# Push to transfer BLM lands to State of Utah



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

We normally avoid political issues around here unless they pertain directly to hunting, fishing and the outdoors. But this issue I feel is very worth a discussion here.

Right now, there are a couple of bills before the legislature that essentially demand that the Federal Government cede all BLM (not sure if Forest Service is also included) lands to the State of Utah. The impacts of this could be huge - both positive and negative, to the outdoors community.

I'd be interested in some of your thoughts on this.

One quick thought I have - if people think restrictions on OHV use are too intrusive with the BLM, try it when all the lands are privately held. And if you think wilderness study areas restrict recreation access, try private lands. Of course, recreation use is only one part of the multi-use puzzle.

Here is the link to the story on KSL. If you find other stories with better explanations, please share.
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=1931146 ... featured-3


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Utah legislature, here we go again :roll: . My thoughts. -Ov-

1.


GaryFish said:


> Right now, there are a couple of bills before the legislature that essentially demand that the Federal Government cede all BLM (not sure if Forest Service is also included) lands to the State of Utah.


What I got from the article was that it included all but the National parks, so yes, it includes the Forest service land.

2. The overall legislative movement is not new. 2 years ago, they passed HB143, which allowed the state to annex Federal land via the mechanism of "eminent domain". The Feds scoffed at it and as far as I know it hasn't been tried yet and thus challenged in court. IMO, these bills are not terribly different and almost certainly will be deemed unconstitutional in court. (Unless the legislature wants Utah to secede from the union, never can tell) I would agree to a large extent with the opponents cited in the article that it is just legislative "chest thumping".

3. Were such a move to succeed and the land was annexed, the article said it would go back into the school lands trust. (SITLA) Experience has shown that SITLA does not hold sportsmen with any particular regard, so I would say it would be bad for all recreationalists. I don't know how great it is for the rest of the citizens either.

4.


GaryFish said:


> One quick thought I have - if people think restrictions on OHV use are too intrusive with the BLM, try it when all the lands are privately held. And if you think wilderness study areas restrict recreation access, try private lands.


+100

5.


GaryFish said:


> The impacts of this could be huge - both positive and negative, to the outdoors community.


Based on how the State has treated the states anglers with stream access, and has readily stated that the land would likely be rapidly sold off to the highest bidder, I see *NO* positives for us in the outdoors community. However, the odds of them actually succeeding with this is very remote.

6. Gary, you are our resident BLM expert and generally have good insight into these issues. What do you think?


----------



## The Naturalist (Oct 13, 2007)

The Legislature keeps wasting money on this issue! This all started back in the 80's called the Sagebrush Rebellion. The State does not have the resources/monies to be able to manage that amount of land. The State would then have to sell off the majority of those lands to private enterprises. The folks pushing this know that the State would have to sell it, so they use the guise that it will help fund public education. However, it is simply to privatize the public lands so that a few can make bookoo bucks, and exclude the rest.
KEEP PUBLIC LANDS PUBLIC!!

I agree with Gary and Catherder on this.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

I'll share some of my thoughts in a bit. I was hoping to hear what some of you guys thought.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

The Naturalist said:


> The Legislature keeps wasting money on this issue! This all started back in the 80's called the Sagebrush Rebellion. The State does not have the resources/monies to be able to manage that amount of land. The State would then have to sell off the majority of those lands to private enterprises. The folks pushing this know that the State would have to sell it, so they use the guise that it will help fund public education. However, it is simply to privatize the public lands so that a few can make bookoo bucks, and exclude the rest.
> KEEP PUBLIC LANDS PUBLIC!!
> 
> I agree with Gary and Catherder on this.


I am sure I am in the minority on this issue. I tend to agree with having things as they were for the first 100 years of this nation......VERY LITTLE PUBLIC LAND! The federal government should NOT be the largest owner in the state of Utah, and neither should the state of Utah. It should be the citizens who own the land.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Here is an article I read a few months back that I found very informative: http://www.rangemagazine.com/specialrep ... ndlord.pdf



> As with almost everything else that has been twisted from the original, the Founders _never_ intended that there should be large federal landownership. When they wrote the Constitution, feudalism and manorialsim still existed in France and many of the Founding Fathers were eyewitnesses to the brutal treatment of the peasants under such a system. Today, that same brutality is crushing western landowners. In 1783, Thomas Jefferson insisted that *all* federal land should be sold as quickly as possible, and "shall never after, in any case, revert to the United States."


----------



## campfire (Sep 9, 2007)

I am a western man and an avid outdoorsman. I love the freedom of the great outdoors. I could not imagine the tragity of loosing that freedom as it was lost centuries ago in Europe and the eastern U S. I am for keeping public land public and as much as can be in a modern society FREE.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

campfire said:


> I am for keeping public land public and as much as can be in a modern society FREE.


A perfect example of an oxymoron.....


----------



## campfire (Sep 9, 2007)

You are right pro. I am an ox and a moron.  ki


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

The big problem with the state owning the land would be that soon they would be selling it off to balance the budget. The next thing you would know is that Utah would be just like Texas, Ohio, Iowa, and a few other states and if you wanted to hunt you would have to pay someone so that you could have some access to their property.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Pro, I know we have debated this on the UWN at least 5-6 times in the past and I doubt that our positions are likely to change much, which is fine. Help he though to at least understand one concept you mentioned and I hear when this issue comes up among many rural Utahns. (My wife comes from rural Utah and so I've tended to spend more time with folks of a similar opinion while visiting the in-laws) This is the comment.



proutdoors said:


> It should be the citizens who own the land.


OK fine, but if the Federales give up the land they own to the State and it is sold, just who do you think is going to buy it? You might be able to pick up a few parcels adjacent to your properties, but even that is comparatively small for what would be sold and I'd bet you are the exception. The truth is the "locals" for the most part are not particularly wealthy, and those that are mostly made their wealth out-of-state. Who is going to buy the Manti for instance? I doubt it will be any of your neighbors or friends, but most likely an energy conglomerate(s) that would buy it for the coal or maybe a rich animal rights loving movie star that will make it his/her private reserve, end hunting there, and slap up the no trespassing signs. (Similar to what has happened in Montana in a few areas) SITLA is authorized by its bylaws to manage the land to make maximum profit, not do what the majority of the locals think would be good for them.

Rural Utahn's that think that *they* will be the ones buying and controlling this Federal land are drinking some bad Kool aid. So why do they continue to believe that it would be such a good thing?

One other thing, if all the public land is sold and becomes off limits, will you let your UWC/UWN buddies hunt your pumpkin patch? It might be my only chance at hunting deer in such a scenario.


----------



## Cooky (Apr 25, 2011)

We've been here before.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39987&hilit=king%27s

When Utah sells the land does it come with "No Trespassing" signs or do they have to buy their own?


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Cooky said:


> We've been here before.
> 
> viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39987&hilit=king%27s
> 
> When Utah sells the land does it come with "No Trespassing" signs or do they have to buy their own?


That is why they are trying to pass that other bill that the owners no longer have to post their property


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Catherder said:


> OK fine, but if the Federales give up the land they own to the State and it is sold, just who do you think is going to buy it? You might be able to pick up a few parcels adjacent to your properties, but even that is comparatively small for what would be sold and I'd bet you are the exception. The truth is the "locals" for the most part are not particularly wealthy, and those that are mostly made their wealth out-of-state. Who is going to buy the Manti for instance? I doubt it will be any of your neighbors or friends, but most likely an energy conglomerate(s) that would buy it for the coal or maybe a rich animal rights loving movie star that will make it his/her private reserve, end hunting there, and slap up the no trespassing signs. (Similar to what has happened in Montana in a few areas) SITLA is authorized by its bylaws to manage the land to make maximum profit, not do what the majority of the locals think would be good for them.


 First, you make the mistake in thinking my position is based on my gaining land...it is NOT! My position is based on the Principle that private property, and the ability of all citizens to obtain/retain it. This is the one issue that made the American Revolution different from the French Revolution and others that have followed since. This is NOT about the have's obtaining more, its about ALL being able to obtain something. The land east of the Rockies is not only by big corporations, there are literally MILLIONS of 'common folk' with land, enough to live off of. 
The U.S. Constitution allows only three forms of federal landownership and jurisdiction in Article 1, Section 8: "To establish post offices and post roads; To exercise exclusive legislation....over such District of Columbia (not exceeding ten square miles).....and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the State....for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings." There is NOTHING in the U.S. Constitution that allows the federal government to by the largest landowner in Utah!



Catherder said:


> Rural Utahn's that think that *they* will be the ones buying and controlling this Federal land are drinking some bad Kool aid. So why do they continue to believe that it would be such a good thing?


 It would be a good thing, because the people who live in the area would have control over the land, instead of pinheads in Washington setting policies.



Catherder said:


> One other thing, if all the public land is sold and becomes off limits, will you let your UWC/UWN buddies hunt your pumpkin patch? It might be my only chance at hunting deer in such a scenario.


 You bet.... :mrgreen:


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

A couple more points before I turn in for the evening.

1.


proutdoors said:


> Catherder wrote:Rural Utahn's that think that they will be the ones buying and controlling this Federal land are drinking some bad Kool aid. So why do they continue to believe that it would be such a good thing?
> 
> It would be a good thing, because the people who live in the area would have control over the land, instead of pinheads in Washington setting policies.


That's just it though. I assert they wouldn't have *any* control! Sanpete county may garner a few more tax dollars from the energy company that buys the Manti, but the citizens would very likely be restricted from recreating there as they always have and I'm sure you would agree that it is not proper for any government (local, state, or Federal) to try and tell a private landowner what they can do with their land, within reason. So the locals would go from having pretty full access to the land and at least having a system where they can at least express their concerns about management of the public resource to our elected officials, to a system where the private landowner, with full justification, will be within his/her rights to tell the "locals" to pound sand over any concerns that may arise. And the owners will almost certainly not be local Sanpete county residents either.

2.


proutdoors said:


> First, you make the mistake in thinking my position is based on my gaining land...it is NOT! My position is based on the Principle that private property, and the ability of all citizens to obtain/retain it. This is the one issue that made the American Revolution different from the French Revolution and others that have followed since. This is NOT about the have's obtaining more, its about ALL being able to obtain something. The land east of the Rockies is not only by big corporations, there are literally MILLIONS of 'common folk' with land, enough to live off of.


Your position has been consistent since I've been on UWN and I didn't want to imply otherwise. Besides, your land has been held by your family for generations, if I'm not mistaken. Which is of note. The land East of the Rockies was largely settled by homesteaders during the last century. While economic downturns have caused many family farms to indeed be bought up by agribusiness corporations, much of what you refer to was divvied up by Federal programs (The Homestead act and others). What the Utah legislature proposes to do via SITLA is a very far cry from the Homestead act and it is a certainty IMO that the results would be far different than what happened in the Midwest in the 1800's.

3. The ability of the Federal government to establish National Forests, Wildlife refuges, and other such entities has withstood a number of legal challenges, and is unlikely to be overturned now with such a body of precedent. Maybe BLM land may fall in a different category and may be more amenable to settlement and transfer, (Garyfish may know this in better detail than I) but the disposition of *any* such lands would have to be under the direction of the US legislature and executive branch, and not by "force" based on the legalistic wishes of the Utah politicians. Based on what I know about the dealing it took to get Utah ratified as a State, I find the billmakers assertions laughable from a legal standpoint.


----------



## campfire (Sep 9, 2007)

Pro, I direct this to you but I really speak to many others out there. And please understand that I do not say this in a disparaging way. I understand that your opinions on this issue are motivated by your political philosophy . And I understand and respect that. But we get really upset when a few politically connected individuals are successful in limiting our hunting opportunities so a few hunters with big bucks can shoot bigger bucks but it would be ok to lock the entire state behind fences posted no trespassing? I am sorry but I cannot follow that logic. I cannot help think it is unwise to allow loyalty to a particular political philosophy to destroy the lifestyle I know you cherish.


----------



## gregkdc (May 19, 2008)

In a world of growing population and shrinking resources I am beginning to think we are damned if we do and damned if we don't. I will explain; first I totally agree that the State would do a bad job of managing the land and would likely sell the land for a profit. We have all enjoyed the land access we have in Utah, and would like things to remain the same. I know what it is like to go without public land. I lived in Iowa when I went to grad school and there is absolutely nowhere to hunt unless you have connections. I don't think the federal government is the answer either and they definitely can't be trusted to keep things the same. The big problem that we face with the Federal government is the fact that more and more they are advocating extreme environmentalism. The Feds have been trying to implement policies like UN agenda 21 that will severely limit access to wilderness areas, land that is public now but could easily be deemed off limits.


----------



## xxxxxxBirdDogger (Mar 7, 2008)

The legislators are aiming to sell off all of this land to the highest bidder. They want Utah privatized so more tax dollars are in their coffer. They are even saying with this bill that they are willing to accept as low as 5% of the sale price of the land, just so they can tax it later. 

Our state legislature is 100% committed to ruining the public outdoor experience for all but the rich. If you can't see it, you're blind. I'll bet most of you send the same guys back at your caucus next month, though. What a joke.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

gregkdc said:


> first I totally agree that the State would do a bad job of managing the land and would likely sell the land for a profit.


Let there be no mistake. The bills proponents state that, if successful, the transferred land would go to SITLA. Unless the legislature changes SITLA's bylaws, which is unlikely, SITLA is obligated to deal with the land in a way to maximize profit. And that would mean in virtually every case, sale to the highest bidder. And as many of us have commented, that would mean the end of outdoor activities such as hunting, fishing, camping and hiking as we know it. These activities may continue at some level, but not in a way we are used to and the number of people who will "get into" things like hunting will plummet.



gregkdc said:


> The big problem that we face with the Federal government is the fact that more and more they are advocating extreme environmentalism. The Feds have been trying to implement policies like UN agenda 21 that will severely limit access to wilderness areas, land that is public now but could easily be deemed off limits.


That is a pretty extreme worst case scenario. We currently have a fairly liberal president and we aren't even seeing anything close to that now. Besides, I can still hunt, fish, and hike in a designated wilderness area. To say our outdoor privileges are threatened by wilderness studies to any extent close to having the public land privatized is ludicrous.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Well, the news just reported that this passed vote this morning. It will be interesting to see what the Governor does with it.

Some of my thoughts.

1. This will die in a legal challenge. Article 6, paragraph 2 of the United States Constitution - the Federal Supremacy Clause - doesn't allow the States to tell the Federal Government what to do. That alone will kill this. What sucks about that is that the yay-hoos that passed this are willing to drop $15 million to fight a battle they WILL lose. And that sucks in a time when our State Parks system is going bankrupt, teachers haven't had even cost of living raises in years, and quality state employees are leaving Utah for better things elsewhere. Oh yea, and DWR is having to jack up prices of everything just to stay alive. This hurts all Utahns just to "make a point." In 1861, South Carolina challenged the Federal Supremacy clause. They were joined by 10 other states in a very aggressive challenge to this concept. By 1865, the issue of Federal Supremacy had been resolved. 

2. The history behind why these lands are Federally held has nothing to do with Statehood, or Federal hording, or anything of that nature. Before the BLM was the BLM, it was the General Land Office. Its charge was to dispose of ALL federal lands not held in some sort of other reserve (National Parks, Forests, Preserves, etc...). Under the Homestead Act, people were allowed to claim land and become owners when they showed improvement. ALL of Utah was available under this Act. With the passage of FLPMA (Federal Land Policy Management Act) in the early the 70s, the GLO became the BLM, and whatever lands were left over - those that nobody wanted for nearly a century, fell under management by the BLM. And the charge was changed from disposing of them, to managing them. Why? Because it was viewed that if people didn't want these lands by then, they had no value. Translation: they were not suitable for farming or timber or other natural resource industries. These lands stayed in Federal ownership NOT because the Federal Government wanted them - but because NO ONE wanted them. 

3. Over the last 40 years, other values of these lands have emerged. That is, people have found the deserts that are so cruel and relentless to attempts to farm, are quite beautiful for hiking, camping, and motorsports. And so we've seen these uses emerge. Additionally, we've seen that many of these land also have geologic characteristics that yield fluid minerals - natural gas, oil, coal bed methane, etc.... 

4. IF, and that is a VERY BIG IF Utah were to take control of these lands, the lands would be sold in smaller parcels. Period. However, the lands are still inhospitable to any kind of agricultural development, so don't count on that for future development. Really the best agricultural options would be grazing for either livestock, or domesticated game species. The problem with either of those options, is that with the characteristics of the land - dry, saline or clay soil types, huge tracts would be necessary for even marginal populations of livestock or game (why do you think our deer herds are hurting?) So then we'd get sale of the land in smaller parcels to everyone wanting 20 acres of paradise which I guess would improve the tax base if people start dropping 2nd or 3rd homes on the property. Or more likely, drop beat up single wides with an outhouse out back like so many of the "summer home developments" on both slopes of the Uintas. 

5. The end result will be the closure of what are now openly public lands, and transformation into many small parcels of private property that will be fragmented too small for any kind of agricultural operation, and also fragmenting habitats and perhaps more important to the economy that has developed around it for the last 40 years - fragmenting of the viewsheds and beauty that comes with wide open spaces. Now I'm not a big "preserve all wilderness" kind of guy. But a trail ride to some of the vistas on the San Rafael is great because it isn't developed. That is what draws the trail rides, hikers, and sight seers. That will be gone due to the fragmentation.

6. The assertion is that this movement will somehow end up in some great windfall of money for education. This is absolute, utter bull crap. Utah's SITLA has a fraction of a trust built up compared to ALL of our neighboring states that have larger percentages of Federal land than Utah. Why? Because they are better managed. Our neighbors have retained parcels instead of just selling them for a one-time gain. This has allowed them to collect mineral royalties over a long term, instead of a one time sale. AND our neighboring states' legislature haven't "borrowed" against the School Trust like they have in Utah. (Essentially the State version of borrowing against Social Security Funds). 

The problem with our school funding in Utah compared to our neighbors in all reality has nothing to do with SITLA anyway. It has everything to do with larger families, and the sense of entitlement in Utah where we refuse to pay higher property taxes to fund education at the District level. But that is another issue all together and a tangent I don't want to take. 

7. Lastly - I look at states in the Midwest that have the absolute best, prime, supreme farmland on planet earth. States like Kansas, Nebraska, and the Dakotas. These places are virtually 100% privately held. And rural communities in these states are struggling like you cannot imagine. They make some of rural Utah's towns look like Beverly Hills or Park City. And that is WITH supreme natural resources suited to very well to private agricultural development. Such attempts in Utah's wide open spaces will fail miserably, yet destroy the one redeeming value - the openness - that characterizes these lands.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Good analysis, Gary. I learned a few things in regards to how the GLO switched to the BLM and how it related to the Homestead act.

A few more odds and ends on the subject.

1. I guess what passed today (through committee) was one of the joint resolutions. These dumb resolutions our legislature favors so much do not enact law and thus mean little. Nevertheless, the actual lawmaking bills will probably sail through too. 

2. Here are some excerpts from the Statehood enabling act.

"Second. That the people inhabiting said proposed State do agree and declare that they *forever* disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within the boundaries thereof; and to all lands lying within said limits owned or held by any Indian or Indian tribes; and that until the title thereto shall have been extinguished by the United States, the same shall be and remain subject to the disposition of the United States, and said Indian lands shall remain under the absolute jurisdiction and control of the Congress of the United States; that the lands belonging to citizens of the United States residing without the said State shall never be taxed at a higher rate than the lands belonging to residents thereof; that no taxes shall be imposed by the State on lands or property therein belonging to or which may hereafter be purchased by the United States or reserved for its use; but nothing herein, or in the ordinance herein provided for, shall preclude the said State from taxing, as other lands are taxed, any lands owned or held by any Indian who has severed his tribal relations and has obtained from the United States or from any person a title thereto by patent or other grant, save and except such lands as have been or may be granted to any Indian or Indians under any act of Congress containing a provision exempting the lands thus granted from taxation; but said ordinance shall provide that all such lands shall be exempt from taxation by said State so long and to such extent as such act of Congress may prescribe."

I guess the key line our esteemed legislators are keying on the the word "extinguished". They seem to conveniently ignore the line that follows.

"and that until the title thereto shall have been extinguished by the United States, *the same shall be and remain subject to the disposition of the United States,"
*

So reading the section in its entirety, I fail to see any language that would suggest the state has a shot in its pursuit of this and it is clear to me that the enabling act says quite the opposite of what our state pinheads are implying.

Another line,

"The said State of Utah shall not be entitled to any further or other grants of land for any purpose than as expressly provided in this act;"

Anyway, we are wasting from 3-15 million dollars of our scant state monies to battle this in court and lose! It makes me madder the more I think about it. :roll: **O**

3. Gary, I was interested in your analysis of the parcel size you foresee being used to break up the land, and you may well be right in many areas. However, I would think that any land with potential or realized mineral, energy, or timber resources would attract a higher level of interest and pricing. In such a scenario, the winners of the bidding would be the heavily capitalized companies with the resources to exploit the asset. This would be especially true with mountain territory with timber reserves and areas with petroleum and natural gas reserves. These buyers would tend to buy large parcels compared to a single "small fry" buyer.

4.


GaryFish said:


> Utah's SITLA has a fraction of a trust built up compared to ALL of our neighboring states that have larger percentages of Federal land than Utah. Why? Because they are better managed. Our neighbors have retained parcels instead of just selling them for a one-time gain. This has allowed them to collect mineral royalties over a long term, instead of a one time sale. AND our neighboring states' legislature haven't "borrowed" against the School Trust like they have in Utah. (Essentially the State version of borrowing against Social Security Funds).


A lot of the fishing community became more intimately acquainted with SITLA during the Little Hole (Green River) parcel fight. It was dismaying to me to see that the lands were managed how they were and that the bylaws were such that a "long view" was not allowed in management decisions. Additionally, the SITLA administrators were at the time some of the highest paid state employees. It disgusts me to hear that other States are doing a better job at managing trust lands when our need for school funding is so great. I suppose yet another thing we can lay at the feet of or legislators, huh? -#&#*!-


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

I can totally see mineral companies buying up large portions of land for mineral development. And the Manti will turn into the Oquirrhs. 

The timber thing is a different issue. Every little town in rural Utah thinks they can have a sawmill and save their economic woes if only the Feds would let them go cut trees. But the truth of it is if timber harvest could be done in a sustainable and economically feasible way, the Feds WOULD let them go cut the trees. My professional world has shifted this past year to dealing with the timber industry in Southeast Alaska. And while I'm no expert, my learning curve has awakened my level of understanding to things. The Tongass National Forest is dealing with timber sales in the billions of board feet of timber. And even with those scales, the economics of harvest are very dicey. Local timber operations in Utah will never be anything more than very selective harvest for post/pole situations. And those have such a small market, there is no economic sustainability. Any harvest of any scale in Utah not only wouldn't be economic viable, but the development of any kind of real processing facility, or shipping to get the logs to a facility, would be cost prohibitive and a major company will not touch it. 

Which would lead us to purchase of lands by mineral companies to tap into fossil fuel resources. And the things with those, is that you don't need to own the surface, to lease the mineral rights. But say that XYZ Oil Company comes in and buys up 200,000 acres of land for drilling into the natural gas reserves. That land will soon look exactly like the pictures of the Anticline and Jonah fields near Pinedale, WY that Goob posts up. So sale of large tracts would be even more damaging to the viewsheds than sale of small tracts for private home development. 

As for SITLA - that is another thing all together. They technically are not a government agency per se. And their charge is simple and direct - get money for the school trust fund. No care is given to anything else. And I don't fault them for that. They stay on task with their mandate. I may not like it, but I at least understand the very clear mandate they do have, and I respect it. I just don't think they are good at it. 

The main pusher for this thing is Rep. Karl Ivory from West Jordan. As in Ivory Homes. I can see how a developer would love to have the chance to develop millions of acres. Developers make money on the sale of a lot and home and then are done with having anything to do with the transaction. Developers do not have to deal with long term consequences. 

Years ago, one certain developer wanted some land in North Salt Lake that was owned by Utah State Parks. Parks owned the land because it had been part of the Jordan River Parkway when that agency was absorbed into the State Parks system. Anyway, the land was near the Jordan River, and made for good park land because every really wet year, the Jordan River would overflow, or the water table would get so high, that the ground would be saturated until July. Well, a certain developer with strong political ties stiff-armed a land exchange that took this land not suitable for any kind of ethical development from State Parks, in exchange for a couple of other parcels used to expand a golf course at another State Park. State Parks opposed the swap, due to the nature of the land being prone to flooding. Well, the swap happened anyway, houses were built during the drought years, the developer no longer had any interest in the land since it was sold, and then we had some wet years that flooded all the homes with the rising water table made even worse by the acres of now paved streets and reduction of surface that could absorb the waters. And the homeowners - many were first time home buyers - and the City of North Salt Lake were left holding the bag. I guess the point of the whole story is that developers do not have the long term interest of the lands, or the city/county that has jurisdiction in mind when they develop land. The quick buck at the initial sale of the land will be spent and gone long before it can have any kind of positive impact on the community.

I see this whole deal as a direct parallel to the Federal Stimulus Checks that have been sent out by the current and last administration. Sure, millions of households had cash to burn on a new big screen, but there was no long term improvement to the economy and since the checks were printed with red ink, we now have to pay it all back.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

I had a good, well researched response, but after reading the anti-individual rants, what's the point? It is clear to me that a large portion of the citizens are more comfortable with a select few doing the thinking, and the rest doing as told. Sad, very sad. The Republic is dead, the road to serfdom is over, we are more comfortable being dictated than in being free. I deeply regret what my children have ahead of them in this land of LOST liberty!!


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

GaryFish said:


> As for SITLA - that is another thing all together. They technically are not a government agency per se. And their charge is simple and direct - get money for the school trust fund. No care is given to anything else. And I don't fault them for that. They stay on task with their mandate. I may not like it, but I at least understand the very clear mandate they do have, and I respect it. I just don't think they are good at it.


When the Little hole issue was going on, what some the the fly guys dug up about SITLA was not flattering as for their job performance *and* what a paltry sum actually got to our kids school districts. So I heartily agree with you about SITLA's job performance. What bugs me more though is something both of us have mentioned in our posts. And that is the mandate they go by. If they had a different mandate to at least have an option to utilize and develop the land for long term money making ventures instead of just being *forced* by the bylaws to quickly sell, IMO, their success and effectiveness would improve. And the mandate they go by is something the esteemed legislature can do something about. SO IMO, the fault for SITLAs shortcomings lies there.

Pro, I would have thought you would have done better than that, but then I realized you are in the middle of calving season. Hopefully, all is well and you've selected nice birthing ease replacement heifers for your herd.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

My thoughts on this are not at all anti-individual. In fact, they are 100% Pro-Individual here. I am of the belief that more people can benefit individually if the public lands remaining in Utah, remain in public ownership. I am of the belief that the maximum economic utility of our remaining public lands is to keep them open for multiple public uses, instead of for small parcel ownership. I know it might seem counter-intuitive that keeping lands public has direct benefit for private individuals, but in these cases, I believe it does. If these lands had amazing agricultural development potential, or contained sustainable logging resources, or even mineral deposits that require very large tracts of land to access, I'd have a different view. But the bottom line comes down to these are still Public lands because they don't have those values. And as large tracts, they do have recreational value. The Great Western and Piute Trails in the Richfield area draw far more economic impact to that region than all the agriculture combined. Privitize the Fishlake and Manti forests and that all goes away. 

Anyway, we've probably beat this one up enough. I guess the main thing I can take away here, is I wish our "fiscally conservative" legislature would quit wasting my tax dollars on un-winnable battles.


----------



## Cooky (Apr 25, 2011)

GaryFish said:


> I wish our "fiscally conservative" legislature would quit wasting my tax dollars on un-winnable battles.


What Gary said.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

The single biggest REQUIRED element to liberty and the pursuit of happiness is property rights/ownership. Abandoning the core principles this nation was founded upon is NOT how individual liberty is obtained! We are all serfs, some of us just refuse to admit it, or are not ability to recognize it. Trusting federal pinheads in Washington over individuals is as foreign to the principles this nation was founded upon, as is the notion of social justice!


----------



## Cooky (Apr 25, 2011)

I wonder how grazing permits would work after all of Utah is privately owned.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Good Heck Pro, "the citizens should own the land"? YOU DO OWN THE LAND! The citizens make up the government. WE THE PEOPLE! I know you, and many others, will never see that, which is sad for our country.....


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Packout said:


> Good Heck Pro, "the citizens should own the land"? YOU DO OWN THE LAND! The citizens make up the government. WE THE PEOPLE! I know you, and many others, will never see that, which is sad for our country.....


Do you really believe such nonsense? If so, since you "own it" can you do whatever you want to with it? DOH! Let's pretend that "WE THE PEOPLE" actually own it, what good is ownership if you/I/"WE THE PEOPLE" have no control over it? Policies are set by elitists in Washington, NOT people in Utah, let alone the people in the same county!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Cooky said:


> I wonder how grazing permits would work after all of Utah is privately owned.


Well, since grazing permits are a HEAVILY subsidized GOVERNMENT program, they would rightfully go the way of the dinosaur.


----------



## Cooky (Apr 25, 2011)

While I am strongly in favor of States Rights as opposed to the feds running our state the thought of who may be the highest bidder when it goes up for sale scares me to death.

There are a lot of details that need to be addressed. Perhaps if they are the outcome of a challenge would be different.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Yes, I do believe it. We The People--- those great men who wrote that believed it. I think you know about them.

No, I can't go do anything I want on the land because we all have to work together. We must have rules. Rules are there to protect the land and other people. IF we do not like the rules imposed, then we LOBBY our representatives to change them. The LAND is not broken, but many of the representatives ARE. That is where you and I differ in our opinions.

Here is an analogy I will give. In my family we have rules. Some of the rules take from my freedoms, from my wife's freedoms, and from my kids' freedoms. I can't just walk in my daughter's room when she is getting dressed. No one can pee in the sink. We don't let our cows in the back yard to live. One person can't leave their dirty plates in the living room. Yet it is "Our" house, "our" lawn, "our" pasture, "Our" garage. We all have to work together to get along, but it is worth it. The house is there for "our" good - our "citizenry's" good. If I sale off the back yard, or the living room, or 2 of the 3 bathrooms, it would severly impact the welfare of our family.

Once the State sales the BLM land, we loose it. The citizenry looses it. One citizen gains it. The first buck I killed was on BLM. Dove hunting BLM. Hunting chukars, rabbits, deer and elk on BLM. Riding horses, ATVs, public grazing, etc... Those opportunities for myself and others will be gone forever if those lands are sold. 

The State will gain an huge influx of $$$$ by selling the lands. There would be some money generated from Taxes, but it would be minimal in many cases-- that Greenbelt thing you and I know all about. But the cost would be greater on other fronts-- public access, recreation, industries associated with such, etc....

Now, I'll stand by your side to change some policies to access the resources for the citizenry. Keep the lands public and start utilizing the resources those lands produce.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Packout said:


> Yes, I do believe it. We The People--- those great men who wrote that believed it. I think you know about them.


 I do indeed know about them. In fact, I am 100% positive they strongly OPPOSED the federal government being the largest landowner in the nation! As for the WE THE PEOPLE; yes it was at one time, but thanks to progressive pinheads like Teddy Roosevelt, it is no longer WE THE PEOPLE, it is now, "All people are equal, some more equal than others." The people in Utah have little...in reality NO......say in what happens to 70% of the land in this state. It is dictated to us by suits in Washington. I used the word dictated intentionally, and this is how dictatorships work!



Packout said:


> No, I can't go do anything I want on the land because we all have to work together. We must have rules. Rules are there to protect the land and other people. IF we do not like the rules imposed, then we LOBBY our representatives to change them. The LAND is not broken, but many of the representatives ARE. That is where you and I differ in our opinions.


 That's just it, the rules do more harm than good, and the people in Utah suffer for it. I agree that many, I contend most, of our representatives are 'broken', but I contend flawed policies....such as the federal government sticking its nose where it has NO business sticking it........will always result in such a mess.



Packout said:


> Here is an analogy I will give. In my family we have rules. Some of the rules take from my freedoms, from my wife's freedoms, and from my kids' freedoms. I can't just walk in my daughter's room when she is getting dressed. No one can pee in the sink. We don't let our cows in the back yard to live. One person can't leave their dirty plates in the living room. Yet it is "Our" house, "our" lawn, "our" pasture, "Our" garage. We all have to work together to get along, but it is worth it. The house is there for "our" good - our "citizenry's" good. If I sale off the back yard, or the living room, or 2 of the 3 bathrooms, it would severly impact the welfare of our family.


 IMHO, this is a poor analogy. You and your wife, most likely mostly your wife if your home is anything like mine......, set rules for you family. You didn't set the rules for the entire neighborhood and then demand they all follow your rules, and pay you to enforce your rules. Using terminology such as "our 'citizenry's' good" sends chills down my back. That sounds like it came right out of Woodrow Wilson's disgusting pie hole. -)O(-



Packout said:


> Once the State sales the BLM land, we loose it. The citizenry looses it. One citizen gains it. The first buck I killed was on BLM. Dove hunting BLM. Hunting chukars, rabbits, deer and elk on BLM. Riding horses, ATVs, public grazing, etc... Those opportunities for myself and others will be gone forever if those lands are sold.


 The citizenry should NEVER have had it, this country was not set up as a socialist nation. This is the same mentality those who oppose reining in the feds on welfare, health care, and other ENTITLEMENT programs use........ :shock:



Packout said:


> Now, I'll stand by your side to change some policies to access the resources for the citizenry. Keep the lands public and start utilizing the resources those lands produce.


 This is eerily similar to the CPP that is the driving force behind our inane game management policies. Special interests, who do NOT give one rip about Utahans being able to enjoy, utilize, benefit from the resources on public lands. In fact, they want to limit as much as possible your/my ability to do so!


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Those men did not tie everything into concrete, because they knew the future may just dictate things differently. They were smarter than what most give them credit for.

What stops the State from being the "next" level in this system you and I dislike? Can't a county feel the same about the State, as the State feels about the Federal Gov't? What stops a city from feeling the same about the County? 

In my closed-mind, I will never understand how anyone who has used the public lands system could want those same lands locked up-- especially after seeing how Utah's State political climate has pandered to the haves and other special interests. I guess the unlucky kid not born into a ranching family will never be afforded the opportunity of "free-range". We both have calves hitting the ground and private lands to walk. 

No need to argue these points further. You have your stance and I have mine, which we have both expressed many times. And while you are one of the bull-headed people I have ever met  I think I can give you a run for your money with my bull headed-ness on this issue. Best of luck calving, we call it black-gold hitting the ground.


----------



## JERRY (Sep 30, 2007)

I believe in preservation when it comes to our lands. State or Government controlled. If we are just trying to get the land to sell to the highest bidder then I am totally opposed to that in any way. 

If we are trying to get the land so the public has a say in the way it is controlled and it is for the betterment of said public. I say go for it. 

I am not sure how much you can trust the state politicians or the Government on any of this. :roll: If it was going into state owned trusts with lease options and would never be sold, then let the state manage it.

I think this really goes back to oil and gas drilling and the government tying the hands of those looking to find ways to be less dependent on foreign oil. Among other things. JMTC
I am sure it goes much deeper than just oil and gas, but if these lands are just going to be sold off and the public will no longer have access and it will become privately owned, they can go **** up a rope.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

The State Reps who are pushing this have already stated they will sell a large portion of the lands. We currently have counties which are upset with the State over state owned lands within their counties.


----------



## JERRY (Sep 30, 2007)

Packout said:


> The State Reps who are pushing this have already stated they will sell a large portion of the lands. We currently have counties which are upset with the State over state owned lands within their counties.


Then you know what my answer to this whole fiasco is! Something to do with a rope.....


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Me bull headed? Well I never...........

-/|\-


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

As I've been thinking this over for the past few days, IF, and that is a very big IF the State of Utah is determined for Federal Lands in Utah to become the property of the State of Utah, this is the wrong way to do it. If we are going to spend $15 million to defend this in court, then we need to take a different, more defensible tact on this one. And that is our Congressional Delegation should take this up as a bill in Congress. That is the ONLY legal way this can happen. And $15 million could buy a whole lot of lobbying. Really anything short of Congressional action will not accomplish the intended goal here. For just a second, putting aside the procedural aspects of this - something that a room full of specialist lawyers couldn't agree on - is there merit to the idea? 

Is there merit to to the concept for privatization of these lands? Are there any lands in Utah that have greater value held in the public reserve? Pro asserts that ownership of land is essential for pursuit of the American dream. And I respect that. And total privatization of all lands in Utah could help in facilitating that. An alteration to that thought that I would suggest is that perhaps public ownership of certain lands can better facilitate pursuit of the American dream for more people - for example, more businesses could use the land for different uses (recreation, minerals, timber, forage base, hunting, fishing, etc.... - resulting in a a broader spectrum of people and jobs for pursuing the dream. 

What is to be gained through privatization? what is to be lost?


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Sorry I missed out on the fun this morning. Busy work day, didn't get back to the computer.



GaryFish said:


> If we are going to spend $15 million to defend this in court, then we need to take a different, more defensible tact on this one. And that is our Congressional Delegation should take this up as a bill in Congress. That is the ONLY legal way this can happen. And $15 million could buy a whole lot of lobbying. Really anything short of Congressional action will not accomplish the intended goal here.


+1 It is too bad that our reps don't see it that way and are insistent on wasting our money.



GaryFish said:


> What is to be gained through privatization? what is to be lost?


Good question. Trying to look objectively, here is what I would say is my list.

Pros; 
1. Some increase in rural county tax revenue.
2. Short term increase in jobs if certain industries buy and exploit the land. 
3. Some increase in what SITLA brings to the schools. (However, we've talked about that already and are in agreement that it isn't a great long term benefit.) 
4. Certain people and entities will get some very nice land at advantageous prices.

Cons.

The people will no longer be allowed to recreate in the public lands. This will result in the following;
1. Tourism dollars will shrink in areas that are dependent in tourism. 
2. Dollars garnered from the sale of recreational equipment and supplies will go down.
3. As hunters will no longer be allowed into their traditional hunting areas, interest in hunting will drop and in the rising generation, fewer kids will take up hunting. As hunters become less numerous in the population, hunters will increasingly lose political battles to anti hunting and animal rights activists. Just like in Europe. 
4. The same will apply, but to a lesser extent with other outdoor activities like fishing and camping. 
5. While not directly economic, the quality of life living in this state will sharply decline, at least for me.

The long term loss of the sustainable tourism and outdoor activity businesses will at minimum offset any property tax increases to rural counties and possibly be devastating economically to tourism dependent regions.

Lastly, unlike what my rural friends and Pro seem to think, we, especially the locals will lose control over the land since once it is sold, the public loses all control over management. even though we may disagree with some Federal land practices, we have available some form of redress through our elected officials to change things. That is forever gone once the land is sold. As I said before, too many people complaining about the Feds seem to ignore this.


----------



## WesternPDX (May 23, 2011)

proutdoors said:


> Packout said:
> 
> 
> > Good Heck Pro, "the citizens should own the land"? YOU DO OWN THE LAND! The citizens make up the government. WE THE PEOPLE! I know you, and many others, will never see that, which is sad for our country.....
> ...


I think you are confusing two different issues (or maybe you're not cause I can't tell who's side your on). This transfer is not about benefiting the public or putting the rules into the public's hands. They want the land transferred to the state so they can sell it. This is nothing new. It's been attempted before with the national forests (the outcome would have been overgrazing to the max). Nobody said the federal government was perfect, but the land being in there hands sure beats it being in the grubby state's hands who are just going to sell it for profit!


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

For those that are against the BLM maintaining possession of said land, what exactly is it that is going so wrong with the management of the land that would want you to transfer control to another entity?

Is it just going against the feds out of spite or is there a specific reason?


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

(still curious)

For those that are against the BLM maintaining possession of said land, what exactly is it that is going so wrong with the management of the land that would want you to transfer control to another entity?

Is it just going against the feds out of spite or is there a specific reason?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> (still curious)
> 
> For those that are against the BLM maintaining possession of said land, what exactly is it that is going so wrong with the management of the land that would want you to transfer control to another entity?
> 
> Is it just going against the feds out of spite or is there a specific reason?


I told myself I was done with this topic, as it seems to be just frustrating all of us....I even received a few PM's threatening extreme violence....... but, I figure I will answer your questions since you have asked repeatedly.

I am against the BLM, it should never have been created, and it gives people hundreds/thousands of miles away control over lands, while the people living within spitting distance have NO say. I am against a corrupt government that is laden with $16 TRILLION, and climbing, in debt claiming they 'know how to run things better than the states/individuals do.' I am against inane regulations that severely, and needlessly, hamper/delay/deter using the VAST and beneficial resources located right here....not only in America, but in Utah. We have gas well over $3.00/gal and climbing, and the SOLE cause of high fuel prices is the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Insane inflation....dangerously close to hyper-inflation.....STUPID regulations pushed under the FALSE pretense of environmental protection that prevent fuel in this country from being availed, and our nonsensical and dangerous foreign policies of intervention....are the causes of high fuel prices. But, I keep being told how the federal government is far superior to the states and the individuals when it comes to doing the 'right thing'.....

Add in how the small farm/ranch is almost a thing of the past, mostly due to FEDERAL regulations/policies. SEVENTY PERCENT of the land in Utah is owned by Washington, with far more than that being controlled by Washington. The land to my southeast is checker-boarded, with BLM, state, and private land being checker-boarded for 20,000 acres. Here is the kicker, the landowner is told how/when to use HIS land, and it is the BLM suits that do the dictating. He can't even lease HIS land to interested livestock operators who wish to graze on HIS land, because the BLM has too many restrictions; from the number of days it can be grazed, to the time of year it can be grazed, how many critters can be grazed, to the type of fencing that is required. It is a joke.

So, you all keep thinking the federal government cares about you, the land, the resources, the air you breath......I once did as well, but no more. Individuals are my friends, people who are trying to eke out a living off the land, not pinhead suits whom I have never, and hopefully never will, met.


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

PRO
1. I am Ugly and was NOT out of line.
2. Did you answer Muleskinners question directly or do we infer from
your rant that you are simply anti Govt.
3. If you were threatened via PM, post that sucker up. Unacceptable.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

Sorry if you were threatened Pro. There is no excuse for that.

I respect your opinion even if I do not agree with it. Fact and opinion are often confused by perspective.

You answered my question. Thank you.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wileywapati said:


> PRO
> 1. I am Ugly and was NOT out of line. We will agree to disagree.
> 2. Did you answer Muleskinners question directly or do we infer from
> your rant that you are simply anti Govt. I did answer his question, directly and in depth. I am NOT anti-government, I am just pro-liberty and want....no DEMAND government stay within the realms it was defined and created to be in.
> 3. If you were threatened via PM, post that sucker up. Unacceptable. I believe he was banned. I can take care of myself, but when my wife and kids are.....


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> (still curious)
> 
> For those that are against the BLM maintaining possession of said land, what exactly is it that is going so wrong with the management of the land that would want you to transfer control to another entity?
> 
> Is it just going against the feds out of spite or is there a specific reason?


I can see both sides to this argument, but I had to make a comment on this post. Well in the last couple of years since Ken Salazar Secretary of the Interior has been in charge he has tried to shut down millions of acres of BLM and other land from any kind of use besides walk in access. Now being from Carbon County and still having a large amount of my family still down there, this is a huge deal. Carbon County gets a huge chunk of their money from oil leases. He keeps shutting these leases down. This is just one example of what they are doing wrong. If it wouldn't have been for several people fighting hard against these changes, we may have lost rights to those lands. Pro is going to hate hearing this, but Hatch and Bishop were absolutely crucial in these instances.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

I am curious how much fighting would be done if it were in the hands of the state. Not just for the leases but for other uses as well, especially once it is sold off.

I can see the point of view of Pro on some of the issues that he listed such as grazing but I honestly do not see where generalized comments about the national economy are very relevant to this topic.

The economy has been in the dumps for more reasons than can be listed. Inflation can hardly be listed as one them IMO. Especially claims of "hyper-inflation". Over the past 13 years, yearly inflation rates have averaged 2.35% from the data that I have reviewed. The average American consumer credit card debt is at $16k. Far too many people feel the need to go into debt to keep up with the Jones' IMO. The banks that have processed crappy loans are no more responsible than the people that applied for them and went in far over their heads to buy the next new thing. Utah in particular is almost always at the top or very near it when it comes to consumer debt and foreclosures. It is a very poor reflection on the entitlement that the citizens in Utah believe they have.

I read through the list of people that support the bill and I for one am VERY curious as to what somebody, such as the SFW, has to gain from this. I have emailed the SFW and have had no reply. My next step is to call the SLC Chapter and find out.

I am not asking any questions or stating any of my opinions for the sake of soap-boxing or arguing over matters. I AM trying to inform myself so that I can take a stand as I see fit.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

A few local politicians want the land in the state's hands so THEY can have control. They know that their "constituents" will be easier to cater to if the commodity is held in their immediate realm of influence, which isn't Washington DC.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> I am curious how much fighting would be done if it were in the hands of the state. Not just for the leases but for other uses as well, especially once it is sold off.
> 
> I can see the point of view of Pro on some of the issues that he listed such as grazing but I honestly do not see where generalized comments about the national economy are very relevant to this topic.
> 
> ...


Great post! I personally don't want to see all the federal land privatized, but that is just my opinion, now I may be alright with the State taking it over, but I would have to look into it much more before I would say for sure.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

jahan said:


> Pro is going to hate hearing this, but Hatch and Bishop were absolutely crucial in these instances.


I don't hate hearing this, as I am already aware of it. But, I still see FAR too many negatives from both...especially Hatch.....to ignore... 8)


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> The economy has been in the dumps for more reasons than can be listed. Inflation can hardly be listed as one them IMO. Especially claims of "hyper-inflation". Over the past 13 years, yearly inflation rates have averaged 2.35% from the data that I have reviewed. The average American consumer credit card debt is at $16k. Far too many people feel the need to go into debt to keep up with the Jones' IMO. The banks that have processed crappy loans are no more responsible than the people that applied for them and went in far over their heads to buy the next new thing. Utah in particular is almost always at the top or very near it when it comes to consumer debt and foreclosures. It is a very poor reflection on the entitlement that the citizens in Utah believe they have.


First, inflation is far worse than the reported rates from the government. Just look at what the price of food, gas, utilities cost today versus 1, 2, or 3 years ago. The costs are up primarily due to inflation. Debt is a major problem, and the biggest indebted entity in human history is the US federal government.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> A few local politicians want the land in the state's hands so THEY can have control. They know that their "constituents" will be easier to cater to if the commodity is held in their immediate realm of influence, which isn't Washington DC.


This is very likely true. However, it is far easier to rein in a "few local politicians" than it is to rein in FIVE HUNDRED EIGHTY FIVE federal politicians, yes?


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

I'll bite Pro

Food, gas and utilities are just a part of what is factored in. Fuel has indeed gone up over the past few years even though it reached it's peak in the summer of 2008 and is technically cheaper now than it was at it's high. What happened after that? I probably don't need to remind you because we are still recovering. Other things have gotten cheaper. Houses, electronics, land, some food. In the end they will all go up again because of supply and demand. This will happen until the population stops growing for what ever reason. (I have little doubt that at some point there will be a reason)

Since the fed was founded 1913, inflation has consistently risen at 3.5% on average. (I doubt that the government and the economist have lied to us every year since then. Besides at some point the math just averages out) Inflation should be expected in a growing economy. There should be no denying that since 1913, when the Fed was formed, the United States has experienced the greatest growth of any economy that the world has ever seen. Deflation is a far worse alternative. Hyperinflation is a disorderly economic progression that leads to a complete rejection of the sovereign currency. Money at that point is worthless. The US has never experienced Hyperinflation. If you ever experience it on a personal level, I will be more than happy to take away your burden. I would have no problem selling you a newspaper for a wheel barrow full of money.

While I agree 100% that the national debt is a MAJOR problem. I feel it is 100% the result of a society that feels entitled. Whether is the right to have 2 cars on loan and a big house on mortgage, a big new combine on the farm on loan, free medical care, new schools (bonded), new laptops (credit) etc. The world is full of wants and the US is leading the crusade. I am in fact part of it and I would guess that you are as well to one degree or another. The US is nowhere close to some countries when it comes overall debt per person. Take a look at Luxembourg, Ireland, Monaco, The Netherlands, Switzerland, United Kingdom, Norway, Belgium, Hong Kong, Denmark, Sweden, Austria, France, Finland, Germany, Australia, New Zealand and Greece. They all have higher debts per person than we have. Coincidentally they are for the most part pretty nice places compared to most. Conversely the countries that have little to no debt per person (don't mistake this for just less debt than the US per person) are hell holes like Ethiopia, Nigeria, Uganda, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan (I have lived in this dump), Bangladesh and Haiti. Point being for as bad as things are they could be a hell of a lot worse and there is no simple answer. Chances are you show me a country that has a low debt per person ratio and I'll show you a place that would suck to live and it's residents are in constant turmoil.

On another note.............I sincerely doubt that all 585 of the federal politicians have to be reined in with regards to BKM land. They are not all out to get you on it. Most of them probably could not care less about the BLM land. For every one that does there is another one that is arguing against them, if for nothing else just to argue. Let's face it, it's Washington DC.

God Bless America.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Population growth has NOTHING to do with inflation, nor the rate of inflation. Gas prices are on the way to record highs, they are at record highs for this time of year, a normally low consumption period. So, why is gas higher in February than at any time in US history? The economic recession/depression was NOT caused by high fuel prices, it was mostly caused by inane FEDERAL GOVERNMENT policies that created a housing bubble, followed by a predictable housing crash. Food as a whole is more expensive, and it is harder to find quality/quantity food as well. That is good for me, since I grow food....but it is terrible for America and the citizens. Inflation is NOT caused by supple/demand of products/services, it has only ONE cause, more money in the flow. The $16 TRILLION and counting debt is a symptom, not a cause of the economic hardships we are encountering. 

What was the inflation rate from 1787 to 1913, total....you don't even need to figure out the average per year.....hint> it is less than what they are telling you it was for 2011 alone! The Federal Reserve, with the blessing/direction of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT has robbed citizens of far more wealth than every convicted criminal combined has. Inflation robs you/me every second of every day. It is the primary cause of the quickly disappearing middle class. It has given the CORRUPT politicians in DC the ability to wage wars they haven't the desire to win; from the war to end all wars, to the Korean War, to Vietnam, to the war on poverty, to the war on drugs, to the Cold War, etc, etc, etc. You do realize the current regime has modified how inflation is measured, right? Food is no longer included....I know....makes no **** sense, but we are talking about the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT..... Again, inflation has NOTHING to do with population growth, nor economic growth! It is 100% based on the increase of money, whether is is introduced via wars, QE's, bailouts, subsidies, or other devious means, it ALL comes from the influx on money from the Fed! You say; "the United States has experienced the greatest growth of any economy that the world has ever seen." I contend the economic growth BEFORE the Federal Reserve was created was the greatest in human history, but since said creation we have seen the greatest accumulation of DEBT the world has ever seen, how you can call that economic growth escapes me.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> While I agree 100% that the national debt is a MAJOR problem. I feel it is 100% the result of a society that feels entitled. Such as feeling entitled to government controlled land? Whether is the right to have 2 cars on loan and a big house on mortgage, a big new combine on the farm on loan, free medical care, new schools (bonded), new laptops (credit) etc. The world is full of wants and the US is leading the crusade. I am in fact part of it and I would guess that you are as well to one degree or another. Wants are not bad, unless they are brought about through force..... The US is nowhere close to some countries when it comes overall debt per person. Take a look at Luxembourg, Ireland, Monaco, The Netherlands, Switzerland, United Kingdom, Norway, Belgium, Hong Kong, Denmark, Sweden, Austria, France, Finland, Germany, Australia, New Zealand and Greece. They all have higher debts per person than we have. Not true, I suggest you do some more research on the matter. As of last week America had a HIGHER debt per citizen than Greece. Coincidentally they are for the most part pretty nice places compared to most. Really, you think living in Greece right now is "pretty nice"? I sure do NOT. How much land does the average Greek own, how much opportunity does someone poor in a lower class have to move up? Countries like Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Sweden, all enjoy more economic freedom than we do, and their debt/citizen is lower than ours. Conversely the countries that have little to no debt per person (don't mistake this for just less debt than the US per person) are hell holes like Ethiopia, Nigeria, Uganda, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan (I have lived in this dump), Bangladesh and Haiti. Point being for as bad as things are they could be a hell of a lot worse and there is no simple answer. Chances are you show me a country that has a low debt per person ratio and I'll show you a place that would suck to live and it's residents are in constant turmoil. So, America "sucked to live" in America before 1913? :roll:





Mr Muleskinner said:


> On another note.............I sincerely doubt that all 585 of the federal politicians have to be reined in with regards to BKM land. They are not all out to get you on it. I am pretty sure NONE of them are out to get 'me'. But most of them are out to gain maximum power, and that ALWAYS comes at the expense of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, ALWAYS! Most of them probably could not care less about the BLM land. For every one that does there is another one that is arguing against them, if for nothing else just to argue. Let's face it, it's Washington DC. There are a SMALL handful of politicians in DC that haven't been bought and paid for, but they are in the minority. And, for that matter, not every Utah politician is corrupt either, true?


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

Uncle..........I could argue a ton of this stuff but i won't. Especially the overseas stuff having lived overseas, in Greece, Turkey and Uzbekistan and having many friends that live there right now. Greece in particular. Don't believe all that you see on TV.

BTW I would love to see something that keeps weekly track of this. Please share the link.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> BTW I would love to see something that keeps weekly track of this. Please share the link.


 I never mentioned anything 'weekly', I said I saw some data last week.....:
http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer. ... ece/391576


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

"As of last week America had a HIGHER debt per citizen than Greece." is exactly what you said.

The chart that you refer does not take into account the countries Gross Domestic Product. Using that chart would be the same thing as showing a banker just the debit side of balance sheet and asking for a loan.

I wouldn't believe campaign findings if they said the earth was round. I am in no way a supporter of ANYTHING that this administration has done. Even as a republican I am not going to look at a graph put together by a republican senator's office in an election year and even hope that it is correct.


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

This thread has really lost track and taken a hard left from the original topic. Let's please get this away from the purely political turn that the thread has taken and back to the original topic of how the proposal relates to hunting and the outdoors. This topic has already resulted in the banning of one member as politics often get heated and therefore the reason for not allowing the political discussion.
Thanks guys!


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

Pro there are probably far more things that you and I see eye to eye on than we don't. I fully respect your opinion on things even if it doesn't appear so right now. No sense in beating a dead horse any further. I am sure we both have better things to do.

Maybe I'll go rearrange my hunting gear or tie some flies..........hmmmmm.......


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> Pro there are probably far more things that you and I see eye to eye on than we don't. I fully respect your opinion on things even if it doesn't appear so right now. No sense in beating a dead horse any further. I am sure we both have better things to do.
> 
> Maybe I'll go rearrange my hunting gear or tie some flies..........hmmmmm.......


Sounds good. You are welcome at my fire anytime.
8)


----------

