No! There is no equivalancy in the sanctity of public access between on State of Idaho school sections and Federal public lands. State land is always subject to potential sales by the land board which has constitutional mandates governing the profitable use of the land. This proposal is a smoke and mirrors distraction. Protect public land and access. If public lands are sold they will be bought by billionaires and corporations who will in turn squeeze out private ranch owners and consolidate huge tracts of private land. No more hunting, fishing, hiking, mushroom collecting, camping without paying some entity an absorbent fee for the privilege of using what once belonged to everyone. This proposal would lead to the Texafication of Idaho.
Tom, the state land sections are already available for sale or other commercial use. The point of this proposal is to consolidate the state land pieces together so they can be used productively but preserve Idaho federal lands overall by doing so by trade, rather than selling federal lands.
Is it so hard to see what the CURRENT REGIME (PRESIDENT) is doing to FEDERAL PROPERTY? Wealth, ACCUMULATION and POWER, they care NOTHING about the PEOPLE, or the PUBLIC LAND. There are Many BOOMERS and Silent Generation, Selling or handing off LAND for Development, Consolidation, and are VERY PRODUCTIVE. An Example is how TREASURE VALLEY has TRANSFORMED, without any "PUBLIC LAND SWAP or SALE. Caldwell has TRANSFORMED in less than 25 years. WHY the RUSH?
The swap model doesn't work except to cut taxes for the very wealthy. Say we have a state endowment section that is for logistical or location reasons very hard to use for timber harvest, so it is producing nothing for the school budget. Also we have a BLM patch that is very desirable for private use but is not for sale. So we swap their ownerships. Now the desirable patch is state endowment land and the hard to use patch is BLM. The state has two options: 1: harvest the desirable patch annually and give the proceeds to the school budget, or 2:sell the desirable patch for private ownership, and give this one-time only windfall to the school budget. The first option would be fine, it's what we mostly do now, but the second option reduces public lands and prevents any ongoing income stream from the harvesting (or other income-generating public use, e.g. camping, fishing, hunting permit sales, etc. that could benefit the school budget). So it is selling your birthright for a mess of pottage, to put it Biblically. Our current legislators would sell in a heartbeat, but even the one time sale doesn't really help the schools, it just allows the legislators to allocate that much less from tax revenue to cover the school budget, giving a tax break that primarily benefits the wealthy, who pay more in taxes (at least theoretically). So this proposal is a shell game that pretends to make things better but only makes them worse. Swapping ownership of non-income producing school endowment land for harvestable BLM land IS a good idea, because it benefits the commons and keeps both in public ownership. However, we shouldn't allow or enable or facilitate sale of the public commons to private ownership. That is something that hurts us all in order to benefit only one undeserving buyer. Don't listen to the smooth talking lawyer lobbyists for the wealthy, or the heresy spouting pseudo-Christian nationalists looking to capture the 7th Mountain.
No way! Idaho legislators, governor and other republican elected officials would sell it all off in a heartbeat. All they care about is money, money money. They never listen to their constituents and do whatever they want. I will NEVER trust them. It's just another circumvent way to get their hands on it.
If the alternative is to sell off federal lands or, through swaps, preserve the quantity of federal lands in Idaho, which approach do you think is best?
WHY EITHER, Idaho has only been a State from 1890. What do you think it will look like in 2090, that's only 65 years, My Grandchildren are 11, 13, 14. Why can't the Land be Left ALONE ? How many have ever taken the Owyhee County Southern Road from Jordan Valley to Grandview Idaho. It is a VAST, VAST area of PUBLIC GROUND, Minus what these TRADERS have SWAPPED. Leave Something for Next few Generation that Come in 2100, 2125, that's only 75- 100 years.
I do not Know how Many Sections', 640 Acres or 1 Square Mile, have Been Traded or Swapped From the VAST South Western Owyhee County area. What I do know is that the Consolidation, or Buy outs have a History in Idaho, Starting with Buying out 160 acre Homestead Claims that become Boise Cascade, and then the Most Recent "TEXAS" Wilks Brothers buyout of 172,000 Acres, These are the BILLIONAIRES. 172,000 acres is 268.75 "SQUARE MILES" ! I myself DO NOT "TRUST" our Current State or FEDERAL REPRESENTATIVES ( Gov Little is a LAND MAN, Married to a LAND WOMEN) to do the BEST THING for IDAHOANS, Let alone the FEDERAL LANDS and the PEOPLE of the UNITED STATES. "TEXAS" is the PERFECT EXAMPLE of "TOTAL PRIVATELY OWNED LAND" ! Another is the EASTERN Half of the UNITED STATES, EAST of the MISSISSIPPI. "BEWARE" These HORSE, CAR, "LAND" TRADERS ! You may FIND A PRIVATE PROPERTY SIGN like LITTLEs and SOULEN, and WILKS, and many others have Erected, all over the State of IDAHO. "BEWARE" the WEALTHY !
You are referring to purchases of private property by others, not federal or state lands. That is primarily what Boise Cascade did and the Wilks bought property from Boise Cascade and others..
Partly, yes, Owyhee's are Covered in State Square mile areas, My Whole Point is WHY any of the Land that is State be SWAPPED, for Federal land, as you Stated State land is Open to being Traded, Sold or Dispersed. Why the RUSH? There is Lots of Private land to Develop, the WILK's being one of them, Recently listed. Why not Leave the REMOTE AREAS "ALONE"?
The places that have potential for the State are close to urban areas. For instance, the south part of Ada County has scattered State tracts. If those were traded for BLM pieces closer to I-84, there would be more federal ground to preserve in the south part of the county. Much of the Owyhee state pieces might be traded towards Ada County property near I84 or in the other counties to the East.
No! There is no equivalancy in the sanctity of public access between on State of Idaho school sections and Federal public lands. State land is always subject to potential sales by the land board which has constitutional mandates governing the profitable use of the land. This proposal is a smoke and mirrors distraction. Protect public land and access. If public lands are sold they will be bought by billionaires and corporations who will in turn squeeze out private ranch owners and consolidate huge tracts of private land. No more hunting, fishing, hiking, mushroom collecting, camping without paying some entity an absorbent fee for the privilege of using what once belonged to everyone. This proposal would lead to the Texafication of Idaho.
Tom, the state land sections are already available for sale or other commercial use. The point of this proposal is to consolidate the state land pieces together so they can be used productively but preserve Idaho federal lands overall by doing so by trade, rather than selling federal lands.
Is it so hard to see what the CURRENT REGIME (PRESIDENT) is doing to FEDERAL PROPERTY? Wealth, ACCUMULATION and POWER, they care NOTHING about the PEOPLE, or the PUBLIC LAND. There are Many BOOMERS and Silent Generation, Selling or handing off LAND for Development, Consolidation, and are VERY PRODUCTIVE. An Example is how TREASURE VALLEY has TRANSFORMED, without any "PUBLIC LAND SWAP or SALE. Caldwell has TRANSFORMED in less than 25 years. WHY the RUSH?
The swap model doesn't work except to cut taxes for the very wealthy. Say we have a state endowment section that is for logistical or location reasons very hard to use for timber harvest, so it is producing nothing for the school budget. Also we have a BLM patch that is very desirable for private use but is not for sale. So we swap their ownerships. Now the desirable patch is state endowment land and the hard to use patch is BLM. The state has two options: 1: harvest the desirable patch annually and give the proceeds to the school budget, or 2:sell the desirable patch for private ownership, and give this one-time only windfall to the school budget. The first option would be fine, it's what we mostly do now, but the second option reduces public lands and prevents any ongoing income stream from the harvesting (or other income-generating public use, e.g. camping, fishing, hunting permit sales, etc. that could benefit the school budget). So it is selling your birthright for a mess of pottage, to put it Biblically. Our current legislators would sell in a heartbeat, but even the one time sale doesn't really help the schools, it just allows the legislators to allocate that much less from tax revenue to cover the school budget, giving a tax break that primarily benefits the wealthy, who pay more in taxes (at least theoretically). So this proposal is a shell game that pretends to make things better but only makes them worse. Swapping ownership of non-income producing school endowment land for harvestable BLM land IS a good idea, because it benefits the commons and keeps both in public ownership. However, we shouldn't allow or enable or facilitate sale of the public commons to private ownership. That is something that hurts us all in order to benefit only one undeserving buyer. Don't listen to the smooth talking lawyer lobbyists for the wealthy, or the heresy spouting pseudo-Christian nationalists looking to capture the 7th Mountain.
“Governor Little should take the lead…”.
And therein lies the problem. Governor Little doesn’t lead anymore. He just takes his marching orders from trump.
No way! Idaho legislators, governor and other republican elected officials would sell it all off in a heartbeat. All they care about is money, money money. They never listen to their constituents and do whatever they want. I will NEVER trust them. It's just another circumvent way to get their hands on it.
If the alternative is to sell off federal lands or, through swaps, preserve the quantity of federal lands in Idaho, which approach do you think is best?
I will oppose either one no matter what. I don't like trickery, which is what a swap would be. I won't be the only one.
WHY EITHER, Idaho has only been a State from 1890. What do you think it will look like in 2090, that's only 65 years, My Grandchildren are 11, 13, 14. Why can't the Land be Left ALONE ? How many have ever taken the Owyhee County Southern Road from Jordan Valley to Grandview Idaho. It is a VAST, VAST area of PUBLIC GROUND, Minus what these TRADERS have SWAPPED. Leave Something for Next few Generation that Come in 2100, 2125, that's only 75- 100 years.
I do not Know how Many Sections', 640 Acres or 1 Square Mile, have Been Traded or Swapped From the VAST South Western Owyhee County area. What I do know is that the Consolidation, or Buy outs have a History in Idaho, Starting with Buying out 160 acre Homestead Claims that become Boise Cascade, and then the Most Recent "TEXAS" Wilks Brothers buyout of 172,000 Acres, These are the BILLIONAIRES. 172,000 acres is 268.75 "SQUARE MILES" ! I myself DO NOT "TRUST" our Current State or FEDERAL REPRESENTATIVES ( Gov Little is a LAND MAN, Married to a LAND WOMEN) to do the BEST THING for IDAHOANS, Let alone the FEDERAL LANDS and the PEOPLE of the UNITED STATES. "TEXAS" is the PERFECT EXAMPLE of "TOTAL PRIVATELY OWNED LAND" ! Another is the EASTERN Half of the UNITED STATES, EAST of the MISSISSIPPI. "BEWARE" These HORSE, CAR, "LAND" TRADERS ! You may FIND A PRIVATE PROPERTY SIGN like LITTLEs and SOULEN, and WILKS, and many others have Erected, all over the State of IDAHO. "BEWARE" the WEALTHY !
You are referring to purchases of private property by others, not federal or state lands. That is primarily what Boise Cascade did and the Wilks bought property from Boise Cascade and others..
Partly, yes, Owyhee's are Covered in State Square mile areas, My Whole Point is WHY any of the Land that is State be SWAPPED, for Federal land, as you Stated State land is Open to being Traded, Sold or Dispersed. Why the RUSH? There is Lots of Private land to Develop, the WILK's being one of them, Recently listed. Why not Leave the REMOTE AREAS "ALONE"?
The places that have potential for the State are close to urban areas. For instance, the south part of Ada County has scattered State tracts. If those were traded for BLM pieces closer to I-84, there would be more federal ground to preserve in the south part of the county. Much of the Owyhee state pieces might be traded towards Ada County property near I84 or in the other counties to the East.