Town Hall Meeting Bashes Habitat Conservation Plans Chenoweth-Hage Calls Federally Required Deals ‘Extortion’

More than 100 people bashed habitat conservation plans at a Monday meeting here hosted by U.S. Rep. Helen Chenoweth-Hage, R-Idaho.

Chenoweth-Hage, along with state Reps. John Campbell of Sandpoint and Lenore Barrett of Challis, took testimony from hand-picked panels of property rights advocates who denounced the agreements that are negotiated under the federal Endangered Species Act.

“Some people call this type of agreement `voluntary,”’ Chenoweth-Hage said in her opening remarks. “I call it extortion.”

The unofficial town meeting was treated as a congressional hearing, with witnesses swearing under oath to tell the truth.

Chenoweth-Hage said she was motivated to hold the meeting because of state plans to establish habitat conservation plans affecting non-federal lands in Idaho. The plans would address the needs of bull trout, a species recently listed as threatened.

Such plans typically allow property owners to continue activities on their land, even if it destroys habitat, as long as certain concessions are made to make up for the damage.

Environmentalists generally oppose the agreements because they believe they result in too great a compromise for endangered species.

But Chenoweth-Hage and other private property rights advocates see the plans as another tentacle of ever-tightening federal control, and conceivably United Nations control, over private property.

“The issue is not species. The issue is control,” warned Barrett, who’s battling wolf reintroduction in her county. “Think carefully before you take any more government carrots. There may be more in that carrot than carotene.”

Chenoweth-Hage asked one panelist, Mark Pollot of the Center for Constitutional Law in Boise, whether national monuments could be established on property that falls under a habitat conservation plan.

Any object owned or controlled by the federal government could be designated a national monument, Pollot answered.

“Now, `controlled by’ is a ticking time bomb,” he said.

Habitat conservation plans aren’t contracts or simple agreements, Pollot said, because the government still wields a stick to force landowners to comply. Therefore, he said, they are controlled by the federal government.

Campbell read a portion of a letter into the record from Gov. Dirk Kempthorne explaining that the governor in no way advocates a “statewide” habitat conservation plan.

State Sens. Mike Crapo and Larry Craig are seeking a $1.5 million appropriation on behalf of the state to explore the possibility of creating a habitat conservation plan or plans in Idaho.

“Habitat conservation planning is only one of many tools available to us under the ESA,” Kempthorne wrote, “and I am confident that if we make appropriate information available to Idahoans, they will make their own informed decisions… “A one-size-fits-all approach for Idaho under the federal Endangered Species Act has never been my position,” he said.

County commissioners from Boundary, Valley and Owyhee counties also shared their perspectives.

“What does an HCP do to property values?” asked Commissioner Terry Gestrin from Valley County. “How are we going to fund our schools and counties?”

Representing the timber industry were Bill Pickell of the Washington Contract Loggers Association and Jeff Wymer of J.D. Lumber of Priest River. Both testified that while big timber companies might advocate for habitat conservation plans, ultimately the small landowner is pressured to comply, too.

“They are forced into partnership with the devil,” Pickell said.

The Intermountain Forest Association, which supports the proposed appropriation for exploring HCPs, was not invited to testify.

“If funded, this money could result in a voluntary, incentive-based program for nonfederal landowners to voluntarily participate in the protection of fish species under the Endangered Species Act,” said Jim Riley, IFA’s executive director, after the meeting.

“Our absolute requirement for this effort is that participation by nonfederal landowners is strictly voluntary.”