I just saw this article. Glad to see a state legislator doing something to protect public land.
Proposal to prevent selling Idaho public lands.
- Thread starter Jnasa
- Start date
““In this new land trust, there is no provision for maximum financial return,” Adams said.
Instead, those new lands would be managed to allow for multiple uses, including recreation, timber harvest and grazing. Adams said revenue raised by grazing and timber harvest would support rural schools in communities that are surrounded by public lands and have a smaller property tax base. ”
There aren’t many sheep left in the state. Beef?
I have a big Idaho Department of land block near my house. It’s being used for long term forest. It’s been essentially untouched for 20 years except for a thinning about 8 years ago. Great hunting spot.
I’d rather see grazing and timber harvest than a No Trespassing sign.
Instead, those new lands would be managed to allow for multiple uses, including recreation, timber harvest and grazing. Adams said revenue raised by grazing and timber harvest would support rural schools in communities that are surrounded by public lands and have a smaller property tax base. ”
There aren’t many sheep left in the state. Beef?
I have a big Idaho Department of land block near my house. It’s being used for long term forest. It’s been essentially untouched for 20 years except for a thinning about 8 years ago. Great hunting spot.
I’d rather see grazing and timber harvest than a No Trespassing sign.
Potsie
Well-known member
I’ll just wait and see until he unveils the test of the bill.
As it stands now, I can get in board with the stated intent - that “all new” state ground be placed in a new trust, with no requirement to maximize financial returns - but the actual text of the amendment is what matters.
Also, how much NEW state ground is being created each year? I’ll do a little more google-fu, but this may just be a solution looking for a problem. He wouldn’t be the first state legislator looking for a little notoriety by proposing a law that fixes/does nothing.
As it stands now, I can get in board with the stated intent - that “all new” state ground be placed in a new trust, with no requirement to maximize financial returns - but the actual text of the amendment is what matters.
Also, how much NEW state ground is being created each year? I’ll do a little more google-fu, but this may just be a solution looking for a problem. He wouldn’t be the first state legislator looking for a little notoriety by proposing a law that fixes/does nothing.
Lucky, a big block near me that has traditionally supported a decent amount of wintering deer has been absolutely leveled in the past couple years. I’d guess within the next couple years there won’t be a tree in the immediate area older than 5 years
BearLakeHunter
Member
I like the intent of the bill. Too bad there isn’t a way within the state legislature to protect from a federal sell off like Lee was trying to do.
