# The so-called "American Lands Council"



## Trooper (Oct 18, 2007)

I get automated email from the so-called "American lands Council" and this is the latest. 

"If Ken Ivory could ask the Republican presidential hopefuls a question at their debate Wednesday night in Colorado...First, Ivory would hold up a color-coded map showing the huge amount of land in the West — about 50% of the entire region, compared with a fraction of that in the East — owned by the federal government. Then Ivory would hit the candidates with his radical proposal: Why not transfer control of most of that land to the states, which could clear the way for more hunting and fishing, more oil wells and coal mines and tree harvests, with all the economic benefits that surely would follow?"

This raises two questions for me:
1. Is it our goal to make Utah look like "the east"?
2. What magic does Ken possess that simultaneously allows more "hunting and fishing" and yet more "oil wells and coal mines"? I say he's a witch!


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

Never ask specifics to liars, they will feed you bs and lie all day long. What he really wanted to say is that he wants to LIMIT hunting and fishing to a select few while opening up the resources to a select few...those select few will pay him and his cronies handsomely for their favors.


----------



## utahgolf (Sep 8, 2007)

His color coded map is the dumbest thing I've ever seen. How much public access to hunting is there in those states back east compared to utah?


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Reminds me of Ross Perot's charts he'd use in the '92 debates. Those were the same charts that handed the presidency to Bill Clinton.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Trooper said:


> I get automated email from the so-called "American lands Council" and this is the latest.
> 
> "If Ken Ivory could ask the Republican presidential hopefuls a question at their debate Wednesday night in Colorado...First, Ivory would hold up a color-coded map showing the huge amount of land in the West - about 50% of the entire region, compared with a fraction of that in the East - owned by the federal government. Then Ivory would hit the candidates with his radical proposal: Why not transfer control of most of that land to the states, which could clear the way for more hunting and fishing, more oil wells and coal mines and tree harvests, with all the economic benefits that surely would follow?"
> 
> ...


Lets see.

1. More oil wells, coal mines, and tree harvests. Yep on all three, although market price and demand will dictate profitability and in the case of timber and coal, it is far from a sure thing that demand and profitability will be there.

2. More hunting and fishing. :rotfl: Heck no! Yet, it still amazes me how many sportsmen, especially in the 435, believe this BS to be the case. Case in point, is there more fishing or less since HB 141 got tossed out on its ear by the courts last week. 

3. "all the economic benefits". I still maintain this also is very far from being a sure thing over the long haul. Sure there may be boom times in the oil patch with unlimited drilling, but as I stated previously, markets will fluctuate and bad times will also occur. If the markets aren't there for a bunch of coal, very likely, with global warming initiatives gaining credibility, then rural counties may be looking at pipe dreams. Also, It is far from a sure thing IMO, that the loss of PILT to rural counties will be replaced by this perceived largesse of property taxes. What does seem certain is that privatization of the Federal lands WOULD put a damper on the sustainable tourist/recreationalist economy that is currently robust in our state.


----------



## utahgolf (Sep 8, 2007)

Trooper said:


> 2. What magic does Ken posses that simultaneously allows more "hunting and fishing" and yet more "oil wells and coal mines"? I say he's a witch!


I can attempt to answer this question. Ivory receives money from oil and coal lobby. Therefore he lines his pockets and uses that money to take himself and his cronies to hunt and fish around the world? Hence, more hunting and fishing.  :?


----------



## Jedidiah (Oct 10, 2014)

Alright, I'm going to stick my head up, don't cut if off please....I really don't understand the answer to this question and don't have strong convictions about it:

Aren't the Rabbit Gulch and Tabby Mountain WMAs full of oil wells AND hunting? It does seem like it's working there, but I'm fully prepared to hear your argument as to why it's not.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Jedidiah said:


> Alright, I'm going to stick my head up, don't cut if off please....I really don't understand the answer to this question and don't have strong convictions about it:
> 
> Aren't the Rabbit Gulch and Tabby Mountain WMAs full of oil wells AND hunting? It does seem like it's working there, but I'm fully prepared to hear your argument as to why it's not.


Fair question actually. I don't know about rabbit gulch, but Tabby Mountain is SITLA land. It was land ceded to the state for funding schools. A few points about it and the potential land grab.

1. The DWR pays SITLA for the right of sportsmen to access SITLA land. I don't know the sum offhand, but it is considerable. Were the DWR not to pay, or a so called "higher lease bidder" come along, the SITLA administrators could post it no trespassing. If the State were to land most or all of the Federal land and demand similarly, it would probably demolish the entire DWR budget, even with extreme increases in licenses and fees.

2. SITLA land is occasionally sold off to the highest bidder. A prime parcel on the Green river was sold off recently that almost resulted in a part of the renowned "A" section being developed and potentially posted.

3. The major fear if the State acquires all of the Federal land is that they will sell it off and it will become private property and posted. Why is this a fear? First off, that is what they have always said they would do! We are just taking the state and politicians like Ivory at their word. Next, at the present time, the Federal government pays rural (non rural too) counties what is called Payments in lieu of taxes. (PILT) These payments represent a major source of income to some rural counties. The state and SITLA does not pay PILT. These counties would suffer financial ruin unless the land is sold and property taxes collected to help recoup lost PILT. Finally, the economic drain to administer, fight fires, and manage current Federal lands would be such a drain on State resources that they would be forced sooner or later to start selling.

There are probably more points that could be added, but these were off the top of my head.


----------



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

All that pretty red map means is every American has access to those red areas on the map already. You offer us nothing Mr. Ivory, crawl under a rock and never return.... And take Rob Bishop and Mike Lee with you. You're all pukes.


----------



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

Jedidiah said:


> Alright, I'm going to stick my head up, don't cut if off please....I really don't understand the answer to this question and don't have strong convictions about it:
> 
> Aren't the Rabbit Gulch and Tabby Mountain WMAs full of oil wells AND hunting? It does seem like it's working there, but I'm fully prepared to hear your argument as to why it's not.


Better look at Colorado. No state land that isn't leased by Parks and wildlife is not open to hunting and fishing. Guess what is? Forest Service and BLM. No more needs to be said.


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

Jedidiah said:


> Alright, I'm going to stick my head up, don't cut if off please....I really don't understand the answer to this question and don't have strong convictions about it:
> 
> Aren't the Rabbit Gulch and Tabby Mountain WMAs full of oil wells AND hunting? It does seem like it's working there, but I'm fully prepared to hear your argument as to why it's not.


Oil and gas wells can be somewhat compatible with hunting but crude oil and natural gas do not react well when a bullet creates a spark or wildfire near them. The chances are slim of that of course but it is still a chance nonetheless. They aren't called Volatile Organic Compounds fer nuthin. Deer and other wildlife don't seem to mind those sorts of operations but if the waste is not properly disposed of it can create an environmental problem. I worked with that industry for about 15 years back in the 70's and 80's and have seen first hand the good and the bad, a lot of the bad.


----------



## twall13 (Aug 2, 2015)

Go listen to Randy Newberg's latest podcast, it talks specifically about this issue and why it is a BAD idea.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Better look at Colorado. No state land that isn't leased by Parks and wildlife is not open to hunting and fishing. Guess what is? Forest Service and BLM. No more needs to be said.


Except for the FS and BLM land tied up in "ranching for wildlife" scams. Similar problem to the Wilkes brothers scenario in MT, but in CO its the state DWR restricting fly in access(some hike in access as well) to these parcels.

But still a good point on state lands in general.


----------



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

Lonetree said:


> Except for the FS and BLM land tied up in "ranching for wildlife" scams. Similar problem to the Wilkes brothers scenario in MT, but in CO its the state DWR restricting fly in access(some hike in access as well) to these parcels.
> 
> But still a good point on state lands in general.


I was unaware they wouldn't let you access public lands even by flying in. How is the state DWR allowed to block access to federal public lands even by flight? That's a big load of ****if I've heard any.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> I was unaware they wouldn't let you access public lands even by flying in. How is the state DWR allowed to block access to federal public lands even by flight? That's a big load of ****if I've heard any.


Start looking at CWMUs and land owner cooperatives here in Utah, many of them encompass plenty of public land that is not accessible to the public, but is to high paying CWMU tag holders. This includes state, BLM, and Forest Service lands.

Now in some of these cases the public lands have never had public access of any kind. While in many cases some of these public lands use to have access via public right of ways such as RS2477 easements that use to provide public access across public and private property, to these public parcels. Many of these easements have been blocked by private property owners, and these public lands are now part of CWMUs where the private land owners are profiting not only from public wildlife, but public lands as well.

Food for thought on the motivations behind some people, their state agency allies, some conservation orgs, and the "movement" to wrest control of federal public lands to the state.


----------



## stevo1 (Sep 13, 2007)

It would be great if the fishermen, hunters and sportsman of district 47 could send Ken Ivory packing.


----------

