Hunters, Fishermen And Outdoors Experts Rejoice As Sen. Mike Lee Backs Off Plan To Sell Public Lands

Conservationists, hunters, fishermen and outdoorsmen celebrated Republican Utah Sen. Mike Lee’s decision to withdraw his public land sales proposal from the “big beautiful” tax bill Saturday.

Lee, who had originally proposed an amendment to the bill that would have required two U.S. agencies holding public lands to sell between 0.5 and 0.75 percent of the land for housing development, withdrew his proposal Saturday.

Conservationists and outdoor lovers lauded his backtrack.

“Big win for conservation!” the Tennessee Wildlife Federation reacted in a Monday post on X.

“Thank you to everyone who called your Senators in support of our nation’s public lands,” the organization concluded.

Big win for conservation! The proposed sale of public lands has been withdrawn by Senator Mike Lee. Thank you to everyone who called your Senators in support of our nation’s public lands. https://t.co/4TQAYApAyF

— Tennessee Wildlife Federation (@TNWildlifeFed) June 30, 2025

Experts, like Gabriella Hoffman, the director of the Center for Energy & Conservation at the Independent Women’s Forum (IWF), viewed Lee’s proposed amendment as a poison pill that would have tanked the crucial tax bill.

“They should have focused on the green subsidy repeals over something as controversial as a public land sale, which is actually quite unpopular even with Western conservatives,” Hoffman told the Caller. 

One such western conservative went a step further than Hoffman, bashing Lee for what he viewed as a major offense. (RELATED: Trump Forced To Fight Off Both Extremes Of His Own Party To Save ‘Big, Beautiful Bill’)

“It’s incredible to me that someone like Mike doesn’t actually take into account of what the feelings of the public might be, he just puts the proposal out there and hopes there’s no backlash,” John Ray, an ambassador for Highlander Adventure, a global hiking event series, told the Caller.

“I hope that he will be removed from office at the next go around,” Ray, who is also a hunter and fisherman, told the Caller.

Ray is originally from Montana, the state where the two Republican senators who ultimately tanked Lee’s provision hail from.

Sen. Tim Sheehy threatened to introduce his own amendment to block Lee’s, the Montana lawmaker said in a tweet Saturday.

I have just concluded productive discussions with leadership. I will be leading an amendment to strip the sale of public lands from this bill. I will vote yes on the motion to proceed.

We must quickly pass the Big Beautiful Bill to advance President Trump’s agenda.

— Tim Sheehy (@TimSheehyMT) June 28, 2025

While acknowledging some folks had sincere concerns, Lee also decried “a tremendous amount of misinformation” that tanked the bill.

During an earlier June interview with The Blaze’s Glenn Beck, Lee also said, “If all I knew about this bill were the falsehoods being circulated by the left, I would hate it too.”

Hoffman was discouraged by Lee’s statements about misinformation.

“It was very disappointing when he criticized opposition people who largely agree with policies that he advocates for … he lumped conservatives who had very serious concerns with radical environmentalists,” she told the Caller.

Hoffman ultimately said she was not opposed to public land reform, and even argued that Lee’s proposal, which would have limited the lands strictly to housing, was too narrow.

“You can support multiple-use management of public lands … have some market reforms there, within the confines of FLPMA [Federal Land Policy Management Act of 1976], and just the order that wherever the government fails, you can bring some outside influence to improve the processes,” she said.

“The better thing to do is to allow for more management, more access, and the first Trump administration did a great job of that, putting in managers at the various different agencies … to ensure that the lands that may have been neglected are better managed,” Hoffman concluded. 

The Daily Caller reached out to Sen. Lee for comment but did not hear back by time of publication.