# Privatize the Entire State of Utah?



## xxxxxxBirdDogger (Mar 7, 2008)

I heard it with my own ears. Michael Waddoups, President of the Utah Senate, said it. He said the intent behind the bills passed this year to usurp federal land within Utah's borders is to privatize all of the federal land in utah except for national parks. Our state legislature just passed the bills that might take away your hunting, hiking, camping, fishing, and other public lands access forever...Unless you are one of the lucky few with access to the pocketbooks of legislators who will undoubtedly profit from the sale of all of our public lands. Remember, approximately 2/3 of the legislature deals in real estate in some form. 

Goodbye, Utah. It was nice seeing you while I had the chance. Sorry, kids, but you won't grow up to see Utah's abundant wildlife and wild lands.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

That's too bad.

My only comment is Wyoming has nothing to offer, just sagebrush, ********, and a handful of antelope...a couple of geysers up north. 

It's like 4 o'clock in the morning. eyegottap


----------



## The Naturalist (Oct 13, 2007)

BirdDogger said:


> I heard it with my own ears. Michael Waddoups, President of the Utah Senate, said it. He said the intent behind the bills passed this year to usurp federal land within Utah's borders is to privatize all of the federal land in utah except for national parks. Our state legislature just passed the bills that might take away your hunting, hiking, camping, fishing, and other public lands access forever...Unless you are one of the lucky few with access to the pocketbooks of legislators who will undoubtedly profit from the sale of all of our public lands. Remember, approximately 2/3 of the legislature deals in real estate in some form.
> 
> Goodbye, Utah. It was nice seeing you while I had the chance. Sorry, kids, but you won't grow up to see Utah's abundant wildlife and wild lands.


There was never any question in my mind that was what it was all about. I did a little research the other day and the total budget for the Dept. of Natural Resources in the State of Utah was something like 2%. Do we realize what their budget would have to look like if they all of sudden were dumped on with all the Federal land? There is absolutely no way the State could budget for that! The only answer would be to sell it! It is so obvious that the greedy little boogers in the Legislature know this and that is what they wanted. And they (Legislators) try to tug on our sympathies by saying that they are doing it to help fund Education....a big BS to that!
There is no way though.....it will be lost in court.....the Constitution clearly says that State law can't trump Federal Law. The only problem is that now the Legislature has just wasted millions more of our dollars that could be better spent.


----------



## xxxxxxBirdDogger (Mar 7, 2008)

> There is no way though.....it will be lost in court.....the Constitution clearly says that State law can't trump Federal Law. The only problem is that now the Legislature has just wasted millions more of our dollars that could be better spent.


According to Waddoups, North Dakota has already succeeded in doing exactly what Utah has planned to do. ND's is the model they plan to follow. The difference is that North Dakota held on to much of their land and leased it out or designated it for public use rather than sell it off.

Waddoups specifically said that they plan to parcel the land out for complete liquidation. The original agreement when Utah became a state said that federal lands would be sold off and Utah would receive 5% of the proceeds. Waddoups said the legislature finds that deal acceptable. They just want the lands in private hands so that it can be taxed. They are planning to sell off all of our public lands for 5 cents on the dollar. Seriously.


----------



## leviwin (Dec 7, 2011)

I think it is just another waste of our taxpayer money. They will spend all this money in the courts and get the lawyers and their friends rich. Hopefully in the end it will not work out and the land will stay public. It would be bad to loose all the land for 5 cent on the dollar. Looks like the house and senate are trying to bite the hands that feed them.


----------



## The Naturalist (Oct 13, 2007)

Waddoups claims that North Dakota's Enabling Act is worded identical to Utah's Enabling Act. He is probably hoping that people won't take the time to read them both. I have. There are some similarities, but also some major differences. first being that North Dakota's Enabling Act was tied in with South Dakota, Montana, and if I remember right, Washington. Second; the only similarities that I could see in land grants to the respective States of ND, and Utah were in that certain sections were to be set aside for townships, and for the establishments of Universities, jails, etc.
I could see nothing in Utah's Enabling Act that required the Federal Gov. to eventually turn all lands over to the State. North Dakota's get a little confusing on this issue because it is tied in with the other States mentioned.
But then I'm not a lawyer and the wording gets quite confusing at times to try and follow. My gut feeling though is, from what I read, it would be quite a stretch to say that Utah could do what ND did.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Naturalist is correct. Waddups is an ignorant liar with no clue. Funny to me how much these guys put in a VERY creative interpretation of the Utah enabling act, but ignore the constitution, and FLPMA. The other thing they are leaving out is that from 1896 to 1976, the Federal Government TRIED to sell off the lands. What lands were left after 1976 are now BLM lands. But after 80 years of trying to get rid of the lands, a time when the State of Utah could have had these lands for just about nothing, BLM decided they finally better start some kind of management since no one wanted them. Now nearly 40 years later Utah wants them? Really? 

Again, if that is the plan - the WRONG way to do is by the legislature. If Hatch, Lee and crew want to represent what these groups are preaching, they they are the ones that need to step up and do something. IF this is to happen, it HAS to be done Congressionally. 

And comparison to the Dakotas? Really? Lets see. Most of the Dakotas were gobbled up by homesteaders when they had the chance. Most of Utah was left because no farmer wanted it.


----------

