By Fred Birnbaum
You can tell when an idea is gaining some traction, critics
will attack it from all angles. The transfer of federal lands to Idaho,
and other Western states, is one such idea.
And it’s an idea whose time has come.
If
we go back to our history books, we see the federal government has
already transferred more than 1.275 billion acres to the states and
their residents since the country was formed. It is easy to forget
states like Illinois and Missouri were once more than 90 percent federal
land. This transfer process slowed down greatly in the late 1800s after
the Western states were admitted into the union.
Even if we
suspend the discussion about whether further legal claims to federal
lands by the states have merit, it cannot be disputed that the U.S.
Congress has the power to transfer federal lands under Article IV,
Section 3 of the Constitution, and that Idaho could accept these lands
if Congress agreed to give them up.
Opponents of the transfer of
federal lands to Idaho make the following points: Idaho could not afford
to maintain these lands and would have to sell all or some of them and
therefore access and use would be restricted or eliminated. These same
critics apparently have failed to notice access and use restrictions
continue to grow on federal lands.
It is the endless repetition
that access and use will be restricted that has generated opposition by
some sportsmen and recreationists to transfer. However, there is every
reason to believe transfer could be completed in a manner that had the
federal government retain ownership of national parks and other
sensitive areas, with states retaining perpetual ownership of the
balance.
House Bill 265, which would have had Idaho join the
Interstate Compact on Transfer of Public Lands, died in the Senate
Resources and Environment Committee after passing the Idaho House.
However, the sentiments of both the House and Senate committee members
were overwhelmingly in favor of the view that Idaho could better manage
these lands than the federal government. Support for the legislation
foundered on the language of the legislation, not its intent. A better
bill will likely come back next year, providing Idaho with the
opportunity to join Utah and Arizona in the compact.
Support for
the view Idaho could better manage these lands is partly grounded in
research conducted by the Property and Environment Research Center of
Montana, in its report, “Divided Lands.” Four Western states that manage
similar state trust lands spend one-sixth of the cost per acre versus
what the federal government spends in its management of public lands.
The Forest Service and BLM lose $2 billion each year managing federal
lands. This is important because it debunks the notion states can’t
manage public lands effectively and would have to sell them. States
already do manage public lands, and the view that states would follow
the poor management practices of the federal government is simply not
supported by decades of evidence.
The evolution of U.S. Sen. Mike
Crapo’s view on public lands is to be applauded; it does not represent a
flip-flop. Rather, it is the federal agencies that have done the
political somersault. If anything, congressmen from Western states have
been too slow to recognize that federal agencies have moved away from
genuine multiple use and wise resource management to policies of
restriction and environmental gamesmanship. These practices are choking
urban residents with smoky fires from ill-managed timber lands and
plunging rural communities into poverty.
The collaborative
approach to federal land management is working as designed, by slowly
squeezing rural residents out while providing political cover to
unelected federal bureaucrats. Recognition of this situation has led
many members of Congress, as well as legislators in Western states, to
call for the transfer of federal lands back to the states. The issue of
land transfer will not go away because the underlying problems of
federal land management will not improve. Idaho’s congressional
delegation and state lawmakers should press this issue.
At some
point sportsmen and recreationists will have to decide whether to
continue to side with the “bicoastal” environmental gentry or partner
with Idahoans who understand that multiple-use can work; with peaceful
co-existence among hunters, anglers, back-country enthusiasts and
foresters.
Fred Birnbaum is vice president of the Idaho Freedom Foundation.
Idaho Statesman
Issues of concern to people who live in the west: property rights, water rights, endangered species, livestock grazing, energy production, wilderness and western agriculture. Plus a few items on western history, western literature and the sport of rodeo... Frank DuBois served as the NM Secretary of Agriculture from 1988 to 2003. DuBois is a former legislative assistant to a U.S. Senator, a Deputy Assistant Secretary of Interior, and is the founder of the DuBois Rodeo Scholarship.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment