The PACs for public lands

The PACs for public lands
A recent primary election race in Idaho between Republican candidates Stephanie Mickelsen and Kelly Golden wasnât the sort of contest that shows up on CNNâs Magic Wall, but it yielded a vivid example of how conservation can be used as a political weapon these days. At a forum featuring both women in advance of the May 19 vote, Golden made a comment that drew fire from a new Idaho-based group called the PAC for Public Lands. The political action committeeâs creators focus entirely on what state-level politicians say and do about the multifaceted issue thatâs built into their name.
Golden and Mickelsen were vying to represent a rural legislative district called 32A, which wraps around the city of Idaho Falls in Bonneville County. For the second cycle in a row, Mickelsen, an incumbent known for her expertise in agricultural and groundwater issues, beat Golden, who has worked in radio and the nonprofit sector, and who positions herself to the right of Mickelsen. The PAC for Public Lands targeted Golden for defeat, knowing that whoever won this primary will win in November: 32A is a Republican stronghold in a red state, and thereâs no Democratic challenger in the general election.
âIâm definitely the more conservative, more platform-aligned candidate,â Golden told . She supports the policies backed by the , which takes a firm statesâ rights stance on public lands. The federal government owns and manages nearly 62% of Idahoâs total area, around 32.8 million acres in all. The platform calls for reducing this amount and says Idaho should âmanage and administerâ any land currently owned by the feds.
At the forum, in response to a question about housing affordability, Golden floated an idea that turned heads: Give some of this land to young people and let them build houses on it. What she described was an either-or choice between free land and benefits from an existing state-funded jobs-training program called Idaho LAUNCH.
âIf Idaho was able to control our lands again,â she said, âwhat if we were to open it up to a modern-day Homestead Act, where we could give kids the opportunity to either choose LAUNCH or land? When you graduate high school, do you want to go to LAUNCH? Or would you like five acres that you could do whatever you want to as long as you lived on that land?â
The Homestead Act of 1862 encouraged western expansion by giving 160 acres to U.S. citizens 21 and older if they were the head of a household and agreed to live on and improve the land for five years. Idaho LAUNCH gives students up to $8,000 to pursue vocational training in what the state calls âin-demand career fields.â
Golden didnât say these homes should be built in the middle of Idahoâs most beautiful outdoor spaces. What she had in mind was less-desirable terrain thatâs often overseen by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). âThe phrase, and I hate it, but some people call it âjunk land,ââ Golden said. She mentioned an unincorporated town called Howe, which sits about an hour northwest of Idaho Falls.
âHowe is a farming community with a stoplight,â she said. âThere are hundreds of thousands of desert-and-sagebrush acres all around it that are just desolate right now. That would be a place I would explore and say that at least itâs viable.â
Howe, she added, is within commuting distance of the Idaho National Laboratory âa major employer in Idaho Fallsâand itâs possible a data center will be built in that part of the state someday. Growth could be in the townâs future.
The idea of building has been a policy goal of the Trump administration, and itâs a concept. The PACâs founders know this, and they weaponized Goldenâs remarks with digital ads and bulk text messaging.
âKelly Golden wants to GIVE AWAY YOUR PUBLIC LANDS TO 18 YEAR OLDS!â, the text said. At a recent candidate forum, the text continued, Golden â⊠said she wants to give away our public landsâthe places where we hunt, fish, graze, and camp. What other crazy ideas could she have in store for Idaho?â
Politics is rough, but was it fair to turn Goldenâs remarks into a scare quote? Alexis Pickering, a co-founder of the PAC, thinks so. When Golden mentioned homesteading, Pickering told RE:PUBLIC, âWe were like, OK, letâs talk about that! ⊠This was a perfect example of how dangerous it would have been for her to get in there.â
Idaho isnât turning purple anytime soon, but Pickering and other activists have noticed that protection of public lands is an issue that can draw support from both sides of the aisle. In March, the state legislature adopted Joint Memorial 111, a symbolic measure that calls on Idahoâs congressional delegation in Washington, D.C., to always bear in mind that selling or transferring public lands âwould not only jeopardize access and tradition, but also place unsustainable and unpredictable financial burdens on states, local governments, and Idaho taxpayers.â
In Wyoming, a similar joint resolution passed easily during the 2026 session, asking Congress to place a priority on public lands protection and saying that âdisposal of lands should not occur without meaningful input from state and local governments and affected communities.â
This strong show of support was prompted in part by a failed resolution from the 2025 session that called for Congress to âextinguish the federal titleâ to public lands and subsurface resources in the state. Thatâs a long way of saying: Let Wyoming, not the federal government, control the land and what lies beneath it. The resolution allowed for only one exception: The feds could keep Yellowstone National Park.
Gestures like these move both states a little closer in the direction of Montana, where vocal support of public lands has come from all four members of the stateâs congressional delegation. In the summer of 2025, in the wake of Utah Senator Mike Leeâs proposal to sell off up to 3.3 million acres of BLM and Forest Service lands, U.S. Sens. Tim Sheehy and Steve Daines blocked the provision from being included in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Reps. Ryan Zinke and Troy Downing are both members of the chamberâs bipartisan Public Lands Caucus.
In Idaho, the concept driving the PAC for Public Lands is straightforward: Go all in on a single issue, spending money to support candidates who work to protect public lands and to oppose those who donât. One state to the east, a , and both PACs appear to have arrived at their approaches independently. They arenât linked in any way.
The creators of the PACs moved in this direction because PACs can do things that traditional nonprofits canât. A tax-exempt 501(c)(3) like Backcountry Hunters and Anglersâwhich is based in Missoula, Montanaâis prohibited from directly or indirectly taking part in political campaigns on behalf of candidates. The group can certainly express itself about issues, thoughâa website resource called tells supporters about legislation that it thinks should be either supported or opposed.
The was launched earlier this year by four Idaho residents with extensive experience in politics: Pickering, executive director of Conservation Voters for Idaho, a nonprofit affiliated with the D.C.-based League of Conservation Voters; Chuck Coiner, a former Republican state senator; Brian Brooks, a veteran of wildlife protection nonprofits, including the American Bird Conservancy and the Idaho Wildlife Federation; and Ross Copperman, a former outdoor industry executive who chairs a group called the Idaho Hunger Coalition.
was created by two outdoorsmen whose day jobs had never involved political campaigns. Zach Lentsch, the PACâs chairman, is a Cody-based climber who runs Wyoming Mountain Guides, which offers rock, ice, and alpine adventures all over the state. Chris Allen, the treasurer, lives three hours east of Cody in the town of Clearmont, where he and his wife train and sell horses. Both Lentsch and Allen are hunters, and the PAC devotes most of its resources to outreach efforts aimed at this demographic.
âWeâre trying to turn hunters into voters in Wyoming,â Lentsch said. âWeâre really focused on sportsmen, because thatâs a large group in our state.â
Itâs also a group that supports public lands for an obvious reason: Thatâs where the birds, mammals, and fish are. As is true of voters in most states, this bloc tends to sit out primaries. In 2024, Lentsch said, only 28,000 of the stateâs 140,000 resident hunters and anglers cast primary votes. Protect Wyoming, which officially launched in January of this year, hopes to get more of them to the polls during state elections, with public lands high on their list of priorities.
In both Idaho and Wyoming, the GOP dominates public life. Idahoâs governor, both of its U.S. senators, and its two members of the U.S. House of Representatives are all Republicans, and the party currently holds 90 of 105 seats in the state legislature. The statistics are almost identical in Wyoming, which, because of its smaller populationâroughly 588,000 to Idahoâs 2.03 millionâsends only one representative to D.C. In the state legislature, the GOP holds 85 of 93 seats.
The upshot: Primaries are where the action is. âThe political game in Idaho is all centered on the primary,â Brian Brooks explained. âWhichever Republican wins it is usually going to win in November.â
For now, the two PACs only invest in state-level racesâas opposed to those for seats in the U.S. Congressâin part because each is new and working with limited resources, and in part because their founders know where their spending can have the most effect. But both PACs were energized by the national backlash that happened in the summer of 2025 in reaction to Mike Leeâs proposal. Conservation Voters for Idaho commissioned a in the aftermath of Leeâs maneuver, and it justifiably labeled the results âstrikingâ: 95% of Republicans and 97% of Democrats agreed with the statement that Idahoâs public lands should remain public and protected.
âWe have a state legislature driven by ideological politics, which translates into people advocating for the disposal of federal lands,â Brooks said. âThat is not what the public agrees with. And yet, weâve had all these people getting elected in the primaries.â
Idahoâs 2026 primaries took place on May 19. PAC officials say their ground gameâwhich, among other things, relied on 20 paid canvassers from Idaho who worked around the stateâinvolved 240,000 text messages, 18,000 phone calls, 119,000 mailers, and nearly 7,000 door-knocks to send the message that âselling off public lands is a political non-starter in the Idaho Statehouse.â
In a self-assessment of this yearâs outcomes, the PAC gave itself a win rate of 59%, pointing to positive results that included the defeat of Kelly Golden and victories by State Sen. Jim Guthrie and State Reps. Ben Fuhriman, Mike Veile, and Stephanie Mickelsen. Guthrieâs race against fellow Republican David Worley was the most expensive in the 2026 primary cycle. (Shortly before election day, it was reported that PACs had spent a combined $375,107 on the race.) In a pattern similar to the Golden-Mickelsen race, Worley positioned himself to the right of Guthrie.
âThe biggest accomplishment of the newly minted PAC for Public Lands was protecting public lands champions and defeating challengers who wanted to privatize and transfer public lands,â the PAC said in a release. â... All three of these house races had challengers who either had voted to cut key budgets for wildfire, land management, hunting access and/or water resources, or had voiced support for sell-off. Those beliefs were soundly defeated.â
The PAC didnât win them all, though: In a state race between frequent primary foes Jim Woodward (the incumbent) and Scott Herndon, an anti-property tax advocate who would like to defund agencies like Idaho Fish and Game, the PAC opposed Herndon. This time, he won.
Wyomingâs primary happens on Aug. 18. The tactics Lentsch described sound similar to those used by the PAC for Public Lands, but thereâs at least one notable difference: Protect Wyoming makes use of public outreach events where they pitch voters face to face. At the first of these, held in Cody in late March, Protect Wyoming drew a capacity crowd to a local craft brewery, delivering a message that appeared to resonate.
Lentsch said the PAC chose Cody for its launch because the surrounding county, Park, contains the most public land of any county in the state. This is an area with a rich tradition of big game hunting and what Lentsch sees as a disconnect in terms of who best represents the needs of hunters.
âAll of our Park County state representatives and state senators are squarely anti-public land,â he said in remarks quoted by the Powell Tribune, a Wyoming newspaper. âThe biggest takeaway is that way more people hunt in Wyoming than vote, which is crazy, and with numbers like that, we shouldnât be surprised that when our representatives donât hunt and recreate by and large, we wonât have representation that reflects our values.â
Protect Wyoming produces a that groups candidates under the labels Top Sellouts and Top Champions. State Sen. Bob Ide, who introduced the 2025 proposal calling for a massive federal land transfer to the state, gets failing grades in all three categories they scored: Public Lands, Public Wildlife, and Scientific Management.
In the aftermath of Kelly Goldenâs Idaho defeat, her husband, Josh Goldenâa real estate agent who helped manage her campaignâforwarded details to RE:PUBLIC about where the PAC for Public Landsâ donations come from, information thatâs also available online in various places, including , the stateâs campaign finance and lobbyist disclosure portal.
According to those details, a significant portion of the PACâs total funding comes from a super PAC in Washington called the LCV Victory Fund, which is affiliated with the League of Conservation Voters. (Super PACs can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money in support of political candidates, but unlike traditional PACs, they canât give money directly to candidates or coordinate their spending with them.) This fund donated $95,000 of the PAC for Public Landsâs total contribution of nearly $212,000.
Josh Golden declined to comment on the connection, but itâs been argued that accepting major out-of-state donations somehow detracts from the grassroots positioning of a group like the PAC for Public Lands. This was a theme in the hotly contested 2020 U.S. Senate race in Montana between incumbent GOP Sen. Steve Daines and Democrat Steve Bullock, who was Montanaâs governor.
The race was supposed to be closer than the final resultâDaines won by 10 pointsâand was unusually expensive, with money flooding into Montana from all over the place. In a of the $96.6 million attributable to âthird-party spending by political committees,â one group in the mix was the Montana Hunters and Anglers Leadership Fund, which supported Bullock.
âWhile the group is registered in Billings, the vast majority of the support it has reported ⊠comes from outside Montana,â the report said. âMajor donors include California liberal megadonor Karla Jurvetson and the United Brotherhood of Carpenters, a national union, each of which contributed $500,000 to the fund. The group also reported a $265,000 contribution from the LCV Victory Fund.â
Jurvetson is a physician and philanthropist who has donated to many campaigns, including a major donation to a super PAC that supported Elizabeth Warrenâs 2020 presidential run. The Washington Free Beacon, a conservative news site based in the D.C. area, called the PAC an âastroturfâ group, which refers to the tactic of setting up a PAC that appears to be grassroots but isnât. Gary Marbut, president of the Montana Shooting Sports Association, called it âa decoy group that operates in Montana only during election season.â
Decoying can work in more ways than one. Daines isnât running for reelection and has endorsed Kurt Alme, a former U.S. attorney for the District of Montana. In a , the investigative Substack Public Domain suggests that a D.C.-based super PAC called the American Leadership Fund has been helping position Alme as being more pro-public lands than he really is.
For what itâs worth: Thereâs no sign the PACs for Public Lands or Protect Wyoming are astroturfing. A majority of the Idaho PACâs donations so far come from in-state, and the second-largest donor ($60,000) is an Eagle, Idaho-based developer and philanthropist named Caleb Roope. Protect Wyoming does not have to disclose its fundraising totals until later this year, but Lentsch and Allen said that almost all their funding comes from small donors, mainly hunters and outdoorspeople in Wyoming.
As Williams added, he and Lentsch are already used to critics questioning their motives. âWeâve gotten messages saying weâre a greenie group trying to convert hunters and anglers,â he said. âIâve also been told that Iâm being fed propaganda and fear-mongering about public land being sold off. What I tell people is to go look at a legislatorâs track record. We created the PAC to make it clear as day what these candidates introduced legislatively and what theyâve voted in favor of.â
was produced by and reviewed and distributed by ±ŹÁÏTV.







