It was a packed house at the Flathead Valley Community College on Dec. 11 for a debate between Sen. Jennifer Fielder, R-Thompson Falls, and Rep. Ed Lieser, D-Whitefish, over the pros and cons of Montana taking control of federally owned lands in the state.

Fielder, the Montana Republican Party vice chairwoman, seemed to have the audience behind her. She drew applause and shouts of agreement until debate moderator Michael Christensen asked the audience to hold their applause until the end.

Fielder said she firmly believes Montana can do a better job managing federal lands than bureaucrats in Washington, D.C.

“Absolutely, positively, without a doubt, there is a need for change in the way forest lands are managed,” she said. “We can have better access and better productivity.”

She cited cases in Hawaii and Canada’s Northwest and Yukon territories as examples where a federal government has given lands over to the state or province without ill effects.

Lieser, who is retired from the Forest Service, expressed concerns about tying up the state for years in courtrooms while the land sat under an injunction.

“Congress is going to have to make the decision, and no matter what, this is going to end up in court,” he said. “To me, it feels like throwing money away. These are American lands, and they belong to every citizen of the United States.”

Lieser cited the 2,000-member Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and other outdoorsmen that he said strongly oppose the transfer of federal lands to the states. More than anything, he said he felt Montana was not prepared to take on the burden of managing those millions of acres.

“I believe the state is not equipped to manage those federal lands,” he said. “We need to look for reasonable solutions rather than the radical step of transferring lands.”

Citing language directly from the U.S. Constitution, Fielder said Congress has the power to “dispose” of lands as it sees fit. She said the proposal is only an issue in the 12 Western states with a majority of land owned by the federal government — Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Idaho, Washington, Oregon, California, Nevada and Alaska.

“Why are states in the West treated differently than states in the East?” she asked. “We’ve seen enabling acts in place. There is nothing unconstitutional about it. This mutually beneficial exchange is legal and feasible. We just need leaders with the courage to stand up and do something.”

Lieser and Fielder agreed that federally managed lands could be more productive, but while Fielder said the lands were mismanaged and costing Montanans jobs, Lieser said the timber volume coming out of the Forest Service’s Northern Region was already an impressive number, and the management just needs tweaking.

Fielder concluded that she wants to keep Montana’s lands productive and be managed by people that Montanans directly elected.

Lieser said he believes the lands should be kept open and public, and he wanted to avoid any “reckless” action that might deprive Montanans of their public lands.