It’d be easy to dismiss the armed standoff near Burns, Ore., as simply the work of fringe, anti-government fanatics. But what’s happening there is just an extension of the anti-government, anti-public land movement that’s been growing in Congress. The tactics may differ but the underlying notion is the same: dismantling our public lands – places like national forests– in favor of a system that prizes profits over conservation.

For several years, there’s been a concerted effort in Congress – which has gained some steam with Rep. Rob BishopRobert (Rob) William BishopOvernight Energy: Puerto Rico officials defend Whitefish deal before Congress | US wants level playing field at UN climate summit | House passes flood insurance overhaul GOP chairman cites ‘credibility gap’ in Puerto Rico recovery Lawyers warned Puerto Rico utility against Whitefish contract MORE (R-Utah) at the helm of the House Natural Resources Committee – to hand federal land over to the states. The inevitable result, would be that these lands would be opened up for more logging, mining, grazing, fossil fuel development and anything else that cuts a profit for a few (and ignores the natural value for many).

While people like Bishop and several Republican presidential candidates have rightly condemned the dangerous tactics of those in the Oregon standoff, they can’t distance themselves from the movement that’s been pushing to “give back” or “transfer” federal lands to the states.

Their very concept is premised on a serious flaw. America’s federal public lands — our national forests, national parks and the Bureau of Land Management’s grasslands, sagebrush steppe and deserts – never belonged to the states to begin with. When western states entered into the compact of statehood with the United States, in exchange for receiving a very large amount of federal public land among other stipulations, they agreed to forever disclaim all right and title to those federal public lands.

As to transferring federal public lands to Western states, that would be tantamount to U.S. taxpayers handing over $1.0 trillion worth of land and assets. Assuming a conservative value of $1,500 per acre, multiply that by the total federal public lands of 674 million acres = $1.0 trillion at fair market value. Importantly, that figure doesn’t begin to account for the incalculable value of watersheds and water supplies (our national forests produce half of the water in the West), wildlife habitat, carbon stored in soils, plants and trees, flood control, and recreation and tourism revenue.

Make no mistake, if our federal public lands were given to the states – the intent is to privatize and sell to the highest bidder America’s natural legacy. Sens. Marco RubioMarco Antonio RubioCongress faces growing health care crisis in Puerto Rico The Hill's 12:30 Report Colbert mocks Trump for sipping water during speech on Asia trip MORE (R-Fla.), Ted CruzRafael (Ted) Edward CruzTexas Republicans slam White House over disaster relief request Dem rep: Trump disaster aid request is 'how you let America down again' Moore endorsements disappear from campaign website MORE (R-Texas) and Rand PaulRandal (Rand) Howard PaulCongress must end American support for Saudi war in Yemen Black men get longer prison sentences than white men for same crimes: study Sarah Palin on sexual harassment: 'People know I'm probably packing' so they 'don't mess with me' MORE (R-Ky.), as well as the likes of Bishop, intend to turn these irreplaceable lands over to those who view them only as sources of profit for mining, logging, grazing and burning fossil fuels.

The states would have to privatize these lands, not only because they want the money, but also because they can’t afford to manage them. The fact is the federal government provides very large subsidies to the livestock industry, timber, mining and fossil fuels. The very reason that the national forests came into being was to protect lands and watersheds from robber barons who were stripping the West of its natural resources. The very reason we have laws today that govern federal public lands was to turn the tide against extractive industries and their rapacious appetite for oil, gas, minerals and timber while laying waste our forests, rivers and streams.

The Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon, for example, is a critically important area for many unique species of birds that frequent the Pacific Flyway. Visitors to refuge contribute $1.9 million annually into the local economy. Those at the center of the controversy in Oregon, including the Bundy and Hammond families, have used public lands to graze their livestock. The public land grazing industry pays just $1.69 per animal per month for each cow and calf that grazes the public land unit (it costs more to feed a cat). In 2013, the federal grazing fees were just 6.72 percent of fees charged for non-irrigated Western private grazing, and were $125 million less than what the government spent on the livestock grazing program in 2014 according to a report by natural resource economists that analyzed the costs of livestock grazing on public lands commissioned by the Center for Biological Diversity.

We all own these public lands and we should all have a say in how they’re managed. What’s happening in Oregon is deplorable – armed seizure of a federal building to bully the government and threaten violence – but there’s a larger movement here in D.C. that, for the future of our public lands, is deeply troubling as well. Once you privatize our irreplaceable natural heritage, there’s no going back.

Spivak ( is the public lands program director for the Center for Biological Diversity.