Editorial - Senator Crapo defends vote (on lands transfer) as just budget measure

Idaho Sen. Mike Crapo says his recent vote on a potential future transfer of public lands from federal to state management is nothing to get excited about. He says the amendment only provides the Senate with the ability to hold future deliberations on land transfers. Lewiston Tribune writer Eric Barker quotes Crapo saying the amendment does not undercut the collaborative processes. “It was a budget amendment with no substance in terms of details and left working out of any details to future legislation that would necessarily, if it comes together, be as a result coming to consensus,” Crapo said. Brad Brooks, speaking for the Wilderness Society, isn’t buying it. “Votes matter more than words, and a vote to allow the sale of public lands speaks for itself,” Brooks says. “The vast majority of Idahoans enjoy our national forests and BLM rangelands regularly and would be upset — to put it mildly — if their favorite hunting, camping or fishing spot were sold to the highest bidder and a ‘no trespassing’ sign went up instead.” But a few legislators and counties feel the federal government is unable to properly manage the land through logging, grazing and mining, and states could do better. The Tribune explained Crapo’s point of view as: “It’s a stretch to go from a technical budget to shifting Idaho’s national forests or rangeland to state ownership.” But the newspaper asks a good question: “Why even go there? The minute Idaho takes over these lands, the state budget will blow up.” Congressman Mike Simpson agrees, quoting the Congressional Research Service that the state would spend at least $392 million managing those acres. A state Senate committee voted this month against joining Utah and Arizona in a compact to study possible legal action on land transfers...more