Please Sign In

Please enter a valid username and password
  • Log in with Facebook
» Not a member? Take a moment to register
» Forgot Username or Password

Federal Land Transfer Causes Controversy Between State of Idaho and Indian Tribes

November 01, 2013
Federal Land Transfer Causes Controversy Between State of Idaho and Indian Tribes - 2

The Shoshone-Bannock, Nez Perce and Couer d’Alene nations are demanding that Idaho's 34 million acres of federal public lands be returned to them rather than transferred to state control.
               
"If the federal government is going to transfer title to any lands, they should be transferred back to their rightful owner, which would be Indian tribes," said Helo Hancock, a lobbyist for the Coeur d'Alene Tribe.
               
Leaders of the three tribes were among those who testified on Oct. 28 before the Idaho State Legislature's Federal Lands Interim Committee, which is pondering a resolution approved by state lawmakers in April requesting that the federal government “imminently transfer title” to more than 34 million acres of Idaho’s public land. The committee is expected to issue a report to the Legislature in 2015.
               
The tribes, as well as many conservation, hunting and fishing groups, are opposed to the proposal. They said keeping public lands under federal ownership prevents the state from selling acreage for revenue or to companies seeking to extract resources. Tribal leaders also cited treaty rights guaranteeing off-reservation fishing and hunting rights on the "unoccupied lands of the United States."
               
"You've got to understand that when we made that treaty, it means that we would have that opportunity to continue to come out into these areas," Shoshone-Bannock Chairman Nathan Small told the Associated Press. "We feel that this notion to transfer it all to the state is going to diminish that right that we have made with the United States."
               
Public lands were not meant to be sold to private individuals or corporations, Small said during the hearing. When Idaho has allowed private entities onto public lands in the past, it hasn't turned out well for wildlife and public access, he said, noting 17 of Idaho’s phosphate mines, permitted to operate on state land, are classified as Superfund sites.
               
Federal agencies manage more than 53,000 square miles of forest, rangeland and wilderness areas in Idaho; an area the size of Arkansas. The U.S. Forest Service oversees the majority of that land, estimated at 32,000 square miles, followed by the Bureau of Land Management.
               
The Idaho Department of Lands projects the state could receive up to $75 million in revenue annually for public schools, universities and other institutions by allowing more timber harvest and other activities on public lands now managed by the federal government.
               
It would cost it $46 million to manage the same public land that it cost the federal government $200 million to manage last year, the Idaho Department of Lands reported in August.
               
Conservationists blasted that estimate, noting that it didn’t factor in basic upkeep such as road and trail maintenance.
               
“The federal government spent $22 million alone on roads and trails in 2011,” Tom Flynn of Outdoor Alliance told the committee.” If roads and trails aren’t maintained, that would have serious consequences on our community.”
               
“There has been a history of these types of proposals. Ultimately, the foundation for those proposals has effectively been refuted by the courts and proven unworkable,” Jonathan Oppenheimer of the Idaho Conservation League said during the hearing.
               
For more, go to:
-- Idaho's 3 tribes make case to lawmakers for priority in any state takeover of public lands
               
-- Tribes make case for public lands during hearing
               
-- Idaho Tribes Want Land if Feds Give Up Ownership
               
-- Idaho Interlopers
               
-- Tribal members speak out against federal lands transfer

Comments (2)

Top Rated
All Comments
from CMR535 wrote 19 weeks 1 day ago

There is no way that tribes or states can finance management of these federal-public lands that they want so badly. They can't manage what they have let alone something that belongs to the People of the U.S. Having these public lands would then allow them to sell them off to the highest bidder. Imagine asking China if you could pretty please, hunt on their new ranching, timber, mining land.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Liz Codoni wrote 24 weeks 4 hours ago

Part of the USFS expenses are funds returned to Idaho's counties, proportional to acreage and revenue from timber or grazing. Rural counties depend on this revenue for road and school budgets. Boise gets its hands on that timber revenue, it will never make it back to the counties where it was generated . . . too few votes. I'll stick with the Feds, thank you very much.

0 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment (200 characters or less)

from Liz Codoni wrote 24 weeks 4 hours ago

Part of the USFS expenses are funds returned to Idaho's counties, proportional to acreage and revenue from timber or grazing. Rural counties depend on this revenue for road and school budgets. Boise gets its hands on that timber revenue, it will never make it back to the counties where it was generated . . . too few votes. I'll stick with the Feds, thank you very much.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from CMR535 wrote 19 weeks 1 day ago

There is no way that tribes or states can finance management of these federal-public lands that they want so badly. They can't manage what they have let alone something that belongs to the People of the U.S. Having these public lands would then allow them to sell them off to the highest bidder. Imagine asking China if you could pretty please, hunt on their new ranching, timber, mining land.

0 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment (200 characters or less)

ADVERTISEMENT

About Open Country

Hunters and anglers across the nation consistently list one challenge as their primary obstacle to spending more time in the field: Access.

Outdoor Life's Open Country program aims to tackle that issue head on and with boots on the ground. The program highlights volunteer-driven efforts to improve access along with habitat improvements to make existing public lands even better places to hunt and fish. The program's goal is to substantially increase sportsman's access across the country by promoting events that make a difference.

Here on Open Country's blog page, contributors take a close look at access issues across the country. Some are public-policy discussions, where we investigate the nuances of public access. In other blogs, we shine a light on attempts to turn public recreation opportunities into private hunting and fishing domains. In still other blogs, we interview decision makers about access issues. Together, we fight for the ability of America's hunters and anglers to have a place to swing a gun or wet a line.

We promise the discussion is always lively, interesting, and fresh, so visit this page frequently to tune into the latest access issue.

The Open Country program culminates in grants and awards with top projects and participants being honored.

Submit a project for the Open Country Grant Award.
Nominate an individual for the Open Country Award.

Open Country

  


 


Event Calendar

  • April 19: Spruce Planting at Crane Pond State Game Area
  • May 3: Jack Pine Planting in the Grayling Forest Management Unit
  • May 29: Red Oak Planting in Shingleton Forest Management Unit
  • June 1: Red Oak Planting in Gwinn Forest Management Unit
  • View all events.