Idaho - Public Land Politics

[Ultrahunter]

Totally in jest JLS, I dont want anyone kicked off federal land. I enjoy it just like everyone else. Except for in wyoming were they won't let me. That Wyoming rule is probably in my opinion one of the biggest kicks to the junk that a non res hunter gets. Talk about access issues, might as well have made our wyoming wilderness land private, since I won't pay a guide to hunt it.

 

[Elkmagnet]

If you think that a gaggle of big ranchers wouldn't love the opportunity to gobble up a bunch of cheap former public ground at unimaginable prices. You sir can't see the Forrest through the tree's you live in.
Now if only they could get some of their friends elected to make this happen.

The problem I see in Idaho is that people feel like they keep having to defend their ability to use anything that is under fed control.

Loggers want to log but feel the feds have all but kicked them out of the woods.
Motor scooters want to scoot but we keep making wsa's.
Grazers want to graze and well-the Bundy clan has beat the feds
Boaters want to boat but they had to fight the feds to do that on an irrigation res in Caldwell ID,..really?
This list can go on forever.
People feel isolated from the politicians making the decisions and some of them are slow enough to think that this will improve with state management of the land.

I think we need to change how the feds manage our public ground to increase public opinion/perception otherwise this crap will happen eventually.

 

[Ben Long]

Pinecricker says: "Back Country Hunters and Anglers represents such a small potion of the public here that its begs the question of whether they even deserve a seat on the Clearwater Collaborative."

BHA is certainly a young and relatively small sportsmen's org in Idaho, but it is not the only sportsmen's groups working on Clearwater Collaborative. Trout Unlimited as been at it since the beginning. Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation had a seat at the table, but am not sure if they are still involved. I hope they are. I grew up fishing Kelly Creek and backpack-fishing in the Mallard-Larkin and am glad BHA, TU and others are looking to the future of this special piece of Idaho.

 

[James Riley]

Pinecricker says: "Back Country Hunters and Anglers represents such a small potion of the public here that its begs the question of whether they even deserve a seat on the Clearwater Collaborative."

Holy Cow, I missed that. I'm wondering if that means a place that only gets one human visitor every ten years ought to be opened up and roaded so more folks can get in there? I certainly hope not.

 

[Paul in Idaho]

Roger Phillips published a good article on this today.

It’s an issue that unites a bear hunter in Orofino with a backcountry skier in Ketchum. Both know how important those lands are to the fabric of Idaho’s communities. Public lands keep people grounded in rural communities and drive others to leave cities to recreate and renew themselves in Idaho’s backcountry. If there’s a non-debatable motherhood-and-apple-pie issue in Idaho, it ought to be public lands.

http://www.idahostatesman.com/2015/04/16/3752534/public-lands-deserve-protection.html

 

[James Riley]

If there’s a . . . motherhood-and-apple-pie issue . . . it ought to be public lands

Damn straight. And it's exactly this patriotic, all-American, cultural high ground that we have to stake; because the other side will be all "Capitalism vs Socialism", Flag-waiving blah blah blah and trying to paint us as the un-Americans who stand in the way of free-markets, progress, jobs, development, the economy, etc.

It's really about time "the people" begin to retake their own narrative, history, culture and sense of self back from the BS propaganda about "the business of America is business" and "Democracy = Capitalism" and "the markets will decide value", etc.

It's not "either/or". When someone gives you two choices, tell them to go to hell and pick the third. :hump:

P.S. That's one reason the ad campaign with the moms and kids is so effective. Double down on that.

 

[Pinecricker]

Roger Phillips published a good article on this today.




http://www.idahostatesman.com/2015/04/16/3752534/public-lands-deserve-protection.html

Both Barker and Philips are completely misguided in attacking Crapo over this vote. You'd be hard pressed to find any one else in the US Senate that has done more to permanently protect public lands than Crapo.

Lashing out at him over this one vote is counter productive, and unwarranted. All it does it erode the good faith he has worked to build up among very diverse stakeholders so that conservation goals can actually be ACCOMPLISHED. Case in point, here is a huge chunk of new Idaho Wilderness (with a capital W) that wouldn't be protected if it weren't for Crapo.

http://www.crapo.senate.gov/documents/oi/id_bru_jar_wilderness_121508.pdf

Both Barker and Philips seem to have some sort of axe to grind, and I can only guess that they both still have sour grapes over wolf delisting. They clearly have no other recourse left than to resort to this type of constant slandering and melodramatic whining. Crying wolf is the only tactic in their playbook. They're trolling for readers.

Barker in particular has been the sort of unofficial mouth piece for groups like the Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife and Western Watersheds. In other words, the kind of groups that would rather file lawsuits than actually work toward any kind of realistic conservation goals. The kind of groups that never get invited to the negotiating table at all because they are nothing more than professional activists that make their living by crying wolf in order to milk contributions from their supporters. Their constant lawsuits are more driven by a want of Equal Access to Justice money, than they are by the intent of actually accomplishing anything productive.

If you care about Idaho's public lands, the best thing you can do is stop listening to divisive haters like Barker and Philips, and instead reach out in a positive way to leaders like Crapo. He isn't going where, and you'll get a lot more of his attention by not attacking him.

 

[ERSS]

Both Barker and Philips are completely misguided in attacking Crapo over this vote. You'd be hard pressed to find any one else in the US Senate that has done more to permanently protect public lands than Crapo.

Lashing out at him over this one vote is counter productive, and unwarranted. All it does it erode the good faith he has worked to build up among very diverse stakeholders so that conservation goals can actually be ACCOMPLISHED. Case in point, here is a huge chunk of new Idaho Wilderness (with a capital W) that wouldn't be protected if it weren't for Crapo.

http://www.crapo.senate.gov/documents/oi/id_bru_jar_wilderness_121508.pdf

Both Barker and Philips seem to have some sort of axe to grind, and I can only guess that they both still have sour grapes over wolf delistin. They clearly have no other recourse left that to resort to type of constant slandering and melodramatic whining. Crying wolf is the only tactic in their playbook. They trolling for readers.

Barker in particular has been the sort of unofficial mouth piece for groups like the Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife and Western Watersheds. In other words, the kind of groups that would rather file lawsuits than actually work toward any kind of realistic conservation goals.

Many of these types of groups are nothing more than professional activists that make their living by crying wolf in order to milk contributions from their supporters. The constant lawsuits are more driven by a want of Equal Access to Justice money, than they are by the intent of actually accomplishing anything productive.

If you care about Idaho's public lands, the best thing you can do is stop listening to clowns like Barker and Philips, and instead reach out in a positive way to leaders like Crapo in good faith.

Unfortunently for Mr. Crapo, as it is for anyone, it can take years to establish respect and a positive reputation ...But just one blemish/brain fart/selling out/ to ruin it all

 

[Pinecricker]

Unfortunently for Mr. Crapo, as it is for anyone, it can take years to establish respect and a positive reputation ...But just one blemish/brain fart/selling out/ to ruin it all

Remember one thing. Crapo isn't going anywhere, and nothing is happening with out his support. Choose your battles wisely.

Moreover, the only people I've seeing crying over this vote are people that don't really even matter like Barker and Philips.

The last comment I have on this issue is that at the end of the day its makes absolutely no difference if Holly Endersby takes her toys and storms away pouting from the Clearwater Collaborative. In fact, if what Barker writes about her is true, we might be better off if she did leave. May be we should take up a collection to buy her a bus ticket back to Illinois?

 

[6speed]

Both Barker and Philips are completely misguided in attacking Crapo over this vote. You'd be hard pressed to find any one else in the US Senate that has done more to permanently protect public lands than Crapo.

Lashing out at him over this one vote is counter productive, and unwarranted.

If you care about Idaho's public lands, the best thing you can do is stop listening to divisive haters like Barker and Philips, and instead reach out in a positive way to leaders like Crapo. He isn't going where, and you'll get a lot more of his attention by not attacking him.

I have to disagree. Crapo and Risch both need to understand that their actions betrayed the trust of the very people that voted them into office. Pandering to those who want to privatise our public land while hiding behind the claim that it "may" not actually happen is disingenuous at best. Crapo made it abundantly clear that he feels Idaho didn't get enough land when we became a state. I will not reach out in a positive way once I've been stabbed in the back.

 

[James Riley]

Case in point, here is a huge chunk of new Idaho Wilderness (with a capital W) that wouldn't be protected if it weren't for Crapo.http://www.crapo.senate.gov/documents/oi/id_bru_jar_wilderness_121508.pdf

That is such a *tiny* chunk of new Idaho Wilderness.

My participation started in 1989 on a volunteer advisory committee and ended in 2000 when a paltry Equal Access To Justice Act check came in. I would gladly have done without that check had "our" politicians not done a legislative end-run around their own laws and the successful enforcement thereof by pariah environmental groups. Even as it was, I donated chunks of that check back to the clients who tried to stand for that land.

Not that anyone remembers what I have written in Hunt Talk, but for those who might, this was THE classic example of the baseline/pie-cutting argument I made in that rant not so long ago. And now here we are, sixteen years later, with people pointing at that tiny Wilderness Map and singing the praises of some Johnny-Come-Lately politician who tossed a bone out the back of his limo on the way from a lunch with his owners. And I'm supposed to say "Hey, something is better than nothing!"

I look at that map of the Bruneau/Jarbidge Country and the memories come flooding back; memories of what was.

Back when I still had some fight in me:

ION Senses

I’ll falter no more in declaration of this
The vision before me
All my fears have traced away
Here where I have seen thee

Just South of the East Fork
On this Paiute sacred knoll
Over rock and Rabbit Brush
Where the Earth is hot, and whole

No grief in heat of this present sense
In this, the August Owyhee
These forsaken waves of desert air
Peace is here, and within me

Tremble not in this timbre round
Here the silence caught
Atop this high and holy ground
Is the pitch that I have sought

I free my tongue to your pure blood
Your sacred hoop’s sweet flavor
Above below and on the Earth
Your fleeting rain is savored

And given here your spirit soars
On breeze of sage and grass
Where life and death from tilted bow
Hurl sent of heaven past

Ten thousand square miles
To the Big Springs crystal fountains
There the Independence Range
And up the Jarbidge Mountains

Fly over the Shoshone sweep
And the Blue and the Grassy headlands
To snow capped Santa Rosa reach
Up and down Owyhee canyons

My heart grows huge and near as strong
Pray I earn my name
To save this sensing very long
Let others have the same

 

[Elkmagnet]

The owyhee wilderness is a fliping joke!

Its not a wilderness its just a way for the ranchers to keep everyone out of their private river view grazing lease's. It must be a lot quieter for their cattle now that the ranchers are the only ones allowed to rip across it on dirt bikes.

Nothing says wilderness like dirt bikes, 1 inch tall grass and cow pies.

 

[Paul in Idaho]

Idaho’s Labrador presses plan to give states control of federal land

Time to refresh this thread with current land-grab efforts

On Thursday, Labrador made his case to a House subcommittee, urging his colleagues to approve a plan that would allow pilot projects that would allow state and local officials to manage up to 2 percent of the 193 million acres of federally owned forest land across the country.

“Let’s give control to the people who are closest to the land and know it best,” said Labrador, a member of the House Natural Resources Committee.

...

Labrador said his plan would let governor-appointed advisory committees decide how to use the land, which could include timber harvesting and recreational use, helping the local economy. He said the “mismanagement” of national forests has cost both jobs and environmental damage and that his plan would give state officials “a chance to show that they can manage the land.”

Read more here: http://www.idahostatesman.com/latest-news/article62567867.html#storylink=cpy

I'm guessing this article refers to his recent HR2316 but don't see a percentage specified in that bill's text.

 

[Zach987]

Better management is a good idea. Depending on how literal one takes that language, I would prefer local management, but not local ownership. Even then it's sstill a question on how best to manage the land.

 

[TheTone]

Better management is a good idea. Depending on how literal one takes that language, I would prefer local management, but not local ownership. Even then it's sstill a question on how best to manage the land.

Just curious but what needs managed better? Where I live local management (state/IDL or private timber) means massive clearcuts, trees restocked at a much higher level than natural, weeds everywhere, tons of cows and tons of open roads.

 

[BuzzH]

I'm also getting tired of bullshit statements like this:

“Let’s give control to the people who are closest to the land and know it best,” .

Between that and "Do you want your lands managed by someone in Washington D.C."

Its total crap, all of it.

There is NO question that local input gets heard and that those "living closest to the land" get a much bigger voice, 100% of the time.

To claim otherwise only proves that those making these outlandish claims have never once been involved in the public process of Federal Land Management.

Do things always go the way of every local? No, but I have seen many, many times where local input has resulted in lots of land users getting their way.

I would ask guys like Labrador for specific examples of what they didn't get the last time they were involved in the public process dealing with any land management decision.

I have done this numerous times with State Legislators that make these kind of claims, and 90% of the time they don't have an answer. The other 10% of the time, they usually weren't even involved in the process.

This whole land grab, we want management control, we want studies on the transfer idea....its all just crap.

 

[Mule Deer]

Federal land, in particular forest service is managed better then any state land I've ever seen and I've been to em all west of colorado. Even then it has its issues with over grazing.

People are greedy. That's the gist of it. The feds manage land just fine. There are people who want to cut it all and others who want none cut. There has to be a middle ground. A lot of science has gone into what makes a healthy forest and its an evolving process that's getting better.

 

[Paul in Idaho]

Interesting, but not surprising: I "followed the money" from Labrador's top campaign contributors and discovered the Idaho Freedom Foundation, which led to this article from 2014: http://watchdog.org/187115/look-to-utah-for-idaho-federal-lands-strategy-model/ Here's a telling quote from that article:

But Idaho’s public lands have other significant potential economic uses — value that has not been tapped due to the management practices imposed by the federal government. Idaho lawmakers need to find out — sooner rather than later — the potential economic impact of reopening the use of Idaho’s resources.

The governor and the Legislature would do well to set aside money for a study similar to the one Utah conducted and is acting upon. Utah’s research cost $500,000.

After the Utah study was released, the American Lands Council, which has been advocating state management of western lands, said the idea that we can’t afford to manage our own lands has been officially debunked. The council said the bottom line is “we cannot afford NOT to manage our own public lands. Our economy depends on it.”

edit - I just found this on the Idaho Statesman site, published yesterday: Idaho conservative advocacy group draws fire for blurring lines . At the bottom is a footnote saying "The Idaho Freedom Foundation in September spun off a related organization that is financing activities such as direct mailing. Idaho Freedom Action is a 501 (c)(4) “social welfare” organization for tax purposes. Such groups are the so-called dark money organizations that include Citizens United and, at the other end of the spectrum, the League of Conservation Voters"

 

[Matt R]

One thing I've learned after trying to contact Representatives Raul Labrador and Don Young (AK) concerning H.R. 2316 and H.R. 3650 respectively is that it was a bit tough to contact them through their websites as Rep. Labrador only listed the state of ID on his contact form where one puts in their address when contacting him and Rep. Young requires you to put in your zip code before emailing him which lets you know that you're "zip code falls in another district" and doesn't give you the subsequent opportunity to email him. I was able to send the below letter to Rep. Labrador and am hopeful for a response.

It's my feelings that although they may be making decisions on federal land in one state, federal lands belong to me and 320,000,000 other Americans whether I ever visit them or not and I believe I should have a say in the matter as their decisions may have implications in other states (including mine) as well.

Greetings, Rep. Labrador

I'm writing you with concern regarding your recent sponsoring of H. R. 2316. As one of the 320,000,000 million plus owners of the federal land that you are proposing to transfer to state and local officials, I have serious concerns that such measures could lead to the eventual loss of access and recreational opportunities for the American people.

There is a seemingly renewed interest by some in the west to transfer public federal lands to states and even directly to private entities as GOP Presidential candidate Ted Cruz suggested recently during a talk at Boise State University on 5 March 2016. Men such as Theodore Roosevelt had the keen foresight to protect many millions of acres in the western United States in an effort to conserve the unspoiled wild lands that he had such an appreciation for; President Roosevelt was certainly not opposed to using our natural resources in a sustainable manner but understood that exploitation of these lands could occur if protections and federal oversight were lost.

I understand that you believe states or local interests may be able to manage these lands better than the federal government but have you diligently striven to provide information to federal agencies so that they may manage these lands better or ensured that they have been adequately funded so that they can do the job at hand? I can tell you that I've seen the lack of required personnel firsthand here in Colorado with respect to the White River National Forest (The No.1 forest for recreation in the country) where a USFS volunteer told me that they are severely understaffed and there was a grand total of one paid person covering his area in Summit County (The trail I was using required a significant amount of manpower to clear the fallen lodgepole pines that had succumbed to the pine bark beetle). In 1998 there were 18,000 USFS employees managing forest service lands; today there are fewer than 11,000 (a 39% decrease in personnel); further the National Park Service has deferred maintenance projects that amount to $11.5 billion (while National Parks are setting records for visitors) and the National Wildlife Refuge system has lost 430 employees since 2011, more than 12% of its workforce. I question whether it's fair to complain about the inadequacy and ineffectiveness of our land manager's when we are not giving them the financial and personnel support they require?

Please consider that approximately 80% of the state lands here in Colorado are unavailable for the activities such as hunting, fishing and camping and perhaps more importantly that essentially all state lands that were granted to the states of AL, AR, FL, IL, IN, IA, KS, LA, MI, MN, MO, NV, OH and WI have been sold; the state land sold in the aforementioned states equates to over 28 million acres. I believe that this fact is key when considering whether these lands will stay available to all Americans in perpetuity; it is also my belief that states simply cannot afford to manage our vast public lands in the west effectively and history has shown that they will sell them to the highest bidder in many cases.

I remind you that thousands of hunters from the east venture westward every year to enjoy hunting big game on the expansive tracts of public land that simply don't exist in the east; these hunters spend millions of dollars on things such as gas, equipment, hotel rooms and licenses and provide boosts to rural economies that are not to be discounted. If you are still convinced that the path you are on is the correct one, I ask you to ensure protections are put in place that will ensure public access and opportunities forever and that preclude any sale of such land to private interests so that our posterity can enjoy these lands as we have been able to. I leave you with the following quote from Theodore Roosevelt:

“Here is your country. Cherish these natural wonders, cherish the natural resources, cherish the history and romance as a sacred heritage, for your children and your children's children. Do not let selfish men or greedy interests skin your country of its beauty, its riches or its romance.”

Very Respectfully,

 

[6speed]

Well for the folks on that side of the state here's your chance.

http://www.idahostatesman.com/news/...umns-blogs/politics-blog/article64624852.html