RobG
Well-known member
James has a history of fighting for wildlife and public lands.Well for the folks on that side of the state here's your chance.
http://www.idahostatesman.com/news/...umns-blogs/politics-blog/article64624852.html
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
James has a history of fighting for wildlife and public lands.Well for the folks on that side of the state here's your chance.
http://www.idahostatesman.com/news/...umns-blogs/politics-blog/article64624852.html
Just an FYI that I did follow-up with Rep. Labrador's office in Lewiston after not hearing anything back regarding my letter and spoke with a lady answering phones for him on Thursday; she confirmed my worries that Rep. Labrador doesn't typically engage with non-ID residents but did respectfully listen to my concerns regarding H.R. 2316 and said that she would pass my comments on to him. I also expressed my thoughts that if Rep. Labrador is going to propose legislation to take away land from 320 million plus Americans in all 50 states, then he should listen to concerns from all of those landowners that he is affecting no matter where they reside. I also did reach out to Rep. Young's office in Anchorage and was given an email address by a lady in his office whom promised to forward my concerns to him regarding H.R. 3650.
It seems like proponents of the land transfer issue reference lands in the east as an example of how a lack of federal lands "can work" and as a model to follow; on the contrary, I believe President Roosevelt saw the exploitation and degradation of lands in the east and midwest that had already occurred and believed that the Federal Government was the best way to conserve lands in the west that hadn't yet fallen victim to mismanagement and to preserve various remaining wild places for posterity. TR understood what sustainability meant long before it became a buzz word in today's society.
House Bill 582 sets the parameters for how Idaho would manage those lands. Titled the “Idaho Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act,” the bill requires the state to manage those lands for multiple uses.
The bill blunts criticism that Idaho would just sell those lands to the highest bidder, Boyle said.
“They are for true multiple use, so it’s everything. We’re talking about recreation, wildlife, the environment, grazing, mining, logging,” she said. “That reassures people we’re not going to sell all these land ... They’re gong to be managed for multiple use for the best of Idaho.”
The bill says the transfer of federally held public lands to the state would fulfill the promise made in the U.S. and Idaho constitutions as well as the Idaho admissions act... “that any new state enter the union with all the same rights as the original 13 states.”
58-1504. MANAGEMENT CRITERIA. All lands of the state of Idaho subject to this chapter shall be administered and managed by the state of Idaho for multiple use and sustained yield in relation to timber production and harvest, livestock range, mineral exploration and development, watershed, fish and wildlife and outdoor recreation, provided that the foregoing shall not interfere with or impair any bonafide and existing rights of a person in existence at the time the lands are acquired by the state of Idaho.
58-1505. MULTIPLE USE. For purposes of this chapter, the management model of "multiple use" means the management of all the various renewable surface resources of lands of the state of Idaho subject to this chapter so they are utilized in combination with all uses:
(1) To best meet the needs of residents of the state of Idaho making the most efficient and economically beneficial use of the surface resources or related services over areas large enough to provide sufficient flexibility for periodic adjustments in use to conform to changing needs and conditions;
(2) That some land will be used for less than all of the resources;
(3) To effect harmonious and coordinated management of the various resources, each with the other, without permanent impairment of the productivity of the land, with consideration being given to the relative values of the various resources and uses, not necessarily the combination of all uses on every acre, and no mandate for the highest dollar return or the highest unit output.
http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/bois...ands-bill-clears-house-panel-party-line-vote/After a contentious hearing in which many people heatedly objected to opening any door to selloff of Idaho’s prized public lands, the House Resources Committee has voted 12-3 in favor of HB 582
http://www.idahostatesman.com/opinion/readers-opinion/article67182147.htmlHR 582, for instance, would compel state management agencies to make “the most efficient and economically beneficial use of surface resources.” This is the milquetoast version of “highest value use” proposals. These advocate a paradigm in which land use is dictated by profitability.
http://www.idahostatesman.com/opinion/readers-opinion/article67182227.htmlSimply put, this bill will allow a county sheriff or commissioner the ability to overrule loggers, miners, ranchers, sportsmen and others who have worked tirelessly to bring local, grassroots, science-based management to our forests by using personal beliefs only.
Time to refresh this thread with current land-grab efforts
Read more here: http://www.idahostatesman.com/latest-news/article62567867.html#storylink=cpy
I'm guessing this article refers to his recent HR2316 but don't see a percentage specified in that bill's text.