The Up-Hill battle to keep OUR PUBLIC Lands PUBLIC

I feel it is important to keep fed lands as they are even if there are sometimes frustrations in the way they are managed. In the area of Comb Ridge on the southern end of the Bears Ears National Monument, last Fall the state of Utah sold about a four hundred acre parcel of land to a corporation whom I've read put up a locked gate on one of the popular access areas.

The fight is not a liberal vs conservative fight, or a Republican vs Democrat fight. It is a pro-access vs no-access fight.

Simply put, Idaho & other western states, cannot afford to manage these lands and this will inevitably lead to budgetary problems. Budgetary problems created a buyers market and thus emerges the risk that our public lands could be sold. The Wilderness Society reported that access to over 1.7 million acres or over 41% of all Idaho state land has been lost after they were sold to corporations and other private interests. Of course Idaho Department of Lands refutes this and they say its actually 33%, but either way – it is a lot of land!

Why is this such an important issue?
•The federal government is already succeeding at land management. ◦73% of Idahoans feel that one of the things that the federal government does well is managing our forests, parks, and public lands.

•Our state cannot afford to take control of this land. ◦Managing land is expensive. Our government would have to maintain thousands of miles of roads and foot the bill for multi-million dollar wildfires.
◦According to the Conservation Economics Institute, managing lands could cost taxpayers over $1 billion after 5 years, and more than $2 billion after 20 years.
◦Governor Butch Otter has opposed a land takeover for this reason. An Otter spokesman said that it would “blow a hole in the state’s budget.”
◦Attorney General Lawrence G. Wasden has said that previous attempts at land takeover violate the Idaho Constitution.

•The only way to balance the state budget would be selling huge areas of land to the highest bidder. ◦This is a bad outcome for the state and for Idahoans. We would lose access to rivers, forests, and mountains that we currently get to enjoy.
◦Greedy companies would harm Idaho’s land, ruining our clean air and water.
◦Selling off public lands could crush Idaho’s thriving outdoor recreation industry, which has become an essential part of our economy.


Idaho’s forests, rivers, and stunning mountain ranges are some of the most beautiful and untouched lands in the United States. They are one of Idaho’s greatest assets. Everyone should be able to experience Idaho’s backcountry, whether they are hunting, fishing, hiking, rafting, bird-watching, or simply enjoying the view. These recreational opportunities also have a profound impact on our economy, attracting over 77,000 jobs and $461 million in state and local tax revenue. Protecting our public lands is vital to our economy and the future of Idaho.

Last week, a well-known conservative think tank, Utah’s Sutherland Institute, released a report that claimed state parks are more efficiently managed and more popular than national parks across the West. The report, which was co-written with the right-wing Property and Environment Research Center (PERC), relied almost entirely on state park attendance data to draw its conclusions. The report got major coverage from the Deseret News, complete with a headline claiming “States manage public lands for recreation better than feds.”

There’s just one problem: Sutherland and PERC used erroneous numbers throughout their report.

The report cited statistics from the National Association of State Park Directors 2014 annual report (you can see the visitation data on page 19). When those numbers made it into the Sutherland report, however, they changed: PERC and Sutherland gave Oregon’s visitation data to New Mexico, Utah’s numbers to Oregon, and Washington’s to Utah. Washington received visitation data from Wisconsin—a state which wasn’t included in the Sutherland/PERC report.

The result of this four-state switcheroo gave Utah, which happens to be the focus of much of PERC’s research, a ten-fold increase in annual park attendance—35 million instead of 3.5 million

Sportsmen from across the Gem State were among the estimated 2,600 Idahoans who showed up on the steps of the state capitol building in Boise with one message: Keep public lands in public hands.

“What I saw on Saturday was, first and foremost, Idahoans with a passion for all things outdoors, said Michael Gibson, of Trout Unlimited. “There were anglers, hunters, hikers, mountain bikers, horse packers and yes motorized enthusiasts all coming together for a common cause.”

Several state legislatures around the West are considering legislation intended to clear a path for states to take over national forests and other public lands. Some of those legislatures have also seen rafter-rocking rallies of sportsmen and other outdoors enthusiasts dead set against public land transfer.

Estimating the size of a crowd is always a bit of a guessing game. Organizers of the Boise event say their conservative-end estimate was 2,500. If so, that’s the high mark for pro-public land rallies so far in 2017. An estimated 1,500 folks rallied in Helena, Mont., and several hundred showed up in Santa Fe, New Mexico, all to support public land and protest efforts to take them away from the American people.

Sportsmen pull public-lands politics to the center
As threats intensify, sportsmen emerge as a persuasive voice

Under the Trump administration, sportsmen could wield significant influence — and not just because many of them vote Republican. It helps to have legislators and leaders who can identify with sportsmen’s connection with public lands, notes Kindle: rising before dawn and hiking miles in the dark, being “purely quiet” while watching for wildlife. Trump’s son Donald Jr. is a “Life Member” of Backcountry Hunters & Anglers, and Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke also hunts. And Chaffetz is among the nearly 300 members of the House and Senate who make up the long-standing bipartisan Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus.


George W. Bush’s administration heeded sportsmen when they spoke out against threats to environmental protection: In 2004, hunters and anglers met with Bush and encouraged the administration to abandon Clean Water Act revisions that would have threatened wetlands and streams valuable to fish and wildlife.

Hook-and-bullet groups may also serve as a bridge between traditionally left-leaning environmental groups and the current administration when it comes to public lands. Threats to public lands are “creating one of the biggest unlikely alliances in the world,” says David Allen, president and CEO of the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. As Tawney points out, sportsmen tend to take a middle-ground approach, while the environmental community creates a more ambitious “goalpost” to work toward. This allows groups to make more centrist deals.

Now, sportsmen’s organizations intend to continue harnessing their members’ energy and passion on behalf of public lands. Their message to politicians is clear: “If you think you’re gonna come and tromp on the bedrock issue for all these people,” says Kindle, “you’re gonna have a hell of a fight on your hands.”

We did it.

After putting on the biggest public lands rally in the West, Idahoans prevented a single anti-public lands bill from being introduced in the State Capitol.

On a rainy day in March, more than 3,000 people rallied at the Idaho State Capitol to show our support for public lands.

For 80 days, Idaho lawmakers churned out more than 615 seperate pieces of legislation. And for the first time in four years, NOT ONE bill was indroduced advocating for the "disposal" of public lands.

Now that the State Legislature has adjourned for the year, its time to congratulate ourselves for sending a powerful message to Idaho politicians: Keep your hands off our public lands.

But our work is not over. There are still major threats from powerful politicians who are determined to give our public lands to special interests.

Together, we are going to stop them.