ID Legislator Leading Public Land Give Away

[clearwater150]

Just recently, the U.S. House passed H.R. 1526, the Restoring Healthy Forests for Healthy Communities Act. This bill incorporates an earlier bill introduced by our own Rep. Ra?l Labrador (R-ID), the Self-Sufficient Community Lands Act, which transfers the management of about 200,000 acres of federal land in Idaho to the state as a trust. No one has been told and Mr. Labrador is not letting on, where this 200,000 acres is in Idaho. It is, of course, all about cutting more trees....not about any other value we get from our Idaho public lands.

Here are some more Acts working their way through Congress:

? American Land Act (H.R. 1017, 113th Congress), by Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX). This bill would force the Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service to sell 8 percent of their respective federal land to the highest bidder, annually until 2017. This year alone, the two agencies would be forced to sell off nearly 36 million acres of forest and public land to corporate interests.
? Action Plan for Public Lands and Education Acta.k.a. ?Land Division Act? (H.R. 2852, 112th Congress), by Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT). This bill would force the Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service to give away, free of charge, 5 percent of their lands to each Western state. This would leave 30 million acres in the West vulnerable to more resource extraction and development.
? Disposal of Federal Lands Act (H.R. 1126, 112th Congress), by Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT). This bill would force the Bureau of Land Management in Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming to sell off ?excess? public lands to the highest bidder. This bill was also incorporated into the House budget bill in the 113th Congress.

Worried yet? Do you think converting public, multiple-use lands to single use private lands or single use (think industrial timber lands) State lands will affect jobs in Idaho? Here are some facts:

Outdoor recreation and tourism are a vital part of the Idaho economy. The Idaho Division of Tourism reports that the state?s travel and tourism industry provides $1.8 billion in annual gross sales and supports 27,000 jobs and $620 million in annual wages. The Outdoor Industry Association has found that active outdoor recreation supports 37,000 jobs across Idaho, generates $154 million in annual state tax revenue and produces $2.2 billion annually in retail sales and services across Idaho - accounting for nearly 5 percent of gross state product.
Idaho?s Public Lands Provide Opportunities to Hunt, Fish and Watch Wildlife
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reports that each year more than 838,000 people participate in hunting, fishing and wildlife watching in Idaho - 447,000 fish, 246,000 hunt and 558,000 participate in wildlife-watching activities. The Idaho economy benefits from $1.6 billion in annual spending on wildlife-related recreation. (http://www.idahooutdoorbusinesscouncil.org/news/)
(http://www.ourpubliclands.org/public-lands-report-id)

Mr. Labroador's bill is nothing short of an attempt to move the billions of dollars generated from public lands that go into hundreds of businesses across Idaho into the pockets of a very few wealthy individuals. Absolutely criminal what Mr. Labrador wants to do to our public lands and our State's economy. I have written and called him out on this as well as posted on his web site. I hope all Idaho sportsmen and women do the same.

 

[broomd]

Labrador has been on the right side of everything legislatively (against Obamacare, etc.)

I'll be researching BOTH sides of this and will post accordingly.

 

[customweld]

The state does a decent job managing the timber ground. The forest service... not so much. I would much rather hunt ground that has been selectively logged than scorched earth.

 

[clearwater150]

The State of Idaho manages their lands better than the Feds? You gotta be kidding. Come on up to Northern Idaho and we will go look at Federal timber sales and State timber sales as well as Potlatch Corporation and Plum Creek sales side by side. There is no comparison between the condition these folks leave their land following harvest and how the Feds leave our public lands. In most cases it is like standing in a verdant pasture looking over into a feedlot. Not all timber companies manage their land as roughly as the State, Potlatch and Plum Creek do. Bennett Forest Industries, headquarted in Princeton, Idaho, does a super job with their lands too. But the State of Idaho? No way. They slash and trash pretty much every sale.

As for Mr. Labrador, his actions in congress have been sort of an enigma for me. To me, it is like he really doesn't understand Idaho. I came to the conclusion that he really doesn't know what Idaho has been, or what we are.....so I don't agree with what he thinks we should be in the future. As you would know, he has only lived in Idaho for a short time...and perhaps that explains why he seems to not know who we are. His announced position that all federal public lands in Idaho should be converted to private ownership more-or-less shut the latch on his gate for me. Further, his compromise to this stated position is to shift all Federal public lands to State control. Unfortunately, history has demonstrated over and over again that shifting control of Federal public lands to a State has proven to be nothing more than a brief stop to privitization. Examples I have read about recently were North Dakota and Florida. Both received a millions and millions of public land acres and hardly any of it is public anymore. So...while I have agreed with some of Mr. Labrador's initiatives and positions while he has been in the House, the majority of his actions in Congress have not been, in my opinion, in the best interest of the majority of Idahoans.

 

[customweld]

Oh absolutely I know the state manages the ground better than the forest service. Come down to southern Idaho and take a look. You can almost count on two hands the acreage that the state has lost to fire. The acreage the forest service has lost is about equal to the national debt. You will never convince me that an agency based in DC full of environmentalists that has never been to Idaho can manage a forest better than homegrown foresters from Idaho. My guess is you are not an Idaho native. The feds couldn't find their ass with both hands. Lock it up and watch the m'fer burn that is the forest service's mantra.

 

[customweld]

Not only that but look at how much money the Endowment Lands have put back into education. How much has the forest service kicked into the school system in Idaho?

 

[6speed]

>Not only that but look at
>how much money the Endowment
>Lands have put back into
>education. How much has the
>forest service kicked into the
>school system in Idaho?


In 2013 feds paid about $26,300,000 to Idaho counties under the PILT program. Add that to the ammout they spent in the state fighting fires and I'm pretty sure we would be in trouble if the state took over the federal land. No industry is going to want to move in if they have to help pay for the fire bill out of their profits, fires will happen until someone figures out how to stop lightening and idiots, ISP isn't going to patrol the forests for illegal camping, off road, harvest violations, ITD can't keep the paved roads in good enough shape they surely won't be doing any trail or road work in the middle of no where. The USFS and BLM are doing a terrible job managing their lands here but they need fixed not booted.

 

[customweld]

LAST EDITED ON May-16-14 AT 09:12PM (MST)[p]The taxpayers sent 26 million to the state. Let's not forget where that money comes from. PILT money is there to replace the money from lost timber receipts. Where I grew up, in central Idaho, Boise Cascade contributed one million dollars a year in taxes to the city. They employed 150 people including my dad.That county now has an unemployment rate over 11 percent. If it wasn't for state timber sales,there wouldn't be anything there.Look either that timber is going to burn or it can be harvested in a responsible manner. The environmental Nazis will make sure that it isn't logged. They couldn't care less about saving the forest,all they care about is fleecing the taxpayer through the equal access to representation act.I do not agree at all with the state acquiring the ground and saling it but there needs to be access to responsible use of the natural resources.

 

[customweld]

Riddle me this. If the feds are so good at managing the forest why do they lose million of acres of trees to forest fires and the private companies don't lose any? The private ground looks like a national park compared to the forest service.

 

[6speed]

I don't think anyone said the feds were good at managing. The state however would likely be worse for reasons stated above. As for tree huggers and the EAJA how happy do you think they would be going up against limited state funding in court. They would have a hay day spending tax payer money for injunctions against the state in federal court. Like I said before we need to fix it not change it. 75 years ago the feds controlled the USFS and it worked pretty well in terms of management. We just need to go back not start over.

 

[customweld]

Good luck with that

 

[clearwater150]

I don't know how you define "southern Idaho" but I live in Northern Idaho and hunt, camp, hike and fish throughout the Northern Part of the State from Cambridge North. We avoid State lands because of their condition following timber sales. Very little of the State's lands that support commercial timber are unharvested and those that have been harvested are not very well taken care of. They look pretty scraggly even if they are 10 - 20 years old. They are not a nice place to hike, hunt, camp, or hang out. Essentially, the State is relying on adjacent federal timber lands to provide suitable wildlife habitat, protect streams and provide for the diversity that supports the wide variety of game we have and the broad spectrum of uses we Idahoans have come to enjoy. As for burning up the Fed Forests. You have to subtract the acres that are in Wilderness that burn from any total. Wilderness is created by special laws passed by Congress. The Federal Agencies such as the BLM and FS have zero authority to designate a square millimeter of Wilderness....you can lay the blame for Wilderness at the feed of Rep Labrador's comrades in Congress. Congress SPECIFIED that natural processes be allowed to play out in Wilderness....so burning up Wilderness is on them. Also, I think it would surprise you and everyone else to know the true amount of acreage burned on a percentage basis. The FS has a lot of acres compared to the State. I would not be surprised if percentage of commercial State timberlands burned wasn't equal to the percentage of Federal timberlands burned. As for a discussion on PILT....that is another discussion that is far more complicated than "it replaced the loss of timber sale revenue". No one will convince me that the State manages their lands better than the feds. I live in the middle of State and Federal timberland and witness the management.