the Boyce Bouldering Park model can inspire other municipalities to consider climbing in their park budgets. ā€œWe operate on the premise that people who recreate on public lands will, in turn, become stewards of those lands. Outdoor spaces like this can activate communities, whether through economic development or quality of life, and Allegheny County really took that idea and ran with it.ā€

Joe Perkovich, the Allegheny County Landscape Architect who supported the project, said the proposalā€™s non-existent barrier to entry was a key reason for the county parks service involvement. ā€œAll of our parks are publicly funded assets and are there for people to use and enjoy,ā€ he continued. ā€œWe arenā€™t motivated by profit; weā€™re motivated by getting folks outside.ā€

For most, the bouldering park is just another addition to Pittsburghā€™s growing outdoor sceneā€”but itā€™s a game-changer for advocates and climbers like Privett. Itā€™s a space where the barriers to entry are lowered, and anyone, regardless of background or experience, can step up, fall down, and fall in love with the sport.

The post Pittsburgh Newest Bouldering Gym Is in a Public Parkā€”and Itā€™s Free appeared first on ŗŚĮĻ³Ō¹ĻĶų Online.

United States President-elect Donald Trump plans to nominate two-term North Dakota governor Doug Burgum to lead the U.S. Department of the Interior, the office that oversees a huge swath of public lands.

Burgum, 68, is a close ally of the fossil fuel industry, but during his time in politics he has also championed outdoor recreation and technology aimed at reducing carbon emissions.

On Thursday, November 14, Trump told attendees at a gala at his Mar-a-Lago club about his intention to nominate Burgum. The news was first .

ā€œI wonā€™t tell you his nameā€”it might be something like Burgum,ā€ Trump told guests on Thursday. Burgum was one of the attendees of the event. ā€œActually, heā€™s going to head the Department of Interior, and heā€™s going to be fantastic,ā€ Trump continued.

The Interior Department oversees the lion’s share of federal landsā€”approximately 500 million acresā€”and manages the agencies National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, and Fish and Wildlife Service, among others. The agency has a massive impact on open spaces, trails, and campgrounds used for outdoor recreation.

Burgum has a track record of promoting outdoor recreation in his policies as governor. In May he created North Dakorta’s Office of Outdoor Recreation. Alongside the creation of the office, Burgum gave $1.2 million in grants for the building of trails.

“From the sales and service of boats, RVs and ATVs, to hunting and fishing gear, bicycles and skis, outdoor recreation is a cornerstone of our stateā€™s economic well-being,” he said in a release in May.

The Interior Department also decides whether or not to lease public lands out for industrial uses, such as logging, mining, or oil extraction. And Burgum’s nomination signals the Trump Administration’s intentions to pursue its “” campaign slogan.

Burgum, who briefly challenged Trump for the Republican nomination, has strong ties to the oil and gas industry. During his 2016 campaign for North Dakota governor, he accepted in campaign contributions from oil executives. He maintains a close with Harold G. Hamm, the chairman of Continental Resources and one of the figures responsible for North Dakota’s massive shale-oil industry.

InĢżApril, Burgum helped organize a fundraising dinner for Trump with some of the wealthiest oil executives in the country. The Washington Post,ĢżBurgum told attendees that Trump would stop President Biden’s “attack” on the oil and gas industry.

Burgum, himself a billionaire, has also been a vocal critic of the policies of President Joe Biden to raise barriers around the extraction industry. In 2023 he lambasted the to raise the cost of oil and gas leases with the Bureau of Land Management. “By raising costs for oil and gas producers who want to develop minerals on federal lands, BLM will drive away producers and drive up energy costs for consumers,” he said in a release. “We should be selling energy to our friends and allies instead of buying them from our adversaries.”

But Burgum has also , and in 2021 he set a target for North Dakota to hit carbon neutrality by 2030. Burgum’s strategy for this goal has been pursuing carbon capture-methodsā€”specifically into the state via a massive pipeline, and then storing the gasses in abandoned oil-and-gas wells to keep them from entering the atmosphere.

Groups championing the environment and public lands reacted to Burgum’s nomination on Friday morning. In a statement provided to °æ³Ü³Ł²õ¾±»å±š,ĢżThe Wilderness Trust said it would work with the incoming administration to acquire and protect vulnerable lands.

“The Wilderness Land Trust has successfully added to designated wilderness through direct action under every administration since we were founded 32 years ago, including during President Trumpā€™s first term during which we transferred over 4,000 acres totaling $8.5M in value to be added to wilderness and public lands,” a spokesman said in a release. “Just as we always have, the Trust will work with Mr. Burgum and the incoming administration.”

Other groups were less diplomatic. In a statement provided to ŗŚĮĻ³Ō¹ĻĶų, David Seabrook, interim president of environmental group the Wilderness Society, said that Bergum “has spent years undermining common-sense environmental and public health safeguards like the National Environmental Policy Act.”

“Public lands are beloved and vitally important to people in this country. The first Trump administration treated these places like theyā€™re meant to be dug up, drilled or sold off for profit,” Seabrook said in the statement. “Gov. Burgumā€™s long track record of pushing for unchecked fossil fuel development sends a loud signal about which path they will take this time around.”

If approved, Burgum would replaced interior secretary Deb Haaland, who was chosen by President Biden in 2020.

Want more of °æ³Ü³Ł²õ¾±»å±šā€™s news stories?

The post Trump Will Nominate North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum as Interior Secretary appeared first on ŗŚĮĻ³Ō¹ĻĶų Online.

Politicians in Utah have a long history of trying to sell off your public land to benefit the oil, gas, and other extractive industries that fund their campaigns. This time they’re trying to do it with That lawsuit argues that all Bureau of Land Management acres within the state’s borders should be transferred to Utah’s control.

If they succeed, the public could lose access to millions of acres that we use to pursue our favorite outdoor activities, wildlife could lose its habitat, and the environment could suffer. Worse, if the Supreme Court accepts the theory that states should have control over federal land, the upshot could be devastating. It could create precedent that might allow politicians in other western states to do the same.

ā€œThe state of Utahā€™s push for control of public lands is a deceptive ploy to privatize and exploit our cherished landscapes,ā€ says Caroline Gleich, who is running to represent Utah in the U.S. Senate. She says the effort is ā€œhiding behind false promises of local management while lining the pockets of special interests at the expense of Utahnā€™s right to access and enjoy these lands.ā€

What Does This Mean for People Who Love the Outdoors?

What’s at stake here for outdoor recreationists is access, and a whole lot of it. More than visited Utah’s public lands in 2023 to recreate and take in the majestic scenery. Since the effort aims to transfer all BLM land in the stateā€”18.5 million acres of itā€”to Utah’s control, it’d be impossible to list every hiking trail, camping spot, or area of natural beauty that might be lost. But let’s look at some highlights.

Over ride the Slickrock Mountain Bike Trail near Moab every year. The 10.5-mile loop rolls along Navajo sandstone, the remains of ancient windblown sand dunes. The land under the trail is thought to contain significant oil and gas reserves and has been the subject of decades-long attempts to open it up to drilling. In 2020, a public pressure campaign forced the BLM to prioritize recreational access, and ban drilling along the trail’s length. If BLM land is transferred to state control, those protections would vanish.

The encompasses over 900 miles of trails in central Utah, the most expansive network of ATV trails in the entire country. It runs across three mountain ranges, reaches elevations of over 11,000 feet, and stretches through fragile deserts and narrow canyons. The system exists on a patchwork of lands administered by both the Fishlake National Forest and BLM, so any sale would fracture continuous access, and destroy the unique ability for visitors to explore such a vast area of uninterrupted riding.

Visiting Canyonlands National Park or Deadhorse Point State Park (the most visited state park in Utah), and want to camp somewhere a little less crowded? Horsethief Campground is located nearby, and the surrounding BLM land is accessible for dispersed camping. That’s . The BLM has to balance the potential economic impact of that mine with the interests of campers and other recreational users, plus its environmental impacts. By law, Utah would only have to consider profitability if it took over management.

That’s because the legal structures governing federal management of public lands are fundamentally different from the mandates governing state management.ĢżLet’s look at the claims the state is making here, then compare them to the facts.

Utahā€™s Claim: BLM Land Is ā€œUnappropriatedā€ and Doesnā€™t Benefit the State

ā€œThe federal government controls nearly 70% of the land in Utah,ā€ reads the boilerplate copy on , a website the state launched to promote its lawsuit. ā€œWhile half of this public land has been designated as national parks, national forests, national conservation areas, or the like, the other half is ā€˜unappropriatedā€™ land, meaning that the United States simply holds the land without any designated purpose.ā€

Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes that this ā€œprevents the state from making money off of taxesā€¦on those acres.ā€

The Facts: BLM Land Contributes Billions to Utahā€™s Economy and Hundreds of Millions to State Coffers

The term ā€œunappropriatedā€ comes from the (and other early acts of Congress), which in 1862 attempted to give away vast swaths of federally-managed land in the west to settlers to encourage economic development. The federal government acquired the area that would later become Utah from the treaty that ended the Mexican-American war in 1848 and in a purchase from Texas.

But not all that land was suitable for the small family farms the Homestead Act sought to establish, so some of it remained unclaimed, except by Indigenous people. The agency responsible for managing that land was at the time called the General Land Office, and along with the U.S. Grazing Service .

Utah is using that ā€œunappropriatedā€ label to imply that BLM land isnā€™t being actively managed or used. This couldnā€™t be further from the truth. The Department of the Interior estimates that, in financial year 2021, lands managed by BLM nationwide produced $201 billion in economic output, supporting 783,000 jobs. In Utah alone, .

While oil and gas companies, ranchers, outfitters, hotels, restaurants, and other businesses profit from extraction and recreation on BLM land within Utahā€™s borders, the state government does, too. Not only in taxing all of thatā€”a study conducted by the University of Utah in 2013 estimated that the state nets from economic activity on BLM and Forest Service land within its bordersā€”but in direct payments from the federal government, too.

And while it’s true that a state government cannot levy property taxes on land managed by the federal government, there’s a program in place to make up for that. In 2021, the BLM paid to Utah in Payments in Lieu of Taxes. represent a portion of the revenues collected by BLM from extraction activities, and Utah uses them to fund roads and schools, and supplement the income and property taxes paid by Utah residents in other state programs. Those payments are guaranteed income for state governments, and come without any cost to the states within which the BLM operates.

Utahā€™s Claim: Itā€™s Illegal for the Federal Government to Own Land

ā€œUtah has filed a landmark public lands lawsuit asking the U.S. Supreme Court to address whether the federal government can simply hold unappropriated lands within a state indefinitely,ā€ reads Stand For Our Land.

ā€œNothing in the text of the Constitution authorizes such an inequitable practice,ā€ , who is managing the lawsuit, in a press release upon filing suit.

The Facts: Itā€™s Literally in the Constitution

Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 reads:

ā€œThe Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.ā€

The Supreme Court has ruled on the legality of federal land ownership several times. Notably, finding that Congressā€™s power under the Property Clause is, ā€œ,ā€ in 1940 and ā€œ,ā€ which can be read as ā€œunqualified or absolute,ā€ in 1987.

In 1972, the court ruled on the legality of the federal governmentā€™s efforts to protect wildlife on public lands. The decision reads, ā€œthe complete power that Congress has over federal lands under this clause necessarily includes the power to regulate and protect wildlife living there.ā€

During the ratification of the Constitution, Congress had to resolve the often overlapping nature of lands claimed by the states. The royal charters that established the colonies of Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, for instance, granted them incredibly broad, vague claims to massive swaths of land often running north into Canada and all the way west to the Pacific Ocean. In 1780, : the states would cede their western territories to the federal government, ā€œfor the use and benefit of the United States.ā€

As an aside, this is why thereā€™s so little public land on the east coast, and so much out westā€”blame King George.

When Utah became a state in 1896, the federal government was land rich, and cash poor, so it was common practice to give new western states a portion of federal land that they could use for development. Utah was given 7.5 million acres, while the federal government retained 37.3 million acres. The remaining 9.7 million acres were private property.

Utah agreed to these terms. states, ā€œThe said State of Utah shall not be entitled to any further or other grants of land for any purpose than as expressly provided in this Act.ā€

ā€œLike other Western states, Utah agreed to relinquish public lands within its borders as a condition of becoming a state,ā€ Randi Spivak, public lands policy director for The Center of Biological Diversity . ā€œRewriting history and spending taxpayer dollars on a hopeless, expensive court battle is the antithesis of good governing.ā€

Utahā€™s Claim: The State Would Be a Better Steward

ā€œUtah deserves priority when it comes to managing its land,ā€ . ā€œAnd Utahns are best positioned to understand and respond to the unique needs of our environment and communities.ā€

ā€œIf Utah were to acquire BLM lands, the Utah department of Land Management would come into existence and manage them under the Utah Public Lands Management Act, prohibiting the privatization of these public lands except in rare situations,ā€ the narrator says in .

The Facts: Utahā€™s Constitution Would Force a Sale

The stateā€™s own promotional material, which prominently addresses the sale of public lands, is the elephant in the room.

The is a vague text that contains no financial mandates or duties, and no mention of any mechanism (even what might define or determine that ā€œrare situationā€) for the dispersal or sale of lands. It is incapable of governing the management, sale, or dispersal of any public lands the state might take over.

For that, we have to turn to , which says of State Trust Lands (those tracts of land provided to Utah by the federal government which remain undeveloped): ā€œThe state shall manage the lands and revenues generated from the lands in the most prudent and profitable manner possible.ā€

Utah’s constitution also mandates that the state legislature . The state cannot legally operate in deficit.

Itā€™s those for-profit, no-deficit mandates in Utahā€™s constitution which are the rub. In contrast, the BLM is mandated to manage for multiple use and sustained yield. Should a large expense like fighting a massive wildfire, or dealing with widespread flooding, or a deadly cloud of toxic dust occur, the federal government is equipped with the legal and legislative structure necessary to draw funds from other parts of its budget, and deal with the problem.

In contrast, Utah would be legally bound to continue to achieve profits from that land, which may force the sale of portions of it to cover those costs. In the event of a transfer from BLM, Utah would immediately begin losing hundreds of millions of dollars annually, and with mitigation bills already racking up (fixing that toxic dust cloud alone is estimated to cost ) itā€™s easy to see why people fear Utahā€™s politicians might turn to their sponsors in the oil and gas industries for help.

Beyond the possibility of a massive sell off of formerly-public land, thereā€™s the topic of local input in decision making on BLM land. Stand for Our Land references the Biden Administrationā€™s recent Public Lands Rule (which adds for the environment and wildlife conservation to BLMā€™s legal structure for rulemaking)Ģż and the agencyā€™s as examples of far-off bureaucrats making decisions without local input that end up impacting the stateā€™s economy.

This is an oft-repeated refrain across efforts to steal public land from American citizens, and an argument that is made in bad faith. It may be counterintuitive, but the federal governmentā€™s decision making on public lands actually involves more mandated local input from the public and stakeholders that also include state and local governments, plus extractive industries, than state decision making processes would.

That Public Lands Rule was made only after a 90-day public comment period and . The trail closures in Moab were developed , even organizations and individuals who opposed the plan. In contrast, the only thing Utah would have to consider is whether or not its decisions would make money.

Whatā€™s Next?

The Attorney General’s office filed the suit on Tuesday, August 20. A judge has yet to review the case.ĢżŗŚĮĻ³Ō¹ĻĶų will update this story as the court proceedings move forward. In the meantime, Utahns who want to protect their public land can call their state representatives and make their voices heard.

ā€œOnce public lands are transferred to the state, they are overwhelmingly sold to the highest bidder and closed forever,ā€ says Gleich. ā€œThe best way to keep access to public lands is to keep them public. We must be good stewards of our land for future generations.ā€

The post 18.5 Million Acres of Public Land Are on the Line in Utah in a New Lawsuit appeared first on ŗŚĮĻ³Ō¹ĻĶų Online.

Let me establish my tourist bona fides before we go any further. I am a 47-year-old white man who has lived in the suburbs for the vast majority of my existence. I have spent a grand total of one week camping. I consider emptying the dishwasher to be hard labor. I donā€™t know how to pitch a tent, build a lean-to, start a fire without matches or a lighter, or climb any rock higher than three feet tall. I am not hardy. The only other time that ŗŚĮĻ³Ō¹ĻĶų asked me to write for them, it was to review bathrobes, which are generally not worn outside. I own both cargo shorts and a fanny pack.

Finally, I am an American. Nothing screams ā€œtouristā€ more than being a big, stupid American.

And I am legion. The U.S. has a near-infinite supply of clueless tourists such as myself, much to the dismay of our National Park Service. Yellowstone, our most famous national park thanks to Kevin Costner, welcomes 4.5 million of us each year. Like all of our parks, Yellowstone takes in tourists not only for the revenue but to remind them that the physical country they reside in is a marvel well beyond their comprehension. As such, Yellowstone is set up to accommodate these hordes. And while park officials do their best to keep tourists in line, often literally, my kind still manage to do plenty of tourist shit. We . We get shitfaced and with animals ten times our size. And we hurt ourselves. According to NPS data, at least 74 people have died while visiting Yellowstone in the past 15 years. I could have been one of those people. I deserve to be one of those people.

This is why ŗŚĮĻ³Ō¹ĻĶų sent me to the park just a few weeks ago, during one of the busiest times of the year. They wanted me to observe our most basic tourists in the wild. Maybe Iā€™d even get to see one die. Or, even better for my editors, maybe I would die while I was there. Maybe Iā€™d look down my nose at the tourists around me only to end up as wolf food myself. Like most other Yellowstone visitors, I was not trained for the outdoors, I relish doing shit that posted signs yell at me not to do, and I often daydream about fighting bears (and winning!). I find danger tempting, which isnā€™t a good thing given that I can no longer swim a single pool lap without taking a break. Are people like me responsible enough to visit one of our national treasures without breaking it? Do we, as a population, know how to do national parks?

There was only one way to find out: by going into the park and behaving like an idiot.

The post Why Does Yellowstone National Park Turn Us All into Maniacs? appeared first on ŗŚĮĻ³Ō¹ĻĶų Online.

Dear Sundog: While on a road trip, I reserved a public campsite online which cost $15. When the day arrived, I saw that we werenā€™t going to make it that far, so I went to cancel. I did not expect a refund, but learned that I would have to pay an additional $10 to cancel. My rule-following partner wanted to pay the fee, but I said forget about it. Who was right? ā€”K

Dear K: Although Sundog is no couples counselor, this is one instance in which I can confidently say: neither of you is right, neither is wrong. Yes, I suppose itā€™s better to follow the rules. But throwing away any amount of money, even ten dollars, is of dubious benefit. I mean, when you pay a parking ticket do you feel like youā€™ve improved society?

But your conundrum wades into the murkier waters of what has become a national crisis: virtually all good campsites are booked solid, while many are half-empty, due to folks like you who either forgot to cancel or refused to pay the cancellation fee or simply got defeated by making yet one more online transaction (forgot the password, etc.) in our lives which seem increasingly dominated by dicking around on the internet.

We arrived at this situation, as usual, by believing that technology would make life easier. And I think we can all agree that going to and clicking a few boxes is much simpler than phoning a bunch of ranger stations across the country, being put on hold, having to call back during business hours, etc. But the unintended consequence is a system that greatly benefits laptop warriors with money to burn, and penalizes the people who actually pack up their gear and get offline and into the woods. Any competent iPhone user can secure dozens of campsites in a few minutes, six months in advance, paying a relatively small fee for the privilege. Many wonā€™t bother to cancel, and wonā€™t be able to arrive. Now the actual campers who roll through the loop at dusk are faced with reservedā€”yet emptyā€”sites, and must travel on, likely to some undesignated sites where they will poop in a hole and leave a bed of charred sticks in a circle of stones.

Basically online reservation systems have created a moral hazard. We are encouraged to behave badly. The ease of reservations creates a false scarcity, so everything gets booked up within hours of becoming available. And as you note, there is a literal cost to do the right thing. The lack of real consequences for no-showing, combined with fees and hassles, encourages us to do what you did, K, and simply pay for an empty site.

So how can we end this? One solution would be to raise the costs exorbitantly. Youā€™re less likely to eat a $100 per night fee than a $15 per night fee. And yet this would again favor people with the means and energy to waste money.

Sundog suggests an easier cancellation policy with more draconian consequences. It should be free to cancel up to the day of arrival. That would have made your decision, K, a no-brainer. After that, no-shows should be banned from rec.gov or whatever state platform they used for a full year. This doesnā€™t mean they canā€™t go camping for a year. Just that they have to show up and wait in line for cancellations like the rest of us. This system is already used for some coveted river permits, where no-shows are not allowed to enter the lottery for two full years. Banning the no-shows from rec.gov would not only discourage bad behavior, but it would also reduce the pressure on the platform, as the worst hoarders who make a ton of reservations would be blocked.

³§³Ü²Ō»å“Ē²µā€™s column on ratting out a neighborā€™s Airbnb in a resort town sparked some feverish fan/hate mail. Sundog told the writer to go ahead and tattle. Readers replied in droves, even implying that Sundog supports Vladimir Putin (which, for the record, he does not).

You excoriate the speculator purchasing a property at market price, as determined by an unpressured agreement between a willing seller and a willing buyer. The seller is presumably, based on your article, a local person. Yet there is no mention or castigation of the seller in your article? Is there a reason for this discrepancy in assigning blame, or is it just hypocrisy? Presumably, the sellers are friends and neighbors of the people up in arms about the issue who still live in the neighborhood.ĢżĢż

Are you saying some government overlords should determine who can sell what goods and services and at what prices? Sounds rather Putin-like to me. Perhaps they will next seek to monitor and manage communication and various writings done by people, so as to not sully the minds of the population.

Are you saying the government overlords should dictate who can stay in a rental house? Apparently, per your agreement with the questioner, college kids and dirtbags are OK, vacationing families are not?

I didn’t see anything from the person complaining as to how the change in clientele of the house caused him specific harm. Perhaps that was omitted from the article for the sake of brevity?

I see you complaining about Amazon killing off bookstores and streaming services killing record stores, but you are just fine with accepting payment for on-line blogs with no concern for your participation in the death of print media? I guess it is OK as long as you get yours, eh? ā€¼·.øé.

Invariably, there were a few readers in ³§³Ü²Ō»å“Ē²µā€™s camp:

Very refreshing to read a piece that does not genuflect to the predatory investment tools that are so in vogue by people that don’t want to do actual work… The comment about ski towns stood out because I live in one, Rutland, VT, near the Killington skiers’ paradise. Rutland is selling its soul to the highest bidder under the guise of replenishing population, but resulting in a drastic inequity in income. I am incubating a blistering opinion piece that probably will not see print because it will violate the requirement to be patriotic. ā€”J.±Ź.

And this being America, all paths lead quickly to polarizing politics:

I just read your article on Airbnbs. I sit on the planning and zoning board for my quaint town. I appreciate what you have said and agree with you. However, I live in Florida, where local governments are no longer able to regulate tourist homes if it was not already in their code. The state also recently just passed a law that preempts local governments from banning home based businesses like massage parlors and vehicle repair shops. Just wanted to let you know what our POS governor is doing to us in Florida. He is single handedly making lives of every citizen worse off.Ģż

It terms of poetic brevity, this letter wins first prize:

Why does your article have ads for Airbnb? Pretty weird.

Got a question of your own? Mad as hell about something Sundog wrote? Send a note to: sundogsalmanac@hotmail.com

The post Canceling My Campsite Allows Someone to Use It. But There’s a Fee. appeared first on ŗŚĮĻ³Ō¹ĻĶų Online.