Land transfer a little at a time. - Utah Wildlife Network

» Site Navigation
» Home
»
 > Search
 > FAQ
» Stats
Members: 11,561
Threads: 56,878
Posts: 591,230
Welcome to our newest member, SportEAR
Like Tree11Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 04-07-2017, 08:39 AM   #1 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Breaking mud motors one brand at a time
Posts: 1,050
Default Land transfer a little at a time.

http://www.stgeorgeutah.com/news/arc.../#.WOejyUhOmEc


Hatch doesn't even try to hide that this is for a developer.
He is also trying to get the OHV people on his side
__________________
Boom Boom Boom Music to my ears.
Hoopermat is online now   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 04-07-2017, 03:02 PM   #2 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Where I can see those Rocky Mountains
Posts: 1,997
Default

The only thing I know about this bill is the link provided. But let's just assume for the sake of discussion that this article accurately reflects the nature of the proposed legislation.

Why should I oppose this? The article states that the land will be conveyed with the stipulation that it remain open to public OHV use, right? I've said this on other threads and I'll reiterate it here: I don't care who owns it so long as it remains open for us to use it. My biggest, and really only beef with transferring federal lands to the state is that I fully believe the state will sell them and the public will be shut out. It sounds like this land will be conveyed in a way that guarantees that will NOT happen.
Vanilla is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 04-07-2017, 03:12 PM   #3 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: So. Weber, Utah
Posts: 1,118
Default

Hmmm. If it is such a valued area, and they have various events in the area, I wonder why they want the land "conveyed" to the county rather than have the county offer to buy it. And...if it were for sale, then it would entail that all stakeholders (America's citizens) would have a say in the decision through our congress...which is an embarrassingly ineffective group of imbeciles.
“Our legislation, the Southern Utah Open OHV Areas Act, would guarantee nearly 20,000 acres of recreational access for off-road vehicles,” Hatch said. “Perhaps most importantly, this proposal empowers locals by entrusting county leaders – not federal bureaucrats – to manage this unique area.”
Hmm, I wonder if a visitor from out of state (who also has a stake in America's public land) would agree that local county leaders have their best interest in mind. I imagine that this is a fun place to ride OHV's, and I'm sure they want to make sure it is open to riding in the future. I guess this is also an easy way to allow for pipelines to be buried at the same time. It seems like there is always more to the story. I am interested to see what else is involved in this.
R
rjefre is online now   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 04-07-2017, 03:13 PM   #4 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 475
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vanilla View Post
The only thing I know about this bill is the link provided. But let's just assume for the sake of discussion that this article accurately reflects the nature of the proposed legislation.

Why should I oppose this? The article states that the land will be conveyed with the stipulation that it remain open to public OHV use, right? I've said this on other threads and I'll reiterate it here: I don't care who owns it so long as it remains open for us to use it. My biggest, and really only beef with transferring federal lands to the state is that I fully believe the state will sell them and the public will be shut out. It sounds like this land will be conveyed in a way that guarantees that will NOT happen.
I agree. That is my biggest opposition to land transfer as well. I'm interested to see what type of economic impact this could have on the county, as from my understanding, the federal government would currently be paying them in lieu of the property taxes that they'd be able to collect on the land. If the county owns it, will they be able to maintain it? That would be my biggest concern.
Vanilla likes this.
Idratherbehunting is online now   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 04-07-2017, 07:07 PM   #5 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
#1DEER 1-I's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,883
Default

The issue is a story of economics. If you support the transfer of public lands (even bit by bit) you don't support public lands. They can pass whatever legislation they want today and pass legislation allowing for sale tomorrow when they can't pay their bills. The county and state will not want to throw money in a money pit if that's what it eventually becomes. I think some are realizing they are far from having the support to sale wide swaths of our public lands without major backlash, so now it's time to steer the attempts and bills towards smaller scale areas and slowly start chipping away. What things like this do IMO is no different than a full transfer just to watch acreage be sold off little by little. It's like hunting, if someone tried to ban hunting as a whole tomorrow it wouldn't pass, anywhere. But if you can slowly chop around the edges like ban bear hunting with dogs, the bear hunting with bait, then bear hunting all together in a place, you get closer to your end goal. Anyone who thinks these guys end goal is not a reduction in public lands hasn't paid enough attention to them. At Chris Stewart's town hall he said he wanted to work to transfer as much public lands to the state as possible. That's the goal, and bills like this or HR 622 are just those small chipping away that eventually gets to that main goal. If the state or county could afford such things, I'd support it. They can't, and before you know it legislation will be passed just as quickly to allow for the sale of places that are eating holes in the state or county budgets. Show me the financial viability of such a plan, show me the numbers, and maybe I can support it. I am weary of such bills by people who have advocated to transfer all federal public lands over to the states which would end in their sale. I would say their motives are far from sincere just like any politician.

And if the county wants land that belongs to every American so badly, then offer to pay for it. I don't get land handed out to me for nothing and neither should they. Want it bad enough? Offer to purchase it from the American people who own it.
ZEKESMAN and Hoopermat like this.
__________________
Keep Public lands, in public hands. Sign the petition:
https://secure3.convio.net/trcp/site...rAction&id=415
Join BHA: http://www.backcountryhunters.org

Last edited by #1DEER 1-I; 04-07-2017 at 07:12 PM.
#1DEER 1-I is online now   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 04-07-2017, 09:28 PM   #6 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Where I can see those Rocky Mountains
Posts: 1,997
Default

You can't have a discussion on this topic without getting a lecture. My hypothetical was pretty limited in scope, and was just that- a hypothetical.

Eventually people will learn that opposing everything just for the sake of opposition gets you nowhere. I would have thought democrats showed that the last two days pretty clearly?

I oppose the transfer of federal lands to the state. I don't trust they will remain public. But I'm open to discussing reasonable proposals, so long as they ensure continued public use. That is my one and only priority on this issue.
Vanilla is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 04-07-2017, 10:45 PM   #7 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 99
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by #1DEER 1-I View Post
The issue is a story of economics. If you support the transfer of public lands (even bit by bit) you don't support public lands. They can pass whatever legislation they want today and pass legislation allowing for sale tomorrow when they can't pay their bills. The county and state will not want to throw money in a money pit if that's what it eventually becomes. I think some are realizing they are far from having the support to sale wide swaths of our public lands without major backlash, so now it's time to steer the attempts and bills towards smaller scale areas and slowly start chipping away. What things like this do IMO is no different than a full transfer just to watch acreage be sold off little by little. It's like hunting, if someone tried to ban hunting as a whole tomorrow it wouldn't pass, anywhere. But if you can slowly chop around the edges like ban bear hunting with dogs, the bear hunting with bait, then bear hunting all together in a place, you get closer to your end goal. Anyone who thinks these guys end goal is not a reduction in public lands hasn't paid enough attention to them. At Chris Stewart's town hall he said he wanted to work to transfer as much public lands to the state as possible. That's the goal, and bills like this or HR 622 are just those small chipping away that eventually gets to that main goal. If the state or county could afford such things, I'd support it. They can't, and before you know it legislation will be passed just as quickly to allow for the sale of places that are eating holes in the state or county budgets. Show me the financial viability of such a plan, show me the numbers, and maybe I can support it. I am weary of such bills by people who have advocated to transfer all federal public lands over to the states which would end in their sale. I would say their motives are far from sincere just like any politician.

And if the county wants land that belongs to every American so badly, then offer to pay for it. I don't get land handed out to me for nothing and neither should they. Want it bad enough? Offer to purchase it from the American people who own it.
Have you visited Snow Canyon State Park or noticed the really nice Salt Lake County Parks? If it's open to the public, well maintained, and offers recreation for a fast growing region of the state it's ok.

Doesn't really matter fed versus state versus county versus city. Government is government. It's ok
OriginalOscar is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 04-07-2017, 11:46 PM   #8 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
#1DEER 1-I's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,883
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OriginalOscar View Post
Have you visited Snow Canyon State Park or noticed the really nice Salt Lake County Parks? If it's open to the public, well maintained, and offers recreation for a fast growing region of the state it's ok.

Doesn't really matter fed versus state versus county versus city. Government is government. It's ok
I actually agree with you here. The problem is, the state already underfunds our state parks farther than the Feds underfund our federal parks. Have you seen the parks budget? Have you seen how many fewer rangers that are employed for state parks year in and year out? State park budgets are also underfunded. If the state could walk the walk instead of just talking the talk I'd trust them. They also can't afford the land or parks they manage. They charge 5-10 times what the Feds do for several fees, and don't have the pockets the Feds do. I enjoy our state parks but also think they deserve better funding as well. There's no good reason for the bill other than to further the agenda of the polticians who don't like or public lands in the way they exist today.

As I said every American currently owns this land and if Washington County wants it, they can purchase it from the American people.
__________________
Keep Public lands, in public hands. Sign the petition:
https://secure3.convio.net/trcp/site...rAction&id=415
Join BHA: http://www.backcountryhunters.org
#1DEER 1-I is online now   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 04-07-2017, 11:52 PM   #9 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
#1DEER 1-I's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,883
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vanilla View Post
You can't have a discussion on this topic without getting a lecture. My hypothetical was pretty limited in scope, and was just that- a hypothetical.

Eventually people will learn that opposing everything just for the sake of opposition gets you nowhere. I would have thought democrats showed that the last two days pretty clearly?

I oppose the transfer of federal lands to the state. I don't trust they will remain public. But I'm open to discussing reasonable proposals, so long as they ensure continued public use. That is my one and only priority on this issue.
Sorry for my long drawn out response. I get it's hypothetical, transfer in any form is simply one step closer to sale and I know you know that. In a state like Utah we all know a law passed today saying no to selling land can be easily overturned tomorrow. I just don't care to move that step closer to sale no matter how smal of a step it may be. #keepitpublic is my main goal here as well, let's just keep on keeping on towards that's goal and future for our kids and grandkids.
__________________
Keep Public lands, in public hands. Sign the petition:
https://secure3.convio.net/trcp/site...rAction&id=415
Join BHA: http://www.backcountryhunters.org
#1DEER 1-I is online now   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 04-08-2017, 07:33 AM   #10 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Salt Lake City
Posts: 2,242
Default

Call me stupid but I just don't see the need to turn the land over to the County. Why, to what end? There has been no talk of stopping OHV use, no loss of local jobs by Federal management plans, no crazy restrictions in any way. So why. If preservation of the land in it's current use patterns is what THEY want, then simply have Hatch and the other land grabbers introduce federal legislation setting aside the land for this use. Isn't that what the legislators are always claiming should be done...isn't that what they said should have been done with Bear's Ear area..." I think they call it legislative solution! You hear the land grabbers screaming this all the time. Now they have a chance to actually legislate control over a piece of property and what do they propose...well, you guest it...TRANSFER THE LAND FROM FEDERAL TO LOCAL OWNERSHIP!
BPturkeys is online now   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Smilies
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Utah Wildlife Network forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:
Insurance
Please select your insurance company (Optional)

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Land Transfer Discussion:Rob Bishop's $50M budget request for land transfer. Kwalk3 The great outdoors 8 03-09-2017 09:16 AM
Opposition to Public Land Transfer Idratherbehunting The great outdoors 23 04-22-2016 06:48 AM
Land transfer issue more possible than ever #1DEER 1-I Everything else 21 04-01-2015 05:26 AM
More wasted money on this land transfer BS #1DEER 1-I Everything else 6 03-11-2015 08:49 PM
Utah Public Land Transfer RandomElk16 The great outdoors 133 12-20-2014 07:54 AM

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:49 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.1
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.