Backcountry Musings

New Mexico exemplifies the risk of managing lands at the whim of local interests.

by Tom Ribe  Link to online Posting

Tom Ribe is a contributor to Writers on the Range, the opinion service of High Country News. He writes from his office in the wildland-urban interface in Santa Fe, New Mexico.

Two days after President Donald Trump signed an executive order reducing Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument by half, Utah Republican Rep. Chris Stewart introduced a bill in the House that would put local politicians in charge of the public lands cut away from the monument.

One tenet of conservative public-land policy orthodoxy is that local control of public lands will improve the wellbeing of local residents. Yet the movement to auction off federal lands or transfer them to state or county control has repeatedly run aground because public lands are overwhelming popular among Americans. Other conservative efforts have been sought to neutralize federal agencies.

Stewart’s Grand Staircase-Escalante Enhancement Act is one of these new approaches. If passed by the House, it would create a ‘management council’ made up of seven local county commissioners and state legislators appointed by the president of the United States. One member would come from the Department of the Interior. The management council would set policy for two small Bureau of Land Management national monuments and one new national park and preserve under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service. The three areas lie within what once was the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument created by President Bill Clinton and managed by the BLM.

Stewart’s legislation states that federal land managers “shall adhere” to management plans created by the management council. If recent experience with a similar scheme at the Valles Caldera National Preserve in northern New Mexico is any guide, this approach is doomed to failure. Valles Caldera: About 1.25 million years ago, a spectacular volcanic eruption created the 13-mile wide circular depression now known as the Valles Caldera.  The preserve is known for its huge mountain meadows, abundant wildlife, and meandering streams. The area also preserves the homeland of ancestral native peoples and embraces a rich ranching history.

In 2000, after a 100,000-acre private parcel surrounded by Forest Service and National Park Service land came up for sale near Santa Fe, public pressure encouraged the New Mexico congressional delegation to buy it for the public. But Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., insisted that a presidentially appointed, mostly private-sector board of trustees set policy for the new preserve as an “experiment” in management. Federal employees would carry out the board’s policy.

Problems dogged the experiment from the start. Having the president appoint board members politicized the board. When Republicans controlled the House of Representatives, ranching-oriented board members were selected; when Democrats controlled the House, conservationists and academics ran the board. The federal staff had to answer to nine ever-changing bosses whose edicts sometimes conflicted with the federal laws that apply to public lands.

Stewart’s bill would ensure that only Republicans would be appointed to the management board — unless some seismic shift were to happen in Utah politics. Lands owned by all Americans would be governed by local people with local interests, and if the management council mandated policies that violated federal laws, the federal staff would have a choice of either violating the law or disobeying their local bosses. One can imagine the lawsuits likely to follow.

Stewart would clearly prefer to transfer these lands to county ownership. But that would run counter to strong public support for federal land management, and it would upset the tourism-oriented businesses that have thrived ever since Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument began drawing tourists and boosting property values.

Stewart is hoping to mollify these business interests by creating a new little national park. Yet this so-called park mandates livestock grazing and hunting and trapping, and it would be controlled by state game officials and members of the management council. The mandates could force the National Park Service to violate its own Organic Act, opening up both the management council and the federal government to lawsuits.

Stewart’s bill, which has three co-sponsors from Utah, mandates livestock grazing “in perpetuity” on all the lands in question, but makes no mention of administrative costs or the collateral damage of livestock grazing in a rocky desert where little forage grows. Grazing can be mandated, but what happens when there’s a drought?

The public in New Mexico, after 15 years, was frustrated with the “seat of the pants” decision-making by the board of trustees at the Valles Caldera National Preserve. In 2015, Congress transferred the preserve to the National Park Service, which imposed its standard management structure.

Stewart’s bill, combined with Trump’s evisceration of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, may advance conservative public-lands ideology. But neither action advances the interests of the public, and both create far more problems than they pretend to solve.

There has been a lot of attention recently about Public Lands and where America is headed with the management of those lands. Further, anyone who recreates on Americas public lands is often exposed to unfamiliar terms and may not understand the differences. Following is a brief description to give you a working understanding of the differences and what that means to you.

First, what are “Public Lands”? These are the lands that are owned “equally” by all Americans. There are 618 million acres of public land across the U.S., with a significant portion in Alaska and the western U.S. The total U.S. land base is 2.27 billion acres in size. These federal public lands are managed in trust for us, (citizens of the U.S.) by the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, Park Service and the Wildlife Refuge System for current and future generations.

“Front country” is not a commonly used term, but is generally any public lands that are relatively accessible by means such as motor vehicles, boats, bicycles, hiking, horseback and aircraft and are usually within a short distance of roads. Generally, these lands provide a multitude of recreational activities. Camping may be in developed or dispersed/undeveloped areas. Logging, grazing and mining are often permitted on these lands as well. These are often highly used areas where it is common to see other people and activities.

“Backcountry” is generally the area beyond what is Front country. Pretty vague, but accurate. There is no specific line or map designation where this starts or ends. Access is more challenging and is usually by a trail or cross-country travel and at a further distance from roads and trailheads. Access may be allowed by the same list as above, but with greater responsibility on the user as trails receive less maintenance. In addition, the safety and welfare of each recreationist to care for themselves is increased. Camping is usually in dispersed sites. You would expect to see fewer people and activities than in the Front country.

“Roadless Areas” had their beginnings when Primitive Areas were established in the 1920’s. The idea was to preserve some lands in a roadless condition at a time when automobiles and road building was rapidly expanding. As time progressed, Roadless Areas have been challenged legally and politically as to which lands should remain or be opened. Currently, there is about 58 million acres of unroaded forests. There is about 380,000 miles of roads on Forest Service lands. In comparison, the Interstate Highway system has about 47,000 miles of road.

Unlike Front country and Backcountry, “Wilderness” is defined and receives that highest level of land protection. While some may get a “wilderness experience” in the Front country or Backcountry or a Park, true Wilderness is a specific geographic area and can only be established or “Designated” by an act of Congress. The Wilderness Act of 1964 put into law what is required to be a “Designated Wilderness”. It states how it will be managed and what modes of access or travel are acceptable. The Act requires that it be managed to protect its natural condition, where it is untrammeled by man. It is to maintain its primeval character, shaped by the forces of nature with man’s work substantially unnoticeable. The purposes will be to provide solitude, and escape from mechanized use and maintain historic uses.

Three more terms that you may hear. “Recommended Wilderness” is generally lands identified on Forest Plans or agency plans that recommend specific areas for Wilderness Designation by Congress. “Proposed Wilderness” is generally lands that have been submitted to Congress for Wilderness consideration, a step closer than recommended. However, these two terms can mean the same thing depending on the agency. Finally, “Wilderness Study Areas” or WSA’s are areas that are inventoried and undergoing the Wilderness review process. They are lands that should be managed to preserve the character or special attributes that made them a WSA.

Parks generally have defined geographic areas which are indicated on maps. The recreational uses within a Park are often highly regulated due to a significant amount of visitor use. There are 58 National Parks, and most are associated with a specific national treasure. Interestingly, some iconic National Parks like Yellowstone, Grand Teton and Glacier and others are NOT designated Wilderness. They are “recommended wilderness” but to date, Congress has not given them the additional level of protection.

Parks can be managed by a city, state, private or federal entity. The simplest definition comes from Wikipedia: A “Park” is an area of natural, semi-natural or planted space set aside for human enjoyment and recreation or for the protection of wildlife or natural habitats. It may consist of grassy areas, rocks, soil and trees, but may also contain buildings and other artifacts such as monuments, fountains or playground structures.

The vast majority of our public lands are managed under the multi-use designation that includes both the Front country and Backcountry. This allows for a multitude of activities to be offered on the majority of our Public Lands. Only about 3% of the lower 48 states land base is designated Wilderness.

Submitted by: Mack Long
Mission Valley BCH, BCH Montana, Education Chairman BCH of America

You read that right! There currently exists no Idaho law protecting your right to access public areas that you pay for. That means anyone can barricade a public tract and prevent your horse, ATV, or motorcycle from passage without fear of repercussion.  And even more common, Idaho sportsmen are running into “NO TRESPASSING” signs on public lands and waters that they have every right to access.  Don’t believe it?  Check out this news story and the video of an encounter with an armed security guard patrolling a Forest Service road.

Right now, for instance, public funds can be used to purchase and maintain permanent, motorized public access on a road.  Anyone can physically obstruct that road and block your access without fear of repercussion. Imagine your disappointment when you draw a coveted elk tag only to show up on opening day to find a locked gate across a public road.  Sure you can call the local sheriff.  But with extremely limited funding, and perpetrators with deep pocketbooks, local law enforcement simply can’t prioritize prosecuting these types of cases.

The scenarios are endless, but one thing is for sure, your right to access public property is not secure.  IWF has been working with legislators, motorized recreation groups, and sportsman groups to close this loophole and create a succinct amendment to an existing law that will put the power of protecting public access in the people’s hands. To review the most updated version of the proposed legislation click here.

Have you ever seen signs or physical barriers to impeding access your public lands? Submit your story below and we will deliver your comments to our legislators.  Link to IWF website

Rep. Labrador Co-Sponsors Bill To Cease Creation of New Salmon Recovery Plans

Federal Bill Will Block Idaho Salmon and Steelhead Recovery

With D.C. Vote, Idaho’s Rep. Labrador Reveals Intentions With Public Lands

Watch Video

Wilderness Society
Interactive: Tracking Trump’s anti-public lands crusade
After a chaotic first year, the Trump administration has made it abundantly clear that one goal is to systematically sell out America’s public lands to the fossil fuel industry.

This interactive timeline examines all the actions taken by President Trump and Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke to give away our nation’s heritage to energy companies for unfettered drilling, fracking and mining.

How to use the timeline:
Use the bar at the bottom of this page to scroll through our timeline then click on each box for more info.

BY CYNTHIA SEWELL
DECEMBER 02, 2017

Three of the contenders to become Idaho’s next governor shared remarkably similar views Saturday on wildlife conservation, fishing, hunting and access to public lands.

In questions posed at a forum at Boise State University, Democrat A.J. Balukoff and Republicans Tommy Ahlquist and Brad Little differed mainly on the handling of the state’s sage grouse management plan, and over the idea of breaching four Snake River dams in Washington state to recover endangered salmon and steelhead populations.

Ahlquist Clarifies Breaching Dams Stance After Forum (Dec 15, 2017)

The forum was sponsored by the Idaho Wildlife Federation and 17 other sportsmen and wildlife groups. Each candidate spoke separately for about 30 minutes to a crowd of about 100 people clad in flannel, jeans and camo.

The three have quite different backgrounds: Little, a native Idahoan, is a longtime politician and rancher who currently serves as Idaho’s lieutenant governor. Ahlquist is a doctor, developer and political newcomer best known for recent Boise projects such as the Eighth & Main building. Balukoff is a CPA, businessman and longtime trustee on the Boise school board who ran unsuccessfully against Gov. Butch Otter in 2014.

Absent among the leading candidates was Republican Congressman Raul Labrador, who declined to participate. That garnered a chorus of hisses and boos from the audience.

“We do have a spot reserved for him right up front in case he shows up,” said Brian Brooks, Idaho Wildlife Foundation executive director. “So, if you see him, would you please direct him to his empty seat.”

Some topics that each of the three addressed:

Hunting and fishing: All three said they are outdoorsmen and hold Idaho hunting and fishing licenses. Ahlquist talked about fishing last week with his father-in-law. Balukoff discussed getting his annual wild turkey and a recent failed antelope hunt. Little recounted how for four generations, his family has held an annual upland bird hunt.

Public lands: The candidates said they are not in favor of the state taking ownership of federal land in Idaho, mainly because it would be too cost-prohibitive. But they do want the state to have more of a role in how federal land is managed, and better public access to federal lands.

“Thirty-three million acres is a lot of land,” said Balukoff. “There is enough space to meet needs. If we want wild and scenic areas that are primitive … (or) areas we can designate for use of ATVs – there is room to do multiple uses on our public lands.”

Salmon and steelhead recovery: All agree the federal plan in play for the last 25 years is failing.

“Our rural communities need this industry,” Ahlquist said. “We need to figure this out. … We need to protect Idaho’s interests, Idaho industries, Idaho fish.”

Wildlife management: Political leaders need to listen to professional wildlife managers and biologists. And, all three said, the Idaho Fish and Game Commission should not be politicized.

Endangered species: The candidates said we should follow the advice of biologists and wildlife managers to ensure that Idaho keeps sustainable populations to avoid federal intervention.

The candidates did have a few differences on issues.

Breaching Snake River dams: Ahlquist and Balukoff said they would consider it as a possibility. Little said he would not, but he would consider looking at how that water is managed, including adjusting flows or releasing more water over spillways instead of through turbines.

Sage grouse: All agree that any management plan needs to be collaborative. Ahlquist and Balukoff do not support Idaho’s efforts to fight an Obama-era grouse management plan in court. Little said such an action sometimes is necessary if the federal government does not uphold its end of the deal.

The entire 90-minute forum can be viewed on the Idaho Wildlife Federation’s Facebook page.

Emily Benson Nov. 27, 2017

How much is hunting and fishing access to 3.4 million acres of land in Utah worth? Last year, the answer was $776,000. That was the amount the Utah Department of Natural Resources paid another state agency, the School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration (SITLA), to secure public access to state trust lands, granted to Western states by the federal government to generate money for schools and other public institutions.

This fall, however, the deal between the Natural Resources Department and SITLA expired. In negotiating its renewal, SITLA wanted to raise its fee to market rates, estimated at $1.8 to $3.9 million a year for the 1 million acres that have commercial hunting value. If the department didn’t pay up, SITLA seemed ready to lease exclusive access to beloved places like the Book Cliffs — a vast wilderness of rugged bluffs and forested valleys teeming with elk, mule deer and cutthroat trout — to wealthy hunters. Access to prime areas would be scooped up mainly by customers willing to pay thousands of dollars for a single hunt, with only a handful of permits issued through a public lottery.

Kim Christy, SITLA’s deputy director, argued that the agency was merely fulfilling its obligation under the state Constitution to optimize revenue. But many sportsmen saw it differently. Bill Christensen of the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation says access to state lands shouldn’t be reserved for the highest bidders. And SITLA’s demands underscored his fears about what could happen should federal lands be transferred to state control: privatization and loss of access. “I have been very concerned about how greedy SITLA has been in recent years,” Christensen says.

State trust lands are owned by public entities, but they aren’t “public” the way federal lands are. Most states don’t have to manage them for multiple uses, so there’s no guarantee of public access for hunting, hiking and camping. Instead, these lands are managed to make money, traditionally by leasing them for grazing, mining, timber or energy development. Sometimes the land is sold outright.

“The mandate that states have is often interpreted as this really rigid thing,” says Shawn Regan, a research fellow at the Property and Environment Research Center, a Montana-based free-market think tank. But hunting, especially, can be a source of revenue for state trusts. “There are ways to allow access or provide conservation benefits while still meeting the requirement to benefit the trust.”

Public access to trust lands varies widely from state to state. Idaho and Wyoming allow free access, while New Mexico and Colorado have interagency payment schemes similar to Utah’s. Still, access is provided primarily at the discretion of state agencies, leaving the public with little say in whether certain parcels are put up for sale, threatened with development or closed to the public. Read More