Help Save Our Public Lands

Keep the message short (They don’t want personal details)

Tell them:

  1. You don’t support the release of public managed lands from the BLM to the State of Idaho.
  2. This land is where we recreate; Camping, Riding, Fishing, et. Look at how much revenue is spent on this activity in Idaho.
  3. The state cant afford to manage the land.
  4. If they support this, don’t count on a vote at the next election.

Go to “Your Legislator” tab to get phone numbers and addresses.

UPDATE – More bad news on Public Lands – 1/8/2025

Received this from Karen Steenhof:

The State of Utah filed a motion to the Supreme Court, bypassing the District Court, asking that all “unappropriated” federal lands be turned over to the state.  Attorney General Raul Labrador filed an Amicus brief on behalf of Idaho, supporting Utah’s motion.  The Supreme Court will hear arguments on Friday January 10 and will decide on January 13 whether to take the case.  If they don’t, that won’t be the end because will probably go back to the District Court.   So, it is still important to speak up and contact Congressional representatives as well as Idaho legislators about how important it is to keep public lands in public hands.

Unappropriated lands include lands were not reserved for another purpose (i.e., a National Park, National Forest, National Monument, National Wildlife Refuge, or other designation like National Conservation Area).  Unappropriated lands comprise 9 million acres in Idaho—17% of all land in Idaho.

If the state gets title to unappropriated lands, it would not be able to afford what it takes to manage them.  The firefighting responsibilities alone would bankrupt the state, so they would be forced to sell off the lands or lease them to the highest bidders.  Privatizing the lands would eliminate public access for trail riding, hunting, fishing, hiking etc.

The comments recommended by ICL here: https://takeaction.idahoconservation.org/09a2aFx  are good.  My understanding is that going through this portal will get comments to Labrador, the Congressional delegation, and Idaho legislators.

Here is more information about the situation:  https://idahoconservation.org/blog/utah-files-the-big-one-lawsuit-seeks-to-seize-18-5-million-acres-of-public-land/  We can hope that the Supreme Court will dismiss Utah’s case, given that language in the Utah, Idaho, and other western states’ constitutions and statehood acts “forever disclaim[ed] all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within…”

I know that all of us have been frustrated by various BLM decisions and actions, but we can’t toss out everything because of a few bad decisions.

Bad News on Idaho’s Public Lands – 1/2/2025

Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador has submitted a brief to the U.S. Supreme Court supporting Utah’s latest attempt to take millions of acres of public land out of the control of Congress and instead have the Supreme Court designate other managers. The Attorney General is also asking the Supreme Court to declare the landmark 1976 law (FLPMA) that directs BLM to manage public lands for multiple use and sustained yield unconstitutional. 

In his brief, the Attorney General specifically called out for the transfer of 9 million acres of “unappropriated” BLM lands in Idaho. These are the classic BLM “multiple use, sustained yield lands” that make up the over 9 million acres of Idaho or 77% of BLM lands in the state. These are the same lands where Idahoans go to fill out their elk tag, go bird hunting, collect firewood for the winter, ride trails, and take their families camping. All it will take is for five of the nine justices to agree and Idaho’s heritage and our way of life could be lost forever. For example, State ownership would open the door to privatization, jeopardizing lands we use as a source of clean water for our communities, hunting, fishing, and recreation. We need you to speak up today – tell our decision-makers that you do not support this stance.

USFS Southern Region Proposal for Increases in Camping and Trail Use Fees Link to USFS Web site.)

Proposal for Increases in Trail Use Fees. Ability to make comments has been closed, but you can still read about proposal. (Site Link)

Here is a brief recap of the proposal and how it will affect areas throughout:

  • A $10 fee would be good for three consecutive days. You would also be able to purchase a $60 annual forest-wide pass or an $80 “America the Beautiful” pass, which covers all federal recreation fee areas across the country, including national forests in the other states.
  • The fee would apply to locations with developed amenities like toilets, picnic tables, parking, fishing access and trash collection.
  • Money would be deposited into steel tubes similar to those already in place. 
  • It is estimated the program would raise an additional $1 million per year. 95% of the fees paid would remain with the forest and be used to maintain the sites and facilities and could be leveraged into grants to improve trailheads and surrounding areas, according to a Forest Supervisor. 

There are concerns.

These concerns include:

  • Selecting only certain sites to be fee-based could potentially push users to non-fee sites that could intensify use in the areas accessed by those sites where avalanche danger is greater and there are fewer parking spaces.
  • Where does enforcement start and end in places where roadside parking acts as overflow. Will more roadside parking be the result?
  • Will snow removal costs be used from the generated funds?  
  • Has a sno-park permit system been considered such as those in CaliforniaIdahoOregon and Washington?
  • How do we ensure “America the Beautiful” pass fees support local sites?
  • Passes are for single vehicles; how do multiple car households manage a single pass?
  • Will the fees collected allow the USFS to permit shuttle companies to drop off and pick up people to help reduce congestion and parking conflicts in the canyons? 
  • The LCC EIS outcome remains uncertain and tolling is a component of either preferred alternative; how does tolling affect the fee proposal? Will the USFS be the beneficiary of some portion of those funds? Will users be charged twice?
  • Will there be more toilets at trailheads, or out in the popular drainages?
  • We would like to see at least a partial – ideally a full – summary or proposal of where the local FS Ranger District will target spending these new funds.  

See: Idaho Horse Council Activity under HOT TOPICS for more info.