It’s a tale as old as time: progressive proposals promising progress at the cost of destroying what makes America truly beautiful—its untouched wilderness. Now Senate Republicans are bringing forth a plan to sell millions of acres of public land across 11 western states to pave the way for more housing. It’s a plan that has conservationists—and some Republicans—bubbling over with discontent, and rightly so.

Even from a conservative perspective, it’s necessary to pause and consider the implications of this proposal. There’s an undeniable allure to maintaining America’s natural landscapes. Conservatives, often the silent stewards of the land with a love for hunting, fishing, or simply soaking in the natural beauty, understand this. The label “environmentalist” might sound a bit too radical for some, but under the guise of naturalism—much like our predecessor Teddy Roosevelt—we remain ardent conservationists. We cherish the land not just for what it can offer in terms of resources, but for its intrinsic value to the human spirit.

So why are we even talking about selling off public lands for housing? To be blunt, it’s a short-sighted folly. Before even considering the irreversible act of erasing wilderness, shouldn’t we tackle the issues making urban areas undesirable? Crime-infested cities are not an unchangeable fact of life—they’re a call for enforcing laws already on the books.

This isn’t a call to put a halt on development entirely. As conservatives, pragmatism is one of our cornerstones. If, and only if, it became absolutely essential, some tough decisions might be forced upon us. However, that necessity isn’t visible on the horizon. Instead, we should be creatively solving the housing problem. Look at the unused urban spaces—the abandoned malls and office complexes. They could be repurposed into housing, keeping cities vibrant and taking pressure off our wilderness.

Conservation, the “conserve” in conservative, is more than just a whimsical notion. It’s about ensuring future generations inherit a world that still inspires awe. While we should always critique radical conservation measures that hinder practical progress, the principle itself holds essential value. It’s about balance—a balance that ignores silly notions like conserving land purely to protect a rare tortoise but holds ground against reckless environmental alterations without just cause. Enforcing this balance is what truly aligns with conservative values.

So let’s not rush to level wilderness for what might become yet another overcrowded urban sprawl. Instead, let’s preserve what makes this country remarkable. The land should remain untouched unless necessity truly forces our hand. A conservative stance champions wise stewardship of resources, advocating careful consideration before making irreversible actions that might leave future generations poorer, not richer.