LANDS: How to have more say

There are many reasons why the state of Idaho shouldn’t take over national public lands. The state would lose money, as the University of Idaho Policy Analysis Group study showed. When management costs exceed revenues, or the state gets financial offers it can’t refuse, the places Idahoans hunt, fish, camp, hike and paddle likely would be sold to the highest bidders.

And, despite claims to the contrary, the state doesn’t need to take control of public lands for the public to have its say about what happens with those lands. Federal laws require public involvement. Agencies must accommodate multiple uses of the land. And the Bureau of Land Management is updating its planning process to give state and local governments, hunters, anglers, recreationists, ranchers and other members of the public more opportunities to weigh in.

In addition, the Planning 2.0 rule will allow the public to speak out earlier in the process, even before a draft management plan is written. The BLM says it’s committed to using the best, science-based information available and new technology to better assess natural resources and conditions on the ground. BLM says it will take a landscape-level look at a planning area to better consider the potential impacts of energy development and other uses.

If the state took over national public lands, what assurances would we have that public concerns would be addressed? If you want more transparency, encourage the BLM to modernize its planning process.

BRIAN BROOKS

Boise