# Herrod on Land Transfer - Utah Republican Primary



## toasty (May 15, 2008)

4 days to vote for the candidate to replace Chafetz in the upcoming election for those in district 3. I did some research tonight trying to find their stance on transfer of public lands. Herrod voted several times to pursue the transfer of federal lands to the state. He is also a developer. Ainge stated he wanted to gut the antiquities act (not necessarily saying this is a good or bad thing). He has nothing on this on his website. I can't find too much detail on what Curtis thinks. Anybody have any more information as it pertains to transfer of federal lands to the state?


----------



## Hoopermat (Dec 17, 2010)

Vote smart people. We don't need another land grabber in office


----------



## toasty (May 15, 2008)

Hoopermat said:


> Vote smart people. We don't need another land grabber in office


 I agree, this is a key issue for me this election. I am worried if these guys get their way, there will be not where left to hunt for my children and grandchildren.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

If I could vote (I can't, not in the district) it would be none of the above.
It is really too bad to see that the complacency of the R's leads to this few poor choices.


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

It's up to you Republicans at this point...None of the candidates are against Utah's land grab BUT Herrod is by far and away the strongest supporter of the land grab. He comes right out and says it is and was and always will be at the top of his list of things to get done. This guy might be even worse than Bishop...ok, nobody is really worse than Bishop...but when it comes to transferring all public land into private control...two peas in a pod.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

While it is very likely that I will vote for Dr. Allen in the general election, I am eligible to vote in this primary. (and did so) While there are more issues than TPL that can affect a given vote, here is how I would break down these three with regards to the "stuff we talk about here". 

Ainge; It is true that all three of the "R" candidates have spent much of the primary trying to show Utah county how conservative they are. However, Ainge doesn't have a previous record to go by, so he can attack his opponents for voting for such transgressions like tax increases while he has never cast such a vote. (or had the chance to). This makes him the greatest unknown. However, I suspect, if elected, he would follow the party line fairly closely and be pretty pro TPL if his perceived superiors told him to do so. FWIW, also, his PAC (his daddy) favored Gordon Hayward going to the Celtics so that is a negative in my book. :evil:  

Herrod; He has the backing of Ted Cruz and has been quite forthcoming that he will favor TPL strongly. His voting record would leave little doubt what you are getting with him. Bishop "lite" is probably on the mark. 

Curtis; Our business is in Provo and TBH, I haven't thought he has been too bad as a mayor. That said, I don't know where he stands on TPL, and do think the pressure will be on for him to be pro TPL from peers and some constituents. However, I suspect he is the most moderate of the three in governance. (which may be good or bad, depending on you point of view) I don't expect him to be a champion of public lands if he is elected either.


----------



## davidlgreencpa (Aug 14, 2017)

I'll take State ownership over Federal any day. You are delusional if you put your faith in future access and hunting rights in the hands of the Feds controlled by anti hunting populations in California and New York


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



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

davidlgreencpa said:


> I'll take State ownership over Federal any day. You are delusional if you put your faith in future access and hunting rights in the hands of the Feds controlled by anti hunting populations in California and New York
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


You obviously haven't done much thinking on this subject except for the knee jerk reaction "states can manage it better" argument. So what happens when the state of Utah can't fund a fire like Brian Head? What happens when the states budget gets pinched because of fires, management costs, lawsuits, and not enough funding? They either raise your taxes or sale it. My guess is you enjoy your BLM and Forest service lands if you live here in the state, if you wish to see them remain open and public to you, federal management and oversight of these lands is by far the safest and best choice for future access and public ownership of these places. The state of Utah can't afford what the feds can afford, point blank, period. Not only does the state end up with all the bills, they also lose PILT grants which my county got nearly 2 million in this year for the federal lands within its boundaries. I get the feds don't sound great and usually aren't the best answer but here, if you truly wish to see these places stay open and public, the feds are the only option. The second they turn over to state ownership is the second they are managed for profit and ONLY profit, and thats when you'll see the bidding on what are now all our public lands begin. Oh and I doubt you or I will be outbidding out of state billionaires who are raising their hands at these auctions. It's already happening in the west. Look at Montana or Idaho and see the areas the Wilks brothers have bought and shut the public out of and you'll see the future of your public lands under state ownership. But of course you've drank the Utah Kool-aid, and you think its sweet, but the bitterness just hasn't hit yet, oh and there's rat poison inside the Kool-aid Utah politicians just forgot to tell you about. So go ahead support state ownership, it will turn from state to private before too long, and there'll be nothing you, me, or anyone else can do about it once your favorite chunk of public land paradise is sold to the highest bidder. Then you'll have no access, sounds like a wonderful plan.


----------



## Hoopermat (Dec 17, 2010)

davidlgreencpa said:


> I'll take State ownership over Federal any day. You are delusional if you put your faith in future access and hunting rights in the hands of the Feds controlled by anti hunting populations in California and New York
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


O|*O|*
Before you open your mouth please do a little reading of some facts. 
You going to get a lashing from the many many people on this forum that are well educated on this subject.


----------



## davidlgreencpa (Aug 14, 2017)

Hoopermat said:


> O|*O|*
> Before you open your mouth please do a little reading of some facts.
> You going to get a lashing from the many many people on this forum that are well educated on this subject.


I'll take the lashing confident I'm not the one being used and manipulated

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## davidlgreencpa (Aug 14, 2017)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> You obviously haven't done much thinking on this subject except for the knee jerk reaction "states can manage it better" argument. So what happens when the state of Utah can't fund a fire like Brian Head? What happens when the states budget gets pinched because of fires, management costs, lawsuits, and not enough funding? They either raise your taxes or sale it. My guess is you enjoy your BLM and Forest service lands if you live here in the state, if you wish to see them remain open and public to you, federal management and oversight of these lands is by far the safest and best choice for future access and public ownership of these places. The state of Utah can't afford what the feds can afford, point blank, period. Not only does the state end up with all the bills, they also lose PILT grants which my county got nearly 2 million in this year for the federal lands within its boundaries. I get the feds don't sound great and usually aren't the best answer but here, if you truly wish to see these places stay open and public, the feds are the only option. The second they turn over to state ownership is the second they are managed for profit and ONLY profit, and thats when you'll see the bidding on what are now all our public lands begin. Oh and I doubt you or I will be outbidding out of state billionaires who are raising their hands at these auctions. It's already happening in the west. Look at Montana or Idaho and see the areas the Wilks brothers have bought and shut the public out of and you'll see the future of your public lands under state ownership. But of course you've drank the Utah Kool-aid, and you think its sweet, but the bitterness just hasn't hit yet, oh and there's rat poison inside the Kool-aid Utah politicians just forgot to tell you about. So go ahead support state ownership, it will turn from state to private before too long, and there'll be nothing you, me, or anyone else can do about it once your favorite chunk of public land paradise is sold to the highest bidder. Then you'll have no access, sounds like a wonderful plan.


Alarmist bs. Use a little common sense. Majority of USA is shifting away from hunting. It's only a matter of time when that translates to restrictions and prohibitions on federally controlled lands. Utah is more conservative and we have a better chance of electing representatives that match my hunting priorities. Ridiculous to assume utah ownership translates to selling to the highest bidder - it wouldn't be the same as state trust lands currently designated to raise revenue to support schools. Also false to claim Utah wouldn't have funds to maintain the lands. Ownership transfer would include both costs and revenues.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Hoopermat (Dec 17, 2010)

I have often wondered what the people that want the transfer believe. 
If you wouldn't mind answering a couple questions. 

What is it that makes you want to support the transfer of the public lands?
Why do you believe the transfer is a positive for the people?
Do you feel the the fed management of public lands has taken anything from you and if so what?


----------



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

davidlgreencpa said:


> Alarmist bs. Use a little common sense. Majority of USA is shifting away from hunting. It's only a matter of time when that translates to restrictions and prohibitions on federally controlled lands. Utah is more conservative and we have a better chance of electing representatives that match my hunting priorities. Ridiculous to assume utah ownership translates to selling to the highest bidder - it wouldn't be the same as state trust lands currently designated to raise revenue to support schools. Also false to claim Utah wouldn't have funds to maintain the lands. Ownership transfer would include both costs and revenues.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Except a few things don't change, Utah by law cannot be losing revenue and must balance the budget, wildfires will continue to have huge costs, PILT payments will cancel, access fees will skyrocket, and taxes will be raised or land will be sold to make up the difference. The proof is all around in conservative states. Most states "state lands" are much more strict on access than their federal counterparts. State laws often prohibit hunting not federal laws. Such as Wyoming (a very conservative state) where you cannot hunt wilderness areas without a guide if you're a non-resident. That is a state law, not a federal one. In Colorado the DWR has to rent lands owned by the state to allow hunting access, and the majority of Colorado state land is not open hunting. Look back east in conservative states where they've sold or are selling WMA properties to fix budgets. Look at Utah who has sold tons of SITLA land. Do you honestly belive the state of Utah is going to take huge losses that add up for managing and overseeing millions of acres just to keep land public? No, at the first budget crisis they'll sale what they have to, to balance their budget sheets. The math doesn't add up, not even in Utahs own study. Let's see some facts behind your claims, let's see some concrete reasons, let's see some evidence. My guess you have nothing but punchlines your regurgitating from politicians and the local coffee shop who just like to bitch and moan about how bad the Feds are. Ever consider that the politicians in this state complaining about federal land managment are the Feds? That congress and our congressmen and senators are the ones setting the rules and budgets are public land operate on? Oh but I'm sure you want to brush that off and listen to their lies rather than what they've actually done.


----------



## Hoopermat (Dec 17, 2010)

Why can't we ever get a person for the transfer that is educated on the subject. 

I want to know what and how they think

Who else would love to see newberg vs Bishop debate


----------



## davidlgreencpa (Aug 14, 2017)

Hoopermat said:


> Why can't we ever get a person for the transfer that is educated on the subject.
> 
> I want to know what and how they think
> 
> Who else would love to see newberg vs Bishop debate


Seriously?! Using insults or assumptions (not educated on the subject) instead of logic is your prerogative but does nothing to persuade. The lands targeted for transfer are mostly managed by the BLM - not national parks or forests. That alone negates most of the alarmism here. Do some research on the original intent of these lands. (Hint they were intended to be transferred to the States or to the private sector). Research how they are currently used. State management would put control closer to the local interests whatever they may be. Revenue from resource extraction would stay local and would be at current market rates. Comparing with current SITL is not realistic considering SITL lands are specifically designated to generate revenue for public education. Yes, I have been negatively impacted by federal land ownership by closed gates and roads, shut down leases and land use in limbo under perpetual wilderness study. Far worse is the likely future of hunting being shut down on federal lands by the majority that no longer agrees with the practice.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## davidlgreencpa (Aug 14, 2017)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Except a few things don't change, Utah by law cannot be losing revenue and must balance the budget, wildfires will continue to have huge costs, PILT payments will cancel, access fees will skyrocket, and taxes will be raised or land will be sold to make up the difference. The proof is all around in conservative states. Most states "state lands" are much more strict on access than their federal counterparts. State laws often prohibit hunting not federal laws. Such as Wyoming (a very conservative state) where you cannot hunt wilderness areas without a guide if you're a non-resident. That is a state law, not a federal one. In Colorado the DWR has to rent lands owned by the state to allow hunting access, and the majority of Colorado state land is not open hunting. Look back east in conservative states where they've sold or are selling WMA properties to fix budgets. Look at Utah who has sold tons of SITLA land. Do you honestly belive the state of Utah is going to take huge losses that add up for managing and overseeing millions of acres just to keep land public? No, at the first budget crisis they'll sale what they have to, to balance their budget sheets. The math doesn't add up, not even in Utahs own study. Let's see some facts behind your claims, let's see some concrete reasons, let's see some evidence. My guess you have nothing but punchlines your regurgitating from politicians and the local coffee shop who just like to bitch and moan about how bad the Feds are. Ever consider that the politicians in this state complaining about federal land managment are the Feds? That congress and our congressmen and senators are the ones setting the rules and budgets are public land operate on? Oh but I'm sure you want to brush that off and listen to their lies rather than what they've actually done.


State laws are controlled by state residents- they can elect different representatives if they want and get different laws much easier than they could ever change Federal laws or rules. That is EXACTLY my point.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



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

davidlgreencpa said:


> State laws are controlled by state residents- they can elect different representatives if they want and get different laws much easier than they could ever change Federal laws or rules. That is EXACTLY my point.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Which is just another reason to be against it. Places like California, and New York would all out close hunting on many of these places. Even places like Colorado and New Mexico are turning more blue every day. Montana is becoming more blue. Salt Lake City is pretty liberal, along with a few other areas around the state. At some point they'll outvote you here too. The point of congress and the fact our federal government has so many blocks and it's so hard to get things done is exactly why it was set up that way. So every time you had an election things wouldn't swing so violently one way or another. I am much more comfortable seeing things change slowly than have Salt Lake City outvote me and make all the decisions. BY LAW BLM and Forest Service lands must be managed for multiple use, the state has no such requirement. You lose hunting privileges by ballot box voting on single issues where the majority win. When you're already outnumbered 10 to 1 you better worry about the image you give hunting rather than California or New York, because hunters are still far outnumbered even here in Utah by non-hunters. Even a large majority of democrats support hunting who aren't hunters, but giving them a positive image of hunting is far more important when they see a hunting issue on a ballot box initiative than what party someone belongs to.


----------



## davidlgreencpa (Aug 14, 2017)

In Utah, 39% of the population hunts vs only 6% nationally. It takes simple math to recognize your odds of preserving hunting access are far better when it is controlled by an entity with more than 6x the support. And the studies citing Utah couldn't pay for the support of federal lands included national forests, parks and recreation areas - and none of the attached fees. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## davidlgreencpa (Aug 14, 2017)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Which is just another reason to be against it. Places like California, and New York would all out close hunting on many of these places. Even places like Colorado and New Mexico are turning more blue every day. Montana is becoming more blue. Salt Lake City is pretty liberal, along with a few other areas around the state. At some point they'll outvote you here too. The point of congress and the fact our federal government has so many blocks and it's so hard to get things done is exactly why it was set up that way. So every time you had an election things wouldn't swing so violently one way or another. I am much more comfortable seeing things change slowly than have Salt Lake City outvote me and make all the decisions. BY LAW BLM and Forest Service lands must be managed for multiple use, the state has no such requirement. You lose hunting privileges by ballot box voting on single issues where the majority win. When you're already outnumbered 10 to 1 you better worry about the image you give hunting rather than California or New York, because hunters are still far outnumbered even here in Utah by non-hunters. Even a large majority of democrats support hunting who aren't hunters, but giving them a positive image of hunting is far more important when they see a hunting issue on a ballot box initiative than what party someone belongs to.


But that "multiple use" gets struck down in a instant by a unilateral designation by a President with no ties to or respect for local needs or wishes. No governor has that power. I'll take local state ownership every time.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



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

davidlgreencpa said:


> Seriously?! Using insults or assumptions (not educated on the subject) instead of logic is your prerogative but does nothing to persuade. The lands targeted for transfer are mostly managed by the BLM - not national parks or forests. That alone negates most of the alarmism here. Do some research on the original intent of these lands. (Hint they were intended to be transferred to the States or to the private sector). Research how they are currently used. State management would put control closer to the local interests whatever they may be. Revenue from resource extraction would stay local and would be at current market rates. Comparing with current SITL is not realistic considering SITL lands are specifically designated to generate revenue for public education. Yes, I have been negatively impacted by federal land ownership by closed gates and roads, shut down leases and land use in limbo under perpetual wilderness study. Far worse is the likely future of hunting being shut down on federal lands by the majority that no longer agrees with the practice.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


See you don't even know what they're after. They absolutely want National Forest lands. Also as I stated before UTAHS OWN REPORT shows even with the revenue kept off what's made, they would still end up with a loss. Sorry, the numbers don't, and won't add up. I realize you don't want to acknowledge it, but Utah and Wyoming have done economic studies, and both concluded they would lose money and not be beneficial to transfer. Also, those reports were paid for by transfer-supportive governments. There's also likely a fight on minerals, even if the surface area is transferred there is a good chance the Feds will still own the mineral rights and they aren't going to just give them up.


----------



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

davidlgreencpa said:


> But that "multiple use" gets struck down in a instant by a unilateral designation by a President with no ties to or respect for local needs or wishes. No governor has that power. I'll take local state ownership every time.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


So you have a sore spot on National Monuments. There's the root issue or your pet peeve. Guess what, congress is now republican, they have the power to change the antiquities act. Your voted in Senators and Congressman FROM UTAH could at any moment introduce legislation that would limit the acreage a president could designate a monument. They don't. Know why? Because they want the frustration to continue because their end goal is private ownership, not fixing the public systems that currently exist. They have the power RIGHT NOW to fix every frustration you have, but they don't, because if they fix current managment then their argument of transfer no longer works. They want it transferred and sold, so frustration with the current system is the best argument to get it there. Also consider, National Monuments including Bears Ears and Grand Staircase protect hunting and access rights, when it gets sold to the private bidder, you'll get to look at it from afar.


----------



## davidlgreencpa (Aug 14, 2017)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> See you don't even know what they're after. They absolutely want National Forest lands. Also as I stated before UTAHS OWN REPORT shows even with the revenue kept off what's made, they would still end up with a loss. Sorry, the numbers don't, and won't add up. I realize you don't want to acknowledge it, but Utah and Wyoming have done economic studies, and both concluded they would lose money and not be beneficial to transfer. Also, those reports were paid for by transfer-supportive governments. There's also likely a fight on minerals, even if the surface area is transferred there is a good chance the Feds will still own the mineral rights and they aren't going to just give them up.


You are Wrong again. Of course you can find some that want to transfer everything. You can also find somebody that wants to do away with State governments too and go to a pure democracy. Neither extreme represents the majority on either side of the issue. And of course mineral and timber rights would have to transfer with the ownership or what would be the point?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



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

davidlgreencpa said:


> You are Wrong again. Of course you can find some that want to transfer everything. You can also find somebody that wants to do away with State governments too and go to a pure democracy. Neither extreme represents the majority on either side of the issue. And of course mineral and timber rights would have to transfer with the ownership or what would be the point?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Read the states report, read proposed legislation, read state legislation passed already. In Utahs law passed demanding transfer of ownership of these lands called for both BLM and Forest Service lands transferred to the states. See you haven't done a bit of research in what they are asking for. There is concrete evidence they want the National Forests lands as well, don't even try to BS here. Also a report concluded that even if the land was transferred, mineral rights would likely remain under federal ownership and would take further legal battles to try and obtain mineral rights. The Feds aren't just going to give up the mineral rights. Even with private property you can own the land and not the mineral rights, this likely would be no different and the Feds would continue ownership of the minerals under those lands.


----------



## davidlgreencpa (Aug 14, 2017)

But you have every right to keep being a lackey for those that want to manage and control everything from thousands of miles away 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Trooper (Oct 18, 2007)

"Do some research on the original intent of these lands. (Hint they were intended to be transferred to the States or to the private sector)."

Why does that matter- at all? Doesn't time change circumstances? Don't we learn and grow and sometimes change direction?


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

davidlgreencpa said:


> Seriously?! Using insults or assumptions (not educated on the subject) instead of logic is your prerogative but does nothing to persuade. The lands targeted for transfer are mostly managed by the BLM - not national parks or forests. That alone negates most of the alarmism here. Do some research on the original intent of these lands. (Hint they were intended to be transferred to the States or to the private sector). Research how they are currently used. State management would put control closer to the local interests whatever they may be. Revenue from resource extraction would stay local and would be at current market rates. Comparing with current SITL is not realistic considering SITL lands are specifically designated to generate revenue for public education. Yes, I have been negatively impacted by federal land ownership by closed gates and roads, shut down leases and land use in limbo under perpetual wilderness study. Far worse is the likely future of hunting being shut down on federal lands by the majority that no longer agrees with the practice.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I agree that its problematic and unfortunate to assume those with differing views aren't educated. I don't think you should have to be treated that way. On the other hand, it seems inconsistent to then turn around and call others "lackeys" if they value federal ownership.

I will say, many of us who prefer not to transfer land, also know the history of BLM land and disgree with the rigid interpretation that these lands were solely devised to be "transferred to the States or to the private sector". There is a heated debate about this. That said, the BLM and the land it manages exists decades to a century after the Acts and ordinances you are hinting at. The BLM has been required to manage its land differently then the values that guided those century old laws since the 1976 passage of FLPMA, if not earlier. If we are going to have a meaningful conversation then we need to acknowledge the nuances and details.

The comparison to SITLA seems fair given you state transferred lands would be managed for local interests. That closely aligns with SITLA as local industry is often what drives the prices and revenue generation of SITLA leases and transactions. In many areas that it selling to private enterprise or leasing to extraction while in others it can mean providing multiple leases to outfitters and guides that caters to the tourism industry. But they are consistently mandated to drive revenue which is what will dictate local control of any transferred land. For those lands some area will manage it for long-term benefits of hunters, fisherman and other recreationist as that is the principle economy. In others it will mean land and mineral right auctioned off for extraction or private industry. And that will inherently mean the loss of access.

Advocating for the tranfer of lands is a personal choice and I have no doubt most folks who support it are educated on it. But at the end of the day it means millions of Americans will lose any right to influence how it is managed because they don't happen to reside in the state.

Per locked gates: they exist on stand lands as well. We may not always agree with them but they serve a purpose. Many on federal lands exist because of leases, like the timber leases that many who support TPL believe is fair use. Others are sensitive habitat which also happens at the state and local level, like the current talk to close Kannaraville Creek to hiking because it serves a critical role in municipal water. At any level of management there is going to be lost access and closure because of the needs and demands placed on the land. Supporting TPL (-like attempts) is totally fine but its important to recognize the complex realities I highlighted and not paint with such broad brush strokes.

I hope you are to find a candidate that supports your values. And at the end of the day we are either expected to accept the legal decisions made even if they don't align with our values or work to change them through future legal avenues. If we don't think its legal than we have the courts.


----------



## davidlgreencpa (Aug 14, 2017)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Read the states report, read proposed legislation, read state legislation passed already. In Utahs law passed demanding transfer of ownership of these lands called for both BLM and Forest Service lands transferred to the states. See you haven't done a bit of research in what they are asking for. There is concrete evidence they want the National Forests lands as well, don't even try to BS here. Also a report concluded that even if the land was transferred, mineral rights would likely remain under federal ownership and would take further legal battles to try and obtain mineral rights. The Feds aren't just going to give up the mineral rights. Even with private property you can own the land and not the mineral rights, this likely would be no different and the Feds would continue ownership of the minerals under those lands.


Lol - the feds aren't going to... yep. That's the point

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



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

davidlgreencpa said:


> But you have every right to keep being a lackey for those that want to manage and control everything from thousands of miles away
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


FROM THOUSANDS OF MILES AWAY? You mean the senators and congressman from UTAH who propose, vote on, and pass the laws and bills those agencies manage by? You mean the local field offices, rangers, land managers, and range technicians that live in all our local areas developing and implementing managment plans? You mean the people that go to church, schools, and local events in our areas that work for these agencies? I get so **** tired of that argument, it's as false, fake, and wrong as any arguments regarding this issue.


----------



## davidlgreencpa (Aug 14, 2017)

backcountry said:


> I agree that its problematic and unfortunate to assume those with differing views aren't educated.
> 
> I will say, many of us who prefer not to transfer land, also know the history of BLM land and disgree with the rigid interpretation that these lands were solely devised to be "transferred to the States or to the private sector". There is a heated debate about this. That said, the BLM and the land it manages exists decades to a century after the Acts and ordinances you are hinting at. The BLM has been required to manage its land differently then the values that guided those century old laws since the 1976 passage of FLPMA, if not earlier. If we are going to have a meaningful conversation then we need to acknowledge the nuances and details.
> 
> ...


Thank you. That was respectful. I stand by my view that I'd rather fight a local battle with broad support of my values than a far away battle with almost no support and overwhelming opposition. The money argument is weak. I do numbers as my profession. Whether the numbers would work out in a State's favor all depends on the deal struck. Of course it depends on the lands being transferred and whether transfer was complete.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



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

davidlgreencpa said:


> Lol - the feds aren't going to... yep. That's the point
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


The Feds are Hatch, Lee, Love, Bishop,Stewart, and Chaffetz. Blame the people breaking the current system, which is the same people asking for a transfer. It's easy to say the federal agencies are bad when you're the one creating the laws and rules they run off of.


----------



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

davidlgreencpa said:


> Thank you. That was respectful. I stand by my view that I'd rather fight a local battle with broad support of my values than a far away battle with almost no support and overwhelming opposition. The money argument is weak. I do numbers as my profession. Whether the numbers would work out in a State's favor all depends on the deal struck. Of course it depends on the lands being transferred and whether transfer was complete.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Yeah, I know another CPA who adamantly disagrees with your assertion.


----------



## davidlgreencpa (Aug 14, 2017)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> FROM THOUSANDS OF MILES AWAY? You mean the senators and congressman from UTAH who propose, vote on, and pass the laws and bills those agencies manage by? You mean the local field offices, rangers, land managers, and range technicians that live in all our local areas developing and implementing managment plans? You mean the people that go to church, schools, and local events in our areas that work for these agencies? I get so **** tired of that argument, it's as false, fake, and wrong as any arguments regarding this issue.


??? Yeah, last I checked New York and most of the east coast was thousands of miles away. Their reps far outnumber ours. They set the agenda, the rules and make the laws. They appoint the administrators that sit in local offices. Maybe you tire of the argument because you always fail to counter it with any logic.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## davidlgreencpa (Aug 14, 2017)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> The Feds are Hatch, Lee, Love, Bishop,Stewart, and Chaffetz. Blame the people breaking the current system, which is the same people asking for a transfer. It's easy to say the federal agencies are bad when you're the one creating the laws and rules they run off of.


They are outnumbered 432 to 3 in the House and 48 to 2 in the Senate. Yeah I'll take local State control EVERY time.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



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

davidlgreencpa said:


> ??? Yeah, last I checked New York and most of the east coast was thousands of miles away. Their reps far outnumber ours. They set the agenda, the rules and make the laws. They appoint the administrators that sit in local offices. Maybe you tire of the argument because you always fail to counter it with any logic.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


You're missing the point. There are local field offices, local land managers, local rangers, local land technicians, and local employees for these agencies making decisions. Keep drinking that Utah Kool-aid bud, it'll kill you one day.


----------



## davidlgreencpa (Aug 14, 2017)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Yeah, I know another CPA who adamantly disagrees with your assertion.


Ok. How can you disagree with a statement that it all depends on the lands and the deal struck ?!!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## davidlgreencpa (Aug 14, 2017)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> You're missing the point. There are local field offices, local land managers, local rangers, local land technicians, and local employees for these agencies making decisions. Keep drinking that Utah Kool-aid bud, it'll kill you one day.


All appointed and controlled by (fill in the blank here... I know you can )

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



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

davidlgreencpa said:


> They are outnumbered 432 to 3 in the House and 48 to 2 in the Senate. Yeah I'll take local State control EVERY time.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


No, they are not. Last time I looked they had a majority in every part of the federal government. You'll love Utah control until they start selling, or Salt Lake City outvotes you on ballot initiatives.


----------



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

davidlgreencpa said:


> Ok. How can you disagree with a statement that it all depends on the lands and the deal struck ?!!
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Because the financial issues can be forecasted without transfer actually happening.


----------



## davidlgreencpa (Aug 14, 2017)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> No, they are not. Last time I looked they had a majority in every part of the federal government. You'll love Utah control until they start selling, or Salt Lake City outvotes you on ballot initiatives.


??? Utah has a majority control??? (Civics? geography? What am I missing here)

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## davidlgreencpa (Aug 14, 2017)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Because the financial issues can be forecasted without transfer actually happening.


Again YOU are missing the ENTIRE point that it depends on WHAT is transferred and under what conditions and what future use terms.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

davidlgreencpa said:


> Thank you. That was respectful. I stand by my view that I'd rather fight a local battle with broad support of my values than a far away battle with almost no support and overwhelming opposition. The money argument is weak. I do numbers as my profession. Whether the numbers would work out in a State's favor all depends on the deal struck. Of course it depends on the lands being transferred and whether transfer was complete.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Fair enough. I personally believe a state could manage to balance its budget with a lands transfer. I just don't like the ways in which that is likely to happen.

You made a statement about representation in a different post. In the House there can be greater influence from the blue state representatives you seem to disagree with. But the design of Congress is such that the Senate is able to counter that in some way by equal numbers no matter population size. One of my conservative-leaning but moderate views (that gets me in trouble with my liberal friends) is that I think the bicameral structure of Congress was intentionally designed to slow passage of bills because of the need to find common ground in conference. That is no easy task now and it never has been but the major laws and policies that have directed management of BLM lands went through that process. Its been pretty rare to have a long-standing bill about the environment that did not get filtered through both parties in an awkward compromise.

In a sincere question, I am under the understanding that most of the environment and land committees have been controlled by the republicans for a while and more so after the overwhelming nature of the last election. Is that not the case? More than willing to be corrected and educated on this. I will fully admit I have a hard time keeping up on all of the details of Congress since it turns over so regularly.


----------



## davidlgreencpa (Aug 14, 2017)

backcountry said:


> Fair enough. I personally believe a state could manage to balance its budget with a lands transfer. I just don't like the ways in which that is likely to happen.
> 
> You made a statement about representation in a different post. In the House there can be greater influence from the blue state representatives you seem to disagree with. But the design of Congress is such that the Senate is able to counter that in some way by equal numbers no matter population size. One of my conservative-leaning but moderate views (that gets me in trouble with my liberal friends) is that I think the bicameral structure of Congress was intentionally designed to slow passage of bills because of the need to find common ground in conference. That is no easy task now and it never has been but the major laws and policies that have directed management of BLM lands went through that process. Its been pretty rare to have a long-standing bill about the environment that did not get filtered through both parties in an awkward compromise.
> 
> In a sincere question, I am under the understanding that most of the environment and land committees have been controlled by the republicans for a while and more so after the overwhelming nature of the last election. Is that not the case? More than willing to be corrected and educated on this. I will fully admit I have a hard time keeping up on all of the details of Congress since it turns over so regularly.


True that republicans have controlled them since 2010. However, only since January of the current year has there been a president that would sign anything conservative. That being said, it takes 60 senators to close debate on anything except the anual one time budget reconciliation. Yes our system was designed to move slowly. However, a president can sign away 2+ million acres into single use preservation with the stroke of a pen. Again, I'll take local control every time.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



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

davidlgreencpa said:


> True that republicans have controlled them since 2010. However, only since January of the current year has there been a president that would sign anything conservative. That being said, it takes 60 senators to close debate on anything except the anual one time budget reconciliation. Yes our system was designed to move slowly. However, a president can sign away 2+ million acres into single use preservation with the stroke of a pen. Again, I'll take local control every time.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Then adjust the Antiquities Act to only allow a certain acreage to be designated at a time.


----------



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

davidlgreencpa said:


> Again YOU are missing the ENTIRE point that it depends on WHAT is transferred and under what conditions and what future use terms.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


The studies already done, have use the premise of a full transfer of all resources and a straight across transfer. Both Wyoming and Utahs reports by the numbers show there is no real benefit of a transfer and the states would have a hard time balancing their budgets without more funding.


----------



## davidlgreencpa (Aug 14, 2017)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Then adjust the Antiquities Act to only allow a certain acreage to be designated at a time.


Agree with that. The reality is the act itself states "smallest acreage possible" but that has been ignored. However, getting 60 senators (remember only 2 from Utah) to agree to the change isn't likely. Again, local control over Federal every time

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## davidlgreencpa (Aug 14, 2017)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> The studies already done, have use the premise of a full transfer of all resources and a straight across transfer. Both Wyoming and Utahs reports by the numbers show there is no real benefit of a transfer and the states would have a hard time balancing their budgets without more funding.


Which specific lands? What revenue assumptions? Current anemic federal grazing rates? Current century old mineral rates? It's all in the details.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

Here you go. Get back to us with where they went wrong.
http://publiclands.utah.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/1. Land Transfer Analysis Final Report.pdf


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

davidlgreencpa said:


> True that republicans have controlled them since 2010. However, only since January of the current year has there been a president that would sign anything conservative. That being said, it takes 60 senators to close debate on anything except the anual one time budget reconciliation. Yes our system was designed to move slowly. However, a president can sign away 2+ million acres into single use preservation with the stroke of a pen. Again, I'll take local control every time.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Yep, cloture and filibuster rules can be rough. But they protect the minority voice from pure popular rule, ie something you seemed concerned about.

The executive power you describe was authorized by Congress and can be challenged in the courts if its considered illegal. The Bill can also be amended, but that runs into the issues you have described.

I do have one challenge to your use of the phrase "single use preservation" in regards to what I assume is BENM. Can you support that conclusion? I was against the monument designation but I think your characterization is untrue given the access to hunters, motorized trails, bikers, foragers, wood gathering, hikers and canyoneers. There is multiple-use allowed in the monument's current status and much of it is conservation (ie management for recreation and utilitarian purposes) not preservation. There is definitely emphasis on preservation of antiquities but that is mandated by existing law.


----------



## davidlgreencpa (Aug 14, 2017)

backcountry said:


> Yep, cloture and filibuster rules can be rough. But they protect the minority voice from pure popular rule, ie something you seemed concerned about.
> 
> The executive power you describe was authorized by Congress and can be challenged in the courts if its considered illegal. The Bill can also be amended, but that runs into the issues you have described.
> 
> I do have one challenge to your use of the phrase "single use preservation" in regards to what I assume is BENM. Can you support that conclusion? I was against the monument designation but I think your characterization is untrue given the access to hunters, motorized trails, bikers, foragers, wood gathering, hikers and canyoneers. There is multiple-use allowed in the monument's current status and much of it is conservation (ie management for recreation and utilitarian purposes) not preservation. There is definitely emphasis on preservation of antiquities but that is mandated by existing law.


Actually, Bears Ears does allow many uses, but eliminated some major ones. Nothing stops a president from being more restrictive. My comment was more general about what could happen.

My primary concern is having sufficient influence over lands near me.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

I can respect that perspective even if I don't share the same concern. Thanks for the clarification and respectful interaction. Once again, best of luck in the upcoming vote.


----------



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

davidlgreencpa said:


> Which specific lands? What revenue assumptions? Current anemic federal grazing rates? Current century old mineral rates? It's all in the details.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


All forest service and BLM lands. State fees not federal. Also, you do realize that our states senators and congressmen fight fee increases to grazing/mineral development on federal land every time they are proposed to increase to state fees right? I will repeat again. THEY WANT THE CURRENT SYSTEM TO FRUSTRATE AND FAIL SO THEIR ARGUMENT OF TRANSER WORKS. They rig the system to fail to further their argument.


----------



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

davidlgreencpa said:


> Actually, Bears Ears does allow many uses, but eliminated some major ones. Nothing stops a president from being more restrictive. My comment was more general about what could happen.
> 
> My primary concern is having sufficient influence over lands near me.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


How many BLM or Forest Service meetings have you been to? How many comment periods have you submitted comments to? How many times have you spoken with your local ranger and land managers about your concerns? How many trips have you taken to your local field office? I can tell you haven't read Utah or Wyoming reports so would you please read a little and do some real research rather than go off knee jerk reactions cause youre worried or frustrated? You profess your point but have no data to back it up.


----------



## davidlgreencpa (Aug 14, 2017)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> How many BLM or Forest Service meetings have you been to? How many comment periods have you submitted comments to? How many times have you spoken with your local ranger and land managers about your concerns? How many trips have you taken to your local field office? I can tell you haven't read Utah or Wyoming reports so would you please read a little and do some real research rather than go off knee jerk reactions cause youre worried or frustrated? You profess your point but have no data to back it up.


Thanks for your continued condescension. No point continuing with you. You clearly are motivated by something beyond what I can see but can only surmise.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



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

davidlgreencpa said:


> Thanks for your continued condescension. No point continuing with you. You clearly are motivated by something beyond what I can see but can only surmise.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Those are honest questions I would like an answer to. If you aren't being involved you don't have a right to complain. I know far too many people who complain but never once make their voice heard. That's not being condescending, that's asking you if you've done anything whatsoever about the things you complain about. I'm sorry, but my assertion you haven't read those reports was correct, right? The only thing I'm motivated by is ensuring these lands stay public and open to future generations just like they were to me or you. Placing them in state ownership seriously jeopardizes that goal. Just because there are frustrations with the current agencies or systems does not mean we throw the baby out with the bath water. The current issues can be resolved by congress, let's works together instead of further apart. I'm with oh there needs to be improvements, I don't suggests we pull the nuclear lever like you and transfer them to a far more uncertain future. We can fix things without transfer. I don't disagree there are problems with federal managment, but transfer is simply a step closer to sale, and I will never support that.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Also as I stated before UTAHS OWN REPORT shows even with the revenue kept off what's made, they would still end up with a loss. Sorry, the numbers don't, and won't add up. I realize you don't want to acknowledge it, but Utah and Wyoming have done economic studies, and both concluded they would lose money and not be beneficial to transfer.


I did not read all the responses here as they devolved into the types of discussions I no longer have the stomach to be a part of. But I had to point out that this above is factually inaccurate.

You can disagree with the report if you choose to. You can call the report biased if you want. But you can't change what the report says, and what is written above is simply not factual.


----------



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

Vanilla said:


> I did not read all the responses here as they devolved into the types of discussions I no longer have the stomach to be a part of. But I had to point out that this above is factually inaccurate.
> 
> You can disagree with the report if you choose to. You can call the report biased if you want. But you can't change what the report says, and what is written above is simply not factual.


You're right in that the Utah report did not conclude it would have no real benefit, Wyomings did. Utahs report did clearly show that when oil prices dip below $40 a barrel it would be very difficult to even break even, let alone when oil fell to the $20 a barrel range it did not so long ago. I belive the report even showed below $62 a barrel (where we are now) would likely mean taxpayers of the state being losers. That's plenty conclusive that state ownership would not work long term.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I am already on the record saying that I don't believe the long term projections in the report. But the long term projections that it could be a net positive for the state are there.

Contrary to what your first post alleged.


----------



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

Vanilla said:


> I am already on the record saying that I don't believe the long term projections in the report. But the long term projections that it could be a net positive for the state are there.
> 
> Contrary to what your first post alleged.


That is true, but basically since the report was released oil has not recovered to the level the report says would be needed to project a net positive. If the lands had been turned over the day that report came out we would likely have watched budget deficits that were unreal. Oil was trading at nearly $100 a barrel when the report was released. Under good circumstances $62 a barrel was the lowest it could go before those lands could not pay for themselves. Then oil fell to around $28 a barrel, it has climbed back to around $40-$60 a barrel but has never since risen to a point that Utahs report shows it is economically feasible. Yes they try to sugar coat it in their report, but when you look at their projections since the report was released, the projections don't add up to the state being able to afford it. The report and the legislators that funded it at the time did not see $28 a barrel oil prices just around the corner. So no Utahs report doesn't plainly say they project financial losses, but their need for oil to stay high didn't happen, and that's where the bottom of their positive projections fall out. Wyomings report was much more as pointed over the cost being burdensome, but Utahs report helped us learn they can't afford it in the real world where oil is volatile and drops below $30 a barrel at times, let alone has never hovered around the $100 a barrel they were hoping for when the report released.


----------



## Dunkem (May 8, 2012)

Uh-- 6 pages later, what was the original subject on this thread? Oh ya who is going to replace Jason C.


----------



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

Glad to see Curtis won, he seems much more moderate than Herrod. Time will tell what his true intentions with public lands are, but for now I'm glad he beat the candidate running off a hard transfer platform.


----------



## OriginalOscar (Sep 5, 2016)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Time will tell what his true intentions with public lands are


Why the trust issues? Everyone I know from Provo has that smile like they know something I don't. Dude must be doing things right!


----------



## toasty (May 15, 2008)

Whichever side you are on, I think it would be a good thing for all of us to bombard Curtis with questions and concerns we have as hunters about our public lands. He needs to know this is an important issue and it can affect the outcome of the election. He also needs to know that there will be a lot of people that will hold him accountable for the decisions he makes regarding public lands.

Link to his contact info:
https://www.johncurtis.org/contact/


----------

