Bill would severely diminish Fish and Game’s
land-purchases options
By GREG STAHL
Express Staff Writer
Statewide legislation imposing stringent
rules on the Idaho Department of Fish and Game’s ability to purchase land could
result from isolated frustration over a program designed to reclaim wildlife
habitat lost when the lower Snake River dams were built.
The Idaho Legislature and Idaho Department
of Fish and Game faced off last week when three North Idaho lawmakers submitted
legislation that would take away the department’s ability to acquire more land.
The bill, which proposes to amend Idaho
Code to impose restrictions on the department’s ability to acquire any
"interest" in additional property, is sponsored by District 1 lawmakers, Sen.
Shawn Keough, R-Sandpoint, Rep. John Campbell, R-Sandpoint, and Rep. George
Eskridge, R-Dover.
The bill is in direct response to growing
concern in District 1 that Boundary County, Idaho’s northernmost county, is
unfairly dominated by public land ownership, said Eskridge.
"Especially in Boundary County, more than
75 percent of the land is owned by the feds or by the state," Eskridge said.
"That leaves very little in terms of economic opportunities for the county."
Fish and Game’s ownership, however, is
relatively small. Of the 817,000 acres in Boundary County, Fish and Game owns
4,600 acres, or .5 percent of the total land area, said Fish and Game Panhandle
Region staff biologist Mary Terra-Berns.
Several recent events, however, could be
helping to prod the legislators’ efforts.
Fish and Game’s acreage grew last year
when the agency purchased the 1,400-acre Boundary Creek Wildlife Management Area
using funds earmarked for habitat restoration under the 1980 Pacific Northwest
Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act. The federal law requires the
Northwest Power and Conservation Council to address the impacts of Columbia
River hydroelectric dams on fish and wildlife.
What that means for Idaho Fish and Game is
money used to purchase or protect habitat. Approximately one-third of the money
used to buy the Boundary Creek preserve resulted because of the federal law,
said Berns, who is in charge of the region’s land acquisitions.
Second, disputes erupted recently over a
760-acre farm adjacent to the new Boundary Creek preserve. According to
RuralNorthwest.com’s "Boundary Archives," Fish and Game withdrew an offer in
April 2002 to purchase the land in the name of wetlands preservation.
County commissioners were unwilling to
cede more county land to state or federal control and remained skeptical of
assurances that offset funding offered by the government in lieu of property
taxes would be adequate to save local taxpayers from being forced to pay higher
taxes, reported "Boundary Archives."
Now the issue, which began as a dispute
over north Idaho wetlands preservation, could trigger statewide legislation
affecting Fish and Game’s ability to buy hunting or fishing access easements or
wildlife habitat.
The bill, House Bill 252, is scheduled for
a hearing by the House Resources and Conservation Committee today. If made law,
it would require that before the Fish and Game Commission may acquire land, it
"shall first be required to sell" another piece of property of equal size and in
the same county. An out-of-county sale would be permitted if the department does
not own enough property within a county’s borders.
The bill prompted a quick response from
Fish and Game.
"House Bill 252 would severely limit
future hunting, fishing and recreational opportunities and adversely affect
private property rights," wrote Fish and Game Communications Director Roger
Furhman in an e-mail to fish and wildlife conservation groups.
Furhman said the bill would effectively
stop the department’s efforts to provide additional hunting and fishing access
and would limit the department’s ability to protect critical wildlife habitat.
He added that the bill would affect
private property rights by limiting landowners’ range of options concerning
their property ownership and could reduce potential property values determined
through lease, rent or easement to Fish and Game.
But Eskridge touted the bill as a means to
keep private lands on county tax rolls. Though Fish and Game—like the U.S.
Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management—pays in lieu taxes to counties
where it owns property, the money paid does not correspond to the potential
"highest and best use" of the land, Eskridge said.
"They pay an in-lieu tax, but that’s not
always the same as farmland or if an industrial use went in there," Eskridge
said.
For his part, Campbell, a former outdoor
columnist, vented his apparent frustration on the issue.
"Why are they (Fish and Game) in the land
business?" he asked. "I figured we, as sportsmen, ought to be in the wildlife
management business, and they’re out there buying up all this land. They ought
to be spending that money on better management.
"Fish and Game gives a waltz and dance all
the time. Fish and Game is a joke."
Senate Minority Leader Clint Stennett,
D-Ketchum, said he would oppose the bill if it makes it to the Senate.
"It’s a terrible bill," he said. "It has
the potential to create a significant impact all over the state in ways I don’t
think the sponsors ever considered."
Two years ago, Stennett donated 1 acre of
riverfront property to Fish and Game for fishing access along the Big Lost
River. The donation probably would not have been possible if Fish and Game had
to adhere to regulations like those proposed.
Stennett called the bill "unwieldy and
unworkable."
The bill is the three North-Idaho
lawmakers’ second fish and wildlife-related legislation of the session. A
separate bill, House Bill 110, passed the House of Representatives unanimously
on Feb. 12. If approved by the Senate, the bill would create a commission that
would oversee management of water quality and fish species in North Idaho rivers
and lakes.
"The commission shall also have the
authority to receive and direct any mitigation moneys … " the bill states.
It is not clear whether that would be in
violation of the Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act.