![\"\"](\"https:\/\/sbbch.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/sc01.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nLast month, the Center for Western Priorities, a Denver, Colorado\u2013based nonprofit, published\u00a0a comprehensive report<\/a>\u00a0that compared state public lands policy across the Mountain West. Eight states\u2014Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Arizona, and New Mexico\u2014were scored. The results were also discussed on the organization\u2019s podcast,\u00a0Go West, Young Podcast<\/a><\/em>.<\/p>\n The Trump administration\u2019s hostility to public lands was part of the impetus for the report, the authors told\u00a0Outside<\/em>. Wary of focusing its mission solely on federal accountability, Western Priorities also wanted to examine what states could do on their own. But understanding state policy when it comes public lands is challenging; unlike federal law, tracking state-level regulation gets messy.<\/p>\n \u201cWe try to be a data-driven organization,\u201d says Aaron Weiss, media director at Western Priorities, \u201cand that tends to be fairly easy on the national level, because, at least up until now, DOI and Forest Service were good about collecting and disseminating data.\u201d If you couldn\u2019t figure something out, \u201cyou could usually call up someone at the Park Service or at BLM and figure out how to get that data. It\u2019s much harder to do at the state level.\u201d<\/p>\n That\u2019s because the way states regulate their local public lands varies widely. \u201cWhat counts as a spill in one state doesn\u2019t count in another,\u201d Weiss says. In that light, Western Priorities set out to research and compare state policies \u201capples to apples.\u201d The project, led by Western Priorities\u2019 Sara Rose Tannenbaum, took about eight months to research and involved somewhere between 80 and 100 interviews with policymakers and related experts. Western Priorities chose to score states in three categories: lands and access, outdoor recreation, and responsible energy use. Montana and Colorado received the highest overall grades, but there was still a good deal of divergence within each category.<\/p>\n The results look at what states are doing well when it comes to public lands protections, as well as how they can improve and adopt best practices from one another. (Charted above are the states\u2019 total scores from all three categories, with the highest possible score being 33.)<\/p>\n \u201cThis can be a useful tool to people as they\u2019re trying to aid their state in improving, or branching out, or being innovative,\u201d Tannenbaum says. \u201cStates really have a lot to learn from one another. It\u2019s important to celebrate what\u2019s worth celebrating in your state and also identify moments for improvement.\u201d<\/p>\n We broke down how the states did in each category and why.<\/p>\n Western Priorities looked at hiking, hunting, fishing, and camping access on state public lands using a few different parameters. States can do a variety of things with their land trusts\u2014sell, lease, or neither\u2014and access often changes based on those designations. Additionally, local public lands can\u2019t always be accessed in some states if they\u2019re surrounded by private property, and the commitment to funding for public lands can be inconsistent.<\/p>\n Stream access is highly variable as well. Montana and Idaho, for example, allow people to float, wade, and walk along streams up to the high-water level, even when rivers cross private lands. Montana has enshrined public access to rivers in its constitution,\u00a0an issue<\/a>\u00a0that has caused trouble even for Greg Gianforte, the state\u2019s recently elected congressman. But other states, like Colorado, are more restrictive, and enforcement and culture varies. In Utah and New Mexico, the report notes, there have been \u201cissues of private land owners erecting barbed-wire fences through streams and putting up \u2018no trespassing\u2019 signs.\u201d<\/p>\n Weiss is careful to add that states weren\u2019t given negative points, which can obscure regressive trends. \u201cOn lands and access, the big takeaway is that this is still a very active fight in a lot of states,\u201d Weiss says, mentioning the\u00a0Wilks brothers<\/a>\u00a0threatening ranchers\u2019 water rights in Montana and\u00a0alarming initiatives<\/a>\u00a0led by\u00a0Utah officials\u00a0<\/a>to sell off public lands for resource extraction.<\/p>\n Colorado ran away in this category, while states like Arizona and Wyoming struggled. Infrastructure for public access was a key part of the equation, as was having dedicated offices in state governments devoted to the cause. (Colorado was the only state to receive top marks on both fronts.) Western Priorities also believes there\u2019s plenty of room for improvement when it comes to promoting outdoor and environmental education, a category in which no state received top two scores. But most important, commitment to public lands and recreation is most clearly reflected by one thing: consistent, dedicated money.<\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s really wonderful that a lot of states have passed a Public Lands Day,\u201d Tannenbaum says, \u201cAnd we\u2019re really supportive of that\u2014Colorado\u2019s Public Lands Day was a hit this year. But that really has to be backed by concrete action.\u201d Groups like\u00a0Great Outdoors Colorado<\/a>\u00a0do a great job of addressing all sorts of outdoor recreational priorities, she told me, but not all states put real money behind such agencies.<\/p>\n \u201cThis topic, you could write an entire report on it,\u201d Tannenbaum says. \u201cSo we focused on concrete protections for air, water, and wildlife as opposed to alternate uses.\u201d One of those uses they had to leave out, they say, was the potential for development of renewables on public lands.<\/p>\n Instead they examined, among other issues, how far back oil wells could be set from houses, transparency surrounding chemicals used in fracking and spills, mine bonding, and methane emissions. One crucial aspect was the return on investment taxpayers receive from taxing energy industries that exploit public lands. That came down to looking at the kinds of taxes and royalty rates states require the extractive industry to pay, which can be used to maintain and protect public lands.\u00a0<\/strong>Colorado once again did especially well, with royalty rates above the federal rate, while also requiring public reporting and disclosure of fracking chemicals 48 hours prior to use (Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, and Utah all use\u00a0FracFocus<\/a>\u00a0to do this). Arizona scored poorly on both these fronts.<\/p>\n Weiss and Tannenbaum emphasize that public engagement is critical in keeping outdoor recreation and access to state trust lands a vibrant part of the West. \u201cNumber one is to know who your state legislators are and keep them on speed dial,\u201d Weiss says. \u201cGo to their coffees, go to their town halls before the [legislative] session starts, so they know what\u2019s important to you, both in terms of good bills and what a bad bill would look like.\u201d<\/p>\n Join our editors for a Q&A with Weiss\u00a0and Tannenbaum\u00a0on Monday, November 13, at 2pm M.T. in the\u00a0Outside Public Lands Forum<\/a>\u00a0on Facebook.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\nLands and Access<\/h2>\n
Highest Possible Score: 10<\/h4>\n
<\/a><\/p>\nOutdoor Recreation<\/h2>\n
Highest Possible Score: 9<\/h4>\n
<\/a><\/p>\nResponsible Energy Development<\/b><\/h2>\n
Highest Possible Score: 14<\/h4>\n
![<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"How Western States Stack Up As Public Lands Defenders A new report card ranks the Mountain West based on access, recreation, and responsible energy development Last month, the Center for Western Priorities, a Denver, Colorado\u2013based nonprofit, published\u00a0a comprehensive report\u00a0that compared state public lands policy across the Mountain West. Eight states\u2014Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[17,15],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4089","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-around-the-campfire","category-current-events"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/sbbch.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4089","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/sbbch.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/sbbch.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sbbch.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sbbch.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=4089"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/sbbch.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4089\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4094,"href":"https:\/\/sbbch.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4089\/revisions\/4094"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/sbbch.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=4089"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sbbch.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=4089"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sbbch.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=4089"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}](\"https:\/\/sbbch.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/sc04.jpg\"){kind=link}