According to an article via Field and Stream, an Idaho congressman just tossed a lit match into one of the West’s longest-running arguments: who should really be in charge of public land. Rep. Russ Fulcher says the feds have dropped the ball on managing Idaho’s vast public acreage—with wildfires, access issues, and red tape—and that the state could do a better job. Conservation groups fired back almost instantly, saying that while the idea sounds good in theory, it tends to get expensive fast and can end with public land quietly headed for the auction block.
Critics point out that states don’t have federal-level budgets, and history suggests that when money gets tight, access often shrinks and “public” stops meaning what it used to—especially for hunters and anglers. Others argue the real problem isn’t who owns the land, but how it’s managed, and that walking away from federal oversight is the wrong fix. So what’s your take? Are states better suited to manage public lands close to home, or does this feel like a risky step toward losing them altogether?
Photo: Scukrov
