In a state like Idaho (and this would affect Idaho greatly) I grew up being told that the federal
government controls too much and that in such a conservative place, we would want less government
control, especially when it comes to our public lands. However, there has been an odd shift in the past
decade where it seems that people in our great state want more control by the federal government in our
lands, and this bill is a proponent to that.
Mike Lee is back at it again with a public lands bill, this time pinning the issue on illegal
immigrants coming in and dirtying up our federal public land (which is funny, because up here I don’t
think it is the illegals leaving shells and casings, broken bottles of cheap liquor, worm containers and
maggot cans, cigarette butts and nicotine pouches, broken lures and excess fishing line, beer cans and
all sorts of styrofoam. It may be anecdotal, but I know a few of you by name that I have seen leave
their trash behind. And y’all are long-term residents with generational family history here. Treat the
land better, dorks.
The bill is deceptively named the Border Lands Conservation Act. While this bill might sound
good in the layman’s terms, especially to a certain demographic of the current state of the country, what
it authorizes is building of access roads through federal public lands for “agents and first responders” to
quickly access problem areas. And what indicates a problem area? Well, in the legalese of the bill, it
seems it’s anything that they want to say is a problem area.
As with before, Mike Lee wants to sell off public lands. That is what this bill is, but in a more
nuanced way. The BLCA is written to allow the federal government unrestricted access to create new
roads, install technology, use motor vehicles and motorized equipment, and conduct foot patrols on all
federal public lands, to gain operational control of the southern and northern border, and to increase
Department of Homeland Security access to covered Federal land. And if this wasn’t enough to rile you
up a little bit, as per the bill’s text, all federal land within 100 miles of each border would be open for
use by Homeland Security and other border agents, even currently designated Wilderness Areas.
Conservation bill, my butt.
Section 4 of the bill is titled “Access to Wilderness Areas” and explicitly gives an exception for
using motorized equipment and vehicles on land where that has not been allowed since back in 1964.
The Secretary of Homeland Security would have the authority to use motor vehicles, motorboats, and
motorized equipment; conduct patrols of foot and horseback; use aircraft, including approach, land and
takeoff (bye bye trees); deploy tactical infrastructure; and construct and maintain roads and physical
barriers, all on land that falls inside current Wilderness Area designations.
Let’s go back a bit and talk about that 100 miles of each border part of the bill. As we are just a
little tip here in Idaho, that would be most of North Idaho from the border to a chunk of Lake Coeur
d’Alene. Huge for us up here, but small in terms of our state. Let us look at our lovely neighbor
Montana. That would be about an entire third of Montana that would be up to be surveilled by what
most people I guess only pretend to be afraid of anymore: a “Big Brother”-esque federal government
entity. As Land Tawney, co-chair of American Hunters and Anglers stated in an article for Outdoor
Life, “Do we want Big Brother setting up surveillance where we’re sitting around a campsite? Hell no.”
He also continued in his interview that if the bill is passed, amending the Wilderness Act to allow for
motorized access for the Department of Homeland Security would inevitably weaken the Wilderness
Act everywhere.
I know that that statement will make some of you folks very happy. The last few times that I
wrote about Mike Lee’s past public land bill, a few of you said that I was lying about the whole thing
(still waiting to hear from you about that Dave, nice job dodging my question of what I got wrong.
Good luck in the elections). Another person from Montana said that that wilderness act was a blatantly
horrible act in general, and when I asked why, they responded with typical buzzwords like “woke”.
Well, I have criticisms of the Wilderness Act myself and I would not describe the act as woke due to
these criticisms. It led to the dispossession of indigenous peoples due to the bill’s idea of pristine land
“untrammeled by man” forcing them off of their ancestral lands which they had managed for
generations. The man from Montana had also stated that he was against it due to all the scientific BS
that went on with it. I am guessing he thought they were protected for scientific research, while it is the
opposite. Climate change and habitat restoration research can actually be blocked by the Wilderness
Act.
But the good outweighs the bad in a lot of ways in the Wilderness Act. We have protections in
place for the natural ecosystems to thrive without human intervention or destruction, clean air and clean
water is pretty cool (especially when it comes to fish and wildlife populations), minimal human imprint
in parts of the wild, historical and scientific value, and no commercial enterprises taking over beautiful,
natural land.
Of course, on this newest Mike Lee bill, Ted Cruz (R-TX) is a huge supporter. This makes sense
when his own state has basically axed all their public lands already. Other supporters who support the
bill are Senator John Barrasso from Wyoming and Senator Marsha Blackburn, both from states who
will not feel a direct effect from the destruction this bill will cause to public lands that a lot of us hike,
camp, backpack, fish, hunt, and recreate on.
If you are like me and have your mind in the right spot as an Idahoan, we should be against all
sorts of government interference and takeover such as this bill states. A lot of people out there like to
overthink what a government bill will actually do, and it can be a bit ridiculous. But with Senator Mike
Lee’s past seemingly callous feelings towards public lands, I do believe that this new bill will be used
for much, much more than what they have said in public appearances. They glaze over it on the Senate
ENR page review of the bill, but when you dive into the bill itself, it is malicious, overbearing, gives
too much power to the federal government, and is completely asinine. Below is a link to the bill itself.
Please read it and make up your own mind about it. Just, please, use at least a quarter of your brain
while you do it. This isn’t just for Idaho; all these lands need to be protected from this.
And please make sure that our representatives know where you stand on this bill and that you would
like to keep Idaho Idaho by calling them:
Call Sen. Crapo (208-334-1776)
Call Sen. Risch (208-342-7985)
https://www.energy.senate.gov/services/files/0DED04C4-18C7-4C1F-BCE4-DD5B79FB0264