Friends of Idaho Watersheds Project

The following editorial appeared in the December 6th edition of the
Lewiston, Idaho paper. It was written by the paper's editor, Bill Hall.

Is cheap grazing the best long-term return on land?
By, Bill Hall

Is the Idaho Land Board actually correct in its contention that livestock grazing is automatically the most lucrative long-term use of state endowment lands?

That is the excuse, the rationale -- sometimes even the blatant political untruth -- behind the board's chronic favoritism toward the livestock industry in awarding grazing leases, even though others make higher bids.

The others include most notably Hailey Architect Jon Marvel of the Idaho Watersheds Project who has been constantly rebuffed in making higher bids than grazers. His motive is to protect the land and streams from livestock degradation by outbidding ranchers.

The board refuses the lower bids, offering the rationale that Marvel's bid is beneficial to the state only in the short run. In the long run, we are told, protecting the livestock industry will do more for the Idaho economy. It is a basic part of the economy that must be protected, even at the short-term cost of giving the grazing lease to the low bidder and costing the endowment fund money.

Idaho Supreme Court Justice Byron Johnson, in a case testing whether endowment land leasing requires competitive bidding, raised a relevant question to a state attorney representing the land board: Johnson wanted some evidence, any evidence, that managing the land for livestock grazing is the best long-term financial return
to the state endowment fund, let alone the best short-term use. The attorney general's office had no such evidence for him.

Of course, there is no evidence. It is a vague theory, fabricated to conceal the fact the Idaho Land Board practices favoritism toward one industry that has been politically friendly to land board members. It is based on the haughty, unproven and archaic notion that whatever is good for the livestock industry is best for Idaho regardless of competing interests.

"I'm looking for the evidence to support that finding," Johnson said. "I do not find it. Where is it?"

It doesn't exist. And it doesn't exist because the presumption that grazing is always the best and greatest use of the endowment lands is a big, fat fib. It is possible that the protection of Idaho public lands from overgrazing would enhance recreational land values throughout Idaho, thereby invigorating that growing and lucrative industry and produce even more benefit to the state than the livestock industry.

It is possible that this board wouldn't give up grazing land for a computer chip factory creating 10,000 jobs.

It is possible that the Idaho sheep and cattle industries aren't what they used to be -- least of all by comparison with the flourishing tourist and recreation industries.

It is possible, even if the livestock industry is the more lucrative long-term use in many cases, that it is still stiffing the state. It is paying unrealistically low rates even if greater amounts weren't being offered by other interests.

It is possible that the Idaho Land Board is engaged in subsidizing ranching at public expense and stifling free market competition in the long term every bit as much as in the short term.

It is possible that the Idaho Land Board is living in a cowboy-movie past and has no clear concept of where this state's economy is today and where it is heading in the near future. -- B.H.