Leupold Banner

Idaho HB 265 - Public Lands

ERSS

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 23, 2008
Messages
1,497
Location
Eastern Idaho
At the prompting of the Idaho chapter of BHA, I sent some emails to representatives against this bill. Looks like we have a few on our side.

Dear Jeff,
Thank you for writing. I too love our public lands and want to be sure they are protected for future generations. I will not vote for it. I'm hoping that it will die an ugly death before the session ends. I will debate against.

Representative Phylis K. King
Idaho Legislature
PO Box 83720
Boise, Idaho 83720-0038
332-1080

Jeff,
Thank you for contacting me about your concerns about Idaho's public lands. The Interim Lands Committee recently issued a report indicating that Idaho does not have a constitutional or legal argument to advance a case in court to have the state take over federal lands. In addition to this, our Idaho citizens have voiced repeatedly, that they do not support any scenario where the state would take control of lands. Reports issued through the University of Idaho's Policy Analysis Group found the state could lose hundreds of millions of dollars in eight of nine different scenarios they investigated involving such a transfer.

The citizens of Idaho value our public and federal lands. I do not believe that a state "takeover" makes sense. I support protecting our federal and public lands for future generations to enjoy.

Thank you again for contacting me and staying involved in our state government.

Cordially,


Rep Melissa Wintrow

District 19
 

smarandr

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 8, 2010
Messages
1,171
Location
East Idaho
That's nice to see. Although, I have to admit it would have been even nicer if it had been a couple of Rs that had responded like that.
 

6speed

Active member
Joined
Jan 13, 2011
Messages
1,209
Location
Idaho
The reply I got.

Thank you for contacting me about public lands in Idaho and the plans to form a compact with other states via H265.
Like you, I agree that lands are a very valuable resource for sporting, recreation, conservation, and development. We should be extremely careful in how we use and/or regulate them.
Unfortunately, I disagree with your assessment about how to manage public lands in Idaho. The western states of the U.S. are unique in that the majority of our lands is in federal control, under the direction of bureaucrats and legislators in Washington, DC who know little about the values and wishes of western states’ citizens. Most states in the U.S. control the vast majority of their lands. Currently Idaho only controls about 33% of its most valuable resource. If there are enormous costs of managing the land, then it is hardly fair for Idaho to pass those costs onto the rest of the U.S. We should care and pay for our own stewardships.
I think Idaho should do everything in its power to wrestle control of its lands back from the federal government. We will be the best stewards and make sure that the interests of all Idahoans are considered as we manage our own lands. I'm not sure if H265 is the best vehicle for achieving that goal (a multi-state compact concerns me), but I will do my best to research it and make the proper vote. I welcome you to send along any further information or concerns you might have.
Thank you again for contacting me, I really appreciate your insights.
Sincerely,
Ron



Rep. Ronald M. Nate, Ph.D.
District 34-A (Madison, Bonneville)
2139 Ferris Lane,
Rexburg, ID 83440
Phone: 208-403-3609
 
Last edited:

smarandr

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 8, 2010
Messages
1,171
Location
East Idaho
The reply I got.

Thank you for contacting me about public lands in Idaho and the plans to form a compact with other states via H265.
Like you, I agree that lands are a very valuable resource for sporting, recreation, conservation, and development. We should be extremely careful in how we use and/or regulate them.
Unfortunately, I disagree with your assessment about how to manage public lands in Idaho. The western states of the U.S. are unique in that the majority of our lands is in federal control, under the direction of bureaucrats and legislators in Washington, DC who know little about the values and wishes of western states’ citizens. Most states in the U.S. control the vast majority of their lands. Currently Idaho only controls about 33% of its most valuable resource. If there are enormous costs of managing the land, then it is hardly fair for Idaho to pass those costs onto the rest of the U.S. We should care and pay for our own stewardships.
I think Idaho should do everything in its power to wrestle control of its lands back from the federal government. We will be the best stewards and make sure that the interests of all Idahoans are considered as we manage our own lands. I'm not sure if H265 is the best vehicle for achieving that goal (a multi-state compact concerns me), but I will do my best to research it and make the proper vote. I welcome you to send along any further information or concerns you might have.
Thank you again for contacting me, I really appreciate your insights.
Sincerely,
Ron



Rep. Ronald M. Nate, Ph.D.
District 34-A (Madison, Bonneville)
2139 Ferris Lane,
Rexburg, ID 83440
Phone: 208-403-3609

Pretty dumb for a Ph.D.
 

smarandr

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 8, 2010
Messages
1,171
Location
East Idaho
Yes, economics professor

You've got to be kidding me. Either some economics courses at BYU-I are being taught by someone completely incompetent, or Brother Nate is letting ideology trump the basest of common sense. I wonder which?
 

idahofishnhunt

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 2, 2012
Messages
1,129
Location
Southwest Idaho
Wow...it's sad that the so called "highly educated" seemed to be the ones in office now, instead of those with more common sense on their shoulders.
 

James Riley

Banned
Joined
Jan 10, 2015
Messages
1,821
He understands the law of supply and demand: Human life is getting cheaper as the supply grows, wages drop and demand is filled; land and nature is getting more valuable as demand grows and supplies diminish. He merely seeks to ensure it goes to the highest bidder. Gubmint (of which he is a part) just gets in the way if not working for those who own it.
 
Last edited:

Sawtooth

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
1,642
Location
Idaho
As a PhD. of economics, Rep. Nate is looking at these lands in terms of $$$$. So when he says "Like you, I agree that lands are a very valuable resource for sporting, recreation, conservation, and development", I imagine he is thinking Private land and outfitted hunting and fishing, commercial logging and subdivisions filled with Mac Mansions. Not wandering the backcountry with friends, watching your son catch his first fish in an alpine lake, or passing on a legacy of wild places on to the next generation. Two completely different conversations are taking place while using the same words describing what each side *values".
 
Last edited:

smarandr

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 8, 2010
Messages
1,171
Location
East Idaho
What bothers me about his message is the blatant intellectual dishonesty. He knows darn well that there shouldn't be an "If" at the beginning of the sentence about the costs of managing lands. He also knows darn well that to pay those costs special interests will need to be let in and take over. If that's where he stands, fine. At least have balls big enough to admit that's the direction you want to take land use policy.
 

Ben Lamb

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 6, 2010
Messages
14,000
Location
Cedar, MI
That reply is straight out of the American Lands Council playbook.

Call him on it. Tell him to listen to Idahoans and not Utahans.
 

6speed

Active member
Joined
Jan 13, 2011
Messages
1,209
Location
Idaho
Moved to the Senate Resources and Environment Committee. If you haven't contacted your senator yet it's time to get on it.
 

Straight Arrow

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 10, 2009
Messages
4,071
Location
Gallatin Gateway, MT
6speed, a couple of critical points in response to Nate's message. Idaho never owned those federal lands, so to advocate to "wrestle" them back shows ignorance of the facts. For Nate to propose Idaho assume all the costs for managing and supporting those lands is naive at best, but more likely merely ignorant of reality on his part.
 
Top