# Federal Land Conversion



## provider

Fellow Hunters,

I went to the Washington County Republican Convention yesterday. It seemed the 490 body of delegates as a whole is interested in seeing federal lands transfer to the state.

I believe the federal government has done a poor job of managing the lands as environmentalists groups have hijacked the whole system so that they can no longer be profitably / reasonably managed. They can burn it all off, but to harvest even a stand of bark beetle infested spruce is an act of futility.

I also believe these lands are rich and should be generating revenue for the treasury, but instead they take from the treasury. (No income taxes, no property taxes, no debt service - and they still can't turn a profit.)

Despite this, I am concerned as a hunter. I lived in Texas. I'd rather make less money in Utah for the simple fact there are so many fantastic mountains where I can go hunt, camp, fish, and hike for little or no cost.

I propose to my fellow hunters who are joining the fight to get the federal lands turned to the states that we use the following idea in our circle of influence:

*On a state level we should let our leaders know that we want the state to hold back the surface rights if they get the lands. Lease out timber, grazing, and mineral rights - but keep the surface rights - particularly on mountain lands - so Utahns can continue to recreate on these lands that have enriched our lives.*

I would hate for a bunch of Republican John Swallow types get full control of the fee simple surface rights and sell them off to their campaign contributors.

I think this issue is going to be huge. I think if hunting groups get on board, show support, and *throw in one additional expectation regarding the state holding surface rights*, we will be able to preserve our hunting heritage that so many of us love.

Please like this if you think its a good idea. A civil, level-headed, adult exchange of ideas would be appreciated. United we stand. If we can pull together and refine a simple, clear, articulate message as a body of hunters; we can be a large influence for good. If our conversation turns to name calling it will be a waste.


----------



## martymcfly73

So it can be sold off piece by piece to the highest developer? No thanks. I'm no fan of the feds but the state is almost worse.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

martymcfly73 said:


> So it can be sold off piece by piece to the highest developer? No thanks. I'm no fan of the feds but the state is almost worse.


Agree 100%. Furthermore surface rights mean nothing if the land is stripped of forage and/or covered by drilling and mining equipment. I will fight the state getting the land tooth and nail. I have no interest in it and I suppose I never will.


----------



## The Naturalist

The state can barely mange the lands/parks it already has. State budget for Department of Natural Resources = 2% of the total state budget. Add another 30,000,000 acres to that and where is the money to manage that going to come from? The State can't come up with it so it will be sold off as fast as it can to the extraction industry, and developers.
The Feds (BLM, Forest Service, National parks, etc.) pump roughly $300,000,000 a year into the State for the management of these lands. On top of that the State gets roughly $35,000,000/year for "Payment in Lieu" of Taxes from the Federal Government since it is not generating any property tax. This is an area I believe our US Representatives/Senators could pass legislation to increase that amount.

The Federal agencies have room for improvement indeed, but the trade off is this; in the hands of the Feds it will remain public and open to everyone. In the hands of the State...well... it would given to a few to control and closed to the public!


----------



## hemionus

That is scary that anyone even thinks this is a good idea :shock:. So the state would take it over and have to beg the feds for money and resources to manage it? Makes no sense. The feds are working under federal mandates to conserve our public lands, the state is not. Say bye bye to some of that land as it is sold and pillaged.


----------



## Fishrmn

martymcfly73 said:


> So it can be sold off piece by piece to the highest developer? No thanks. I'm no fan of the feds but the state is almost worse.


ALMOST???

What a mistake it would be to give Herbert and his cronies control of all of the federally controlled lands in Utah. Immediately covered with no trespassing signs and for sale signs.

⫸<{{{{{⦇°>


----------



## Huntoholic

Personally I see this as a no win situation. 

Federal land is being shutdown because of rulings of the court. Broad brush swiping of the hand locks up large tracks of land. Mountains of paper to do anything or even the simplest thing.

On the other side the State will sell their soul to the highest bidder. That I'm sure of.

As of right now I lean more towards leaving it in Federal control, but I believe the time is coming that it will not make much difference who is on control, as I will not be able to enjoy the lands as I do today.


----------



## provider

Marty - If surface rights are reserved, there would be little or no development.

Muledeer Skinner - I doubt the state will increase grazing permits to a level that is not sustainable. The Feds already leases out grazing and mineral rights. Its not like its a new thing the state will implement.

Naturalist - I'm more optimistic. State Trustlands are managed solely for the purpose of generating income to the schools. They put a net positive amount into our state. Federal money is simply borrowed from future taxpayers and transferred into the state, its a bad plan that will eventually fail if not addressed. There is some great hunting on State Trustlands. It's not grazed and mined to lands end. 

On another note. The responses thus far only have to do with disagreeing with the transfer of lands to the State. From what I'm seeing, there is a strong argument that the current system is unconstitutional, and there is strong support for the transfer. I'm concerned that a lot of supporters are mindlessly supporting the transfer with no thought as to what will happen. I'd hate to see the lands get administered by state politicians without a clear vision and who can be corrupted. I'm suggesting that those who are affiliated with groups who want the transfer, please see if you can get some traction regarding preservation of surface rights. Influence the movement to preserve hunting rights.


----------



## hemionus

"There is some great hunting on State Trust lands"

FYI.....................The UDWR has to pay State Trust Lands a annual fee to allow the public to hunt on these lands.


----------



## martymcfly73

Fishrmn said:


> ALMOST???
> 
> What a mistake it would be to give Herbert and his cronies control of all of the federally controlled lands in Utah. Immediately covered with no trespassing signs and for sale signs.
> 
> ⫸<{{{{{⦇°>


I was being generous. The stream access issue soured me on our state politicians.


----------



## Chuck

I was a little scared to read this thread to say the least. After reading everyone's comments I am glad I did. I couldn't agree more with most of the comments. The mere mentioning of the state taking over federal land should send shivers down any outdoor enthusiast/hunters spine.


----------



## High Desert

The high probability is that the state would do just the opposite of what you want. The primary justification for state ownership is to generate revenue, with school funding being used as a convenient poster child. SITLA (school trust land administration) has a similar mandate and sells surface rights while reserving mineral rights. It is gradually divesting itself of school trust land - but only sells surface rights. 
If the state obtained ownership of federal land and it wished to gain revenue it would only achieve that objective by selling the most sought after land. That is land that has the highest development potential (think close to urban areas, winter range, canyons, etc.) or the most scenic. The most sought after is the most valuable and is generally the land most of us want to spend time on and that supports most wildlife. Think of it this way: If you had a million dollars, what part of the state would you want to own. There are a lot of people with a million dollars (developers, groups or would be trophy home owners) and once they buy it, I doubt you will be on the guest list. 
The state's desire for revenue doesn't work unless it sells a lot of land. Remember, the primary statistic used by advocates to show how the state is disadvantaged by federal ownership, is the percentage of the state in public ownership. State ownership is also public ownership with its "flaw" of not contributing property tax revenue and the hoped for economic benefits from development. Selling land would result in the revenue from sale and the ongoing revenue from annual property taxes. The state would reserve the mineral estate and, if valuable minerals were ever found, lease those rights and obtain a royalty. Individuals who attempt to have you believe otherwise are either uninformed, hopelessly gullible or "lacking in candor" and just trying to assuage your fears.
I don't consider developers demons, by the way. They are an essential part of our economic system. I just don't want them developing every place I enjoy and foreclosing my access to it.


----------



## provider

Hemi - Could you provide more details regarding SITLA? How much is paid?

Marty - Are there any politicians in particular that you don't trust because of stream access? Please elaborate.

High Desert - Rights can be leased instead of sold. There is a *higher probability* that the state will divest surface rights if hunters do not unite and make it known that public access is a priority.

I've heard some legitimate concerns here. FYI, none of your thoughts have any traction - at least with the Republican Party Delegates in Washington County. When the discussion was opened for opposing views, the people were silent.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

worst idea I have heard on here Provider and I have heard it more than once. This is one subject that hunters and those that enjoy the outdoors will overwhelmingly agree on.

What would the possible positives be again? Oh yea........there are none.

The reason we have beautiful mountains here is because the local politicians can not get their greedy hands on them to profit and gain another vote. Our national park system is one of the best things going in our country. Our national forest and parks are doing just fine thank you. As far as the rest of the federally controlled land, I like it just fine too. I don't need it to turn a profit to make it better somehow. Some things are better left well enough alone. The red tape required to make things happen on federal land is by design and it actually the best protector of the land that there is.


----------



## Kevin D

provider said:


> Fellow Hunters,
> 
> I also believe these lands are rich and should be generating revenue for the treasury, but instead they take from the treasury. (No income taxes,* no property taxes, *no debt service - and they still can't turn a profit.)


You may want to google "payment in lieu of taxes" or PILT. For rural counties with minimal populations and sizable federal land holdings, it makes up a major portion of their budgets.


----------



## martymcfly73

provider said:


> Hemi - Could you provide more details regarding SITLA? How much is paid?
> 
> Marty - Are there any politicians in particular that you don't trust because of stream access? Please elaborate.
> 
> High Desert - Rights can be leased instead of sold. There is a *higher probability* that the state will divest surface rights if hunters do not unite and make it known that public access is a priority.
> 
> I've heard some legitimate concerns here. FYI, none of your thoughts have any traction - at least with the Republican Party Delegates in Washington County. When the discussion was opened for opposing views, the people were silent.


The governor, mciff.


----------



## Vanilla

Provider, I would love to hear how the current set up is unconstitutional.



provider said:


> Marty - Are there any politicians in particular that you don't trust because of stream access? Please elaborate.


How much time you got?



provider said:


> High Desert - Rights can be leased instead of sold. There is a *higher probability* that the state will divest surface rights if hunters do not unite and make it known that public access is a priority.


Ha! There is ZERO chance the Utah legislature will listen to sportsmen on access. ZERO! They have been completely unwilling to listen to a 5-0 Utah Supreme Court decision coupled by an enormous outpouring of support for access on public waters. Did I say there was zero chance of them listening to sportsmen yet? Because the chance is *ZERO*!



provider said:


> I've heard some legitimate concerns here. FYI, none of your thoughts have any traction - at least with the Republican Party Delegates in Washington County. When the discussion was opened for opposing views, the people were silent.


If the state takes up this cause in the courts like has been proposed, it will be an EPIC waste of money and an embarrassing thrashing that the will make us the laughing stock of the country. When your own attorneys (office of legislative research and general counsel) adds a legislative note to the proposed bill that says the bill (to take back federal lands) is unconstitutional and will get overturned in court...you've got a problem. Only chance it could happen is if congress voted it to happen. Hopefully the reps and senators in the rest of the country will have enough sense to say no, otherwise any hunter or fisherman in Utah that isn't rich enough to pay to play is SCREWED!


----------



## Vanilla

By the way, based upon what I have personally observed and know to be fact, I would oppose the transfer of federal lands to state control with every fiber of my being. Just in case I didn't make that clear above. 

That would be an utter disaster for sportsmen.


----------



## 300 Wby

I have to agree with most of the comments thus far. Ever hunted in a state that has little federal land and small state lands? Let's take Texas for example; fabulous hunting if you find a lease or own some land, most public land hunting is poor to piss poor (in my experience). The pols in this state would sell it off so fast it wold make your head swim.

Not a fan of the feds but I don't trust state pols even more because of the never ending mantra "we need to do it for the children's sake" the laws our state legislature passes in the name of the children make me want to puke. Sorry just had to say in my own way what most have stated so far.


----------



## richardjb

Utah just got rid of a AG that supported taking fed land and giving it to the state. That crook is now gone. Good riddance. Luckily not more Texans live here.


----------



## Vanilla

One thing provider talked about is those opposed to this getting no traction from Southern Utah republican delegates. That isn't surprising. However, education needs to happen to show this is not a republican vs democrat or liberal vs conservative issue. I'm an conservative republican. And I simply could not possibly oppose this any more than I do. 

This is a sportsmen issue. That is how it has to be framed to be accurate and leave the rhetoric out of it.


----------



## The Naturalist

provider said:


> Marty - If surface rights are reserved, there would be little or no development.
> 
> Muledeer Skinner - I doubt the state will increase grazing permits to a level that is not sustainable. The Feds already leases out grazing and mineral rights. Its not like its a new thing the state will implement. If the State gets control then sells to the extraction industry then the leases run out and no monies are generated except for the profit of the extraction industry...King coal already pays no severance taxes.
> 
> Naturalist - I'm more optimistic. State Trustlands are managed solely for the purpose of generating income to the schools. They put a net positive amount into our state. Federal money is simply borrowed from future taxpayers and transferred into the state, its a bad plan that will eventually fail if not addressed. There is some great hunting on State Trustlands. It's not grazed and mined to lands end. As an educator I am well aware of the value of School Trust Lands. They can be bought, sold, and traded like any other piece of real estate. I wish I were as optimistic as you, but in the hands of our State politicians...lets just say in God I trust...
> 
> On another note. The responses thus far only have to do with disagreeing with the transfer of lands to the State. From what I'm seeing, there is a strong argument that the current system is unconstitutional, and there is strong support for the transfer. I'm concerned that a lot of supporters are mindlessly supporting the transfer with no thought as to what will happen. I'd hate to see the lands get administered by state politicians without a clear vision and who can be corrupted. I'm suggesting that those who are affiliated with groups who want the transfer, please see if you can get some traction regarding preservation of surface rights. Influence the movement to preserve hunting rights.


 I've read through these arguments very thoroughly (although I'm no lawyer) I see it the other way...the strong argument is for the way it is. Don't believe the guise that the transfer of lands is the answer to our budgeting concerns in the State of Utah, especially with regards to education. This is not a new idea. I've been following since it was first proposed in the 1980's. This is simply a way for a few powerful people/corporations to privatize Utah.


----------



## The Naturalist

TS30 said:


> One thing provider talked about is those opposed to this getting no traction from Southern Utah republican delegates. That isn't surprising. However, education needs to happen to show this is not a republican vs democrat or liberal vs conservative issue. I'm an conservative republican. And I simply could not possibly oppose this any more than I do.
> 
> This is a sportsmen issue. That is how it has to be framed to be accurate and leave the rhetoric out of it.


_I would add any outdoor enthusiast._


----------



## reb8600

No Thanks. I see no good coming from the state taking over control. Take a look at the amount of state land that is shut down or inaccessible.


----------



## hemionus

http://wri.utah.gov/WRI/Projects.aspx?display=All

search for project i.d. 2743

title is SITLA access payment FY14


----------



## Catherder

TS30 said:


> One thing provider talked about is those opposed to this getting no traction from Southern Utah republican delegates. That isn't surprising. However, education needs to happen to show this is not a republican vs democrat or liberal vs conservative issue. I'm an conservative republican. And I simply could not possibly oppose this any more than I do.


While I am in the same political position you are, (an "R" that opposes this about as strongly as is humanly possible) it has to be realized that the "Land grab" is very much an R/D issue. The states democrats have always criticized such actions as a party. You may have some odd "D" down in the 435 that favors this to maintain local political relevancy, but the "D"'s as a party have never supported this.

Also, the further South you go, it seems the more this is approached with religious fervor politically. I think Provider got a taste of that at his convention.

Ultimately, though, you are right. Education is the key. It blows me away how many rural hunters and anglers unwittingly support stuff like this and in the same breath think that their hunting and recreational privileges will remain the same as it is now, were it to happen.


----------



## RandomElk16

Has Provider heard of the Book Cliffs? Hell of a job we are doing there!


----------



## Critter

RandomElk16 said:


> Has Provider heard of the Book Cliffs? Hell of a job we are doing there!


I think that the Book Cliffs is a little bit different. If it wasn't for the oil and gas development out there, there wouldn't be any roads other than just a couple. I remember back in the 60's when there was no east or west canyon roads and the one up Bitter Creek ended where the gas plant now sits. The roads in from the north ended at private ranches that most couldn't access.


----------



## provider

No Randomelk, I haven't "heard of it". Can you cut the condescending attitude and state your point and opinion please? 

Hemionus - Thanks for the link. That is informative. I'm guessing the $500,000 is paid federally (PR) is the Pittman Robertson act?


----------



## RandomElk16

Critter said:


> I think that the Book Cliffs is a little bit different. *If it wasn't for the oil and gas development out there*, there wouldn't be any roads other than just a couple. I remember back in the 60's when there was no east or west canyon roads and the one up Bitter Creek ended where the gas plant now sits. The roads in from the north ended at private ranches that most couldn't access.


Key words there in bold. Utah approved for the road-less portion to be leased out. I am not saying it is perfect, just that it is a wonderful area that we are losing because sportsmen don't pay as much as oil companies. State priorities.

Provider, I don't mean to be rude. When you post a post like the one you did, you should be pretty educated on the state and what they do with public land. Here is 1 of many articles about the book cliffs, one of our soon-to-be-was beautiful hunting areas.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/56784250-90/acres-book-decision-lands.html.csp


----------



## Critter

It would be interesting to see why there was no oil and gas development in the roadless area. There was the road that went from the top of Steer Ridge down to Thompson Springs at one time but that was shut off when they decided to create the roadless part and that was way after they started the drilling out there. I know that while there are some that there are not too many wells out along Steer Ridge, perhaps the oil/gas field starts to peter out that direction.

I do know that according to a lot of the oil/gas leases out that way that once the oil/gas is gone that they have to restore the land back to its natural condition. But whether or not they do it is to be decided. 

But I do agree with you, you don't want the land to go to the state if you want any access or very limited development on it. The state would start selling it as soon as they got their hands on it.


----------



## rukus

I can understand the concern about turning things over to the control of the State, but I am equally concerned about the control being with the Federal government. I don't understand how some of you are comfortable with the Feds. All it takes is one day when a bunch of east coast bureaucrats decide to grace our state with their presence and BOOM!.... the whole outlook of our federal lands could be changed forever. The worst part of these situations are that they are done with complete disregard for public comment, opinion, etc. (The Grand Staircase designation is a perfect example of this) The decision would be based on a group of individuals in an office back east with complete disregard to those of us who are actually invested in and care about the land.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

rukus said:


> I can understand the concern about turning things over to the control of the State, but I am equally concerned about the control being with the Federal government. I don't understand how some of you are comfortable with the Feds. All it takes is one day when a bunch of east coast bureaucrats decide to grace our state with their presence and BOOM!.... the whole outlook of our federal lands could be changed forever. The worst part of these situations are that they are done with complete disregard for public comment, opinion, etc. (The Grand Staircase designation is a perfect example of this) The decision would be based on a group of individuals in an office back east with complete disregard to those of us who are actually invested in and care about the land.


Nobody has said that they are comfortable with the feds but somebody has to control it and they are the lesser of two evils.....BY FAR. Citizens can fight for rights on public/federal land but once it goes private there is NOTHING that can be done about. Those in control at the state level have made their intentions pretty clear. It hasn't been about making the land better or improving upon the situation. It has been about profiting from the land. There are not may ways to profit from land that improves it's current state of being.


----------



## Catherder

rukus said:


> I can understand the concern about turning things over to the control of the State, but I am equally concerned about the control being with the Federal government. I don't understand how some of you are comfortable with the Feds. All it takes is one day when a bunch of east coast bureaucrats decide to grace our state with their presence and BOOM!.... the whole outlook of our federal lands could be changed forever.


It is simple really. You are presenting a rather remote hypothetical possibility of the Feds doing this. Something that would represent a notable change in policy. If the State were to wrest control of these lands, it is a *stone cold lead pipe lock *guarantee that the land would be sold off to the highest bidder. The politicians have said as much in their rhetoric.


----------



## RandomElk16

I know they need to return the land to its natural condition, but you can't artificially restore something to "natural". Maybe close to, but there will certainly be a lasting impact.

The Grand Staircase is a good point, I remember having long discussions about that. Clinton swingin his power at more than Monica. 

I don't trust either, but still see it as a bold proposition.


----------



## rukus

Catherder- With all due respect, I am not presenting a "remote hypothetical possibility". That ability of the feds is very real and has happened many times before and will happen again. The federal government is controlled by special interest groups just as much as the State of Utah is controlled by big business. Don't get me wrong, I agree with your opinion about the state, but we are living with our heads in the sand if we think the federal government is out for the best interests of sportsman when it comes to public land use.

I want to believe that reigning in a rogue State government would be less painful than trying to reign in a rogue behemoth federal government.


----------



## rukus

Mr Muleskinner said:


> There are not may ways to profit from land that improves it's current state of being.


Please expound.


----------



## KineKilla

I'd rather the land remain in the hands of someone far away who doesn't really know what they own, rather than the local wealthy politicians who have been staring at the hills their entire life, wondering how/when they might get the chance to finally make that "useless mountain" turn them a profit...

I trust neither side.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

rukus said:


> Please expound.


Really? You tell me how to profit off of land without altering it's current state of being.

Logging? mining? gas exploration? farming? Ranching? Open range grazing? solar farms? wind farms? gravel pits? Race tracks? ATV parks? "Improved" campgrounds? Park and Rides? Toll roads?

Have it held by the state and charge admission?

Or do we just sell it to the highest bidder and get property taxes?


----------



## rukus

Mr Muleskinner said:


> Really? You tell me how to profit off of land without altering it's current state of being.
> 
> Logging? mining? gas exploration? farming? Ranching? Open range grazing? solar farms? wind farms? gravel pits? Race tracks? ATV parks? "Improved" campgrounds? Park and Rides? Toll roads?
> 
> Have it held by the state and charge admission?
> 
> Or do we just sell it to the highest bidder and get property taxes?


I was just simply wanting to know what you were getting at with that statement and now I know. Thanks for your response. I wasn't trying to be cynical with my question.


----------



## rukus

KineKilla said:


> I'd rather the land remain in the hands of someone far away who doesn't really know what they own, rather than the local wealthy politicians who have been staring at the hills their entire life, wondering how/when they might get the chance to finally make that "useless mountain" turn them a profit...
> 
> I trust neither side.


I disagree, I would rather it be in the hands of someone who DOES understand its many different values. Why would we want to trust a valuable resource like this to some dope who has no clue what it is. I don't trust either side as well, and I am certainly not going to think that the federal government is anywhere near the least of the two evils in this situation. I'm not sure what the solution should be......


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

sorry Rukus. This is a hot topic for me. I can get fired up about it pretty quick. The public land that we have needs to be protected from capitalists. Turning it over to the state would be the quickest and surest way to remove that protection.


----------



## wyoming2utah

You hear people complain about the designation of the Grand Staircase all the time&#8230;.I love it! I couldn't be happier with the designation, and the counties that it affected most should be too&#8230;.those counties have seen economic growth because of the designation:

http://headwaterseconomics.org/wphw/wp-content/uploads/Escalante.pdf

http://headwaterseconomics.org/apps-public/national-monuments/2011-03/pdf/escalante.pdf


----------



## rukus

No problem Mule. I share your concern that we need to protect the lands. I absolutely do not want to see them gobbled up and closed off. I am just not sure which entity should be responsible for that. Both the State of Utah and federal government have proven to me they can't be trusted and will always sway to the side of money.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

rukus said:


> No problem Mule. I share your concern that we need to protect the lands. I absolutely do not want to see them gobbled up and closed off. I am just not sure which entity should be responsible for that. Both the State of Utah and federal government have proven to me they can't be trusted and will always sway to the side of money.


that said it would seem that our National Parks, Forest and BLM land remain to be public land for all to use and enjoy. The most value public land has is the fact that the public has access to it. I can't put a price on that.


----------



## cornerfinder

not a good idea


----------



## rukus

wyoming2utah said:


> You hear people complain about the designation of the Grand Staircase all the time&#8230;.I love it! I couldn't be happier with the designation, and the counties that it affected most should be too&#8230;.those counties have seen economic growth because of the designation:
> 
> http://headwaterseconomics.org/wphw/wp-content/uploads/Escalante.pdf
> 
> http://headwaterseconomics.org/apps-public/national-monuments/2011-03/pdf/escalante.pdf


When I referred to the Grand Staircase, I was not referring to the results of the designation. I was referring to the process of how it came about. It was a bull crap blanket sweep move by Bill Clinton that gave no time for public involvement. It is the perfect example of why I am concerned about us thinking that the feds are better suited to manage our lands. The feds have shown us time and time again that they will do whatever they want, whenever they want.


----------



## wyoming2utah

Nevermind the results right? Had the designation gone through any kind of public process it would not have happened…personally, I am very happy with the results. It is the perfect example of the Feds being better suited to manage our land….had they NOT done it, those lands would have continued to be raped, pillaged, and plundered by the very people you want in charge of it.


----------



## rukus

wyoming2utah said:


> Nevermind the results right?


Wrong! The results might very well be good and beneficial but the end doesn't justify the means. That is a very slippery slope to be on if you are okay with that type of governmental approach.

None of us have any idea what the results of a public comment period would have been because we weren't even given the chance. For all we know it would have been the same result. One thing is for sure, thanks to the feds we won't ever know.

What happens when the feds want to shut down recreating, hunting, fishing, access to these lands all for some reason known only to the fat cats in Washington. Are you going to want a say in that or at least a chance to voice your opinion? I sure would.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

rukus said:


> What happens when the feds want to shut down recreating, hunting, fishing, access to these lands all for some reason known only to the fat cats in Washington. Are you going to want a say in that or at least a chance to voice your opinion? I sure would.


Well.............that is when we exercise our Second Amendment rights.

Wasn't it Ken Ivory that once said that we could sell land in National Parks to help pay off National Debt?

here is a pretty good article on the subject.

http://www.americanprogress.org/iss...03/state-efforts-to-reclaim-our-public-lands/


----------



## rukus

Thanks for the article Mule, it is interesting read and point of view,

Here is a quote from it-
_"In the past year, legislatures in seven western states-Utah, Arizona, Wyoming, New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada, and Idaho-have passed, introduced, or explored legislation demanding that the federal government turn over millions of acres of federal public lands to the states. If successful, these bills could be disastrous: Rather than being managed for the benefit and use of the American public, these lands will instead be managed in whatever way each state wants to use them-which generally means maximizing private profits through mining, drilling, and other resource extraction."

_Here is my question- This article claims that if the states control the land, then they will use it for private profits. What has stopped the feds from doing this very same thing? Is it the special interests? Is it too much red-tape? Is it a sincere approach to preserve it for public use and benefit? What keeps the feds from chewing this land up in the same way we are accusing the states of doing?

To get back to the original point of this thread, if the State does take control of the lands, what would need to be in place to ensure that all of this public land isn't gobbled up by big money? Would it be something to the effects of surface rights or would it need to be more involved? Can we actually learn something from the feds on this? (I can't believe I would say that)


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

Other than somebody being anti-fed, what is there to gain from the land changing hands if it did? Who or what is to benefit and how? Is the model broken to the point that something needs fixed to the point of changing management teams? Who is it that should and would decide which former national park or forest got tapped for it natural resources? Who is to decide which piece of land is expendable in the name of progress?

Explain what is so broken and why it needs changed. Otherwise it would be 100's of millions if not billions of tax dollars pissed away in legal fees and management change for what? Why does the state need control of the lands? How is it that Governor Hebert is more qualified than Uncle Sam to manage public land?

Last I saw the state can't even determine where to put a prison.


----------



## GaryFish

As noted, this is a do-over of what was called "The Sagebrush Rebellion" in the 70s and 80s. The same cries over unconstitutional actions were made, with Nevada's cry the only one having remote legitimacy. The unconstitutional cries focus on a VERY loose interpretation of the first paragraph of Article 4, Section 3 while completely ignoring the second paragraph. Such challenges have fallen short. In reality, these challenges were the basis of the civil war (if you believe that the war was about states rights and not slavery - but that is another discussion). But the arguments have been made in the past, and have been determined. States can't tell the Federal government what to do. Its called Federal supremacy.

IF, and that is a big IF Utah is serious about "taking control" of Federal lands in Utah, the legislature CANNOT do it. It MUST be done by Congress. So IF Utah decides to go there, it will take our 4 reps and 2 senators to be fully united to push something like that through. With 7 other western states in the same boat, they might be able to build enough of a coalition to get it done. But it MUST be done by Congress.Otherwise, it is just spitting in the wind.

If you think SITLA in Utah could manage lands responsibly, in generating revenue for our school system, one needn't look any farther than our neighbors - Wyoming, Idaho, Nevada, Arizona, Colorado - Utah's SITLA fund is a fraction, like 1/5 of the amount other states have been able to raise with their money. Just like Congress has raided Social Security funds, Utah's legislature has on multiple occasions, raided the SITLA coffers. AND, direct revenue raised by SITLA through sale or lease of the lands cannot be spent - only interest generated by those funds may be spent. But compared to our neighbors, Utah's SITLA is an embarrassing failure in generating revenues for education.

This kind of proposal bodes very well with Utah Republicans who are more anti-Federal government anything because of the perceived empowerment. But the hopes this gives ignore the facts of reality of the real issues. Poor counties with no means to care for what they have. A state with a miserable record of caring for State resources because our legislature refuses to fund any kind of government sponsored anything to a level that success can be attained. And lands that for more than 100 years, no one wanted for farming, mining, dirt collecting, etc... even though the Federal Government tried in earnest to give them away, and now, somehow magically, these lands are wanted for production of ..... of......of......? And after 100 years of the Federal Government literally giving away land to anyone that wanted it, Utah (and the other western states) cry foul and want to manage these lands? Where were these states 50, 60, 70 years ago? 

The only economic value we've found in the history of Utah for these lands, has been keeping them in large enough tracts, that tourists can park and point and take pretty pictures of lands so poor in other tangible resources that they were not developed. The best economic value is the openness, lack of development, miles of habitats, canyons, vistas, trails, etc... Break that up into smaller parcels and you destroy the only economic value most of these lands have.


----------



## GaryFish

Real quick on the issue of surface and subsurface rights - Surface rights are secondary. So if a company leases the subsurface minerals under your house, they can drop a well in your back yard and you are pretty much screwed to do anything about it.


----------



## Catherder

RE; "Catherder- With all due respect, I am not presenting a "remote hypothetical possibility". That ability of the feds is very real and has happened many times before and will happen again. The federal government is controlled by special interest groups just as much as the State of Utah is controlled by big business."

When have the Feds cut across the board fishing and hunting access at any time in their past? The Grand Staircase is always mentioned but one can still hunt there and many do. There may be occasional restrictions like Wilderness study areas, but the Feds have, up to now, been fairly permissive with hunting and fishing access in almost all their acreage. Yes, there is always a possibility the feds could worsen, but saying they would do so is dare I say....hypothetical.



rukus said:


> What happens when the feds want to shut down recreating, hunting, fishing, access to these lands all for some reason known only to the fat cats in Washington. Are you going to want a say in that or at least a chance to voice your opinion? I sure would.


Again, hypothetical that this would happen, in contrast to the State which is very clear what they would do. You bring up a point though that too many forget. Folks constantly say that "I have a bigger voice with the state government" and for most issues it is true. However, with these lands in question and the States stated intentions, your voice ends the moment the land is sold and becomes private property. *Then you have no voice at all.* At least with Federal land management, even with all its considerable warts, you do have some voice in what is done, even if it only involves voting for who the President and Federal legislators are. Land policy changes with different administrations and congressional makeup, and IMO is not perpetually stacked a certain way.

RE "I want to believe that reigning in a rogue State government would be less painful than trying to reign in a rogue behemoth federal government."

I would love to believe this too, but in dealing with issues like stream access, it is fairly clear that changing the States mind on this would be truly herculean. At least with the feds, I am getting policy that currently favors the sportsman/recreationalist. I'll take my chances there at this time.


----------



## elkfromabove

I see another possible problem looming in the wings that hasn't been mentioned and that is our growing debt to China (and others). I'm suspect the payoff will include federal lands because we have nowhere near enough "money" to keep up the interest payments let alone the principle. And I'm pretty sure that fishing and hunting isn't very high on China's list of priorities, but maybe the foreign tourists who want to take photos on the electronic devices they manufacture will actually save our bacon (or not!). Maybe fishing and hunting will be such a novelty that they'll want to keep a FEW of us around just for photo-ops. Can you imagine what the odds on those draws would be? :grin:


----------



## Vanilla

Rukus, 

Here is the deal--the Feds have not, for the most part, even restricted, let alone cut off my ability to hunt and fish on federally managed public lands. The state has cut off literally thousands of miles of public waters from my use. 

You keep asking what makes people think the Feds have our best interests in mind over the state....well, the proof is in the pudding! Forget hypothetical 'what ifs', just look at what has really happened. As was stated before, it is a 100% certainty that sportsmen get screwed if the state took over. 

I understand the reluctance to a accept the Feds are doing more for us on this than the state would. It goes against many core beliefs I hold as well. However, that is EXACTLY why I said we need to forget about this as a D vs R discussion, and view this as sportsmen. Because our very way of life goes into the crapper if the crooks up on the hill got their way.


----------



## The Naturalist

rukus said:


> Here is my question- This article claims that if the states control the land, then they will use it for private profits. What has stopped the feds from doing this very same thing? Is it the special interests? Is it too much red-tape? Is it a sincere approach to preserve it for public use and benefit? What keeps the feds from chewing this land up in the same way we are accusing the states of doing? Legitimate question...The short answer is that it is the law the keeps the Feds from doing it. Long answer is numerous laws passed to protect these special lands such as the Lacey Act of 1900, the American Antiquities Act of 1906, a handful of Acts with regards to forests starting in1879. Plus the leadership of Teddy Roosevelt and Gifford Pinchot, and others. Bottom line it is the Law that the Feds keep it the way it is. These Acts were signed into law because of public outcry due to excessive "vandalism of" and unscrupulous "huksters profiting" from our national treasures.
> 
> To get back to the original point of this thread, if the State does take control of the lands, what would need to be in place to ensure that all of this public land isn't gobbled up by big money? Would it be something to the effects of surface rights or would it need to be more involved? Can we actually learn something from the feds on this? (I can't believe I would say that) The States would be challenged by innumerable lawsuits because of the various Acts protecting these lands, wasting even more money than they are doing now.[/QUOTE]


----------



## martymcfly73

I'm as conservative as they come, but the stream access fight had me vote D for a lot of people on the state level. Including the governor who has a major conflict of interest with the issue and is the king cronie. I agree with TS. The state is the only entity that has locked me out of public land. Because of that I will not support any measure or candidate that has this as a platform. Whether they be D or R or L.


----------



## RandomElk16

elkfromabove said:


> I see another possible problem looming in the wings that hasn't been mentioned and that is our growing debt to China (and others). I'm suspect the payoff will include federal lands because we have nowhere near enough "money" to keep up the interest payments let alone the principle. And I'm pretty sure that fishing and hunting isn't very high on China's list of priorities, but maybe the foreign tourists who want to take photos on the electronic devices they manufacture will actually save our bacon (or not!). Maybe fishing and hunting will be such a novelty that they'll want to keep a FEW of us around just for photo-ops. Can you imagine what the odds on those draws would be? :grin:


You think we are going to start giving China parts of America? Really?


----------



## Trooper

provider said:


> No Randomelk, I haven't "heard of it". Can you cut the condescending attitude and state your point and opinion please?
> 
> Hemionus - Thanks for the link. That is informative. I'm guessing the $500,000 is paid federally (PR) is the Pittman Robertson act?


You got to drive up there and see it. Take a tour of our state lands with oil or gas under them... then come back here and tell me about "severing the mineral rights". Hell of a lot of trucks required to pump gas.


----------



## Catherder

martymcfly73 said:


> I'm as conservative as they come, but the stream access fight had me vote D for a lot of people on the state level. Including the governor who has a major conflict of interest with the issue and is the king cronie. I agree with TS. The state is the only entity that has locked me out of public land. Because of that I will not support any measure or candidate that has this as a platform. Whether they be D or R or L.


Isn't it remarkable how often the stream access battle comes up in discussing other topics such as this one?


----------



## provider

Trooper, and you can still hunt there right? 

I think you completely missed my point. If those federal lands are turned over to the state, the land will be sold. The gas and oil industry will still be there regardless, but if the current plan with the state passes, our right to access will disappear.


----------



## elkfromabove

RandomElk16 said:


> You think we are going to start giving China parts of America? Really?


 My post was made tongue-in-cheek, but yet I think it's a logical and scary possibility. How else are we going to pay off the rising debt to them? We have no gold, no silver and our dollars are becoming worth less each year. And with the timber, gas, oil, coal, various minerals, water and soil that goes with it, we could be in for some challenging times. This whole thread is about which government agency is the worst of two (Federal or State) when it comes to hunting and fishing, but both of them are primarily interested in how much money they can get out of our public lands and foreign governments are just another source of money. We've been selling (auctioning) public lands off for many years as evidenced by the multi-agency ownership maps that are published every 2 or 3 years and using land to pay off a debt would be just a minor adjustment to policy. Will it happen? I don't know, but I've seen many things happen with the various government agencies that I couldn't have imagined 20 or 30 years ago!


----------



## RandomElk16

BLM and public land sales FAQ's

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/lands/selling_public_land.print.html


----------



## RoosterKiller

In California there is no hunting allowed on State land.If not for the Federal lands hunters would have no place to hunt. I would rather see the effort placed to correct the federal management of these lands.


----------



## RandomElk16

provider said:


> Trooper, and you can still hunt there right?
> 
> I think you completely missed my point. *If those federal lands are turned over to the state, the land will be sold*. The gas and oil industry will still be there regardless, but *if the current plan with the state passes, our right to access will disappear.*





provider said:


> "*interested in seeing federal lands transfer to the state*"


Do those points contradict one another? Wasn't the thread started by saying you want federal lands transferred to the state? Isn't your last post arguing that point?


----------



## The Naturalist

RandomElk16 said:


> BLM and public land sales FAQ's
> 
> http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/lands/selling_public_land.print.html


The Forest Service had some isolated land on Durst Mountain in Morgan County. I can't remember the exact acreage but it was a small parcel surrounded on all sides by private land. It was in the best interest of the Forest Service to sell this land and use the money for improvements on other forests. A good friend of mine put a bid on it and got the winning bid.

So, yes, it does happen that on occasion land does become available for sale through the BLM and Forest Service.


----------



## RandomElk16

The Naturalist said:


> The Forest Service had some isolated land on Durst Mountain in Morgan County. I can't remember the exact acreage but it was a small parcel surrounded on all sides by private land. It was in the best interest of the Forest Service to sell this land and use the money for improvements on other forests. A good friend of mine put a bid on it and got the winning bid.
> 
> So, yes, it does happen that on occasion land does become available for sale through the BLM and Forest Service.


Right, I know that it does. The maps still show the face of durst as public? I remember when the backside was purchased by the group of attorneys I believe it was? Is there no longer a landlocked portion?

Your good friend should have us all up for a hunt 

I wish that the BLM would purchase the Durst CWMU that is currently for sale. Lots of wonderful land about to go to the toilet.


----------



## The Naturalist

RandomElk16 said:


> Right, I know that it does. The maps still show the face of durst as public? I remember when the backside was purchased by the group of attorneys I believe it was? Is there no longer a landlocked portion?
> 
> Your good friend should have us all up for a hunt
> 
> I wish that the BLM would purchase the Durst CWMU that is currently for sale. Lots of wonderful land about to go to the toilet.


His is on the Backside of Durst, up cottonwood...I could be mistaken but I believe that side is all private now.
Deer, Elk, an occasional Moose, Lions, Grouse, Turkey. 
I don't bother him to hunt on it though because my son-in-law's family owns a lot of private land in round valley (Morgan) with the same critters.

Lots of good country back in there for sure!


----------



## RandomElk16

The Naturalist said:


> His is on the Backside of Durst, up cottonwood...I could be mistaken but I believe that side is all private now.
> Deer, Elk, an occasional Moose, Lions, Grouse, Turkey.
> I don't bother him to hunt on it though because my son-in-law's family owns a lot of private land in round valley (Morgan) with the same critters.
> 
> Lots of good country back in there for sure!


Yeah, backside is all private.

Round Valley is a great place for critters. Elk and Deer are pretty premium up there. You are lucky to have hunting access there.


----------



## provider

random,

Read the entire post. I support the idea of the transfer, but I am concerned about losing access and I am concerned about corrupt state politicians being in control. There are conservative groups who want to see this transfer to Utah with no questions asked. There is no healthy discussion about how exactly the lands could be transferred within these groups - and these groups have a lot of power. I am suggesting that sportsmen affiliated with these groups start asking questions and expressing concerns. I falsely assumed some hunters on this website are associated with these circles of influenced and could instigate some healthy discussion. 

I believe our lands can be managed for more than beetle fodder. Because of this I would like to see the land go to the state, but I need to see a better vision. I'd like to see more discussion. I'm still learning. I didn't mean to ruin so many lives.


----------



## The Naturalist

provider said:


> random,
> ....I falsely assumed some hunters on this website are associated with these circles of influenced and could instigate some healthy discussion.
> 
> I believe our lands can be managed for more than beetle fodder. Because of this I would like to see the land go to the state, but I need to see a better vision. I'd like to see more discussion. I'm still learning. I didn't mean to ruin so many lives.


Didn't ruin my life  There just is no way the State can manage these land with the current "powers" that be. They might go through the motions, but have no desire to actually listen to any group other than the extraction industry and developers...their money talks louder...I wish it wasn't so...thanks for starting this thread there were a lot of good posts!


----------



## RandomElk16

Wow, don't get all emotional about it. Just know the subject when you present a hard opinion.


----------



## provider

Not emotional. Thought I was being funny. Never mind. 

Nobody knows all of the facts - even you. One of the best ways to learn is to express an opinion based on the best information you know and then to get feedback. I've learned a lot. I still dislike the way the feds manage, but I've appreciated the information and opinions that have been swapped. It will help me ask questions and voice concerns when I discuss this with others. I have a neighbor who is a strong proponent of the lands going to the state. I will be sharing this thread with her.


----------



## The Naturalist

provider said:


> ..... I've learned a lot. I still dislike the way the feds manage.....


 What exactly is it that you don't like about the way the Feds manage?

Having worked as a Range Technician for the US Forest Service in Utah I know first hand the value the Feds have on range restoration projects around the State and the West after generations of overgrazing on public lands.

Is there room for improvement in the way things are managed? For sure, but I maintain the answer is not to turn it over to Gov. Herbert whose answer to improve management is to sell, sell, sell. (They won't admit that is their agenda to sell, but if it ever comes to fruition, mark my words)!!


----------



## massmanute

It will be an unmitigated disaster for the vast majority of Utah residents if the Utah government gets control of lands currently owned by the Federal government.


----------



## provider

I don't like:

1) Horses being allowed to decimate the range in the west desert.
2) Not allowing sanitation cuts in beetle infested spruce. I don't think beetle kill / fire is better than logging. 
3) The lack of sustainable yield management as mandated by law. 
4) Increasingly limited access. 
5) Closing of federal land & parks due to federal partisan bickering.
6) Closing 1 million+ acres of range as a coal mine prevention strategy. 
7) The fact that federal lands contribute to the national debt. I believe the lands could be managed responsibly, sustainably, at no costs to the taxpayers. I bet if you had a large tract of land free and clear, minimal tax; you could turn a profit, keep the land looking great, and provide great recreational opportunities to the public. Could you do this or not? I know a lot of land owners who do this - and they pay taxes. 

Please read / comprehend my posts. You will realize I too have the same concerns about state control.


----------



## Trooper

provider said:


> I don't like:
> 
> 1) Horses being allowed to decimate the range in the west desert.
> 2) Not allowing sanitation cuts in beetle infested spruce. I don't think beetle kill / fire is better than logging.
> 3) The lack of sustainable yield management as mandated by law.
> 4) Increasingly limited access.
> 5) Closing of federal land & parks due to federal partisan bickering.
> 6) Closing 1 million+ acres of range as a coal mine prevention strategy.
> 7) The fact that federal lands contribute to the national debt. I believe the lands could be managed responsibly, sustainably, at no costs to the taxpayers. I bet if you had a large tract of land free and clear, minimal tax; you could turn a profit, keep the land looking great, and provide great recreational opportunities to the public. Could you do this or not? I know a lot of land owners who do this - and they pay taxes.
> 
> Please read / comprehend my posts. You will realize I too have the same concerns about state control.


1. If you think the Federal Land Managers want wild horses on the range, then this discussion isn't worth having, because you have drunk the kool-aid. The problem is the Wild Horses and Burros Act prevents the federal managers from solving the problem in the name of "preserving" this so-called symbol of the west. But guess what, even if the land were turned over to the States this Federal law would continue to exist, except now the State would be required to feed and house their fair share of these unwanted animals. If you want to fix this issue, lobby Congress.

2. If there were money in logging in Utah- it'd be done. The problem is that there is just not a lot of terribly valuable, but also not priceless timber in this state. Do you see the difference? Now if you want to subsidize the externalities of unwanted roads, water pollution etc. - well, that knd of makes your number (7) somewhat harder. But your point is actually well-taken, we need more cutting or fire or both... but I think that could be done under the existing system (or it'll all burn anyway.)

3. Sustainable is the key... it'd be easy to manage for just the grass (for instance) but does habitat figure in to that? Does water quality? How do you value erosion? Who pays for the required roads and other infrastructure? Who writes the lease terms and polices compliance? Do you think all those cowboys are going to be excited to pay market rates for their AMU's? What will you say when every rancher in the state claims you are "against" their way of life when you drive 90% of them (and 100% of the "family" ranchers) out of business by tripling or quadrupling their grazing fees? Do you think our local governments will have the guts to say, "sorry ranchers, your way of life just doesn't make economic sense anymore, move along?"

4. Do you mean motorized access? That's that's the trouble with sharing, you don't always get your way.

5. Ok.

6. That's a policy choice, but do you really want to stake your economic future on coal? Maybe a buggy whip factory? Coal's done. Accept that.

7. Sure you could, just charge $35 per day for recreational foot tresspass, $45 per day if you are hunting... plus, the annual $85 ATV sticker (which would be required) and... and... and...


----------



## GBell

As a non R, I can tell you our lands are just that, ours. 
You'll never ever hear a R refer to public lands as public,
Every time it's Federal lands. To some this brings a negative
Connotation. It's music to my ears. 

I was part of the SITLA blackmail attempt almost
A decade ago as President of BOU. SITLA wanted to 
Base their sportsmen access fees based on conservation
Tag pricing. I had one of the managers of SITLA tell me 
That an elk living on their holdings was worth $25,000.00
And they felt entitled to charge a portion of that back to hunters. 
I told him it was worth $60.00 to me and that if they succeeded
In fleecing Utah's hunters they were on their own with fire suppression,
Law enforcement and all the other SMALL items these
Land barons mooch from taxpayers. End result all the other sportsmans
Groups told them the same thing. 

Fellas, some of the assets on public land are renewable,
The land itself ain't. Once it's turned over to these idiots
On the hill kiss it good freaking bye.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

there are a lot of things that add to our national debt that could be profitable. Most would require privatization to a great degree or in full or charged per use.


transportation - full toll roads instead of interstates and public road. If you can't afford it tough luck.
education - all privatized education. If you can't afford it tough luck
insurance - If you can't afford it tough luck
science and medical research - no grants by government all money could be raised on a private level.
National Parks, Forest etc. - charge more for per use basis and sell off the areas that don't get used as much to private entities.........or just sell it all anyhow. If you can't afford it tough luck.
Careful what you wish for.


----------



## Trooper

What a bunch of hippie socialists on this forum. :mrgreen:


----------



## massmanute

Trooper said:


> What a bunch of hippie socialists on this forum. :mrgreen:


I guess when you don't have a legitimate point to make you can always fall back on name calling.


----------



## Vanilla

As I've said before, this is NOT an "R" vs "non-R" issue. To reduce it to that really waters down the issue and is ignorant.


----------



## rukus

I thought this article was somewhat relevant to this discussion.

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=29676267&ni...t-wont-stop-utah-in-roads-fight&s_cid=queue-5


----------



## provider

1) The burro act is still a federal gig as is spotted owls and the rest of it.
2) I think logging is better than spruce kill. My grandparents generation did a lot more logging here and the Dixie National Forest was beautiful when I was a kid. My generation stopped logging and now it looks like acid rain rolled through. 
3) You get just as much erosion from "controlled" burns as you do logging. 
4) I prefer hiking to motorized access, but I think multiple use should be accommodated on public land. 
6) My opinion of coal is irrelevant. I don't think grazing permits should be taken away as part of a coal prevention program. 
7) The and and and.... regarding rec. fees is already happening. Zions was $5 in the 90's, now its $25. Mirror Lake highway charges you to park. This is because any extraction is considered "poor management" by many.


----------



## provider

Mule,

$55,000 of national debt per citizen. Throw in unfunded medical and social liabilities - $300,000 per citizen. 

$1.8 million for my family of 6 - I'm plenty careful what I wish for. 

The state also has roads, is there a state debt? Nope!
There was education before a national debt or income tax for that matter. 
Insurance - medical I assume? It will break us all in time. 
Research - we don't need to put this on a credit card. 
National Forests - replace controlled burns and beetle kill with logging. It would be a good start.


----------



## RandomElk16

provider said:


> The state also has roads, is there a state debt? Nope!


Do you follow Utah's road system? It is a joke!! They used SALES TAX to generate funds close to 100 Million a year, over 100 Million this year, to use towards roads. Herbert, although often having his own agenda, tried to stop this but Legislature overruled. Have you never looked at Riverdale Road, I-15, Redwood Road, and wondered why they are under construction 24/7 for all of time? Where does that money come from? These guys are making bank!!

Now, they allotted 200 Million towards CAMPUS BUILDINGS!! (Someone must have sold their road stock for campus construction stock.)

Every year I attended college, tuition went up 5-10%. EVERY. SINGLE. YEAR. My scholarship started at $1100 a semester. It ended at $2400. I was fortunate(hard work) while many friends were forced to drop out. Meanwhile, my kids classes grow in size every year and I am having to do more homework and more teaching at a younger age! So lets give millions to college when Herberts initial position(if genuine) was to use the sales tax towards K-12 education.

The way the state floats our money around is horrible. Terrible example to bring up. We don't have debt because we don't have balance! And because when we need money we purpose ridiculous things like, oh I dunno, shipping in millions of gallons of hazardous waste to bury in Utah..... Good thing we don't have debt!

EDIT: Some recent things going on as far as roads are concerned: 
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/56505374-90/cents-gallon-gas-gasoline.html.csp
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/57630658-90/ads-bills-current-gallon.html.csp
*Even though they are taking our sales tax as well....


----------



## Catherder

A couple thoughts;

1.1. IMO, It is irrelevant to compare whether the State or the Feds are better stewards on other issues when talking about the "land grab". Why? Because it is necessary to take the State at their word that they will sell the land off. And when you think about it, if the state were to somehow, improbably, succeed, they would have little choice. They would have to replace the PILT monies coming in somehow, and that means sell off and take the proceeds and tax revenue. They could not afford to manage the public lands as they are managed now. (which is currently to the sportsmans and publics benefit) Thinking the state would somehow "change their mind" on selling and overcome enormous logistical challenges to keep these lands public is pure fantasy IMO.

2.


TS30 said:


> As I've said before, this is NOT an "R" vs "non-R" issue. To reduce it to that really waters down the issue and is ignorant.


I've been thinking about this some and disagree to a point. As stated before, the "D"'s by and large do not back the land grab, neither do their constituents. The "R"'s do as a party. It is not necessary to state who holds the power in the State of Utah. How is the best way these nonsensical legislative moves can be curtailed? By having a bunch of liberals with news cameras on them whine on the capitol steps? Heck no. It will be by "R"'s standing up and saying enough of this wasteful and fruitless political adventurism. If enough of us get through to our leaders that this isn't worth pursuing, then progress might be made and the "R"s will decide to focus on other things. It could be a rough road to travel in Southern Utah or Happy valley, but it is the best way IMO to fight it.


----------



## Vanilla

Catherder,

You are focusing on the elected R's and D's. There are a whole lot more of us non-elected R's and D's, and the vast majority of us, regardless of political affiliation, don't support the transfer. 

Here is the problem with making a partisan political issue: 70% of the people on either side are completely unable to think for themselves. I've seen it on this very forum where some insecure R tells a bunch of people they are "liberals" thinking that would scare them into changing their minds. That knife cuts both ways. It's amazing to me to see how many people are afraid to go against the political norm of their party in fear of being accused of being for the 'other guys.' It's a total joke, and I feel badly for those people. 

That is why I say this is not a D vs R issue. If you make it that in a partisan way, the R's will "win" by getting the land eventually and then the rest of us R's that aren't afraid to think for ourselves will lose by losing all the land when it is sold to the highest bidder. The vast majority of outdoorsmen are R's. That's just the way it is. So no, this is not and should not be a partisan political issue.


----------



## Catherder

TS30 said:


> Here is the problem with making a partisan political issue: 70% of the people on either side are completely unable to think for themselves. I've seen it on this very forum where some insecure R tells a bunch of people they are "liberals" thinking that would scare them into changing their minds. That knife cuts both ways. It's amazing to me to see how many people are afraid to go against the political norm of their party in fear of being accused of being for the 'other guys.' It's a total joke, and I feel badly for those people.


Yes, I have experienced that a time or two (or 20) when discussing this issue and stream access. I agree wholeheartedly.

What I'm saying is that it is up to us R's who detest the "land grab" to stand up, in spite of the groupspeak we'll face, and be heard. As you said, there are many of us (especially "R" sportsmen) and I think we can do a lot of good. But unless it comes from "R"s themselves, little will change in Utah.


----------



## Finnegan

Y'all understand that this "land grab" is a political tactic, yes? Bishop spilled the beans. Utah will never acquire these lands. Utah really doesn't want to acquire these lands. But if Utah can create the perception that this might happen, it undermines the smug confidence of environmentalists and puts them in a more bargaining mood.

Environmentalists want more wilderness designations and habitat protection. They have existing regulations on their side.

Utah's wants energy development. Kiss habitat good-bye.

The land grab pressures environmentalists. The strategy is that they can either compromise now, or be eliminated from the discussion if Utah can acquire acquisition.

The compromise is that environmentalists get their wilderness, but back off on energy development, even if that development intrudes on protected public lands (Bookcliffs).

Unfortunately, in my view, there isn't a compromise. Call me a socialist. But Utah can kiss my posterior. I'm a hunter, and nothing in Utah's move bodes well for me. All I see is profiteers looking to make money from my hunt.


----------



## SLCHunter

What's right is right, independently of who says it -- and the reason is not only "my hunt." Wild land and wild life is worth protecting, period. To that end, the state's profit motive needs to be kept at bay. 

The gray area is where the federal agencies seem unwilling/unable to deal with problems: Cattle and wild horses ... ?!


----------



## elkfromabove

Here's an interesting letter exchange I ran across at the Utah Archive Research Center while searching for some information regarding wildlife hunting changes. It's between Norman Han****, Chief, Game Management, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources and Glen C. (Chris) Christensen, Chief of Game, Nevada Fish and Game Department, the first letter dated Jan 8, 1980 and the second dated Jan 16, 1980.

In part: "One other item, Chris-- a "sagebrush rebellion" bill has already been prefiled in our Utah Legislature. I understand it is identical to the one passed in Nevada. We have been asked to assess the impact of the bill if it were enacted here in Utah. Do you have any similar analysis your department might have made regarding your bill? If so, I would appreciate a copy of it to aid me in this assignment."

The response: "Concerning the "Sagebrush Rebellion" law we have not, as yet, assessed the total impact on wildlife. However, our preliminary thoughts are filled with great concern. The law has no safeguards at all relative to wildlife; and, if implemented without modification, could have far reaching deleterious effects. In fact, we could loose (sic) all of the current benefits such as those relating to wildlife fences, waters, critical areas, land use, etc., which are built into the BLM management system. Furthermore, if implemented, the land use regulations are to be promulgated by a Board which is almost entirely livestock oriented, with no wildlife member.

There is also the very explicit and I believe realistic danger that following a short waiting period the spoils system would soon prevail relative to dividing the land up among special interest groups. It would then be lost forever."

Obviously, this dilemma has been around quite a while and there still is no clear best (or better) answer.

My own opinion borders on the "If it ain't broke, don't try to fix it." solution. We already know how the system works now and how to best deal with it. If the state took over this land, I don't think we have any idea of the unintended consequences nor how to deal with them.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

elkfromabove said:


> *My own opinion borders on the "If it ain't broke, don't try to fix it." solution. We already know how the system works now and how to best deal with it. If the state took over this land, I don't think we have any idea of the unintended consequences nor how to deal with them.*


Exactly.


----------

