HJR10 was on the right track

Idahoans don’t agree on everything, but when it comes to public lands, the consensus is we want them protected.

U.S. Sen. Jim Risch said it well in a recent exchange with Bureau of Land Management nominee Stevan Pearce. In decades of public service, Risch said, no issue has generated a more unified, passionate response from Idahoans than the threat of public land sales. Idahoans “do not want their public lands sold. Period. Full stop.” 

Pearce agreed that there is no authority for him, or even the president, to sell off public land, which he called “extremely unlikely.” But that reassurance doesn’t negate what Idahoans know from experience: public lands can be lost without strong protections.

The proposed constitutional amendment would have shifted the priority for state endowment lands away from maximizing long‑term financial return to generating ongoing revenue and ensuring public access. It elevated recreation, which is something Idaho families, outfitters, small businesses, and rural communities rely on, while limiting incentives for the Land Board to sell land to the highest bidder.

In other words, HJR10 would have walled off Idaho’s public lands from the possibility of liquidation.

And it failed in the House State Affairs Committee, deadlocked 7–7. 

It was disappointing to a local who wrote this in a note to The Press that we think is well worth sharing: "Everyone is busy these days, but I believe public lands are near and dear to all Idahoans — a tie that binds us all. If constituents knew that there was a threat to public lands and proposed constitutional amendment to prevent that while still realizing economic benefits — Idahoans would be on board and would expect their representatives would be in lock step. We do not need Utah Senator Mike Lee's hugely unpopular views on public lands here in Idaho after all!

"A sale of public lands for a pennies-on-the-dollar, short-sighted, one-time reduction in deficit is not effective or in touch with Idahoans."

Opponents argued that the amendment risked violating the Idaho Admission Act or compromising school funding by failing to maximize long-term returns. Representatives of timber and mining companies warned that recreation could “handicap” industry. 

But public access does not eliminate revenue. Idaho’s endowment lands already generate revenue from logging, grazing, and mining, while also supporting hunting, fishing, and recreation. 

And this isn’t about pitting recreation against industry or choosing hikers over loggers. It’s about protecting a shared inheritance that sustains both.

The Idaho Outfitters and Guides Association said it well: naming public access as a priority is a “big positive” for rural economies, small businesses, and communities that rely on outdoor recreation.

Those who fear the state won’t maximize long-term revenue should ask this: "What is the true value of Idaho’s public lands?"

Idaho can protect its trust beneficiaries, such as schools, while also protecting public access. HJR10 attempted to strike that balance. Idahoans know what Sen. Risch knows: our public lands are not just scenery or resources. They are part of us.

Most Idahoans believe those lands should stay in public hands. HJR10 was an attempt to ensure our state constitution reflects what Idahoans believe.

Lawmakers should listen.

Finally, we like what Pearce had to say on the matter:

"You all know your state, the parcels of land, much better than the people of Washington. That’s my commitment to you, that we will work with you on this and follow the law completely."