State vs. Federal: Who Should Control Public Land?

Accessibility to our lands is at question. There are 640 million acres of public land spread throughout the United States. At issue is who controls those spaces. Recently, many conversations and movements have brought a “State’s Rights” thread to the table of land management harkening back to the Sagebrush Rebellion of the 70s and 80s. The argument follows that the federal government should transfer public lands to the local entities so they may do with those lands as they see fit. The flip side of that coin contends that those entities do not have the resources to manage the huge stretches of land those transfers would encompass and so those properties will be forced into eventual sale or commercial extraction lease.

Outfitters have a unique responsibility and opportunity within these public spaces and clear interests in who manages them. Mike Lawson, the manager of the South Fork Lodge in Swan Valley, Idaho sees it as his responsibility to be the steward, gatekeeper and teacher for all those who do not live in these wild places. There is a unique connection to these places, and a deep understanding that visitors do not have. It is an opportunity for Mike to show clients his world. Outfitters bring people to these wild places who would not normally have the opportunity.

Idaho is a great example of the West’s efforts in management of public lands, and illustrates the issues facing the future of public use and access. The state has over 50 million acres managed by various federal entities. Therefore, strategies and opportunities facing the Gem state become pertinent. Backcountry Hunters and Anglers (BHA) gives us a great framework to understand what is at stake. BHA’s position is one of sensible management and facilitation for all interests. They argue for a course to keep these great tracts of land accessible to the public, while securing the public’s future with those lands. Additionally, they advocate for pragmatic solutions of mixed-use lands. One of their co-chairs, Ian Malepai, walked us through some aspects of the huge discussion.

Stream Access is a Huge Current Issue

Outfitters throughout the West know this matter well. Depending on which state you’re in, you can wade to the high water mark within private land. This stems from a historical legal precedent that navigable streams are a public right-of-way. “States are legislating rules for stream beds,” Malepai told us. “Land owners in some states own the bottom of the river.” And so, access to those streams becomes intrinsically more valuable to sportsmen. Without scores of wading fishermen in those waters, one will invariably find fish who have seen less lures. For example, on the North Platte outside of Saratoga, Wyoming, boats from Spur Ranch Outfitters use their access to sell some of the best fishing days in the world. On the South Fork of the Snake, Lawson and his clients float by many wading anglers every day. Many do not need to pay a professional for a great day on the water.

Clearwater Basin Collaborative

“This is a great example of bringing diverse interests to the table to discuss planning for the future of public lands,” says Malepai. Idaho Republican Senator Mike Crapo convened a diverse group in 2008, bringing together various entities involving the six million acre Clearwater Basin. Not only is the public land a treasured resource, but it is the traditional homeland of the Nez Perce Tribe. The Clearwater Basin Collaborative (CBC) website states, “A primary long-term intent for the CBC is to be proactively involved in the development of various proposals and plans, and to ensure consideration of diverse interests so that opposition, appeals and litigation is minimized. The CBC feels strongly that collaboration provides a valuable approach to facilitating communication between public interests and decision-makers.” Malapei echos this sentiment and upholds the CBC as a model for how BHA should view the future of public lands. “The only way to keep our lands in public hands is to bring all the interests to the table.”

Boulder-White Clouds

Alternatively, the movement to designate a wilderness of these remote mountains could be seen as a narrower approach. “In August 2015, President Barack Obama signed legislation protecting 275,665 acres of this rugged expanse as wilderness, ending decades of debate over what should become of the remote central Idaho region,” according to The Spokesman-Review. This law was spearheaded by Republican Mike Simpson of Idaho. This was the result of over 20 years of heated discussion about proposed mining interests dramatically changing the face of the area. The wilderness bill remains controversial in regards to how it restricts access. The country’s rules associated with that designation severely limit mechanized travel within the boundaries. Also, they deny opportunity for development and/or timber and mining rights.

What’s at Stake?

Oregon: Consider the sale of 84,000 acres of the Elliott State Forest near Coos Bay. The whole forest was put up for sale in 2015 with the stipulation that “the public maintain its access.” There are now four different companies vying for natural resource extraction rights.

Wisconsin: Act20 has mandated a land sale related to the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Program. Their DNR (Department of Natural Resources) “owns 1.5 million acres of land and will put 10,000 acres of it up for sale in 2017. Again, the deed “may” dictate it remain open for sportsman access. The sale will “realign land ownership with conservation partners and private citizens for more efficient management,” according to the Wisconsin DNR site.

Colorado: Their state’s trust land includes 3 million acres, but less than a quarter is open to hunting and fishing, and sportsmen are required to buy a permit for access. The remaining acreage is designated to private natural resource extraction interests.

Nevada: 99% of the 2.7 million acres granted at statehood have been sold. Regardless, 81% of the land is owned by the federal government. Yet many in the state see that ownership as “absentee.” In 2016 that came to a head, with the takeover of federal buildings at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. The confrontation, dubbed the Bundy standoff, gained national attention as a group of citizens protested the sentencing of the Bundy family over their fire suppression and unpaid grazing rights on Bureau of Land Management Land.

Fires

Perhaps the greatest illustration of the whole issue is how forest fires are fought in the West. Back to Idaho; the 2016 Pioneer Fire outside of Idaho City cost over $100 million dollars. “The considerable costs associated with fire fighting cannot be shouldered by state and local governments,” says Malepai. It would appear that “disaster” declarations by Western governors would echo that sentiment. In 2015, the total cost of federal fire suppression was $6.2 billion dollars, close to Idaho’s total annual budget. During these huge fires, states don’t have the flexibility in their relatively small economies to mobilize and effectively defend communities at-risk. Proponents of federal land management argue that local management means that more structures burn, more lives are put in danger, and millions more acres of public lands are lost to the infernos, due to an inability to properly fund firefighting efforts.

One Man’s Perspective

“Bridger Bowl ski area is situated on the east slope of the Bridgers, 16 miles from downtown Bozeman. At this ONE spot, I have skied knee deep powder, hunted bugling bull elk, witnessed friends get married, and pedaled gorgeous singletrack.

Public lands are my therapist, my fitness center and my church. I go to public lands to purge the mind-clutter of everyday life, I go to sweat out the unhealthy habits of being indoors, I go to be overwhelmed by the sights, sounds and smells of the natural world.

It is stunningly generous that over 640 million acres of trails, peaks, forests, prairies, deserts, lakes and rivers are available to me, and you, and all of us. Thanks to stunningly intelligent, brave and long-term thinkers of our past, every American has the opportunity and freedom to enjoy a great abundance of the natural world.” Josh Kuntz, co-chair of Idaho BHA

Finally

No matter the opinion on who manages them, all agree we are lucky to have access to vast tracts of public land. It is in the interest of all sportsmen to advocate for these spaces and promote a future that generations will be able to experience. Our wild lands are a finite resource and one that may not be here forever.