Our national debate over what to do with unoccupied land within our borders has been going on since before the ink was dry on our Constitution. The two original protagonists were none other than Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton, and their disagreement endures to this day.
Opinion
Hamilton, a closet monarchist, wanted the United States to give its unoccupied land to rich, elite men to create a landed aristocracy that would support the new government. European monarchs had used this ploy for centuries, resulting in dukes and barons who would express their appreciation by supporting the crown during war.
Jefferson believed that the land should belong to the common American, so that the new country could expand by “yeoman farmers” working their own land, instead of through neo-feudal American fiefdoms. Thankfully, Jefferson’s wisdom prevailed and our vast public lands are the legacy he left us.
Jefferson’s legacy is worth considering today. Because of his foresight, each American citizen is a shareholder in 650 million acres of our homeland. That is a landmass larger than all but nine countries in the modern world. This public land remains largely as God created it, unspoiled by commercial development.
While Hamilton would have given our land to greedy hedge fund managers who would have bulldozed and paved it for strip malls, theme parks and condos, Jefferson kept it in our hands as our birthright.
This outcome wasn’t the result of any election, but rather one vision of America’s future prevailing over another. Yet our public land is not immune to the results of elections. Elected political forces in our country are persistently trying to pry public land from our hands and turn it over to commercial interests to exploit. When we resist that nonsense, we justify Jefferson’s faith in us as citizens.
Last year saw the most recent attempt to divest us of our public land, when Utah Sen. Mike Lee tried to add a provision to the Big Beautiful Bill that would have sold millions of acres of public land to construct housing. The national outrage over this proposal made Lee withdraw it.
The Wyoming congressional delegation did not weigh in on the side of the citizens, but was supportive of Lee’s boondoggle.
It must be noted that Lee’s provision was entirely unnecessary. Existing laws, both the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the Recreation and Public Purposes Act, already allow the federal government to transfer public land to communities for expanding infrastructure, including housing. So Lee and his supporters had another motive in mind when they tried to pry our public land from our hands.
With election season crowding in upon us, those of us who cherish Jefferson’s legacy should be on our guard for politicians who follow Hamilton’s misguided doctrine and who want to sell our public land to the highest bidder. We should hold their feet to the fire and insist they come clean on where they stand with regard to public land.
Candidates for U.S. Senate on down to Meeteetse’s dogcatcher, should be grilled on this issue, and if necessary, dragged kicking and screaming to be open about their positions on disposal of public land. This should be a question at every campaign whistle stop, town hall, candidate questionnaire and interview in the coming months. If they are not on the side of the vast majority of Wyomingites on this issue, they must be forced to declare their opposition in the public square.
Public land policy should become the fulcrum by which we elevate aspiring politicians to positions of trust in the Big Empty, or deny them the office they covet.
When candidates promise us that they are on our side with important topics like taxes, education and all the other hot-button issues of the day, we must corner them into explaining their stance on public land before we trust them with our vote. If they have lied to us before about it, or if they lie to us this time, we have to remind them that their terms in office are short compared to our memories. Very short indeed.
Aspiring candidates would do themselves a favor by not underestimating our love for public land and knowing that if they do so, they put their political futures in peril. And we would do ourselves a service if we honor Jefferson’s gift to us by protecting it with our votes. If politicians want us to give them a public office, they must commit to preserving our public land.
I only want unbiased information and true facts and where to find them
Sen. Lee is still at it. Curious to learn his relationship with U.S. Dept of Interior. (DOI)
Check out Randy Newberg’s recent podcast regarding what DOI did with our Land, Water, Conservation Fund in 2025. Small minority hard at work stealing our public land.
Protect all public lands. Why allow the transfer of public lands to communities for housing? Without urban growth boundaries there is no limiting factor.
Mr. Miller is 100% right in this article. Wyoming would be wise to heed his suggestions. We need to hold our elected officials’ feet to the fire on this issue and not fall for lies or deception. Thank you, Rod!
Bravo, Rod. Public lands in Wyoming, at least the ones we can legally access, are the lifeblood of sportspeople everywhere. Those wanting our votes need to pay attention to our wishes on what happens to them.
During political ‘debates’ for certain offices, I was always dumbfounded by a lack of questions about the candidates thoughts about public land. As Mr. Miller says, we must insist that they weigh in before we vote. In the present world, we end up with boot lickers like Lummis, Hageman and Barrasso.
Very well said! Thank you for putting my thoughts, as well as the thoughts of the majority of Wyoming citizens and lovers of our great outdoors into words.
Rod Miller may not be as big an asset as Wyoming public lands, but he’s a big asset. Keep up the good work, Mr. Miller. And thank you.
When I looked at the Lee proposal and compared Wyoming vs Montana Federal Delegation’s response, it seemed to prove telling. The Wyoming Delegation gleefully supported it and the Montana Delegation got an exemption from this legislation. As I studied it a little, the choices seemed to come down to big money, which is no surprise. The Big Money in Montana own huge amounts of land in that State that abuts up to public land and those monied interests recognize the value that their land receives by being adjacent to these lands, hence the exemption. While in Wyoming Big Money owns the rights to Barrasso, Lummis and Hageman lock, stock, barrel and crypto and that Money wants to buy or get gifted OUR land for nothing. It is really that simple and yet the low information voter in Wyoming fails to grasp that distinction. I have expressed this view to some of the public land loving Republicans I meet around the State and they cannot believe that Harriet would support such a move and they are still loathe to believe otherwise.
Harriet, like Liz before her, doesn’t really like Wyoming and wants to wallow in the DC swamp, only returning to lie to the Wyoming voter once every 6 years instead of every 2. Sadly the Wyoming Republicans are likely to reward her lazy grift and be complicit in robbing all Americans of our Public Lands.
Wyoming has ALWAYS had deceptive “representatives”.
Dick Cheney CFR “campaigning in Wyoming”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOAk-7F1EVU
If you want to get elected to any position, one must be good at not saying the things that rile up the uninformed, as they react in fear. I am not a fan of this type of lying as it reminds me of my mother as she was doing it for our own good. The consistent lying of Dick came home to roost on his daughter, which is both a blessing and a curse as Harriet Hageman is by far more dangerous to our Republic and our Public Lands. The Cheney’s only stood up for the Constitution when they had too, instead of trying to keep the Wyoming electorate educated on the way the world actually works.
For instance, the fear of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), that drove many people a little nuts thinking that UN with black helicopters were going to control America. Dick knew better, but chose to ignore that fear instead of address it, which helps explain Liz’s loss and Harriet’s rise. Dick’s statement is reminiscent of the one Charlie Wilson (Tom Hanks) makes about his constituency and it applies to the Wyoming electorate. “”I represent the only congressional district that doesn’t want anything. They want low taxes. They want their guns. I get to do favors. I get to vote ‘yes’ a lot.” “Congressmen aren’t elected by voters, they’re elected by contributors. … I’m one of Israel’s guys on the Hill and I don’t know how they’re going to feel about me taking up the cause of Muslims.”
Public land protection brings people who disagree on much together.
Also happy to see your accurate description of Alexander Hamilton. Most of nation have been to believe he was someone worth admiration due to a contemporary NYC musical. He was not.
Add supporter of central banks to Hamilton’s list of negatives.
While it has been said many times, I guess we still need to be reminded that these lands belong to no one, but at the same time they belong to all of us. We are afforded the right to use them ourselves, while still preserving the land of our friends and neighbors. We must not forget that these public lands were held in trust for us by our forebears and we are simply caretakers for future generations. These public lands belong to those unborn as much as they belong to us. We owe it to them, we owe it to each other, and we owe it to ourselves to protect them for the future.
Very well written yet I feel that if you ask hageman or gray the question they will LIE to your face and say that they will support Wyoming citizens and their right to keep public lands for the public. Then go back to the capitol and shaft us.
If you ever want to know what Wyoming thinks about public lands management, let me know. I have a list of questions for those who are really in charge of them and who underhandedly “guide” what and how they are managed. The reason Wyoming despises federal government is, in part, because they aren’t free to do whatever they damn well please, and because they place little value on wildlife. I would defer to a program that could have been the envy of the nation that Brian Nesvik and our politicians killed, which was the Wyoming Game and Fish Department Habitat program. It died shortly after the purchase of the Inberg-Roy Habitat Area and, in my opinion, is why we came up short on our mitigation efforts associated with the Jonah and Anticline gas fields. I was nearly as antagonistic about development prior to what I witnessed when I saw Wyoming’s version of “mitigation.”
“ Public land policy should become the fulcrum by which we elevate aspiring politicians to positions of trust in the Big Empty, or deny them the office they covet.” What happens here will be decided in the ballot box. Get out and vote for candidates who support public lands!