Idaho Senate calls for state to take over federal Camas National Wildlife Refuge
A bald eagle at the Camas National Wildlife Refuge in winter. The refuge, which is managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, was established by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1937 to protect migratory birds. (Photo courtesy of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service)
The Idaho Senate has called for the state to take over control of the Camas National Wildlife Refuge from the federal government.
The Idaho Senate voted by voice vote on Monday at the Idaho State Capitol in Boise to adopt Senate Joint Memorial 104.
Established by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1937 to protect migratory birds, the Camas National Wildlife Refuge is an approximately 11,000-acre refuge located in southeast Idaho that is managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
The Idaho Conservation League opposes the legislation.
Sen. Van Burtenshaw, R-Terreton, sponsored the joint memorial. The memorial would not carry the effect of the law if adopted by both chambers of the Idaho Legislature, but it represents a request from the Idaho Legislature to the federal government.
'(T)he Legislature requests that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Idaho Department of Fish and Game work together to transfer ownership and administration of the Camas National Wildlife Refuge to the Idaho Department of Fish and Game for incorporation into the Mud Lake Wildlife Management Area,' Senate Joint Memorial 104 states, in part.
The joint memorial also calls on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to promptly process a Section 404 permit application for Camas Creek within the refuge. Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act requires a permit before dredged or fill material may be discharged into waters of the United States, including wetlands, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
During debate over the bill Monday, Burtenshaw said Camas Creek has become obstructed by the buildup of willows and sediment, which prevents the delivery of water to water users in the nearby Mud Lake area.
'A purpose of this legislation is to help the water users in that area obtain the water that they have coming from snow runoff,' Burtenshaw said.
CONTACT US
'The problem we have is that when we get to the Camas Wildlife Refuge, we can't get our water through there, and we can't obtain a permit to clean the channel so that the water can come on through,' Burtenshaw added.
The joint memorial asks the federal government to transfer ownership of the Camas National Wildlife Refuge to the Idaho Department of Fish and Game.
'We believe it'd be easier to work with the Idaho Department of Fish and Game,' Burtenshaw said. 'The regulations will be the same. The only difference is, we'll work with somebody we can see, as opposed to a seat in Washington, D.C.'
On Monday, Burtenshaw disclosed that he has a potential conflict of interest, noting that the legislation directly affects him and his family. Burtenshaw is a farmer and rancher based in Eastern Idaho.
Nobody spoke in opposition to the joint memorial Monday.
However, the Idaho Conservation League, a more than 50-year-old Idaho-based nonprofit organization that advocates for the protection of public lands, has come out against the joint memorial.
'The Idaho Conservation League strongly opposes SJM 104 because it seeks to strip federally managed public lands from public ownership and place them under state control, specifically under the authority of the Idaho Department of Fish & Game,' Idaho Conservation League officials wrote online. 'Another major concern is that the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes have reserved treaty rights on these lands—rights that would be lost if the refuge were transferred to the state.'
Senate Minority Leader Melissa Wintrow, D-Boise, was one of the only members of the Idaho Senate to audibly vote against the joint memorial.
Senate Joint Memorial 4 heads next to the Idaho House of Representatives for consideration.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
21 hours ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Trump is trying to defang the Endangered Species Act
More than 50 years after the bipartisan U.S. Endangered Species Act was passed unanimously in the Senate and by a vote of 355 to 4 in the House of Representatives, the federal government is proposing to remove the legislation's teeth. A proposed rule by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service would remove the regulatory definition of the term 'harm' and strip away the law's regulated habitat protections, which have been proven enormously effective at preventing species extinctions. Currently, including the definition of the term 'harm' in the regulations is critical, as it specifies that habitat destruction — and not just direct killing of animals — contributes to wildlife population declines. For that reason, the proposed changes represent not a minor technicality but a fundamental weakening of species protections. At a time when the majority of the world's scientists agree that the planet is facing an unprecedented extinction crisis, the proposed reduction of protection against species extinction in the United States is both unfathomable and unacceptable. The Endangered Species Act has helped safeguard more than 1,700 species and their habitats. According to a 2019 paper published by the Center for Biological Diversity, the law has also been extraordinarily successful, preventing 99 percent of species listed from going extinct. Without regulations that protect critical habitat, we will see an increased chance of species becoming endangered and a lower chance of recovery once a species is listed as endangered or threatened, resulting in a higher rate of extinctions. Decades of scientific research, including by our own organization, consistently demonstrates that habitat is the most critical component of a species' survival and successful population recovery. For example, our long-term monitoring of an endangered secretive marsh bird in the San Francisco Estuary — the California Ridgway's Rail — has demonstrated the species' high sensitivity to changes in habitat quality and extent. With an estimated population as small as 2,000 individuals, California Ridgway's Rails remain at elevated risk of extinction if existing habitat protections are reduced. Similarly, long-term monitoring of Northern Spotted Owls in Marin County, Calif., has demonstrated that continued protection of habitat is essential to support a stable population. Another example: Research into the California Current ecosystem has consistently shown that whales, including endangered blue, fin and humpback whales, rely on specific oceanic habitats for foraging and migration. It has identified key ocean habitat 'hotspots' where critical food sources for whales, such as krill and anchovies, are concentrated. Habitat degradation from increased vessel traffic, underwater noise, pollution and warming waters has been linked to whales being displaced from their feeding areas, as well as heightened risk of deadly collisions with ships and entanglements in fishing gear. Our research demonstrates that habitat quality and protection are essential to prevent harm to endangered whale species and to support their recovery under the Endangered Species Act. Weakening habitat-based protections, as proposed, would undermine decades of scientific progress and regulatory advances aimed at conserving these iconic species. In a country where a wide range of issues have become increasingly polarized by political views, the issue of protecting wildlife remains strongly bipartisan. According to a 2024 poll commissioned by the Indianapolis Zoological Society, nine in 10 Americans think the federal government should do more to strengthen the Endangered Species Act, including 93 percent of Democratic and 83 percent of Republican respondents. The proposed regulatory change therefore contradicts public opinion in addition to decades of scientific evidence. If enacted, the proposed regulatory change would counteract the significant progress for endangered species that has been made to this point. At a minimum, we strongly urge the federal government to maintain the current regulations. The research summarized in 1995 by the National Research Council (U.S.) Committee on Scientific Issues in the Endangered Species Act still rings true today: 'there is no disagreement in the ecological literature about one fundamental relationship: sufficient loss of habitat will lead to species extinction.' The science is clear that habitat is essential for the survival of wildlife populations. Without explicit habitat protections in place, endangered species will be at much greater risk of extinction, and species not yet listed as endangered will be at greater risk of population declines and listing. For these reasons, we strongly oppose removing explicit habitat protections from Endangered Species Act regulations. Rose Snyder is director of community engagement and Liz Chamberlin is director of innovation at the California-based nonprofit Point Blue Conservation Science. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
a day ago
- The Hill
Trump is trying to defang the Endangered Species Act
More than 50 years after the bipartisan U.S. Endangered Species Act was passed unanimously in the Senate and by a vote of 355 to 4 in the House of Representatives, the federal government is proposing to remove the legislation's teeth. A proposed rule by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service would remove the regulatory definition of the term 'harm' and strip away the law's regulated habitat protections, which have been proven enormously effective at preventing species extinctions. Currently, including the definition of the term 'harm' in the regulations is critical, as it specifies that habitat destruction — and not just direct killing of animals — contributes to wildlife population declines. For that reason, the proposed changes represent not a minor technicality but a fundamental weakening of species protections. At a time when the majority of the world's scientists agree that the planet is facing an unprecedented extinction crisis, the proposed reduction of protection against species extinction in the United States is both unfathomable and unacceptable. The Endangered Species Act has helped safeguard more than 1,700 species and their habitats. According to a 2019 paper published by the Center for Biological Diversity, the law has also been extraordinarily successful, preventing 99 percent of species listed from going extinct. Without regulations that protect critical habitat, we will see an increased chance of species becoming endangered and a lower chance of recovery once a species is listed as endangered or threatened, resulting in a higher rate of extinctions. Decades of scientific research, including by our own organization, consistently demonstrates that habitat is the most critical component of a species' survival and successful population recovery. For example, our long-term monitoring of an endangered secretive marsh bird in the San Francisco Estuary — the California Ridgway's Rail — has demonstrated the species' high sensitivity to changes in habitat quality and extent. With an estimated population as small as 2,000 individuals, California Ridgway's Rails remain at elevated risk of extinction if existing habitat protections are reduced. Similarly, long-term monitoring of Northern Spotted Owls in Marin County, Calif., has demonstrated that continued protection of habitat is essential to support a stable population. Another example: Research into the California Current ecosystem has consistently shown that whales, including endangered blue, fin and humpback whales, rely on specific oceanic habitats for foraging and migration. It has identified key ocean habitat 'hotspots' where critical food sources for whales, such as krill and anchovies, are concentrated. Habitat degradation from increased vessel traffic, underwater noise, pollution and warming waters has been linked to whales being displaced from their feeding areas, as well as heightened risk of deadly collisions with ships and entanglements in fishing gear. Our research demonstrates that habitat quality and protection are essential to prevent harm to endangered whale species and to support their recovery under the Endangered Species Act. Weakening habitat-based protections, as proposed, would undermine decades of scientific progress and regulatory advances aimed at conserving these iconic species. In a country where a wide range of issues have become increasingly polarized by political views, the issue of protecting wildlife remains strongly bipartisan. According to a 2024 poll commissioned by the Indianapolis Zoological Society, nine in 10 Americans think the federal government should do more to strengthen the Endangered Species Act, including 93 percent of Democratic and 83 percent of Republican respondents. The proposed regulatory change therefore contradicts public opinion in addition to decades of scientific evidence. If enacted, the proposed regulatory change would counteract the significant progress for endangered species that has been made to this point. At a minimum, we strongly urge the federal government to maintain the current regulations. The research summarized in 1995 by the National Research Council (U.S.) Committee on Scientific Issues in the Endangered Species Act still rings true today: 'there is no disagreement in the ecological literature about one fundamental relationship: sufficient loss of habitat will lead to species extinction.' The science is clear that habitat is essential for the survival of wildlife populations. Without explicit habitat protections in place, endangered species will be at much greater risk of extinction, and species not yet listed as endangered will be at greater risk of population declines and listing. For these reasons, we strongly oppose removing explicit habitat protections from Endangered Species Act regulations. Rose Snyder is director of community engagement and Liz Chamberlin is director of innovation at the California-based nonprofit Point Blue Conservation Science.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Alaska Sustainable Energy Conference 2025 left unspoken what Alaskans truly value
The Canning River, seen here in 2018, flows from the Brooks Range into the Beaufort Sea along the western edge of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (Photo by Lisa Hupp/U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) At the conclusion of the 2025 Alaska Sustainable Energy Conference much attention was given to profitability of fossil fuels, while far less was said about the meaning of 'sustainability' itself. In fact, both Alaskans and the principles of sustainability were notably absent from the conference's central themes and many of its attendees. From the outset, the federal government's priority appeared to be reassuring foreign interests of the United States' continued ability to sell off Alaska piece by piece. Conference organizers, led by Gov. Mike Dunleavy appeared eager as regulatory protections continue to be rolled back by the Trump administration. Federal officials, including U.S. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright, and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin, expressed strong support for the further weakening of environmental safeguards to unilaterally advance long-contested development projects across Alaska. Many attendees represented corporate interests excited to profit from new extraction opportunities or potential buyers, watching to see if the administration follows through on promises to mine Alaska's oil, gas, and critical minerals. These companies appeared enthusiastic to exploit the land with minimal oversight and a lack of local consent. The audience was left with a misleading impression of Alaskan support. At the center of ongoing and proposed projects, such as Red Dog mine, Graphite One, and Ambler Road, was the largest item for sale: a natural gas reservoir on the North Slope. The proposed Alaska liquid natural gas pipeline, currently led by the Alaska Gasoline Development Corp. and New York-based Glenfarne Group LLC, would extract natural gas from subsurface carbon and transport it 800 miles south to Nikiski for export. The estimated almost $40 billion project promises only temporary jobs and infrastructure. Environmentally, natural gas poses risks similar to coal and oil. It is composed primarily of methane, a potent greenhouse gas. Inevitable gas leaks during extraction and transportation can release up to 10% of methane before combustion, with the remainder ultimately emitted as carbon dioxide. These outcomes reflect outdated, combustion-based energy models. Regarding Alaska's wildlife and people, cabinet members seemed to dismiss concerns after brief visits, suggesting the animals are happy and that communities would benefit from further resource development despite evidence to the contrary. The 'resource curse' is a paradox that explains the economic dynamics of regions rich in natural resources, but limited in democratic representation. Extraction projects often introduce new workers, housing, and other infrastructure at great cost to local communities. Despite generating profits for corporate sponsors, these projects typically result in a net loss for the public. Workers are imported from out of state, while profits are exported. Local towns are then responsible for maintaining infrastructure without receiving corresponding benefits like revenue to support housing, health care or affordable energy. As finite resources are exhausted, companies maintain profit margins while community returns diminish. Once operations end, communities are often left with environmental damage and abandoned development, economically and socially worse off than before. Alaska's economy remains heavily reliant on oil and gas. As existing operations decrease in yield, public education and health care routinely face budgetary cuts. The natural gas reserve would only provide exports for a few decades, but its development would cause irreparable environmental damage, and leave Alaska facing another energy crisis within a generation. Why Gov. Dunleavy labeled this conference 'sustainable' remains unclear. It is unrealistic to claim the pipeline would benefit any of the roughly 190 communities beyond the Railbelt. While the state invests in LNG exports, rural towns reliant on diesel will face rising costs and health issues, including cancer risks. Regardless of one's stance on oil and gas, Chris Wright, the U.S. Secretary of Energy, himself stated: 'Energy… it's about people and math.' However, his equation solves for profit, while Alaska's equation for energy must begin and end with the voices and needs of the people. Scientists attending the summit this week in an official capacity were restricted to framing oil and gas as the primary development priority. This narrowed the conversation and sidelined discussions around advances in technology such as solar, wind, hydroelectric, and geothermal energy. Still, a handful of sustainability advocates attended as guests, business owners, protesters, and speakers. One speaker, Lesil McGuire, senior advisor with New Energy Alaska, an advocacy coalition that promotes renewable energy noted, 'Solar arrays can be propped up in a number of weeks.' As of 2020 solar energy has become cheaper to install and maintain than fossil fuels. Alaska needs energy infrastructure tailored to its unique environment, focused on long-term self reliance through renewable sources. Current examples include solar installations in the Northwest Arctic Borough, microgrid cooperatives, and heat pump incentives in Southeast Alaska. A cursory glance shows Alaska's capacity for renewable energy that could be faster to build and more cost effective than the LNG pipeline. In reality the conference didn't need to be held in Alaska, as Alaskans themselves played a minimal role. Led by Gov. Dunleavy, the 'Alaska Sustainable Energy Conference 2025' resembled government-backed promotion of the oil and gas industry and signaled extraction projects could move forward without oversight and regardless of local stakeholder's needs or opposition. International representatives seemed to be promised fuel for import, and out-of-state corporations appeared to be invited to profit at the expense of Alaska's environment. Renewable energy has been viable for decades and continues to become more efficient. Given a voice and a seat at the table, many Alaskans and Americans would likely favor local, self-sufficient renewables for lower prices and long-term reliability. Natural gas in Alaska will run out in this lifetime, do nothing to reduce costs in the majority of Alaskan communities, and may cause permanent harm to the environment. The United States and Alaska are not in need of a technological revolution in fossil fuels, but an information revolution in renewable energy. It is vitally important that all Alaskan voices are heard. Alaska values pristine wilderness, supports true sustainability, and is not for sale.
