access to land and water

[physion]

An editorial in the current April "Field and Stream" encourages sportsmen to oppose the attempt by states (especially western) to acquire federal land. States simply do not have the resources to pay for the cost of fires, roads, recreation, etc. State governments view the land as a way to make a profit, and in the process the ordinary hunter or fisherman will be locked out. Sportsmen are encouraged to go to the website: http://sportsmensaccess.org/ and sign a petition to oppose states acquiring federal land. Consider the information and decide for yourself whether you want to add your voice to the issue. I have signed the petition.

Physion
[signature]

[Pharticus]

I don't know where I stand on this matter in particular, but I trust my state government more than I trust the Federal.
[signature]

[physion]

I understand that the Idaho legislature reduced both the state parks funding and the fish and game funding this year. Evidence suggests that timber, mining, grazing, and people with big money to buy land would trump sportsmen and other recreational activity. I think we would be locked out of land and water we now use. Remember the ice fisherman in eastern Idaho a year or two ago? When I was in Colorado, it wasn't at all unusual to approach a stream and discover a fence 10 feet away from the bank with a poster telling me I wasn't welcome. I don't want to see that happen in Idaho.

Physion
[signature]

[hooknhunter]

[quote Pharticus]I trust my state government more than I trust the Federal.[/quote]

I echo that remark. +1
[signature]

[physion]

I don't want to start a debate, but please look at [url "http://www.kokaneefishingforum.com/fishing-forums/forumdisplay.php?24-Off-Topic-Discussions"]http://www.kokaneefishingforum.com/...ff-Topic-Discussions[/url] on the Kokanee Fishing Forum for further examples of my concern. In general, I agree with local governance, but states need money so badly they are willing to go for immediate gain versus long term benefit. Please consider carefully and then respond as you feel appropriate.

Physion
[signature]

[Mojo1]

[quote Pharticus]I don't know where I stand on this matter in particular, but I trust my state government more than I trust the Federal.[/quote]

Our esteemed governor has said that Idaho would be selling off large parcels in big chunks to refill the state's coffers. The whole idea behind the Sagebrush Rebellion version 1.0, 2.0, and whatever version you want to call this, is to turn over all Federal lands to the states, then the states sell them off. That is why the states are backing the idea. If it was about selling the lands for profit, wouldn't the Feds be selling them and making money on the deal?

The only real answer is the Feds maintain OWNERSHIP, and the States develop a cooperative management plan that allows regulated and well managed multi-purpose use. That is how logging, and ranching become or remain competitive. We do not need to make the wheel any rounder, we just need to drive safer...
[signature]

[elkmagnet]

You trust state legislators not to find a way to line their own pockets at our expense? Hilarious!
[signature]

[elkmagnet]

This is the only precedent that is set on how the state of Idaho will manage its land.


From the Idaho department of Land's website.


"Brief History of Idaho’s Endowment Trust Lands
As it was deliberating the Idaho Admissions Act in 1889, the United
States Congress displayed uncommon wisdom by granting what would
become the Union’s 43
rd
member approximately 3,600,000 acres of land
for the sole purpose of funding specified beneficiaries.
The Idaho Constitution was crafted to include Article IX,Section 8, which mandates that the lands will be
managed “…in such manner as will secure the maximum long-term financial return tothe institution to which
[it is] granted.”

(basically state land must be managed for profit or sold)

Chief among the beneficiaries are the public schools, which received two sections of every township in the
state (1/18 of the total land base). Beneficiaries of the other funds include the University of Idaho, State
hospitals for the mentally ill, Lewis-Clark State College, State veterans homes, Idaho State University, the
Capitol Commission, Idaho School for the Deaf and Blind, and Idaho’s juvenile corrections system and prison
system.
The prescribed income isgenerated in a number of ways: the sale of land; the sale of timber; leases for
grazing, farming, conservation, commercial buildings, recreational homesites, and mining; and earnings from
invested funds.

(amended in 1998 to allow the sale of land)

The Endowment Fund Investment Board is charged with managing the invested revenues from
the endowment lands.
Management activities on state endowment trust land are not intended to benefit the general public, but are
directed solely to the good of the beneficiaries of the original land grants. Money generated from the
management of these lands is deposited into the earnings reserve fund from which the costs of management
and payments to the beneficiaries are made. Revenue from mineral royalties is deposited into the permanent
endowment fund. Both the earnings reserve and permanent fund are invested by the Endowment Fund
Investment Board. The investment return is distributed to the beneficiaries. Land sale revenue is deposited
into the land bank and is available to purchase other land. If not expended for that purpose within five years,
the land sale revenue is deposited into the permanent fund.
Management of endowment trust lands is entrusted to the State Board of Land Commissioners. The Idaho
Department of Lands is the administrative arm of the Board and carries out the executive directives of the
Board to meet the constitutional trust mandate.
Until 1968, it was limited to a “buy-and-hold” investment strategy as dictated by the original legislation that
created the fund. Subsequent constitutional amendments approved in 1968 and 1998, enabled the board to
take advantage of all the modern investment tools available to it.

("Modern investment tools"= sale the land and invest the money to earn interest)

As a result, the fund’s assets rose
dramatically — from $77 million when the board was created to more than $1.4 billion today —with a
corresponding increase in the financial resources available to the beneficiaries."


None of this looks good for the sportsman and women of Idaho. anyone care to guess how much state endowment land has been sold since 1998?
[signature]

[Deepcreek]

i wouldn't trust our state BOZOS er legislators with a dimes worth of federal land! maybe you folks should try to find a place to hunt and fish in texas that you don't have to pay for.thats what idaho would be . id laugh but it isn't funny
[signature]

[Pharticus]

Wow. That's pretty condemnatory. Truth hurts, I guess.
[signature]

[Idaho]

Read this.

[url "http://www.idahostatesman.com/2014/11/16/3489397_contract-scandals-trouble-for.html?rh=1"]http://www.idahostatesman.com/...rouble-for.html?rh=1[/url]

Wasted money. For our Kids. Without, Education in Idaho. Idaho is nothing.

Idaho

Idaho Education Network was designed to provide high-speed Internet service, two-way interactive video, streaming video courses and other benefits to all Idaho high school classrooms.

Council. Idaho.
[signature]

[Bigtrout5]

If its not broke, dont fix it.
[signature]

[Idaho]

You have my Vote. Big. I think you can get it done.

Idaho
[signature]

[1idahoguy]

Two thoughts on this subject immediately come to mind.

First...this is the same State legislature that hijacked what is supposed to be a non-partisan Fish & Game commission by holding their funding hostage so that certain legislators “got their way” with regards to increasing funding, right? No sir, I most certainly DO NOT trust our State legislature any more than the Fed’s in this situation.

Second...there’s simply NO WAY the State of Idaho would be able to afford to service and maintain the acreage of land if the Fed’s turned it all over. Hell, I don’t think the state would be able to afford even 1/10 of the total land we’re talking about. Or 1/100. Idaho can’t even adequately fund public education, or maintain state roads and highways. What makes me think they could possibly take on this task?

Rest assured there’s a group of individuals sitting in a grey domed building in north Boise who are licking their chops at the thought of being able to sell off a very sizeable chunk of land currently controlled by the Fed’s – land that will almost certainly be posted “No Trespassing” within hours of transfer of ownership.

But hey, that’s just one man’s opinion.
[signature]

[curt69]

+1 totally agree . Keep it in the Feds. Hands . If the state got control , They would sell it off as fast as posable .
[signature]

[jigs]

I don't know about you all.. but this makes it very had as a stone cold republican to want to vote for the party with this kind of b.s.
[signature]

[2dogs]

Physion, I feel exactly the same as you. I believe once the state has control money talks and recreation/sportsman walks
[signature]

[Bardic]

This argument has divided east and west for a while now.

"Federal land ownership is concentrated in the West. Specifically, 62% of Alaska is federally owned, as is 47% of the 11 coterminous western states. By contrast, the federal government owns only 4% of lands in the other states. This western concentration has contributed to a higher degree of controversy over land ownership and use in that part of the country."

"Emphasis shifted during the 20th century from the disposal and conveyance of title to private citizens to the retention and management of the remaining federal lands. During debates on the 1934 Taylor Grazing Act, some western Members of Congress acknowledged the poor prospects for relinquishing federal lands to the states, but language included in the act left disposal as a possibility. It was not until the enactment of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of
1976 (FLPMA)8 that Congress expressly declared that the remaining public domain lands generally would remain in federal ownership.9 This declaration of permanent federal land ownership was a significant factor in what became known as the Sagebrush Rebellion, an effort that started in the late 1970s to provide state or local control over federal land and management decisions. To date, judicial challenges and legislative and executive efforts generally have not resulted in broad changes to the level of federal ownership. Current authorities for acquiring and disposing of federal lands are unique to each agency.10"

http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42346.pdf

There are also some pictures in there to show just how much federal land is owned in the west compared to the eastern US. Currently Idaho is about 61% federally owned and 5% state owned as compared to 1.43% and 0.49% in Texas. It should also be remembered when people talk about selling off that land, the fed already grants lease agreements for logging, mineral rights, grazing rights, but takes the choice of how to manage those lands away from the local people. I don't know that state ownership would suddenly change most of those lands for the worse.
[signature]

[packfish]

I am a conservative and this bothers me to no end- Mojo has it correct- you had better "bone" up on your knowledge of this.
States get this and all that land you hunted and fished can be sold- and sold to the highest bidder- doesn't matter just who they are or what country they are from. As much as I dislike the federal Govt this is certainly one thing they do better than the state will do- If for some reason you think the state has your concerns in this matter you are ly mistaken.
[signature]

[Mojo1]

After doing a lot more research on this subject, I found out some interesting stuff. China and Chinese owned companies are one of the biggest purchasers of real estate in the US. Food for thought...
[signature]