# Land transfer a little at a time.



## Hoopermat (Dec 17, 2010)

http://www.stgeorgeutah.com/news/ar...f-ohv-area-to-county-management/#.WOejyUhOmEc

Hatch doesn't even try to hide that this is for a developer. 
He is also trying to get the OHV people on his side


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

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

Why should I oppose this? The article states that the land will be conveyed with the stipulation that it remain open to public OHV use, right? I've said this on other threads and I'll reiterate it here: I don't care who owns it so long as it remains open for us to use it. My biggest, and really only beef with transferring federal lands to the state is that I fully believe the state will sell them and the public will be shut out. It sounds like this land will be conveyed in a way that guarantees that will NOT happen.


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

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


----------



## Idratherbehunting (Jul 17, 2013)

Vanilla said:


> The only thing I know about this bill is the link provided. But let's just assume for the sake of discussion that this article accurately reflects the nature of the proposed legislation.
> 
> Why should I oppose this? The article states that the land will be conveyed with the stipulation that it remain open to public OHV use, right? I've said this on other threads and I'll reiterate it here: I don't care who owns it so long as it remains open for us to use it. My biggest, and really only beef with transferring federal lands to the state is that I fully believe the state will sell them and the public will be shut out. It sounds like this land will be conveyed in a way that guarantees that will NOT happen.


I agree. That is my biggest opposition to land transfer as well. I'm interested to see what type of economic impact this could have on the county, as from my understanding, the federal government would currently be paying them in lieu of the property taxes that they'd be able to collect on the land. If the county owns it, will they be able to maintain it? That would be my biggest concern.


----------



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

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

And if the county wants land that belongs to every American so badly, then offer to pay for it. I don't get land handed out to me for nothing and neither should they. Want it bad enough? Offer to purchase it from the American people who own it.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

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

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

I oppose the transfer of federal lands to the state. I don't trust they will remain public. But I'm open to discussing reasonable proposals, so long as they ensure continued public use. That is my one and only priority on this issue.


----------



## OriginalOscar (Sep 5, 2016)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> The issue is a story of economics. If you support the transfer of public lands (even bit by bit) you don't support public lands. They can pass whatever legislation they want today and pass legislation allowing for sale tomorrow when they can't pay their bills. The county and state will not want to throw money in a money pit if that's what it eventually becomes. I think some are realizing they are far from having the support to sale wide swaths of our public lands without major backlash, so now it's time to steer the attempts and bills towards smaller scale areas and slowly start chipping away. What things like this do IMO is no different than a full transfer just to watch acreage be sold off little by little. It's like hunting, if someone tried to ban hunting as a whole tomorrow it wouldn't pass, anywhere. But if you can slowly chop around the edges like ban bear hunting with dogs, the bear hunting with bait, then bear hunting all together in a place, you get closer to your end goal. Anyone who thinks these guys end goal is not a reduction in public lands hasn't paid enough attention to them. At Chris Stewart's town hall he said he wanted to work to transfer as much public lands to the state as possible. That's the goal, and bills like this or HR 622 are just those small chipping away that eventually gets to that main goal. If the state or county could afford such things, I'd support it. They can't, and before you know it legislation will be passed just as quickly to allow for the sale of places that are eating holes in the state or county budgets. Show me the financial viability of such a plan, show me the numbers, and maybe I can support it. I am weary of such bills by people who have advocated to transfer all federal public lands over to the states which would end in their sale. I would say their motives are far from sincere just like any politician.
> 
> And if the county wants land that belongs to every American so badly, then offer to pay for it. I don't get land handed out to me for nothing and neither should they. Want it bad enough? Offer to purchase it from the American people who own it.


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

Doesn't really matter fed versus state versus county versus city. Government is government. It's ok


----------



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

OriginalOscar said:


> Have you visited Snow Canyon State Park or noticed the really nice Salt Lake County Parks? If it's open to the public, well maintained, and offers recreation for a fast growing region of the state it's ok.
> 
> Doesn't really matter fed versus state versus county versus city. Government is government. It's ok


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

As I said every American currently owns this land and if Washington County wants it, they can purchase it from the American people.


----------



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

Vanilla said:


> You can't have a discussion on this topic without getting a lecture. My hypothetical was pretty limited in scope, and was just that- a hypothetical.
> 
> Eventually people will learn that opposing everything just for the sake of opposition gets you nowhere. I would have thought democrats showed that the last two days pretty clearly?
> 
> I oppose the transfer of federal lands to the state. I don't trust they will remain public. But I'm open to discussing reasonable proposals, so long as they ensure continued public use. That is my one and only priority on this issue.


Sorry for my long drawn out response. I get it's hypothetical, transfer in any form is simply one step closer to sale and I know you know that. In a state like Utah we all know a law passed today saying no to selling land can be easily overturned tomorrow. I just don't care to move that step closer to sale no matter how smal of a step it may be. #keepitpublic is my main goal here as well, let's just keep on keeping on towards that's goal and future for our kids and grandkids.


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

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


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

I don't trust Hatch, and this bill smells fishy. No surprise, really. Anybody who gets large donations from the supplement industry and argues against their regulation is acting against the public interest.


----------



## Hoopermat (Dec 17, 2010)

BPturkeys said:


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


Could be just simply be a pilot program for hatch and fellow land grabbers to set a precedent for further action. 
If they transfer to the county and the management is successful then they would have their presedent for future land grabs. 
One fault is this is a pay to play recreation area. So It could be profitable. Unlike the milllions of acres of public lands they cannot make money with so would be sold


----------



## OriginalOscar (Sep 5, 2016)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> I actually agree with you here. The problem is, the state already underfunds our state parks farther than the Feds underfund our federal parks. Have you seen the parks budget? Have you seen how many fewer rangers that are employed for state parks year in and year out? State park budgets are also underfunded. If the state could walk the walk instead of just talking the talk I'd trust them. They also can't afford the land or parks they manage. They charge 5-10 times what the Feds do for several fees, and don't have the pockets the Feds do. I enjoy our state parks but also think they deserve better funding as well. There's no good reason for the bill other than to further the agenda of the polticians who don't like or public lands in the way they exist today.
> 
> As I said every American currently owns this land and if Washington County wants it, they can purchase it from the American people.


Do you realize how bad you contradict yourself? Mullah level rant about ZERO tolerance for any land transfer and now you are ok with it? Really should figure it out.

The condition and amenities at most state parks are better than federal. There is a reason the Forest Service contracted management of the campgrounds years ago is because they don't manage well. Funny how if you commit to have someone (old people in a RV) onsite to collect money, clean the pottie, and call cops if hippies (Do Gooders) show up you have a nice experience and the feds get $$$.

Transfer select areas to state, local control makes sense if there is a clear plan to protect public access and develop those areas for our growing population. Local interests are more vested and reactive.


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

This area should be reclassified by congress...by law this is how it is supposed to be done..to a National Recreation area. It should be modeled after the Oregon Dunes National Recreations area with tweaks specific to this area. By law and definition, these areas are intended to be used with guaranteed public access.

Why, if for not some hidden local agenda, would Hatch and the land grabbers choose to turn the land over to a government agency(local) that has little or no experience in land management, little or no money for management, and proven vulnerability to local narrow objectives instead of using the National Recreation Area pathway that is already well established and legal to protect and enhance this area's recreational potential?


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

BPturkeys said:


> This area should be reclassified by congress...by law this is how it is supposed to be done..to a National Recreation area. It should be modeled after the Oregon Dunes National Recreations area with tweaks specific to this area. By law and definition, these areas are intended to be used with guaranteed public access.
> 
> *Why, if for not some hidden local agenda, would Hatch and the land grabbers choose to turn the land over to a government agency(local) that has little or no experience in land management, little or no money for management, and proven vulnerability to local narrow objectives instead of using the National Recreation Area pathway that is already well established and legal to protect and enhance this area's recreational potential?*


Precisely. Very fishy. And, the solution to the maintenance backlog in our national parks and recreation areas is increased funding, not transferring land to local profiteers.


----------



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

OriginalOscar said:


> Do you realize how bad you contradict yourself? Mullah level rant about ZERO tolerance for any land transfer and now you are ok with it? Really should figure it out.
> 
> The condition and amenities at most state parks are better than federal. There is a reason the Forest Service contracted management of the campgrounds years ago is because they don't manage well. Funny how if you commit to have someone (old people in a RV) onsite to collect money, clean the pottie, and call cops if hippies (Do Gooders) show up you have a nice experience and the feds get $$$.
> 
> Transfer select areas to state, local control makes sense if there is a clear plan to protect public access and develop those areas for our growing population. Local interests are more vested and reactive.


Let me be perfectly clear then. I am 100% against this transfer or any wide scale transfer of federal land to a state government who has neither the resources or funding to manage it. I do not support the agenda the sponsors of this bill are pursuing. I also do not support the theft of property owned by the entire country for free to a local government just because they want it. I want a lot of things, I don't get them for free. Transfer ends in sale. The state has proven with over half its SITLA land the only way they can afford to "manage it" or gain a profit from it is by selling it. I don't support this transfer or any transfer not because I don't agree with you on more local input but because fiscally it will not work in the long run, period.


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

Federal mangers have no personal, vested interest in some piece of property in Utah. They have nothing to gain or lose personally except their jobs if it isn't managed right. Therefore they are not susceptible to temptation for personal gain or pressure from those who would gain personally by private ownership. Locals, these so-called vested, are exactly that...they are personally vested...they have nothing to lose but everything to gain by transfers to local/state ownership. Gee, I wonder how unbiased they will be when management decisions are being made? 
You will never, ever convince me that the land grabbers are doing this for the betterment of the general public or some other altruistic reason. They are doing it for one reason...MONEY! Money for themselves or money from persons/corporations that will profit and have/will use this blood money to help them get re-elected.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

While we sit on this forum and laud the Feds, let me point out that the ONLY way the state gets any control of federal public lands is if the Feds give it to them. Utah can waste all the money in the world suing for control...they will lose every time. So if the Feds are willing to give the land away to states, who says in the future they won't sell it off too? We talk about budget concerns, well, our federal government has not been the model for fiscal responsibility.

Bears Ears is a popular topic for many on this issue right now. Well, the national monument designation has more potential to restrict and interfere with my access and use of that land than when it was kept regular BLM land under "30 year old" policies we've "stepped back" to these days. Something to think about, maybe?

So we can bang the #keepitpublic drum and demand federal ownership, all the while getting stabbed in the back in the same way by the Feds. Or, we can do more than just post on the internet to the same 7 people that read this sub-forum by actually going and doing something about the issue. How many people have sat face to face with their elected officials and talked public access? How many days have you spent lobbying at the Capitol? How much money and/or time have you donated to organizations that fight for public access? Post on forums to educate and inform, not with the idea you're making a change. And generally, people don't take well to being talked down to by those trying to educate and inform.

Someone like rjefre...you guys ought to know how much time he spends fighting the good fight! It's unreal. When he posts, I listen. He's earned his street cred, because I know for every post he makes, he's had 5 face to face conversations, meetings, or took an elected official out to the field to SHOW what the issues are. We'd all do well to follow R on this.

Just my 7 cents on the issue.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

Vanilla said:


> While we sit on this forum and laud the Feds, let me point out that the ONLY way the state gets any control of federal public lands is if the Feds give it to them. Utah can waste all the money in the world suing for control...they will lose every time. So if the Feds are willing to give the land away to states, who says in the future they won't sell it off too? We talk about budget concerns, well, our federal government has not been the model for fiscal responsibility.
> 
> Are the feds giving land to the states? Are they selling land off? Is there precedent for your hypotheticals?
> 
> ...


I'll see your 7 cents, and raise you $0.02.


----------



## OriginalOscar (Sep 5, 2016)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> The state has proven with over half its SITLA land the only way they can afford to "manage it" or gain a profit from it is by selling it. I don't support this transfer or any transfer not because I don't agree with you on more local input but because fiscally it will not work in the long run, period.


You do know SITLA land does not belong to the public; it belongs to SITLA for one purpose; generate revenue to public schools.

Feel fortunate the vast majority of SITLA lands are available to the public for use. Do Gooder squawking when parcels are leased or sold is laughable.

Also over 60% of SITLA land is still retained.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

OriginalOscar said:


> You do know SITLA land does not belong to the public; it belongs to SITLA for one purpose; generate revenue to public schools.
> 
> Feel fortunate the vast majority of SITLA lands are available to the public for use. Do Gooder squawking when parcels are leased or sold is laughable.
> 
> Also over 60% of SITLA land is still retained.


I hope you understand the irony of your argument. SITLA lands were deeded to the state by the Federal government at the time of statehood. So far, they have sold off 40% of those holdings. That doesn't argue that the state wouldn't sell off any lands the federal government would cede to the state in the future. In fact, one would expect the opposite.

Here's an article on this issue. Besides outright selling off those lands, there's a history of malfeasance and abuse surrounding the program at the state level:

http://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?ref=/sltrib/news/55641500-78/lands-trust-million-state.html.csp


----------



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

OriginalOscar said:


> You do know SITLA land does not belong to the public; it belongs to SITLA for one purpose; generate revenue to public schools.
> 
> Feel fortunate the vast majority of SITLA lands are available to the public for use. Do Gooder squawking when parcels are leased or sold is laughable.
> 
> Also over 60% of SITLA land is still retained.


Right, and by law the states budget has to balance. It makes no difference if you call the state managment agency SITLA or Utah Division of land management, THEY CANT LOSE MONEY ON THE LAND. SITLA is a prime example the state doesn't know how to manage for revenu or they wouldn't be selling the biggest asset they have, they would be finding ways to make money off it other than short term gains by selling it. SITLA gets millions off my and your license fees every year for us to "be so lucky". And no, 55% of SITLA land has been sold, 45% is still retained. SITLA can sale whatever they want, I'm not saying I'm mad they've sold it, I'm using it as an example of what happens when the state needs to make money off land. That's how they end up doing it. You can say the change in agency makes a difference but in reality if you're managing for multiple use rather than just revenue it becomes even more expensive, in fact a lot more expensive to manage. So SITLA sale everything you have, but the state of Utah can keep their hands off of public lands when they don't have the money to manage or control it.


----------



## OriginalOscar (Sep 5, 2016)

Article makes my point. Thank you.



> Yet West's team found numerous signs of progress, particularly in Utah, which another co-author singled out as an example of how to manage school trust lands right. The state strives to maximize revenues and ensure local control in how proceeds are spent on schools, said Margaret Bird of the State Office of Education. But it wasn't that long ago that Utah was "the poster child for how to screw things up," she said.
> 
> As a researcher in that office in the 1980s, Bird documented numerous abuses. For example, operators were paying a 15-cent-per-ton royalty on coal at a time when the going rate was $2, then the money was not invested in education, said Bird, who now runs the program that disburses school-trust money. Such revelations spurred the 1994 creation of the School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration and a "paradigm shift" in how trust lands were managed.
> 
> Since then the State School Fund has grown from less than $50 million to nearly $1.4 billion, according to SITLA Executive Director Kevin Carter.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

OriginalOscar said:


> Article makes my point. Thank you.


And so I guess we're to be congratulated for no longer screwing things up. That's progress, but it certainly doesn't make me anxious to support TPL. I was surprised to read that SITLA kicked only comprise 0.7% of the total for public education.


----------

