From:

About every 15-20 years, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) rewrites a Resource Management Plan for areas that include not only rural areas, but big cities like Los Angeles.

Then, for the next 15-20 years, every proposed project, plan and Environmental Assessment is based on this Resource Management Plan (RMP).

HOW BLM CLOSES PUBLIC ROADS

With these RMPs, the BLM (along with the Forest Service) has ramped up limiting & closing off public

access to public roads and lands. In RMPs (Route of Travel Designations), the BLM designates public roads as “open,” “limited use” or “closed” to Off-Highway Vehicles (OHVs). This can include 4 wheel drive pickup trucks, not just All Terrain Vehicles (ATVs) and dirt bikes. Public lands can also be designated as “open,” “limited” or “closed.” Designations can change from “limited” to “closed.”

Supposedly, BLM and the USDA’s Forest Service are closing and limiting use of public roads and public lands to protect the resources of public lands. But, it’s important to consider the EXTENT to which they’re doing this. It goes far beyond protecting habitat.

For instance, at the Tavaputs Plateau in Utah, the BLM has been trying to close roads that lead to some of the most popular routes and scenic vistas in that county. It’s also the area where Bill Barrett Corp. is conducting a massive natural gas field development The BLM intends to close the roads for 30 years.

If these road closures are really about protecting habitat, then how can BLM possibly justify how your 4 wheel drive truck could cause more harm to the environment than a massive extraction project that has about 488 well pads (with 20 well pads in Wilderness Study Areas and 218 well pads in areas with Wilderness Characteristics), 164 miles of new roads, 3,390 acres of initial disturbance (before reclamation) and 1,705 acres of long term disturbance?

It seems that BLM, Forest Service and Congressional concern for protecting the environment is selective. While you’re being shut out, other “uses” (that are more likely to cause harm to the environment) are allowed to take shortcuts.

THE BIG CHANGE IN RMPs

RMPs used to be about 160 pages or less. Now, the new RMPs can be over a thousand pages (with an additional CD of Route of Travel Inventory Maps). The old RMPs had straightforward topics in the table of contents like land use allocations, livestock grazing, land tenure adjustments, oil and gas lease stipulations, and areas of critical environmental concern.

Read it:

http://ppjg.me/2012/06/05/blm-closes-public-roads/

PNP comment: Something must be done throughout the nation to protect wild animals from these killing forest or wildland fires. The trees and bush is 10 times as thick as it should be in a “natural” situation. Greenies and their protection projects have created this huge problem and are unnecessarily destroying trees for habitat and slaughtering wild animals. It is a travesty. — Editor Liz Bowen

After nearly a decade of revising the Travel Management Plans it is clear the Bureau of Land Management is making an attempt to close off all access to federal lands regardless of current or past use. As County officials and their citizens are scrambling to meet the deadline to petition the final draft, I applaud their efforts and recognize a strong need for each County to make their own engagement with any Federal Agency who challenges our 10th Amendment Rights.

The time is now folks, it’s not too late to bring the BLM to the negotiating table and insist their plans be consistent with your County.  We have some success where a NGO (non-governmental organization) has brought a Federal agency to the table however, utilizing the Counties authority with this mandated statute 43 U.S.C.§ 1712 (c) (9) to the extent consistent with the laws governing the administration of the public lands, coordinate the land use inventory, planning, and management activities of or for such lands with the land use planning and management programs of other Federal departments and agencies and of the States and local governments within which the lands are located……is a clear rule that the Federal Agency cannot ignore.

If you are a County official reading this and wondering how to get started, please contact our office.  Perhaps, you are becoming overwhelmed by requests from your citizens to engage in coordinating with the BLM, Fish and Wildlife, Forest Service or even the EPA.  Getting the necessary training will provide your County with lasting tools to be successful with any agency. We have qualified people to help train your County and walk you through the process.

If you are a fired up citizen fed up with losing access, don’t despair there are a few things you can do.  First of all, your County needs your support in coordinating with the Federal Agencies, you may be a valuable tool to inform your local officials on how coordination can help resolve the issues.  You may also be a good candidate to serve on an advisory committee or a strong resource for the County.  Call us today and we can help advise you better depending on the issues facing your County. Our number is 208-465-0304.

Join us for a FREE webinar!
Coordination v. Cooperation

June 27, 2012

7:00 pm – 8:00 pm (MST)

Call our office at 208.465.0304 to register. Space is limited to 20 people.

Successful Coordination for Stevens County and Ferry County

by Staci Grant

On April 27^th  Stevens County WA and Ferry County WA successfully accomplished their first joint Coordination meeting with the Colville National Forest in Washington State.  The well prepared Commissioners led a confident and productive meeting focusing on getting their issues resolved to reach consistency with the County’s management plans and with the Forest Service.

The meeting was led by Chairman Brian Dansel of Ferry County WA who has received extensive training by the Trademark America Coordination Team.  Many thanks to veteran coordinator Ron Olfert who spent many hours prepping and sharing his expertise in coordinating with Federal agencies. One of our biggest goals is to prepare our local governments for “long term” relationships with the Federal agencies.  Expecting to have all issues resolved within a one-day meeting is unrealistic, it is necessary to have an ongoing relationship to insure the County’s plans are continuously put into the forefront of any changes that may impact the County.  Sometimes this means preparing the Federal agency to expect a continued relationship after the first meeting.

Commissioner Dansel heeded that critical advice and prior to adjourning he set the next meeting for May 30, 2012.  The three governments can expect to tackle a few open issues such as protection of  private property, planning for increased timber harvest and other multiple uses plus the planning of habitat for endangered species, among others. Local government involvement from the beginning will ensure that the citizens’ economic, welfare, and safety concerns will be taken into account to ultimately produce a Colville National Forest Plan that is acceptable and according to law.

We look forward to helping counties like Stevens and Ferry who needed a little training to get over their first hurdle. We will continue to report on their success and if you would like to get your county to receive additional training, please visit our web site at www.trademarkamerica.org or call our office today at 208-465-0304.

San Juan Islands – The West Coast Focus for Coordination

by Ron Olfert

The citizens of the San Juan Islands, off the coast of Washington State, have taken great pride in and care of the unique and interesting natural sites on the islands for many decades, while at the same time leading productive lives involving farming, ranching, fishing, recreation and other entrepreneurial ventures.  The federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages approximately a total of 1000 acres in and around the islands.  The BLM lands are comprised of many small outcroppings of rocks plus a few larger pieces of property, including a lighthouse and recreation sites.

A handful of wrong-headed environmentalists have gone through the back door of the federal government and have convinced some government officials, both local and federal, to seek federal designation of these BLM holdings as either a National Conservation Area or a National Monument.  Many of the local citizens became alarmed at the implications of this impending designation and sought a way to bring their concerns through the front door of the BLM.

They rallied around a community leader, Frank Penwell, President of Citizens Alliance for Property Rights – San Juan (CAPR-SJ), a nongovernmental organization of local citizens.  He had been in extensive communications with Trademark America regarding possible ways to tackle their concerns with the BLM and other federal and state agencies.  Under the authorization provided in Presidential Executive Order 13575 Frank initiated coordination with the BLM to begin information exchange and negotiations regarding the future management of these BLM lands.  Ron Olfert, coordination consultant with Trademark America was enlisted to advise and help CAPR-SJ with the process and methods to ensure effective coordination.

The first coordination meeting between the BLM and CAPR-SJ was held May 15, 2012.  Because proper protocol was followed potential objections were laid to rest early and a productive discussion of CAPR-SJ’s concerns and proposals was conducted.  As is usually the case in a first meeting, not all of the planned issues were brought to the table.  Additional issues to be brought up in future meetings will center around a plan for local citizens to manage the San Juan Islands BLM sites, and regarding local involvement in development of a revised Resource Management Plan which will take into meaningful consideration the economic and social needs of the citizens of the islands.

The meeting ended on a positive note with an agreement to mutually determine the next meeting date as soon as possible, to include higher level management in the BLM.

Would you like to attend a conference for FREE?

Become a sponsor!

Trademark America provide educational, training, and support services to help you initiate and work with formal coordination processes in your community.  Our work is resource-intensive, and our costs are not fully met by the fees associated with our events.   We need your support.

Please consider becoming a yearly sponsor of Trademark America at a cost of $40.00 per person or $70.00 per couple.  Your sponsorship provides you with many benefits as a Trademark America supporter, including:

• One seat at your choice of upcoming events (two seats if you sponsor Trademark America as a couple), a significant savings because our per-attendee cost for online or in-person events ranges from $50.00 to $150.00 per seat, depending on the type and length of event.

• A sponsor’s discount for all other Trademark America events.

• A sponsor’s discount for other members of your attending party (to a maximum of five people) for any event.

• A 10% discount on all Trademark America merchandise.

One (or two, if you sponsor as a couple) paid seat(s) at one of our upcoming conferences.  (This is a significant savings for you, because the per-attendee cost for our online and in-person conferences ranges from $50.00 to $150.00 per seat, depending on the type and length of event.)  You will also receive a discount for other members of your party (to a maximum of five people) for any conference and a 10% discount on all Trademark America merchandise.

Call 208.465.034 to take advantage of this offer and save your seat for the conference of your choice!

MEETING ALERT FROM OREGON WILD!

Thursday, May 31
BLM Roseburg District Office
777 NW Garden Valley Blvd.
Roseburg, Oregon
4:00 to 6:00 p.m.

Get the word out!  We must make a strong showing at this event.  This comes from Danile Robertson’s web site Oregon Wild.  This event is at the BLM again, and there will be no way for anyone to ask questions as a group or come to a consensus.  You will be standing in groups with an individual facilitator answering your questions so there is no controversy and the BLM can say the public had input.  Only problem is someone else is speaking for you which they have no authority to do in the first place.

http://www.oregonwild.org/oregon_forests/old_growth_protection/westside-forests/western-oregon-s-patchwork-public-lands/BLM-planning/blm-public-involvement

May 31
BLM Roseburg District Office
777 NW Garden Valley Blvd.
Roseburg, Oregon
4:00 to 6:00 p.m.

Pass this out, we must make a strong showing at this event.  This comes from Danile Robertson’s web site Oregon Wild.  This event is at the BLM again, and will have no way for anyone to ask questions as a group or come to a consensus.  You will be standing in groups with an individual facillitator answering your questions so there is no controversy and the BLM  can say the public had input.  Only problem is someone else is speaking for you which they have no authority to do in the first place.  Loma

–
Loma Wharton Co-Chair www.theliberators11.org

http://www.oregonwild.org/oregon_forests/old_growth_protection/westside-forests/western-oregon-s-patchwork-public-lands/BLM-planning/blm-public-involvement

PNP comment: The West is not running out of water — statements that are incorrectly made. A simple solution to drought years is to build more reservoirs and get better at recycling. If we can put a man on the moon, this is not out of our capability. — Editor Liz Bowen

Aerial photo of goosenecks on the Colorado River above Cataract Canyon in southern Utah, July 28, 2008.

Tom Smart, Deseret News

By Amy Joi O’Donoghue, Deseret News

Published: Saturday, May 12 2012 1:00 p.m. MDT

PNP comment: Obama administration is finally seeing the writing-on-the-wall? — Editor Liz Bowen

By Paul Foy

Associated Press

Oil drilling in the Red Wash area near Vernal Utah.

Deseret News archives

SALT LAKE CITY — U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar on Tuesday announced the approval of a major natural gas drilling project in Utah that the Obama administration says will support more than 4,000 jobs during its development while safeguarding critical wildlife habitat and air quality.

During an appearance outside Salt Lake City, Salazar said Texas-based Anadarko Petroleum Corp. would be allowed to develop up to 3,675 new gas wells over the next decade in eastern Utah.

“It will help power the American economy,” Salazar said.

The move comes at a time when the Obama administration is under fire from critics who say his energy plan falls short and is hurting job growth and the economy with undue opposition to new drilling. The administration says the attacks are political rhetoric.

Natural gas production in the U.S. grew by more than 7 percent in 2011, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. The agency says that’s the largest year-to-year increase in history, surpassing a previous production record set in 1973.

One of the five top producers of natural gas in the U.S., Anadarko is set to work in an area about 170 miles southeast of Salt Lake City near the Colorado border that has thousands of other wells. It’s taking over some existing drill pads, with plans to use directional drilling to reach farther for gas pockets.

Anadarko agreed not to drill along the high cliffs of the White River, the last major free-flowing river on the Colorado Plateau. It also agreed to buy 640 acres of private land along the river for conservation, said Steve Bloch, staff attorney for the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, which worked with the Interior Department, along with the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council, to reduce the project’s impact.

Salazar and U.S. Bureau of Land Management Director Bob Abbey praised Anadarko for working to protect the environment.

“Anadarko is one of those companies that get it,” Abbey said.

Read more:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765574499/Salazar-approves-Utah-gas-wells.html

PNP comment: This is crazy. You can’t make Nature be “pretty” all the time, naturally or man-made. — Editor Liz Bowen

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) on April 13, 2012 released an update on a bureauwide initiative that is helping the agency evaluate and respond to public land issues such as wildfire, energy development, and climate change while continuing to promote the smart use of the public lands. The initiative, called the Landscape Approach for Managing the Public Lands, looks for ecological conditions, patterns, and management opportunities that may not be evident when managing smaller land areas.

“The stewardship of public lands has never been more challenging.” said BLM Director Bob Abbey. “To meet these challenges, we need an approach that crosses traditional management boundaries while managing wildfire, controlling weeds and insect outbreaks, providing for energy development, and addressing impacts from climate change.”

The approach will help the BLM respond to an increasing demand for the use of the public lands for recreation and energy development. Recreation and energy development often support local economies in the West. In FY 2011, activities on BLM-managed lands boosted the National economy by more than $130 billion and supported more than a half-million jobs.

The BLM recognizes that evaluating broad landscapes, such as the Central Basin and Range -NV, CA, UT and a portion of ID, will be more effective than relying only on conditions at the field office level. This new approach results in better decisions because BLM employees understand how their work fits into the larger geographic area.

Many BLM field offices are already conducting large-scale resource assessments, planning across watersheds and jurisdictions, and working with partners to address landscape-scale restoration needs. These efforts recognize that landscapes are being affected by complex influences that reach beyond traditional management boundaries. The landscape approach builds upon, connects, and supports these ongoing field efforts. This approach also complements and supports the Landscape Conservation Cooperatives the Department of the Interior is helping establish throughout the country. Information collected under the initiative will be used for long-term conservation, restoration, and development efforts, including partnerships.

“With the landscape approach, reliable information will flow across programmatic, organizational, land ownership, and political boundaries,” Abbey said. “As a result, we will improve our ability to evaluate and respond to all types of land health concerns, and help us in our mission to sustain the health and productivity of the public lands.”

The BLM manages more than 245 million acres of public land, the most of any Federal agency. This land, known as the National System of Public Lands, is primarily located in 12 Western states, including Alaska. The BLM also administers 700 million acres of sub-surface mineral estate throughout the nation. In Fiscal Year (FY) 2011, recreational and other activities on BLM-managed land contributed more than $130 billion to the U.S. economy and supported more than 600,000 American jobs. The Bureau is also one of a handful of agencies that collects more revenue than it spends. In FY 2012, nearly $5.7 billion will be generated on lands managed by the BLM, which operates on a $1.1 billion budget. The BLM’s multiple-use mission is to sustain the health and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations. The Bureau accomplishes this by managing such activities as outdoor recreation, livestock grazing, mineral development, and energy production, and by conserving natural, historical, cultural, and other resources on public lands.
–BLM–

10th Amendment Rights at stake!

TRADEMARK AMERICA announces that the Idaho BLM has chosen to ignore coordination and seek an “emergency” order from B. Lynn Winmill to block Custer County, Idaho from opening an RS 2477 right of way which under Idaho law is part of the County road system.

Keep in touch with Trademark America on its website for the latest news.

 All of you folks are urged to get out the word—to Sheriffs throughout the west—-the Idaho BLM has taken on the Tenth Amendment authority of the State of Idaho in setting the process for validating RS 2477s and of Custer County in following state law for validation of rights of way.

Custer County, Idaho’s Board of Commissioners, following the dictates and directions of Idaho law, held a properly noticed hearing for the purpose of determining whether the Herd Creek road in the County is a valid RS 2477 right of way.  The evidence showed that the road that had been closed by the BLM was in fact an RS 2477.

The road led to a camp ground that had been constructed by the BLM itself at great taxpayer expense, and led to grazing allotments—with ranchers using the road to reach the fences for maintenance.   The BLM closed the road without explanation as to why it was closed—blocking the public from using motorized vehicles of any type to reach the camp ground or the allotments beyond.

The BLM was notified of the hearing date, yet chose not to appear to offer evidence as to why the road was not a valid RS 2477, why Idaho law should not  be followed, why the road was closed, and any federally valid reason why the road should be closed to public use of an RS 2477.

By every law known to man, the BLM waived its right to challenge the proceedings by the Board.

 The Board heard the evidence, and entered Findings and Conclusions validating the road as an RS 2477 pursuant to Idaho law and to decisions of the federal courts as to the authority of states to engage in developing the process for opening/closing of RS 2477s.  Before leaving office, Secretary of Interior Gayle Norton wrote a policy memorandum saying that state law did apply.

The Chairman of the Custer County Commissioners met with the State Director of the BLM on April 2, 2012 and discussed the BLM’s failure to appear and present evidence at the hearing and the County’s plan to open the road and why the road would be opened.

The Chairman invited coordination pursuant to the Federal Land Policy Management Act that mandates that the BLM coordinate management actions with local governments.  The Chairman said that the County intended to open the road on Sunday, April 15, as previously announced to the District Manager of BLM, unless the County determined that it would be unsafe to open it because of snow or weather.

The Chairman made it clear that the County would observe public safety and health measures and would not open the road if openness created danger.  In all respects, the Chairman followed not only state law, but also federal law as included in FLPMA.  At the end of the meeting the Chairman expected to hear from the State Director regarding an attempt to coordinate the issues.

Instead, and  without further ado, the United States Attorney’s office contacted the County attorney just before 5pm yesterday, Thursday, April 12, 2012, and asked whether the County intended to open the road on Sunday, April 15 as announced to the State Director.

Then, at mid morning today, the County attorney began to receive motions and supporting declarations seeking entry of an emergency order blocking any attempt to open the road—-the motion being filed in the court overseen by B. Lynn Winmill.   To this moment, there has been no contact by the State BLM Director with the Chairman of the Board of Custer County—-thus FLPMA’s mandate of coordination has been totally ignored.

This deliberate attempt to block the lawful authority of the Custer County Board of Commissioners, in violation of state law that directed the Custer County actions and federal law that required coordination, raises to the highest level the Tenth Amendment authority that forms the base of our federal system.

The Custer County Commissioners, and the County’s sheriff, stand ready to open the road at 10 am on Sunday, April 15, 2012.  The Chairman advised the state Director on April 2 that he asked the Sheriff if he was “behind us in this” and the Sheriff replied, “I will be right IN FRONT OF YOU.”  A later report today will state the nature of any “emergency” order that Winmill may issue.

Spread the RS 2477 word.

–

Fred Kelly Grant

(Please note my NEW Email address, and update your contact information to FKELLYGRANT@GMAIL.COM)

http://www.azcentral.com/news/politics/articles/2012/03/23/20120323arizona-federal-land-takeover.html

25 comments

by Shaun McKinnon and, Yvonne Wingett Sanchez – Mar. 25, 2012 11:23 PM

The Republic | azcentral.com

Another “sagebrush rebellion” is spreading through legislatures in Arizona and other Western states with a series of formal demands that the federal government hand over title to tens of millions of acres of forests, ranges and other public lands.

Arizona could claim as much as 25 million acres — all federal land in the state except military bases, Indian reservations, national parks and some wilderness areas. If the federal government fails to comply by the end of 2014, the states say they will begin sending property-tax bills to Washington, D.C.

While the original sagebrush rebellion grew out of conflicts over management of federal lands, often as specific as keeping a forest road open, the new takeover movement owes more to “tea party” politics, with a strong focus on reducing the scope of federal influence and opening land to more users.

Supporters say federal agencies have mismanaged the land and blocked access to natural resources, depriving the states of jobs and revenue from businesses ready to develop those resources. With the state in control, the backers say, loggers could return to forests where endangered species halted work decades ago and miners could regain access to ore outside the Grand Canyon.

“In the last 30 years, the radical environmental policies of these federal agencies have ground those industries to a halt — right into the ground — and almost killed them,” said state Sen. Al Melvin, R-Tucson, the sponsor of the land-takeover measure, Senate Bill 1332.

Legal experts say the movement is based on a misreading of federal law and the U.S. Constitution and will almost certainly fail to survive court challenges. Conservation groups and other critics say the takeover would threaten iconic landscapes now protected by federal rules. States, those critics say, are ill-prepared to oversee so much land, with the roads, recreation areas and management needs that go along with it.

“In an era of apparent fiscal responsibility, why would the state seek billions of dollars of liability and management responsibility to assume ownership over the (25 million) acres or so of parks, forests and public lands in Arizona?” said Matt Skroch, executive director of the Arizona Wilderness Coalition. “It is ill-conceived, it is irresponsible and it makes absolutely no sense.”

Utah Gov. Gary Herbert signed a package of bills Friday that spells out his state’s intent to reclaim the land, and members of Utah’s congressional delegation have pledged support for the battle in Washington.

In Arizona, a nearly identical bill passed the Senate and awaits final action in the House. Lawmakers are also weighing several other proposals that attempt to undercut federal influence in land management. A proposed ballot measure would go even further, declaring the state’s sovereignty over its land, air and water.

The future of the land-takeover bill is not clear. Gov. Jan Brewer “believes strongly that the federal government needs to live up to its obligations by actively managing federal lands,” including thinning national forests, said her spokesman, Matthew Benson.

However, he added, “The governor has not questioned the very concept” of who is best able to oversee public lands.

The new sagebrush rebellion appears to do just that, attempting to seize most federal lands. That was the goal, ultimately unsuccessful, of the last rebellion in the late 1970s and 1980s, when Arizona, Nevada and other states passed legislation seeking to take control of federal lands.

What rankled those rebels and those behind today’s effort is the sheer size of the federal government’s land holdings in the West. In Arizona, the government owns 48 percent of the state’s total area, according to a 2004 analysis by the U.S. General Services Administration. In Utah, the total is 57 percent; in Nevada, 85 percent.

“We know firsthand what it means to have limited access to and control over our natural resources. It is interfering with our Western way of life,” said U.S. Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, a Republican who was part of the 1980s takeover attempt and who endorsed the latest proposal earlier this month.

With the support of then-President Ronald Reagan, the 1980s effort, born in Nevada, led to some changes in land management, but the larger movement fizzled, in part because it lost support of many land users, including ranchers and miners, who feared the loss of federal subsidies for grazing rights and mining royalties.

This time, the movement originated in Utah as an avenue to evict the federal government and raise money for schools, and it has advanced furthest there.

“We can’t wait any longer,” said Utah Rep. Ken Ivory, a Republican. “We value these open lands and open spaces, but certainly we’re able to manage the multiple use for a sustained yield of natural resources. Utah will show the nation what it means to be self-reliant.”

In Arizona, Melvin’s measure calls for the transfer of lands to the state from the federal government. He brought the bill to Arizona after hearing about it late last year from the American Legislative Exchange Council, an organization that often provides state lawmakers with model legislation, written by its own staff.

Melvin said Washington has done a terrible job managing public lands, resulting in damage to industries such as ranching, farming, timber and mining. Melvin and other supporters also blame the federal government for overregulating Arizona’s public lands, leading to overgrown forests that helped fuel last year’s Wallow Fire, which burned more than 538,000 acres.

Melvin said that of Arizona’s 113,524 square miles, just 18 percent is held by private owners, with federal, tribal and state lands making up the rest.

Under local control, Melvin said, officials could sell off land or raise revenue from taxes and developmental rights. The revenue could reshape the future of Arizona and the mountainous West, he said.

Sen. Sylvia Allen, R-Snowflake, co-sponsored Arizona’s bill because she believes the state has been operating at a disadvantage with the “layers and layers of bureaucracy” forced on the state by the federal government.

Allen said she would not sell off much of the public land to the private sector, but she is confident the state could better manage the land. She said the state could hire forest scientists to reduce wildfire risk by responding to the needs of the wilderness, such as through timber sales and thinning projects.

She also believes the bill would allow the state to lift a new ban on uranium mining on 1 million acres of public land outside the Grand Canyon.

Legal experts from the University of Idaho and Arizona State University said the states’ demands of the federal government lack legal merit, partly because the states were allowed to join the union on the condition that the federal government would control some land.

Richard Seamon, a law professor at the University of Idaho, said the attempt to seize the land isn’t unconstitutional — it just wouldn’t work.

“You can kind of envision it like an act of civil disobedience,” Seamon said. “If you really, genuinely believe that the federal government has been disrespecting or violating the states’ rights, then there’s nothing wrong with the states responding by filing lawsuits or even passing laws that are doomed to fail when they’re challenged in the courts.”

Dale Goble, a University of Idaho professor specializing in natural-resources law, agreed.

“Blasting the feds has been popular since 1787,” when the U.S. Constitution was written, he said. “The question has been kicked around since the nation’s beginning — and every time it’s been raised, the answer has always been no.”

Conservation groups say that by opening forests and other public lands to development, lawmakers risk ruining the iconic landscapes that draw visitors and new residents.

“This Legislature would take what’s special about Arizona and destroy it,” said Sandy Bahr, director of the Sierra Club’s Grand Canyon chapter. “I think most people believe our national forests are there to protect the watershed, provide habitat for wildlife, places for recreation. People come here because it’s beautiful, and it’s beautiful because we have public lands, not because of the cookie-cutter subdivisions on the outskirts of Phoenix.”

Skroch, of the wilderness coalition, said a wholesale takeover of public lands would bankrupt the state as it attempted to maintain thousands of miles of forest roads, campgrounds and infrastructure built by federal land agencies over the years. And it would rob residents of a valuable resource.

“People love their public lands,” he said. “It is a uniquely American idea. The benefits the public lands provide are almost incalculable: the economic benefits from ecotourism, the added quality of life, the environmental value. The idea of transferring those lands and selling them to the highest bidder would be a travesty.”