Voices: Mike Lee’s public land sale would hurt Utah’s farmers, animals and rural communities

Utah Sen. Mike Lee says he wants to protect small ranchers. So why is he pushing a land sell-off that would hand more control to corporate agribusiness?

In early 2023, Lee sounded the alarm about consolidation in agriculture. He warned that small farmers and ranchers were forced to fund industry groups, and federal programs increasingly catered to corporate agribusiness with the intent of accelerating market concentration. His Opportunities for Fairness in Farming Act was a welcome recognition that industrial consolidation threatens the long-term viability of rural communities and further weakens United States food systems.

But now, Lee is pushing for what would be the largest public land sell-off in modern U.S. history. While his revised proposal narrows the scope — removing Forest Service lands and limiting sales to Bureau of Land Management parcels within five miles of population centers — the core risk remains unchanged. Framed as a fix for federal bureaucracy or housing, it could fast-track corporate control and further centralize our food system.

That’s not just a policy mistake. It’s a direct threat to Utah’s ranching community and the diverse, resilient agricultural system we need for the future.

My work at Compassion in World Farming focuses on getting animals out of cages and back on the land. Public grazing has its flaws, but it’s far better than industrial pig and chicken farming, where 99% of farmed animals live in factory farms. Lee’s plan risks pushing ranchers, already squeezed by corporate monopolies, away from pasture-based systems and deeper into industrial confinement.

Utah ranchers don’t solely rely on private property to feed their cows. Most depend on a combination of private land and federal grazing allotments to maintain economically viable operations that can compete with industrial agriculture. The Bureau of Land Management oversees 1,410 grazing allotments in Utah, covering 22 million acres. These permits are tied to “base properties,” keeping public land access with local producers who live and work in these communities.

Lee’s plan purports to prioritize states and local governments, but any unsold parcels could be auctioned off to the highest bidder. And that bidder is more likely to be a corporate land trust than a family farm.

The economics of this proposal make further concentration of the beef industry inevitable.

Under current rules, federal grazing costs just $1.35 per animal per month. On private land, that rate exceeds $23. Corporate buyers can easily outbid family operations for that land, then raise grazing fees to market rates, or eliminate grazing access to pursue more profitable land uses. The result? Small ranchers are pushed out of business or into industrialized animal feeding operations that compromise animal welfare and environmental sustainability, pollute our communities and destroy Utah’s rich ranching culture and landscapes.

This isn’t speculation. Even under the current system, large agribusinesses already hold significant numbers of federal grazing permits. Selling these lands would cement their control.

Lee has been right to criticize government programs that benefit the largest players at the expense of small producers. But his land privatization plan would do exactly that. It hands a publicly owned resource to the biggest operations while leaving family ranchers behind.

The current system isn’t perfect. Federal grazing programs cost taxpayers about $123 million annually, and some permits could better serve conservation, watershed protection, wildlife habitat and broader community goals. But if we’re serious about reform, we should focus on improving the system to support diverse, sustainable agriculture rather than replacing it with a privatized model that accelerates corporate consolidation. Real reform would improve oversight, ensure fair pricing and prioritize permits for producers committed to sustainable practices.

A compassionate approach to agricultural reform would strengthen family farming operations that can provide alternatives to industrial animal agriculture. It would ensure that public resources support producers who prioritize animal, environmental and community stewardship rather than simply maximizing profits.

Public lands aren’t just scenic backdrops — they’re essential infrastructure for sustaining rural economic diversity. Turning them over to the highest bidder would sever that connection, replacing community stewardship with corporate ownership focused on short-term returns.

Lee has shown he understands the risks of agricultural consolidation. Now, he needs to apply that understanding to land policy. Rebranding the plan as “freedom zones” and limiting eligible parcels doesn’t address the underlying issue: Once land is sold, public accountability ends.

Privatizing public rangeland would accelerate the very trends toward a monopolized agriculture that he says he opposes — trends that are harmful to farmers, animals and rural communities alike.

Our public lands belong to all of us and future generations. Once they’re sold, they’re gone. Let’s keep them in public hands and use them to support the kind of agriculture Lee claims to defend.

Alex Cragun is Head of Strategic Communications at Compassion in World Farming USA and has over a decade of experience in nonprofit government affairs, public policy and grassroots campaign management. Cragun holds a master’s in public administration from the University of Utah.

The Salt Lake Tribune is committed to creating a space where Utahns can share ideas, perspectives and solutions that move our state forward. We rely on your insight to do this. Find out how to share your opinion here, and email us at voices@sltrib.com.