Return of our land

[rodoconnor]

Idaho Congressman Labrodor has introduced a bill that will return management and resources of our N.F.s and BLM to the State of Idaho. Not the ownership. They will remain public lands ,owned by we the people.This is very popular here and other places. I hope he's not tilting at windmills.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Cry Of The Eagle: History And Legends Of The Cherokee Indians And Their Buried Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[Clay Diggins]

Idaho Congressman Labrodor has introduced a bill that will return management and resources of our N.F.s and BLM to the State of Idaho. Not the ownership. They will remain public lands ,owned by we the people.This is very popular here and other places. I hope he's not tilting at windmills.

None of the States ever managed either BLM or Forest Service managed lands. Management can't be "returned" where there never was management before.

Congressman Labrodor very much looks like an old blind man on a donkey looking to get more votes in the upcoming election. As you say it's a popular issue in some areas of the west. I have nothing against the man but he has a better chance of replacing the President with a King than he does of handing U.S. public lands management over to the State of Idaho.

Heavy Pans

 

[goldenIrishman]

Chances of it happening.... Slim to none. Even though these lands are located within the boundaries of the state(s) in question, they BELONG to ALL of the people of our country, NOT just the people of said state(s).

Do the management practices of these lands need to be changed? Of course they do. The federal agencies in charge of them haven't exactly been doing a bang up job at times as the wild fires of the past decades have shown. Of course there are many other areas where they're lacking but it's early and I'm just on my first cup of mud.

Many of the agencies involved tell us they don't have the funds required to manage the lands and I can't help but think that many of these budget problem have been caused by groups like the Sierra Club, CBD that say they're trying to protect the environment by suing the government which takes funds away from the management of the public lands and puts them in the pockets of these groups.

 

[Underburden]

Labrador and his cronies should focus their attention on the un-elected rule makers at the EPA.

 

[wildminer]

I don't see it working well for us in Oregon, if it was to happen here, due to the current lawmakers and governor.

 

[rodoconnor]

None of the States ever managed either BLM or Forest Service managed lands. Management can't be "returned" where there never was management before.

Congressman Labrodor very much looks like an old blind man on a donkey looking to get more votes in the upcoming election. As you say it's a popular issue in some areas of the west. I have nothing against the man but he has a better chance of replacing the President with a King than he does of handing U.S. public lands management over to the State of Idaho.

Heavy Pans

Actually, it was conditional that Idaho retain it's public lands to become a state. The Feds broke a promise ?

 

[Clay Diggins]

Actually, it was conditional that Idaho retain it's public lands to become a state. The Feds broke a promise ?

That's a myth rodoconner. Just the opposite is true. Here's what the Idaho Organic Act actually says:

And be it further enacted, that the legislative power of the territory shall extend to all rightful subjects of legislation consistent with the Constitution of the United States and the provisions of this act, but no law shall be passed interfering with the primary disposal of the soil; no tax shall be imposed upon the property of the United States

Heavy Pans

 

[rodoconnor]

Article X section 4 Idaho Constitution. " All Properties and Institutions of the territory, shall, upon adoption of the constitution, become the property and institutions of the State of Idaho" 1890.

 

[Clay Diggins]

Article X section 4 Idaho Constitution. " All Properties and Institutions of the territory, shall, upon adoption of the constitution, become the property and institutions of the State of Idaho" 1890.

As I pointed out the Territory of Idaho never included the public lands.

no law shall be passed interfering with the primary disposal of the soil; no tax shall be imposed upon the property of the United States

The State and Territory of Idaho land ownership consisted of Sections 16 and 36 of each Township and no more (Section 14 of the Organic Act).

Sec. 14. And be it further enacted, that when the lands in the said Territory shall be surveyed, under the direction of the government of the United States, preparatory to bringing the same into market, sections numbered sixteen and thirty-six in each township in said Territory shall be, and the same are hereby, reserved for the purpose of being applied to schools in said Territory, and in the states and territories hereafter to be erected out of the same.

Even those sections are held in trust for schools. The Federal government never granted any land to the States or Territories but exactly what was spelled out in the Organic Acts.

The Territories and States don't consist of land within their borders, they consist of the right to self government of that area, in other words Jurisdiction and self determination was granted at Statehood but only those lands already granted to the Territory were transferred to the State. In Idaho those granted lands consisted of two Sections per Township.

Heavy Pans

 

[rodoconnor]

I think the dates are pertainent. The Organic act for the territory was passed in 1863 . When Idaho became a State, it's Constitution was ratified by the U.S Congress in 1890. Including the wording in Article X section 4

 

[Hefty1]

 

[Clay Diggins]

I think the dates are pertainent. The Organic act for the territory was passed in 1863 . When Idaho became a State, it's Constitution was ratified by the U.S Congress in 1890. Including the wording in Article X section 4

And including the wording in Article XXI of the Idaho Constitution:

Section 19. And the people of the state of Idaho do agree and declare that we forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within the boundaries thereof...

Section 2. Laws continued in force. All laws now in force in the territory of Idaho which are not repugnant to this Constitution shall remain in force until they expire by their own limitation or be altered or repealed by the legislature.

And Article VII of the Idaho Constitution:

Section 4. Public property exempt from taxation. The property of the United States, except when taxation thereof is authorized by the United States, the state, counties, towns, cities, villages, school districts, and other municipal corporations and public libraries shall be exempt from taxation...

That no taxes shall be imposed by the state on the lands or property therein belonging to, or which may hereafter be purchased by, the United States, or reserved for its use. And the debts and liabilities of this territory shall be assumed and paid by the state of Idaho. That this ordinance shall be irrevocable, without the consent of the United States and the people of the state of Idaho.

I repeat - the States were only granted those lands specified in their respective Organic Acts. In Idaho that means Sections 16 and 36 were granted for the school trust. That land did transfer from the Territory when Congress approved the Idaho Constitution but no other was included. The Idaho Constitution already regulated that land (Article IX Section8).

Heavy Pans

 

[rodoconnor]

Confusion is correct. Which part of the law applies? Artcle X section 4 is not ambiguous

 

[Clay Diggins]

Confusion is correct. Which part of the law applies? Artcle X section 4 is not ambiguous

Article X Section 4 is not ambiguous - it transferred to the State of Idaho the same Sections 16 and 36 that were the only lands granted to Idaho Territory.

Article XXI Section 19 is not ambiguous either - In it Idaho relinquished any claim to the lands not already granted by the United States.

And the people of the state of Idaho do agree and declare that we forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within the boundaries thereof

No confusion at all. Both parts are valid and apply, there is no contradiction. It's only when you assume that the Territory of Idaho owned all the land in the Territory that they seem to conflict. It didn't. The Organic Act only created a "Temporary Government for the Territory of Idaho" (First sentence Section 1). The same Act only granted two sections per Township to the Territory (Section 14). No more.

Grants of land are always specific and never implied. There are no other lands granted in either the Organic Act or in the Constitution. It's the same in all the public land states - the people had to agree with these specific words

And the people of the state of XXX do agree and declare that we forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within the boundaries thereof

to NEVER try to claim any right to the federal public lands - forever. Otherwise they could not become a State.

Heavy Pans

 

[winners58]

all I can find is a test program for 200K to 900K acres; https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2316
when it says, "Recognition of valid and existing rights", makes me think it could get twisted so you have to prove your claim is valid...

then these saying they have to change the state constitution;
Public lands bills come to head in Idaho Legislature | Idaho Statesman
Labrador discusses public lands - Coeur d'Alene Press: Local News
Rep. Labrador?s bill would cede public lands to extractive industries | Wilderness.org

 

[russau]

Thank God for My Land matters and Barry and people like him to walk us through this tangle of laws!