The spine of the federal Bureau of Land Management is the 245 million acres of public land it controls. That includes 30% of the nation’s minerals. And for Oregonians, the BLM manages an impressive sweep of Oregon — about 25% of Oregon’s total land.

Critics fret that the BLM’s proposed change in how it manages that land is wrong. They fear the public lands rule would set off a cascade that would lock up public land for conservation, forcing ranchers from the land over time and preventing access to minerals vital for the technologies of the future.

Two bills in Congress aim to stop the proposed rule. Rep. Cliff Bentz, R-Oregon, is a cosponsor of the House bill.

The BLM has a tricky balancing act in managing public lands. Mountain bikers, ranchers, mining companies, hikers, conservationists all have their emotions, their money and their arguments. There is even disagreement over if the proposed rule would fairly put conservation on the same footing as other uses. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act does say that “where appropriate” public lands will be managed “to preserve and protect certain public lands in their natural condition; that will provide food and habitat for fish and wildlife and domestic animals; and that will provide for outdoor recreation and human occupancy and use.”

The potential rule would enable groups to propose to the BLM that the BLM consider areas for conservation leasing. The conservation areas could not override valid existing rights, the BLM says. Nonetheless, you can surely understand why some are concerned. There are some 152,000 comments on the proposed rule.

Public lands do need to be managed for the future. That includes ranching, mining, recreation — and conservation. Conservation leasing for restoration or mitigation should be an option.