With discussion running hot and hot on Utah Senator Mike Lee’s controversial amendment to the “Big Beautiful Bill” that would put up roughly three million acres of public land for sale, the BlueRibbon Coalition released a statement to analyze the proposal.

The Coalition is one of the most prominent nonprofit organizations in the United States for protecting public land access for recreational use such as off-roading. As such, the group has “consistently opposed large-scale policies that convert public land into exclusive-use zones with no meaningful protections for recreation access,” while smaller transfers are fine so long that they involve lands with little recreational value.

Officially, the Lee proposal is modeled after the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act, which puts up 2.3% of the three million acres of land overseen by the Bureau of Land Management’s Southern Nevada District Office for sale with the explicit goal of housing. Indeed, an analysis by the group of land sales proposed were deemed “overwhelmingly uncontroversial and have not resulted in impacts to recreation access.”

The Coalition’s statement notes maps plotting out land which could be for sale (The Wilderness Society’s map, based on the reconciliation bill text from June 14, is perhaps the most notable one) also includes those that would be protected such as parks and monuments and those with valid existing rights like mining claims and grazing. Overall, less than one percent of federal land would be targeted. Lee also stressed that “15 categories of land” are exempted, though his tweet eventually received a Community Note pointing out national forests are not one of them.

Still, the Coalition acknowledged that the “risk to recreation access is high with this proposal,” such as concerns received from members and the public that it still makes too much ground eligible for sale, that the quotas for sale are too great, or that the proposal is still unclear what land will specifically be available. Some doubt of its sincerity has also been cast because of Lee’s inflammatory personality and political views.

In any case, the Coalition stated they “are communicating these concerns to Senator Lee’s office, and we have let them know that these concerns must be addressed for BRC to support this proposal.

“We are sensitive to the concerns of our members and supporters who are trying to raise families and build businesses in small western towns where housing availability is limited and community growth and development is severely curtailed by restrictive land policies. These are the same communities that provide basic and essential services to the millions of Americans who venture into our public lands. While it is not part of BRC’s core mission to develop and promote community development programs, our recreation experiences on public lands benefit from having strong communities located in the midst of our vast swaths of public lands.

“We’ve been vigilantly watching this proposal since it was introduced, and will continue to do so, along with all proposals that will impact access to the public lands we all love and enjoy.”