S1089: Pro-Access, Pro-Public Land Bill Killed

The predominant opposition to S1089 concluded that many people seem to be violating current law, and its passage would bring judgement. No, really…

Listen to audio of the hearing below.

We made it pretty far with the only piece of pro-access legislation of the 2019 session. In fact, it’s the only pro-sportsman related bill introduced this year, period. We provided the committee with high profile news reports of illegal access obstruction going unpunished, and the cultural and economic reasons to support public property rights. Ultimately non-issue concerns, obfuscating the true purpose of S1089, and the Wilks brothers’ testimony won the day.

IWF has made good headway for this idea of civil enforcement of access obstruction, and will carry that momentum today through the 2020 legislative session. But meanwhile, let’s dig into what we learned at the hearing:

The Wilks Bro’s personal lobbyist testified and worked to kill the bill. The lobbyist also happened to be the lawyer who wrote the Trespass Bill of last year. No surprise there, but upsetting that 6 of the 9 legislators sided with out-of-state billionaires over Idahoans, again. The lobbyist opined that S1089 would criminalize innocent behavior, but there are two things to point out about that claim. 1) The bill clearly addresses only “willful” acts, not accidental. 2) The Attorney General opinion for S1089 refutes that claim.

Oddly, the Wilks lobbyist brought up the Boise Ridge Road– that they couldn’t find any easements on roads they’ve closed and that they definitely aren’t in violation of existing laws. Except, IWF found them in 10 minutes, and the USFS told DF Development the deeds existed– a verifiable fabrication. Why would the Wilks Brothers drop in to testify against the creation of a civil remedy for an existing law they claim they are not breaking? They have nothing to fear, right?

A massive double standard was unveiled. Last year, the legislators on this committee voted the Trespass Bill through committee and the Senate floor. That law penalizes recreationists up to $50,000 and with jail time for stepping one foot on private property. Inversely, by voting against S1089, they’ve refused to hold landowners to an equal standard- to know their property lines, abide by them, or face a civil suit identical to the one provided in the Trespass Bill.

Public land seizure advocates showed their cards. Several of the legislators on this committee have been vocal proponents of seizing public lands for state “management”. Of the reasons why, they champion that the state could provide more access. Well, here was their chance to put their vote where their mouth is and they sided with Texans and illegal access obstruction, a grim glimpse of a potential future for Idaho.

Opposition worried that a whole lot of landowners will be punished for breaking a law that already exists, which is the whole point. The Idaho Farm Bureau and Idaho Cattleman’s Association testified against the bill citing concerns that a good deal of lawsuits will pop up. Right, but S1089 only adds a civil remedy to existing statute, which means they are worried that folks that are already breaking the law will now have to face the music. And, well, that is the point. People are getting away with illegal acts and this law aims to stop them, or at least punish them accordingly. Both of these organizations supported the same standard for recreationists in the Trespass Bill.

Opposition falsely claimed S1089 would classify legal gates and fences as obstructions to access. No. The Attorney General made clear that this bill would in no way conflict with any lawful activity. This was even addressed in the bill language. That claim caused a few eye rolls of committee members and the audience. The Farm Bureau even questioned what the terms “obstruction”, or “blocking” mean. A dictionary is a good place to start.

They proposed a cattle gate on a public road that opens and closes would be criminalized under S1089, which is downright preposterous. A gate with an illegal lock or illegal “No Trespassing” sign would fall under S1089 violations. But again, that behavior is already illegal and shouldn’t concern anyone behaving lawfully.

Opposition worried S1089 would create frivolous civil lawsuits. Not only does the civil remedy clause already exist in the statute S1089 amends (and it was never a problem), but identical civil remedy language is found in hundreds of locations in Idaho Code. If committee members and opposition are worried about frivolous lawsuits, then we need to revise the entire Idaho Code. Interestingly, the same civil remedy language is also found in last year’s Trespass Bill…

Senator Brackett admitted to violating the existing law. Of all the “No” votes, Senator Brackett deserves credit for asking thoughtful questions and signaling genuine interest in fixing the ineffective law we have now. But, he did admit that this law would set him up for lawsuits because is “in willful violation of existing law”, and that is why he would vote “No”. Honestly, we aren’t trying to criminalize accidental behavior (our bill specifically mentions “willful” obstruction), but a sitting Senator admitting he is in violation of current law and doesn’t want to be prosecuted, is hard not to relay.

But it begs the question: how many other lawmakers don’t want better enforcement of an existing law for personal reasons?

Lastly, we want to thank Sen. Martin for sponsoring this legislation after so many across the state continue to ask for justice. We also want to thank Sen. Heider. Although he voted against the bill this year, he fought hard against monied interests to make sure we got a hearing so the bill could be debated publicly.

No votes: Bair- R Blackfoot, Brackett- R Rogerson, Guthrie- R Inkom, Heider- R Twin Falls, Mortimer- R Idaho Falls, Patrick- R Twin Falls

Yea votes: Johnson- R Lewiston, Stennett- D Ketchum, Jordan- D Boise

Listen to the hearing here:

Below are notable testimonies:

26:49-37:00 IWF executive director introductory testimony

44:44- 47:45 Senator Brackett admits he is in willful violation of blocking access

49:59-55:19 IDFG testimony NEUTRAL

56:39 Trout Unlimited testimony IN FAVOR

1:02:46-1:08:16 Idaho Farm Bureau OPPOSED

1:12:37 Idaho Cattleman Association OPPOSED

1:21:50-1:25:17 Wilks brothers OPPOSED