Camas wildlife refuge

[Hilljackoutlaw]

https://idahocapitalsun.com/2025/03/17/idaho-senate-calls-for-state-to-take-over-federal-camas-national-wildlife-refuge/

 

[Justabirdwatcher]

Here we go...

 

[Hunting Wife]

Straight out of Project 2025.

 

[seeth07]

Beyond opposing this purely just on just principle, what would be so bad about this? I'm not seeing the red herring excuse on this proposal like many others such as affordable housing. A merge into a well managed state wildlife area open to public use (I'm making this assumption) may actually have less restrictions than being a current wildlife refuge under federal control. This isn't a proposal to go to a state land board

 

[ccc23454]

Really neat place, hate to see it ruined by farmers wanting more irrigation

 

[TheTone]

The issues I’ve seen with camas creek had nothing to do with the refuge

 

[SAJ-99]

Beyond opposing this purely just on just principle, what would be so bad about this? I'm not seeing the red herring excuse on this proposal like many others such as affordable housing. A merge into a well managed state wildlife area open to public use (I'm making this assumption) may actually have less restrictions than being a current wildlife refuge under federal control. This isn't a proposal to go to a state land board

Ask why they want it. Do we know Mud Creek is "well managed" or in their words "successfully managed"? I really don't know. May be in the eye of the beholder. Reading the bill it looks like it is about the water. It would be interesting hear the other side of the story. Given the area is managed primarily for waterfowl, I would be skeptical there wouldn't be an impact.

 

[seeth07]

Ask why they want it. Do we know Mud Creek is "well managed" or in their words "successfully managed"? I really don't know. May be in the eye of the beholder. Reading the bill it looks like it is about the water. It would be interesting hear the other side of the story. Given the area is managed primarily for waterfowl, I would be skeptical there wouldn't be an impact.

That's all I'm pointing out. The article is just one take. Before I'm immediately jumping to a conclusion about this topic I feel like I need much more info

 

[SAJ-99]

That's all I'm pointing out. The article is just one take. Before I'm immediately jumping to a conclusion about this topic I feel like I need much more info

Read the bill, in link in article. Idaho claims that the water canal that flows to Mud Lake is choked with willows and the Federal permitting process is too slow and cumbersome. It might have been slow to begin with because the refuge was understaffed, so I'm sure that is even more true given the staffing cuts. Again, that is the main plan. I think that water is thought to be better used by the area farmers than it is in a wildlife refuge. Just a hunch.

 

[seeth07]

Read the bill, in link in article. Idaho claims that the water canal that flows to Mud Lake is choked with willows and the Federal permitting process is too slow and cumbersome. It might have been slow to begin with because the refuge was understaffed, so I'm sure that is even more true given the staffing cuts. Again, that is the main plan. I think that water is thought to be better used by the area farmers than it is in a wildlife refuge. Just a hunch.

Yes, I read the article and the actual memorial. Water seems to be a reason for this action.

But we can't just jump to the conclusion that this is bad. I want to know the history of the refuge and how it has changed over the years. How about the surrounding area and uses. How about city developments and homes in the watershed. All contributing factors to what is going on.

I would think that perhaps IFG since they already manage Mud Lake next door knows and understands the situation better than anyone. Due to federal cuts and understaffing maybe there are some significant improvements that could be done by the state that at the federal level can't be done.

If the end goal is to dredge the creek, drain all the ponds there (yes I've waterfowl hunted here and am familar) and divert the water just for irrigation, of course I'm not a fan of this. But prove to me that is the goal rather than jump right to "Straight out of Project 2025" just because you see a request for a federal property transfered to a state. Again, this isn't a transfer to a state land board but rather into a IDF managed property which by law exists to protect wildlife

 

[SAJ-99]

I agree. We certainly need more info. However, if you are asking me to just trust the state of Idaho or this administration in something like this, you are fighting a losing battle. I’ve seen enough of both to have an educated guess on the intent.

A few things. I would think that the Feds could just approve the dredging permit. Hell, just drive the backhoe out there and start clearing the willows without a permit and tell the judge “oopsie”. Also, why a transfer? Why can’t Idaho pony up some cash and buy it from the rest of us? The Feds had to buy ranches to create the place. Lastly, I have a good idea on how wetlands work. Mud Lake isn’t a wetland, it’s a lake. The two are vastly different. I can look at the sat photo and have a real good guess on what the plan is. Create a channel to get that water to the lake faster and the entire area is no longer a wetland.

It is sad that we have to rely on Idaho Conservation League alone in this battle.

 

[Justabirdwatcher]

Beyond opposing this purely just on just principle, what would be so bad about this? I'm not seeing the red herring excuse on this proposal like many others such as affordable housing. A merge into a well managed state wildlife area open to public use (I'm making this assumption) may actually have less restrictions than being a current wildlife refuge under federal control. This isn't a proposal to go to a state land board

The assumption is that state wildlife areas are any better managed. In most cases, they have less funding and are much more subject to political influence.

Randy has explained the phenomenon of defunding public lands and then pointing the finger at them for being poorly managed as a specific strategy. Are we sure that's not what is happening here?

 

[TheTone]

I agree. We certainly need more info. However, if you are asking me to just trust the state of Idaho or this administration in something like this, you are fighting a losing battle. I’ve seen enough of both to have an educated guess on the intent.

A few things. I would think that the Feds could just approve the dredging permit. Hell, just drive the backhoe out there and start clearing the willows without a permit and tell the judge “oopsie”. Also, why a transfer? Why can’t Idaho pony up some cash and buy it from the rest of us? The Feds had to buy ranches to create the place. Lastly, I have a good idea on how wetlands work. Mud Lake isn’t a wetland, it’s a lake. The two are vastly different. I can look at the sat photo and have a real good guess on what the plan is. Create a channel to get that water to the lake faster and the entire area is no longer a wetland.

It is sad that we have to rely on Idaho Conservation League alone in this battle.

View attachment 364656

I’d guess a big part of this is wanting more water for all those pivot irrigated fields that are crushing the aquifers and also a way to be able to kill more elk that live on the refuge and raid fields

 

[Hunting Wife]

If what I read is true, in that

1. The Refuge is the senior water right holder,
2. The Senator that introduced the bill has a direct conflict of interest, owning land downstream, and
3. No downstream water rights holders have demonstrated an impairment,

then this sure seems like a land grab by folks who have not been able to coerce the refuge into doing what they want. Wouldn’t be the first time.