# This land was your land



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

http://stalkingtheseam.com/2015/04/22/this-land-was-your-land/

Another transfer article. Makes some good points. And although we can't like Obama for so many reasons, I do agree that this transfer will probably never happen in his tenure as president, but the next elections we should all be much more careful on who e vote for and not just be red because it's a certain party.


----------



## utahgolf (Sep 8, 2007)

so are you telling me that song is bogus? Apparently this land doesn't belong to you and me. It belongs to our legislature.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

utahgolf said:


> so are you telling me that song is bogus? Apparently this land doesn't belong to you and me. It belongs to our legislature.


I think when they vote in favor of something the majority of those who voted them in are against, it sends us a pretty clear message.


----------



## utahgolf (Sep 8, 2007)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> I think when they vote in favor of something the majority of those who voted them in are against, it sends us a pretty clear message.


I wish people voted that way but People vote against their own interests all the time. Very easily manipulated. The party has news orgs in their pocket that help manipulate the voter. I can't tell you how many times I call into the rod arquette show and take him to task for the softball questions he asks Ivory and bishop about the land transfer. When I mention the fact Ivory is making tens of thousands of dollars off of this thing, rod conveniently doesn't answer. Voters are easy to manipulate. This land transfer will be the fault of the sheep here who can't think for themselves.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

There's just as much passion in favor of the transfer - maybe even more. That's the problem. Everybody gets all emotional, preferring to wallow in our rhetoric and b.s. because it's more fun than doing the real work (and a dang sight more entertaining). Ends up, the issue is forgotten and it's just about which side wins. Copeland figures the time for polite discourse has passed? I figure he's a case in point and he might benefit from a time out.

I'm unequivocal in my opposition to the transfer. But I can understand the ideology that draws support for it from some of my friends and family. Being a 4th generation native Utahn, how could I not understand? They aren't stupid and they aren't sheep. And they have some valid points that have been flushed away by rhetoric and b.s. for way too long.


----------



## utahgolf (Sep 8, 2007)

Finnegan said:


> They aren't stupid and they aren't sheep. And they have some valid points that have been flushed away by rhetoric and b.s. for way too long.


They are though. Sorry but when they are easily swayed by the traditional party line of state vs federal instead of realizing this is our politicians going for this transfer for their own financial gain. It's a mob mentality of state vs federal, it's like a brick wall impossible to get through the thick skulls of the party allegiance.


----------



## massmanute (Apr 23, 2012)

Here is a link to the voting record in the Utah Legislature for the public lands grab.

https://votesmart.org/bill/votes/38759?s=party

It is interesting that every member of one of the parties voted for the land grab and all but two members of the other major party voted against the land grab.

Remember this vote the next time you go to the voting booth.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

Again, I oppose any transfer of federal lands. But just opposing isn't good enough. We need to resolve some problems:

Pine beetles...we need to log, burn and replant.
RS 2477...30 years later, we're still fighting over this? WTF?
Public Input...federal lands are NOT controlled from Washington DC. But if y'all don't say anything...
Federal Employees...are your neighbors.
Grazing...cheap as it's ever going to be. Keep squawking and watch the AUM triple, or more. I'm all for continued grazing, but y"all don't want to get into this fight.
Land transfer...lead by Ken Ivory, a developer. Since when did hunters and anglers line up behind developers?
Local control...yup, see what the Tooele county sheriff did? Or would that be the local control that poisons wells and hangs dead dogs on the fence like they did in Kanab?

Still, I absolutely sympathize with the folks who feel left out of the process, and it isn't their fault. Fact is, the process is messed up. USFS and BLM could do a much better job of including the public. Look to our DWR for guidance.

Bottom line is that I can't support citizens who want to pass off their civic responsibilities to any government agency.


----------



## massmanute (Apr 23, 2012)

I should clarify a couple of points about the link I gave to the vote on the land grab. I said that all of the members of one party voted for it. That isn't quite true. There were two that did not vote.

Also, that link gave the vote for the Utah House. The link for the vote in the Utah Senate is here:

https://votesmart.org/bill/votes/38758?s=party#.VTwhIZOYG1w

The pattern in the Senate is basically the same, except that none of the members of the minority party voted for the land grab whereas there were two members of the minority party that voted for the land grab in the House. There were two Senators who did not vote. One from each party.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

utahgolf said:


> I wish people voted that way but People vote against their own interests all the time.


 Unfortunately, that is human nature(sometimes) - people respond to incentives and act accordingly.


----------



## massmanute (Apr 23, 2012)

High Desert Elk said:


> Unfortunately, that is human nature(sometimes) - people respond to incentives and act accordingly.


And they sometimes respond to clever propaganda.


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

I know we have a few of these threads going, but I received a response from Senator Hatch in regard to an email I sent a few weeks ago voicing my concern about his and Senator Lee's votes to allow for the sell off of federal public land.

Mostly just FYI, but here was his response:

"_Dear Mr. Walker:

Thank you for writing about federal and state land ownership in the state of Utah. I welcome the opportunity to respond.

Like you, I truly appreciate and respect the beautiful land we have in Utah. Without question, Utah offers incredible geographic features, natural resources, and landscapes that deserve protection. Unfortunately, the federal management system we have in place to protect these lands is far from perfect. Currently, approximately 67% of Utah lands are federally owned and managed by bureaucrats in Washington, DC. This distant control is often costly and less efficient; at the same time, it mutes the voices of those closest to the land.

As you know, disagreement over public land use is decades old, and efforts to find agreeable solutions must include collaboration between many different stakeholders and their points of view. It is absolutely essential that those overseeing these land-use decisions heed and respect the voice of Utahns. I do not believe that the federal government should be able to arbitrarily dictate how Utah's lands are managed, and I cannot support legislation or administrative action that does not even seek the input of Utahns. Make no mistake, we have areas in our state that truly need to be protected, but I believe that a top down federal approach to the management of public lands in Utah is not the answer. Moreover, I feel that people who are closer to the land make better stewards of our environment than the federal government.

Our public lands are managed with the philosophy of accommodating multiple uses. This philosophy is not arbitrary, and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) follows strict legal guidelines as part of their Multiple-use Mandate. When managing these lands, the BLM should carefully consider the perspectives of all land users. I believe that we need to strike a more balanced approach to public lands, which realizes true multiple use, increased access, and robust local participation.

Please know that I will use my position in the Senate to advocate the best policies that are sensitive to the many views concerning public land use, and I will continue to support policies that empower Utahns with a greater management role over public lands so that land-use decisions can be made at home where they are most effective.

Thank you, again, for contacting me with your comments. If you would like to have regular updates on my work in the U.S. Senate, I encourage you to visit my Facebook page and follow me on Twitter (@SenOrrinHatch).

Your Senator,

Orrin G. Hatch 
United States Senator"_

I think he missed on a few points:

Federal lands(Either BLM or USFS) have local offices with local people that are tasked with regulating and enforcing their individual spheres of influence. President Obama had nothing to do with closing down your favorite 4 wheeler trail(in most cases). The "managed by bureaucrats in D.C" argument rings hollow to me for this reason. My grandfather made his career in the forest service in Wyoming, Idaho, and Utah and has never set foot in D.C.

I realize there are instances where D.C. overreaches in creation of Monuments, etc., but I believe that given the competing interests the USFS and BLM do a decent enough job at maintaining multiple use while ultimately protecting and conserving public land. They are in a somewhat untenable position trying to keep everybody happy and I believe that they do a better job of understanding and applying multiple-use than the state is purporting to do.

Also, the statement that "those who are closer to the land make better stewards than the federal government" is an inherently flawed and unfounded statement. Given any number of economic inputs local people may not always make decisions that would perpetuate wildlife and wild area conservation. I would love to see locals have more input in the process, but a lot of times it seems like our version of "input" is staging a massive illegal atv ride to prove a point instead of seeking honest discourse early on in the process.

Thought I would see if anyone else had any thoughts regarding his statements. I realize it is mainly a regurgitation of the same story we have heard from most of our lawmakers that support this transfer, but thought I would share anyways.


----------



## utahgolf (Sep 8, 2007)

*"Currently, approximately 67% of Utah lands are federally owned and managed by bureaucrats in Washington, DC."*

Empty, anti-fed/right-wing rhetoric that easily fools the masses right there. People won't even listen to you about the conflict of interest Ivory has and others and the real reason our politicians are pushing for this.... Once they hear that quote, they immediately grab their pitchforks and demand the land back.


----------



## massmanute (Apr 23, 2012)

Here's an email reply I just got from Senator Lee's office. It is more or less a non-reply. I removed my name from the reply (Dear XXX). I did not try to clean up the formatting, just a cut and paste from my email box.

April 27, 2015​ Dear XXX:​ 
Thank you for contacting Senator Lee about public lands. This and other issues are important to him. As a staff, we always keep him apprised of the information contained in letters like yours and he is aware of your thoughts and insight. Please continue to stay involved in the process and also reach out to your local leaders and representatives.

Senator Lee is moving forward with a positive policy agenda to address the challenges of our time. Partnering with citizens and colleagues on both sides of the aisle, he will continue to work to create a better economic climate for our country which will enable Americans to be more secure, get ahead, and realize their American dream. This agenda is an American agenda and is based on the principles that have, as Senator Lee often declares, "...fostered the greatest civilization the world has ever known." He invites you to continue to contribute to the great debate that will continue to foster that great civilization.

Thanks again for actively engaging in these vital discussions,











Pete Blair
Office of Senator Michael S. Lee
(202) 224-5444


----------



## willfish4food (Jul 14, 2009)

massmanute said:


> Here's an email reply I just got from Senator Lee's office. It is more or less a non-reply. I removed my name from the reply (Dear XXX). I did not try to clean up the formatting, just a cut and paste from my email box.
> 
> April 27, 2015​ Dear XXX:​
> Thank you for contacting Senator Lee about public lands. This and other issues are important to him. As a staff, we always keep him apprised of the information contained in letters like yours and he is aware of your thoughts and insight. Please continue to stay involved in the process and also reach out to your local leaders and representatives.
> ...


Wow! If that's not the most generic form lettered response I've ever seen, I'm not sure what is. The only thing they could have done to make that a less sincere response would be to leave the (place issue here) text in that first sentence instead of replacing it with "public lands". They should have at least filled in the blank with "our public lands" or "the public land transfer issue" or something that actually sounds like some effort went in drafting the response. But, at least you can rest assured that they hit the hot button topics like working across the aisle, stimulating economic growth, and America is the greatest nation on the earth.

You should have great confidence that the obviously diligent intern that sent you this letter was equally diligent in making sure Senator Lee "is aware of your thoughts and insight".


----------



## willfish4food (Jul 14, 2009)

As a point of clarification, I'm aware that the Senator is very busy, and I'm not naive enough to think that he has time to read every letter that gets sent to his office. But, one of his constituents took the time to write a letter to voice his personally important concerns. At least have the respect to get one of your interns write an actual response instead of the slap in the face that was returned.


----------



## utahgolf (Sep 8, 2007)

I just have one question, How much is Rep. Ivory paying his wife from his public lands organization?


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

massmanute said:


> Here's an email reply I just got from Senator Lee's office. It is more or less a non-reply. I removed my name from the reply (Dear XXX). I did not try to clean up the formatting, just a cut and paste from my email box.
> 
> April 27, 2015​ Dear XXX:​
> Thank you for contacting Senator Lee about public lands. This and other issues are important to him. As a staff, we always keep him apprised of the information contained in letters like yours and he is aware of your thoughts and insight. Please continue to stay involved in the process and also reach out to your local leaders and representatives.
> ...


Haha. It is definitely a form letter. I received the exact same email this morning. At least Senator Hatch addressed the issue I asked him about(poorly, but better than a non answer with a generic statement from his website.)


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

Since my wife and I are both of native american descendancy (Creek & Kaskaskia) I claim Utah as our land. Any questions?


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

LostLouisianian said:


> Since my wife and I are both of native american descendancy (Creek & Kaskaskia) I claim Utah as our land. Any questions?


Nope, you would have to be a Ute, Navajo, Paiute, or a Shoshone to lay claim to Utah.

Sorry if I left any out.


----------



## Dunkem (May 8, 2012)

Critter said:


> Nope, you would have to be a Ute, Navajo, Paiute, or a Shoshone to lay claim to Utah.
> 
> Sorry if I left any out.


Goshutes?


----------



## massmanute (Apr 23, 2012)

LostLouisianian said:


> Since my wife and I are both of native american descendancy (Creek & Kaskaskia) I claim Utah as our land. Any questions?


You make an excellent point, though perhaps in your case it might apply more to a different region, but the principle is valid.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Dunkem said:


> Goshutes?


I knew that I was going to leave at least one out if not more.


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

massmanute said:


> You make an excellent point, though perhaps in your case it might apply more to a different region, but the principle is valid.


Yes, I guess we could lay claim to Illinois and Alabama where our ancestry was located. Since the Creeks were forcibly relocated to Oklahoma we'll take Oklahoma as well.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Remember these two and their parties when you vote:

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=34426844&ni...h-group-to-take-land-from-feds&s_cid=queue-14


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Remember these two and their parties when you vote:
> 
> http://www.ksl.com/?sid=34426844&ni...h-group-to-take-land-from-feds&s_cid=queue-14


Looks like it's time to get back on the phone and send a few more emails. These will probably fall on deaf ears, but if we don't voice our opposition, no one in the state is going to do it for us.


----------



## The Naturalist (Oct 13, 2007)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Remember these two and their parties when you vote:
> 
> http://www.ksl.com/?sid=34426844&ni...h-group-to-take-land-from-feds&s_cid=queue-14


Bishop...maybe, if you donated $5,000 to his treasure chest, he might actually look at your email, or listen to phone calls, but it is still worthy of trying!


----------

