# Pure horse crap.



## blackdog

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/5 ... l.html.csp


----------



## proutdoors

I LOVE IT!!!!!!!!!


----------



## bigbr

More history is needed here before we condem the efforts of our state elected. I post more later....Big


----------



## blackdog

Which part do you love Pro? Utah selling off public land, wasting $3 million dollars trying to sue the federal government or Utah being able to log, mine, build roads in and destroy our national parks? 

But it's for the children so I guess it's OK. I think Wyoming wants Yellowstone back too.


----------



## Critter

And if Utah gets the lands back you can kiss hunting good by as you know it now. You'll end up paying trespass fees to owners or they will lock you out completely. The lands will go to the highest bidder, and that won't be the common man. 

Just take a look at what happened to the fishing access on rivers.


----------



## GaryFish

South Carolina made the most aggressive push for this in 1861. They were joined by 10 other states in their pursuits. It took four years to resolve this one. Of course with attorneys involved instead of soldiers, this will take a lot longer to lose the fight.


----------



## GaryFish

We've been talking about this here:
viewtopic.php?f=61&t=41066


----------



## Cooky

In places with no public ownership of land the wildlife often also belongs to the landowner. Start scouting and saving your nickels and dimes.


----------



## Packout

Ahhhhh, come on guys. We have all seen how well our State has managed its own public resources. I mean, there is no way a special interest group could ever take advantage of the system if the State was in control of the lands. And who really needs all that BLM ground out in the West Desert? There should be a fat camp built on top of Rocky Peak in the Deep Creeks. 

Pro likes this idea so he will not have to show S.Larsen all the bucks on public BLM lands. The State can sell all that land because it is not "scenic" enough. Who will decide the "scene-isity"? Well, the lobbyist who wants to buy it-- duh!

In fact, I hope the State is successful and takes all the interstates too. The Feds can stop charging us gas taxes. Then pumpkin sellers can drive their pumpkins to market on State Roads, rather than those darned interstates. 

I dibbs the Mt Pennell on the Henry Mtns. Oh wait, I think someone more well connected than me will get that parcel........


----------



## proutdoors

GaryFish said:


> South Carolina made the most aggressive push for this in 1861. They were joined by 10 other states in their pursuits. It took four years to resolve this one. Of course with attorneys involved instead of soldiers, this will take a lot longer to lose the fight.


Nothing tops hyperbole, except false statements laced with hyperbole! Come on, I figured you were more intellectually honest than this....... :evil:


----------



## proutdoors

Packout said:


> Pro likes this idea so he will not have to show S.Larsen all the bucks on public BLM lands.


You figured me out....... :^8^:



Packout said:


> In fact, I hope the State is successful and takes all the interstates too. The Feds can stop charging us gas taxes. Then pumpkin sellers can drive their pumpkins to market on State Roads, rather than those darned interstates.


A-FREAKING-MEN! Don't get started down this road (pun intended) with me! :O•-:


----------



## GaryFish

I am intellectually honest on this one Pro, perhaps too bluntly. This has everything to do with Federal Supremacy vs. States rights. And this battle was fought. The bills before the legislature "demand the Federal Government turn over all lands to the State of Utah."


----------



## proutdoors

No, it is about the CONSTITUTION and THE EQUAL FOOTING DOCTRINE. Two things that actually mattered and where used as guides for the first 100 years of this country's existence! You know, when this country was truly prosperous and NOT laden with a $16 TRILLION and climbing debt!


----------



## proutdoors

Familiarize yourself with Virginia's Cession of Western Lands to the United States, 1783, the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, the PreEmption Acts of 1830 and 1841, the Homestead Act of 1862, the Act of 1866.

We 'progressed' with such things as the Forest Reserve Act of 1891....done in part to HOSE Utah and them darn Mormons, the Transfer Act of 1905, the Weeks Act of 1911, the Enlarged Homestead Act of 1909 (actually a sensible Act), the Stock-Raising Homestead Act of 1916 (well intended but....), the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 (which established the structure for the tyrannical feudal/manorial forms of governance, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the National Forest Management Act, both in 1976 (not exactly the apex of Constitutional adherence time period), and the Sustainable Communities in the early/mid 1990's (a means of implementing the U.N.'s Agenda 21, which SHOULD scare the HELL out of every American!!).


----------



## proutdoors

Ever hear of the Hage Saga? If not, I highly recommend learning about how 'wonderful' the federal government is toward hard working folks........


----------



## TopofUtahArcher

Can't say I didn't warn y'all. I mentioned this several times and brought it up again in a bunch of posts following the Gov Herbert visit to Wellsville in January, and couldn't believe noone even peeped about it. If he gets his way, we'll lose the rest of our public land hunting opportunity in a flash.


----------



## Catherder

I guess we'll carry this on from the other thread.



proutdoors said:


> Familiarize yourself with Virginia's Cession of Western Lands to the United States, 1783, the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, the PreEmption Acts of 1830 and 1841, the Homestead Act of 1862, the Act of 1866.
> 
> We 'progressed' with such things as the Forest Reserve Act of 1891....done in part to HOSE Utah and them darn Mormons, the Transfer Act of 1905, the Weeks Act of 1911, the Enlarged Homestead Act of 1909 (actually a sensible Act), the Stock-Raising Homestead Act of 1916 (well intended but....), the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 (which established the structure for the tyrannical feudal/manorial forms of governance, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the National Forest Management Act, both in 1976 (not exactly the apex of Constitutional adherence time period), and the Sustainable Communities in the early/mid 1990's (a means of implementing the U.N.'s Agenda 21, which SHOULD scare the HELL out of every American!!).


That's more like the Pro I know  . Anyway, thanks for the historical review of the settlement acts relating to the expansion of our nation. Some support what you'd like to see, some don't. Gary and I talked about these already to some extent on the other thread. I have to ask though. Do you seriously think that the state of Utah and SITLA would allow a state version of the Homestead act on these lands? If you believe that, I'VE got some oceanfront land I want to sell you here in Utah county. Evidence clearly tells us that the land would be bought out by the connected and privileged with the most cash. Based on the states managerial ineptitude, they would probably fritter it away for pennies on the dollar as well.

Back to the bill in question. The legislature is allegedly basing this idiotic bill on clauses in the statehood enabling act. I mentioned this in the other thread, but I would suggest that one may actually want to read the enabling act. Here it is. It isn't long.

http://archives.utah.gov/research/exhib ... 94text.htm

How the [email protected]*& they can with a straight face say the enabling act can justify this action when these clauses are present?

"That the people inhabiting said proposed State do agree and declare that they *forever *disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within the boundaries thereof;"
or
"The said State of Utah shall not be entitled to any further or other grants of land for any purpose than as expressly provided in this act;"

Not only is the constitutional Federal Supremacy clause going to shoot down this bill, but the pinheads at the legislature came up with a ridiculously flawed bill that will be even easier to shoot down.

However you view the Federal government and public lands, you should be concerned that our esteemed state legislators are wasting your money on un-winnable battles.


----------



## proutdoors

Catherder said:


> That's more like the Pro I know  . Anyway, thanks for the historical review of the settlement acts relating to the expansion of our nation. Some support what you'd like to see, some don't. Gary and I talked about these already to some extent on the other thread. I have to ask though. Do you seriously think that the state of Utah and SITLA would allow a state version of the Homestead act on these lands? If you believe that, I'VE got some oceanfront land I want to sell you here in Utah county. Evidence clearly tells us that the land would be bought out by the connected and privileged with the most cash. Based on the states managerial ineptitude, they would probably fritter it away for pennies on the dollar as well.


I assert that the state of Utah's ineptness pales in comparison with the ineptitude of the federal government! How many examples do you want.....?



Catherder said:


> However you view the Federal government and public lands, you should be concerned that our esteemed state legislators are wasting your money on un-winnable battles.


 "Freedom is never free." ~Author Unknown

I would much prefer we 'waste' funds on fighting for liberty, than on social programs, maintaining flawed policies, and actually believing the federal government cares more about you/me than the state does!


----------



## pkred

Ken Ivory, R-West Jordan. "Our children can't wait any longer."

Peter Metcalf, CEO of Utah-based Black Diamond Equipment "[The lands would be] mortgaged for the benefit of a few large corporations and the losers would be the general public."

Stephen Bloch, attorney with the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance "These are public lands - owned by all Americans and our children and grandchildren - and are not to be sold off by parochial politicians hoping to help their corporate friends make a quick buck,"

Three seemingly learned gentleman. One of the augments is abstract and with out logic, but is a emotional plea ransoming your children future. I think I will take a logical argument over political pandering any day. Great article.


----------



## proutdoors

You are asserting that a rep from SUWA is using 'logic'? And, this is who you are wanting to be aligned with.....

:shock:


----------



## proutdoors

Funny, you all mention the 'selfish' reasons why Ivory would sponsor the Bill, but then cite the opposition and omit their 'selfish' reasons........

:roll:


----------



## Longfeather

SUWA doesn't like the bill because they won't be able to use the Fed Gov to impose their will on Utah. 

Land will be sold, but is that worse than letting the bureaucrats in Washington step all over us?


----------



## GeorgeS

I can't understand how any serious outdoors person would support the turnover of OUR federal (read public) lands to the state. 

One need look no further than the way SITLA lands are managed and sold. These lands are state lands, owned by the state for the purpose of putting money into an account for our schools. In order to access these lands all of us (who buy a fishing or hunting license) pay a "trespass" fee. Currently it is around $500,000 per year. At one point the Legislature had to pass a law forcing SITLA to sell land at fair market value, because land was being sold to "buddies" for dirt cheap. 

I admit I'm naive, but even I know that once the state gets OUR public lands they will be sold off a fast as possible. I'll bet the buyers are already lined up.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

agreed George. Scares me. I wish there were more federal (public) land not less of it.


----------



## PBH

pkred said:


> Stephen Bloch, attorney with the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance "These are public lands - owned by all Americans and our children and grandchildren - and are not to be sold off by parochial politicians hoping to help their corporate friends make a quick buck,"





proutdoors said:


> You are asserting that a rep from SUWA is using 'logic'? And, this is who you are wanting to be aligned with.....
> 
> :shock:


Pro -- just curious, which part of Stephen Bloch's comments above were not logical?
the lands are public. 
they are "owned" by all Americans.
they should not be sold to corporations hoping to make a quick buck.

sounds logical to me. Maybe other comments were made that were not logical.

GeorgeS -- nice post.

In recent years, our legislature has taken away the rights of sportsmen, namely anglers, to access our public resources (ie: stream access). Now, our legislature wants Utah to take ownership of our federal lands. Any sportsmen should be able to see that this threatens sportsmen's rights to access public land for recreational purposes. If you enjoy hunting deer, elk, antelope, coyotes, rabbits, shed antlers, rocks, firewood, etc., on public land, you should be opposed to this. Our government is not wanting this land so that Utahn's can enjoy it. They want it so that they can exploit it (exploit: abuse, do an injustice, impose on, misuse).


----------



## MadHunter

I agree that states should own and manage their own land. However given the history of our state's government I cannot help but sigh and think that this would be a trade of from bad to worse. Our state is plagued with shady land deals and backdoor policy making for the benefit of the ones in the club. Let's not go farther than.... YES I WILL SAY IT.... our wildlife and SFW.


----------



## proutdoors

How can the state take away rights that don't exist in the first place? We do NOT have a right to public land, that is an entitlement....something taken/kept from one and given to another. Rights are given to us by our Creator, entitlements are brought about by theft and force. It amazes me how people think socialism is good, and individualism is bad. Individuals/corporations owning land equates to doom and gloom, while federal elitists owning/controlling land equates to peace, love, and prosperity...............WTF has happened to this country?


----------



## wyoming2utah

I take it Pro that you do not recreate on public land....

....I can't see how the state controlling land and possibly selling it can be a good thing for sportsmen. But, I guess I am just a socialist.... :roll:


----------



## Longfeather

It's true the state could mismanage the land and that land will be sold. That is the bad. 

The good, is that the people in charge will be our representatives and SHOULD answer to Utahn's.

The ugly is the fact that we have to hold our representatives accountable. 

For me, it is easier to hold the local representaves accountable then it is to hold the Fed Gov accountable.


----------



## proutdoors

PBH said:


> Pro -- just curious, which part of Stephen Bloch's comments above were not logical?
> the lands are public.
> they are "owned" by all Americans.
> they should not be sold to corporations hoping to make a quick buck.
> 
> sounds logical to me. Maybe other comments were made that were not logical.


 Logical? To assert America is a socialist democracy instead of a democratic republic? A perfect example of how our public education system is HORRIBLE!


----------



## wyoming2utah

Longfeather said:


> The ugly is the fact that we have to hold our representatives accountable.
> 
> For me, it is easier to hold the local representaves accountable then it is to hold the Fed Gov accountable.


Accountability...great, I like that word. So, we could do what then? Maybe if Joe Schomo legislator and his cronies decide to sell Utah land we could what....maybe vote them out? I like that kind of accountability...but do we ever get that land back?


----------



## proutdoors

wyoming2utah said:


> I take it Pro that you do not recreate on public land....
> 
> ....I can't see how the state controlling land and possibly selling it can be a good thing for sportsmen. But, I guess I am just a socialist.... :roll:


If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck......

Using the intellectually VOID argument of me using public land shows how little substance you have on your side. I am FORCED to fund public lands, so why shouldn't I avail myself? Just because I would LOVE to see 99.99999% of all public land turned over to individuals/states, doesn't mean I have to take the shafting I get every time I am FORCED to fund this and other entitlement programs without getting to enjoy them.......


----------



## Critter

Longfeather said:


> It's true the state could mismanage the land and that land will be sold. That is the bad.
> 
> The good, is that the people in charge will be our representatives and SHOULD answer to Utahn's.
> 
> The ugly is the fact that we have to hold our representatives accountable.
> 
> For me, it is easier to hold the local representaves accountable then it is to hold the Fed Gov accountable.


The problem is as I see it is that once it is sold it is sold. Granted you can hold your representave accountable but what good is that going to do once the area that you used to hunt and camp on belongs to a company that post it

*NO TRESPASSING, NO HUNTING, NO FISHING, NO CAMPING*


----------



## proutdoors

wyoming2utah said:


> Longfeather said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ugly is the fact that we have to hold our representatives accountable.
> 
> For me, it is easier to hold the local representaves accountable then it is to hold the Fed Gov accountable.
> 
> 
> 
> Accountability...great, I like that word. So, we could do what then? Maybe if Joe Schomo legislator and his cronies decide to sell Utah land we could what....maybe vote them out? I like that kind of accountability...but do we ever get that land back?
Click to expand...

Get it back? You don't own/control it now! And yes, Longfeather is spot on, the smaller the government entity is, the easier it is to hold accountable. The smallest government entity is the individual, the biggest...and WORST....is the fedzilla in DC!


----------



## wyoming2utah

So, Pro, you would rather NOT enjoy them at all...? That's the choice....exploit, fence off, and keep out. That's what the state will do...


----------



## proutdoors

Critter said:


> Longfeather said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's true the state could mismanage the land and that land will be sold. That is the bad.
> 
> The good, is that the people in charge will be our representatives and SHOULD answer to Utahn's.
> 
> The ugly is the fact that we have to hold our representatives accountable.
> 
> For me, it is easier to hold the local representaves accountable then it is to hold the Fed Gov accountable.
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is as I see it is that once it is sold it is sold. Granted you can hold your representave accountable but what good is that going to do once the area that you used to hunt and camp on belongs to a company that post it
> 
> *NO TRESPASSING, NO HUNTING, NO FISHING, NO CAMPING*
Click to expand...

Such hyperbole seems silly to me. You make it seem as people east of the Rockies don't hunt, don't fish, don't camp.....when in reality people in rural parts of the country east of the Rockies hunt/fish/camp at as high..if not higher....rates than those of us living in the concentration camp known as the west...


----------



## proutdoors

wyoming2utah said:


> So, Pro, you would rather NOT enjoy them at all...? That's the choice....exploit, fence off, and keep out. That's what the state will do...


More hyperbole, based on NO FACTS, void of any reason, and nothing more than a scare tactic!


----------



## Critter

proutdoors said:


> Critter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Longfeather said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's true the state could mismanage the land and that land will be sold. That is the bad.
> 
> The good, is that the people in charge will be our representatives and SHOULD answer to Utahn's.
> 
> The ugly is the fact that we have to hold our representatives accountable.
> 
> For me, it is easier to hold the local representaves accountable then it is to hold the Fed Gov accountable.
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is as I see it is that once it is sold it is sold. Granted you can hold your representave accountable but what good is that going to do once the area that you used to hunt and camp on belongs to a company that post it
> 
> *NO TRESPASSING, NO HUNTING, NO FISHING, NO CAMPING*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Such hyperbole seems silly to me. You make it seem as people east of the Rockies don't hunt, don't fish, don't camp.....when in reality people in rural parts of the country east of the Rockies hunt/fish/camp at as high..if not higher....rates than those of us living in the concentration camp known as the west...
Click to expand...

And they pay a pretty penny to do that. Ask a hunter in Ohio, Iowa, Texas or a number of other states that sold off all of the "public" lands to private owners. In order to hunt in a lot of these states you need to buy a hunting lease on a piece of property. If you want to go camping you need to pay for the use of a state or privately owned camp ground.

I will admit that the feds are not doing that well of a job but at least when I decide to go hunting I can go hunting as long as I have the proper licenses, and as for camping I can go just about anywhere I want without having to pay someone a fee to do it.


----------



## proutdoors

They pay more upfront, but you/I pay for it through hidden methods, and it is subsidized by citizens that never see, let alone enjoy the public lands of Utah. Subsidizing is another way to redistribute wealth, what I see/hear many who support public land say they dislike about the current regime in the White House......just saying.


----------



## wyoming2utah

proutdoors said:


> wyoming2utah said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, Pro, you would rather NOT enjoy them at all...? That's the choice....exploit, fence off, and keep out. That's what the state will do...
> 
> 
> 
> More hyperbole, based on NO FACTS, void of any reason, and nothing more than a scare tactic!
Click to expand...

Hmmm...


proutdoors said:


> Such hyperbole seems silly to me. You make it seem as people east of the Rockies don't hunt, don't fish, don't camp.....when in reality people in rural parts of the country east of the Rockies hunt/fish/camp at as high..if not higher....rates than those of us living in the concentration camp known as the west...


Now, if'n that ain't the pot calling the kettle black, I don't know what is! Any facts to back these statements up?

As I recall, it seems that the numbers of hunters has been dropping for years and the biggest reason seems to be access...it is also why government entitlement (as you call them) programs are being set up all over the East to allow more hunters and fishermen to hunt/fish on private grounds.


----------



## wyoming2utah

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/featur ... arson.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/ ... 8893.shtml
http://americaswildlife.org/2011/02/the ... ge-system/

Here, Pro, is a good reading list start....all these articles talk about land access as an increasing problem and leading to fewer and fewer hunters. What do you think will happen if we lose these public lands?


----------



## wyoming2utah

And the best...
http://www.nationaltrappers.com/RecHunt ... onPlan.pdf


----------



## proutdoors

You are using flawed data, or at least you are lumping apples to oranges and trying to make pumpkin pie. You can't include urban areas, ALL urban areas have little/no access to hunting/fishing/camping. And the percentage of the population living in urban areas is increasing by the day. The great thing about stats, depending where you start/end, what/who you include/omit, a person can 'prove' any stance they wish.........there are lies, **** lies, and statistics......


----------



## wyoming2utah

Oh geez, Pro, you didn't read them all did you? Flawed data? The data isn't just talking about urban areas....it is talking about ALL areas and lists urbanization of rural areas as one problem. The reason that more people are living in urban areas is because there is less land kept public and not sold of to developers....the rural areas are becoming urban. Keep reading....

...funny, though, how you dismiss things when they don't coincide with your opinions. You sound a bit Goofy-like!


----------



## proutdoors

Look in the mirror, my friend!

And, people are NOT moving into urban areas because of lost public land. That is absurd at best. People move to urban areas because of lost PRIVATE lands.....things such as family farms! It is a direct result of federal government entitlement programs! But it is most certainly NOT due to lost public land..........what was it you were saying about dismissing things..........


----------



## proutdoors

People living in rural Iowa hunt/fish/camp at as high rates as people living in rural Utah. And yet, Iowa has how much public land compared to Utah? Like I said, flawed data.......!


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

Lets take an area that is not used for hunting...........The Knolls..........currently held by the BLM. The area is open right now for public use. I believe that the use fee $6.00 and an annual pass can be purchased for $40.00.

I would assume that this is an area that would be highly targeted by the private sector given the fact that it is somewhat unique, heavily used and has an established clientele. I have a hard time believing that the state would do a better job in managing this area. I have a very easy time believing that a private investor would come in and snatch up this area. Charge higher fees to pay for the land that they bought and then start imposing more restrictions on it's use such as no fires, lights out at 10:00 PM, no alcohol on site............it just scares me.

As far as other areas that are used for hunting or hunting access that could possibly go up for sell a few potential buyers come to mind.........

Coalition to Abolish the Fur Trade

Utah Animal Rights Coalition

PETA

Defenders of Wildlife

The Humane Society

I will not pretend to be more informed than any of you but as a business man myself I do recognize the fact that I only have an opportunity where opportunity is available.


----------



## Longfeather

Critter said:


> Longfeather said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's true the state could mismanage the land and that land will be sold. That is the bad.
> 
> The good, is that the people in charge will be our representatives and SHOULD answer to Utahn's.
> 
> The ugly is the fact that we have to hold our representatives accountable.
> 
> For me, it is easier to hold the local representaves accountable then it is to hold the Fed Gov accountable.
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is as I see it is that once it is sold it is sold. Granted you can hold your representave accountable but what good is that going to do once the area that you used to hunt and camp on belongs to a company that post it
> 
> *NO TRESPASSING, NO HUNTING, NO FISHING, NO CAMPING*
Click to expand...

It is a risk, particularly if you don't get involved with your reps until the land is sold.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr

What about state control with strict regulation and oversight? This would allow smaller govt. to control it in the same manor and structure as the feds, only now the feds don't have control or the burden of paying for it. You can guarantee that these types of things are going to be the ones that lose funding first on a federal level.

I don not want to see public lands privatized.


----------



## GeorgeS

Some interesting tidbits:
The number one industry in Utah is recreation and tourism, although none of our "people on the hill" will recognize this. The figures I have (from 2006 USFW&S Survey) show that fishing provides $708 million, hunting $524 million, and wildlife watching $1.24 billion in economic benefits to the State of Utah. How will state control of our public lands affect this? 

Utah receives over $30 million a year in PILT (payments in lieu of taxes) payments. In 2010 and 2011 we received $34 million and change (each year). This money is supposed to go to schools, public safety, roads, and search and rescue. This money will all go away if the state gets the land. To make up this amount, they will either have to raise taxes or sell the land.

Any government agency that has property in Utah also pays PILT to the state. The state receives money for all WMA's and other such property. Unfortunately I don't have the amount yet. It is a higher rate than greenbelt taxes. 

Has anyone ever heard one of our "people on the hill" mention any of this?


----------



## BradN

Pro said:


> concentration camp known as the west


Did someone mention being intellectually honest and not using hyperbole?


----------



## BradN

With John Swallow carrying the legal torch for the state I'm comforted that such a lawsuit has zero chance of success, but not happy that precious tax dollars will be wasted.


----------



## PBH

Mr Muleskinner said:


> As far as other areas that are used for hunting or hunting access that could possibly go up for sell a few potential buyers come to mind.........
> 
> Coalition to Abolish the Fur Trade
> 
> Utah Animal Rights Coalition
> 
> PETA
> 
> Defenders of Wildlife
> 
> The Humane Society
> 
> I will not pretend to be more informed than any of you but as a business man myself I do recognize the fact that I only have an opportunity where opportunity is available.


It's not the PETA's, SUWA's, and Defenders of Wildlife that worry me. What happens when the State takes over the Grand Staircase, sells off large chunks of the G.S. to an oil company who then moves in and fences off this area and closes it down to the public for any use at all (ATVing, hunting, hiking, sight seeing, etc.)? Or the Paunsagaunt to increased strip coal mines (doh! that might happen anyway)?

the State isn't looking to sell land to groups (ie: Peta) that would possibly want to "conserve" nature. They will be selling to groups that want to exploit the land. What comes with that exploitation? Loss of access to the public.

We may not like the Feds -- but one thing that they do provide us with is a lot of open areas to recreate in. The State won't be looking out to assure that the general public has places to camp, hike, hunt, fish, ride atvs, or photograph. The State (ie: our legislative representatives) will be looking to make quick money, which means oil, gas, lumber.....short term gains with long-term losses.

Like George pointed out (again, nice post) Utah's number one industry is tourism (which includes recreation). Why can't people embrace this and capitalize on it? Instead, we want to expand coal mines on public land (for the benefit of private companies!) near our national parks.


----------



## rjefre

BradN said:


> With John Swallow carrying the legal torch for the state I'm comforted that such a lawsuit has zero chance of success, but not happy that precious tax dollars will be wasted.


Truer words were never spoken.
R


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

I don't want the land to go public either way. I don't want it to go to industrialist or any special interest group or to farmers for that matter. I want the land to have equal rights and equal access. It doesn't matter who the state would look to sell it to. It can always change hands afterwards.

A rich individual or group can purchase the land and sell it or donate it to anybody they want. I don't like it either way.


----------



## Catherder

Treehugnhuntr said:


> What about state control with strict regulation and oversight? This would allow smaller govt. to control it in the same manor and structure as the feds, only now the feds don't have control or the burden of paying for it. You can guarantee that these types of things are going to be the ones that lose funding first on a federal level.


In theory, it could work, but the proponents of the bills have made it clear that if successful, the land will be transferred to SITLA for sale. We certainly need to take them at their word when considering this issue.



rjefre said:


> BradN said:
> 
> 
> 
> With John Swallow carrying the legal torch for the state I'm comforted that such a lawsuit has zero chance of success, but not happy that precious tax dollars will be wasted.
> 
> 
> 
> Truer words were never spoken.
> R
Click to expand...

+1, but that also means he doesn't have the sense to know when to quit, and that means more exorbitant sums of our cash wasted. :roll:

RE; " Catherder wrote:However you view the Federal government and public lands, you should be concerned that our esteemed state legislators are wasting your money on un-winnable battles."

Pro wrote "Freedom is never free." ~Author Unknown

I would much prefer we 'waste' funds on fighting for liberty, than on social programs, maintaining flawed policies, and actually believing the federal government cares more about you/me than the state does!"

So supporting a deeply flawed bill, with zero chance of winning, at great expense to us as a State, at a time when we can ill afford it, is good because YOU agree with the general principle and the action is "doing something about the problem".??????!!!!!!

That does sound a bit Goofy like. :roll:


----------



## wileywapati

**** PRO, seriously?? I wouldn't trust hose fruitcakes
On the Hill as far as I could throw them. They are all
For privatization unless it has to do with liquor. If you
Think the supposed lack of wildlife is killing hunter recruitment
Wait till we have nowhere to hunt. Hello Texas Hello Europe
Hello Feudalistic society. 

But, and this is the best part, once that land catches fire or
Floods or has a trespassing problem these PRIVATE owners 
Will be quick to jump on the socialist teat to be bailed out.


----------



## blackdog

Pro, did one of your cows kick you in the head?


----------



## Vanilla

Pro's only argument to support this here surrounds around the political propaganda of the day where the Feds are terrible, in debt, idiots, whatever. 

But the FACT is, the Feds have had control of this land for over 100 years and I can still use it. If this went through, I'd guess within 10 years I'd no longer be able to use the vast majority of it. So why on earth would I support it??? 

Last question: You referenced the CONSTITUTION earlier in your emotional rant void of fact. What portion of the constitution actually allows the state to do this? I'm looking for a specific provision, not just a political debate-like general mention of the document void of any specific provision or knowledge of the document.


----------



## Yonni

Ya know I hope you fools get your wish and all land becomes federal land, then some new federal law will come about that will prevent you to use that land for whatever reason. It will happen, especially when a certain country starts to demand our natural resources for payment of federal loans, and where will your thought be then? What the hell is happening to our society that thinks the feds can do even a remotely better job than a citizen who is "selfishly" using his own land. 

Guess what, I come from a state with next to nothing in Federal land, and my folks still live there, my dad had three deer tags filled this last fall from hunting on PRIVATE land, not paying a penny to the selfish land owner, in fact he was asked to come and shoot some deer. So this private vs fed land ownership argument is all HYPERBOLE, look up that word if it is not understood, because from what I see yall need some edumacation. Oh wait I used hyperbole in the above paragraph.... bring on the insults  

Interesting how many of you consider yourself a conservative or republican and would allow for the feds to control the millions of acres in Utah!


----------



## Vanilla

Yonni said:


> Interesting how many of you consider yourself a conservative or republican and would allow for the feds to control the millions of acres in Utah!


And this here is the crux of the entire problem! Some people are content allowing Glen Beck to tell them what they have to believe to be a "good conservative." The thing that is most shocking to me is this crap actually works. Think for yourselves, people. Hunting, fishing, and enjoying our public resources as a whole should NEVER take a back seat to a political party telling you what to think. If it happens, you aren't worthy of the designation of "sportsman" anyway.

I'm still waiting for anyone that supports this to actually use logic and factual information, and not just politically charged rhetoric that is being ingrained in folks unwilling to think for themselves.

Still curious which provision of the constitution provides states power to do this???


----------



## Old Fudd

Higher Taxes? Money Grubbers? Land Whores? Outa Touch with Reality? Zion Curtain?
WHO ARE THESE GUYS?? There up on the HILL Making R Lives BETTER!! (FUBAR)


----------



## proutdoors

TS30 said:


> Pro's only argument to support this here surrounds around the political propaganda of the day where the Feds are terrible, in debt, idiots, whatever.
> 
> But the FACT is, the Feds have had control of this land for over 100 years and I can still use it. If this went through, I'd guess within 10 years I'd no longer be able to use the vast majority of it. So why on earth would I support it???
> 
> Last question: You referenced the CONSTITUTION earlier in your emotional rant void of fact. What portion of the constitution actually allows the state to do this? I'm looking for a specific provision, not just a political debate-like general mention of the document void of any specific provision or knowledge of the document.


Well, since you have either never read the Constitution, or your reading comprehension skills are null and void, let me help you out. The Constitution defines the LIMITED powers GIVEN to the federal government by the STATES. There is this thing called the Bill of Rights, in it there are ten Articles, Article Ten: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are RESERVED to the States respectively, or to the people." Now, who is going off on rants void of fact/logic/reason..........?

The federal government over the last 100 years, according to you, has made life much better, 'given' us more rights/liberty, and made us far happier. Sadly, the facts say otherwise. The national debt was what in 1912? Today it is over $16 TRILLION. Poverty rates are as high as at any time in US history. We have been at war constantly with one or more countries during this time of 'progress'. FORTY THOUSAND new laws were passed by the federal government in 2011, that is in ONE year! Regulations affect every aspect of life, that is NOT liberty, that is slavery!


----------



## proutdoors

Excellent post, Yonni!


----------



## proutdoors

TS30 said:


> And this here is the crux of the entire problem! Some people are content allowing Glen Beck to tell them what they have to believe to be a "good conservative." The thing that is most shocking to me is this crap actually works. Think for yourselves, people. Hunting, fishing, and enjoying our public resources as a whole should NEVER take a back seat to a political party telling you what to think. If it happens, you aren't worthy of the designation of "sportsman" anyway.
> 
> I'm still waiting for anyone that supports this to actually use logic and factual information, and not just politically charged rhetoric that is being ingrained in folks unwilling to think for themselves.
> 
> Still curious which provision of the constitution provides states power to do this???


Who the hell brought Glenn Beck into this? It certainly was NOT Yonni nor me!

The irony is, it is YOU that has been duped, and has shut down your brain. You actually believe the government is good, and individuals are bad. HELLO! Who runs the government? Oh yeah, INDIVIDUALS!


----------



## Treehugnhuntr

proutdoors said:


> TS30 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The federal government over the last 100 years, according to you, has made life much better, 'given' us more rights/liberty, and made us far happier. Sadly, the facts say otherwise. The national debt was what in 1912? Today it is over $16 TRILLION. Poverty rates are as high as at any time in US history. We have been at war constantly with one or more countries during this time of 'progress'. FORTY THOUSAND new laws were passed by the federal government in 2011, that is in ONE year! Regulations affect every aspect of life, that is NOT liberty, that is slavery!
Click to expand...

Isn't this about public lands controlled by the Feds? Seems to me that it's been a fairly successful program for citizens to enjoy over the last hundred years. Not sure why it's turned into an all inclusive argument. I do see the point of not having it under the control of an entity that can be leveraged by countries holding billion dollar notes, but is the only other alternative selling it to private individuals? Why so damned black and white?


----------



## Iron Bear

Yonni said:


> Interesting how many of you consider yourself a conservative or republican and would allow for the feds to control the millions of acres in Utah!


Or buy into a socialized hunting program lock stock and barrel that is subsidized federally and by the state. That effectively takes form the rich and gives to the poor. Or at least blocks the rich from buying it all up. And in the same sentence criticize privatized hunting concerns. :? :roll: :O•-:


----------



## Iron Bear

What makes oil, gas, minerals and timber any different from wildlife? (all public resources) Would any of you support a state run oil company or mining company that returned the oil and minerals revenue on public lands back to the public? You know like Hugo has in Venezuela. :O•-: o-||


----------



## Treehugnhuntr

Whew, I was sure when I saw your name that I was going to be educated on how cougars are responsible for the national debt. :mrgreen:


----------



## Vanilla

proutdoors said:


> Who the hell brought Glenn Beck into this? It certainly was NOT Yonni nor me!
> 
> The irony is, it is YOU that has been duped, and has shut down your brain. You actually believe the government is good, and individuals are bad. HELLO! Who runs the government? Oh yeah, INDIVIDUALS!


Glen Beck is just one example of a person that is telling people what they have to believe if they want to be considered a "conservative." And Yonnie certainly brought up what we should believe if we want to be considered a conservative. I actually could have named any one of a myriad of people trying to formulate what it takes to be a "conservative", really. There are a ton of them up in our very own legislature these days. It reminds me of all the "Christians" around the country telling me what I have to believe if I want to be a "Christian" as well. You know, being a Mormon excludes me. And I guess wanting public access to public resources disqualifies me from being a "conservative" to some. I'm totally fine with both!

Again...still waiting for you to back up that constitutional claim you made. Or are you just using the rhetoric of the day to argue emotionally? Because that is a question you don't seem to want to answer. You know...focus on the emotional side. And if someone calls you out, just bring up another emotional topic to distract from the real issues. It's called a red herring. The politicians of our day are masters at this.

Look, people can have different opinions. And I don't even care what someone's basis for that opinion is. "Because I said so" is valid enough in this great country. But when you make claims around the constitution to try and get people to buy a solely emotional argument that isn't supported by facts and logic, you should be prepared to be called on it. I'll be waiting for the specific constitutional provision you were referring to.


----------



## wileywapati

The world according to a Neo ****e Liberaterian
Like PRO states that the Federal Govt. has 
Never done anything right nor will they. 
They would be happy to live on a self sufficient
Commune where they can spout the parts
Of the constitution they translate to fit their
Own perspective. They claim to want to pass
The outdoor tradition to the next generation
While selling it out from under them for a 
One time gain for HIS OWN generation. 

The men and women that fight to secure the 
Ground under his feet intended to do it 
So that a profit could be made for HIS generation.


----------



## Iron Bear

Treehugnhuntr said:


> Whew, I was sure when I saw your name that I was going to be educated on how cougars are responsible for the national debt. :mrgreen:


 :lol:


----------



## rjefre

I consider myself a conservative (registered Republican and also a delegate), and it truly embarrasses me when our nut-job legislators come out with goofy ideas like suing the feds to turn over federal lands to the state. Not only does it waste our tax money on an un-winnable suit, but the idea of these yahoos having control of that land makes me cringe. You can bet they would sell it off as fast as they could in order to gain one-time revenues, with no vision for the future uses of this land. Leasing it to energy exploration companies would bring in royalties but destroy the land and de-value it for wildlfe (refer to the Pinedale Anticline fiasco) and remove the opportunity for the public to use it for recreational purposes. Sad to say, but these lands are far safer in the hands of the feds than in the hands of our state...we have a horrible track record of protecting the public trust on state lands. Maybe the next generation will be better stewards of our lands, but for now, we have to keep them out of the state's grubby little hands.
R


----------



## Vanilla

Pro, I missed your post as you responded to yourself 17 times. I'll bet you $20 that argument doesn't win in court. Wanna put your money where your mouth is???


----------



## Yonni

Will someone please explain why it is better for someone from say Massachusetts or Hawaii, or California, or Washington DC has more say and pull of the land here in Utah in which I live and have no say? How is that beneficial to me? What evidence is there that the Utah government would be any worse than what the feds are doing? Are the feds doing a good job managing Utah lands?


----------



## 280Remington

TS30, your wasting your time with PRO. If it wasn't for AM talk radio, Google and the ability to cut and paste he wouldn't even be able to form an opinion. If somebody would start up a collection, I would donate some serious money towards buying PRO a one way airline ticket to Europe or the UK. Very little government owned land over there, I'm sure he could find some choice places to hunt. Then he could get back on here and tell us how that little experience turned out for him.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr

Yonni said:


> Will someone please explain why it is better for someone from say Massachusetts or Hawaii, or California, or Washington DC has more say and pull of the land here in Utah in which I live and have no say? How is that beneficial to me? What evidence is there that the Utah government would be any worse than what the feds are doing? Are the feds doing a good job managing Utah lands?


I'm pretty sure the issue is the land getting sold to private companies and individuals. The only concern about transfer to the state is regarding SITLA. And, I guess I'm a dirty hippie liberal, but I like the idea that we share certain things as a nation instead of all being sovereign and divided. Don't get me wrong, I'm for more state control on most things, but I see huge value in a standardized public land system that exists nation wide. I like being able to go to national forests in other states without hinderance. Id sure hate to have to know the rules and pay the tolls associated with making public land rules and ownership on state levels, much less trying to navigate or deal with the associated risks of privatizing public lands.

There are very few things that I agree with that look like "socialism" and this is one of them.


----------



## proutdoors

Treehugnhuntr said:


> Isn't this about public lands controlled by the Feds? Seems to me that it's been a fairly successful program for citizens to enjoy over the last hundred years. Not sure why it's turned into an all inclusive argument. I do see the point of not having it under the control of an entity that can be leveraged by countries holding billion dollar notes, but is the only other alternative selling it to private individuals? Why so damned black and white?


It is about public lands...but we can't look at public lands as if it is in a bubble. I guess your definition of a "fairly successful program for citizens" is vastly different than mine. I don't consider people back east dictating how land in Utah is ran, "fairly successful", nor do I consider people that for 3+ generations have ran operations based on good faith and then squashed and criminalized "fairly successful". Of course, I don't consider paying $3.20/gl and CLIMBING for fuel in February thanks to having the LARGEST oil reserves on the planet right here but untouchable "fairly successful" either. Nor do I consider the MILLIONS of acres that have been turned into dead forests because of the spread of beetles and other diseases, that have grown by the day because of the inability of corrective action to be put into motion because some 'environmentalists' are 'concerned' about grouse populations, effectively putting thousands of people out of work "fairly successful".


----------



## proutdoors

wileywapati said:


> The world according to a Neo **** Liberaterian
> Like PRO states that the Federal Govt. has
> Never done anything right nor will they.
> They would be happy to live on a self sufficient
> Commune where they can spout the parts
> Of the constitution they translate to fit their
> Own perspective. They claim to want to pass
> The outdoor tradition to the next generation
> While selling it out from under them for a
> One time gain for HIS OWN generation.
> 
> The men and women that fight to secure the
> Ground under his feet intended to do it
> So that a profit could be made for HIS generation.


TS30, now this is an example of what you accused me and Yonni being guilty of......pure emotional nonsense based on NO facts! :roll:

First, to accuse me of being a Neo anything is wrong and out of line! Either you are as ignorant as you are ugly, or you are intentionally accusing me of being racist. Either way, not kosher! Second, your assertion that I am anti-federal government is based on ZERO facts. Just because I want the federal government to follow and adhere to the Constitution, does NOT make me an anarchist. It makes me a lover of Liberty! If you value 'security' and entitlements over liberty, so be it, but do NOT make accusations that are flat out BS. Third, I see you have been drinking the progressive juice again, thinking profit is bad, and big government is good.

First Packout accused me of being "lucky" because I own land, know you accuse me of being greedy and riding on the coattails of those from past generations for profit! I am a fourth generation farmer/rancher, and **** proud of it. But anyone who thinks I am living high on the hog is beyond clueless! I grew up as poor as one could be, and I worked harder than 99.99% of American kids without getting a DIME. I was 10 when I started getting up at 3:00 AM EVERY day to milk cows, and I put in 14-16 hour days all summer from then until I left the family business at 18. I walked away, being "lucky" was too hard for my "spoiled" butt, so I moved to the big city, worked my way through college, spent 25 years living the "hard life" working for the phone company making more in a year than my "lucky" dad made in a decade. My "lucky" parents begged me to come take over the operation, because my "lucky" 70+ year old father couldn't keep up with all the "luck", so I loaded up my now "lucky" family and moved into my parents UNFINISHED basement to save the four generation farm/ranch. How **** "lucky" could I be? I am now living the easy life again, putting in 12+ hour days 6 days a week, and getting paid in pennies........ Being born with a silver spoon in my mouth has been so "lucky"......... :?


----------



## proutdoors

Treehugnhuntr said:


> I'm pretty sure the issue is the land getting sold to private companies and individuals. The only concern about transfer to the state is regarding SITLA. And, I guess I'm a dirty hippie liberal, but I like the idea that we share certain things as a nation instead of all being sovereign and divided. Don't get me wrong, I'm for more state control on most things, but I see huge value in a standardized public land system that exists nation wide. I like being able to go to national forests in other states without hinderance. Id sure hate to have to know the rules and pay the tolls associated with making public land rules and ownership on state levels, much less trying to navigate or deal with the associated risks of privatizing public lands.
> 
> There are very few things that I agree with that look like "socialism" and this is one of them.


I appreciate your views, I disagree with them, but I appreciate them.


280Remington said:


> TS30, your wasting your time with PRO. If it wasn't for AM talk radio, Google and the ability to cut and paste he wouldn't even be able to form an opinion. If somebody would start up a collection, I would donate some serious money towards buying PRO a one way airline ticket to Europe or the UK. Very little government owned land over there, I'm sure he could find some choice places to hunt. Then he could get back on here and tell us how that little experience turned out for him.


This on the other hand, is yet another shining example of how our public education has failed us. Not only is this rant nonsensical and void of any form of intelligence, it is also blatantly full of LIES.I guarandamntee I listen to less "AM talk radio" than my accuser does! Save your money little man, your government wants it........


----------



## proutdoors

TS30 said:


> Pro, I missed your post as you responded to yourself 17 times. I'll bet you $20 that argument doesn't win in court. Wanna put your money where your mouth is???


That's the best you can come up with? I offered up PROOF, backed it with FACTS, and all you can do is bet me that a corrupt government will win in court? I am disappointed, I figured you had some ace up your sleeve, showing me the provision in the Constitution that gives the federal government the authority to be the largest landowner in the country. Apparently, you have little/no use for the Constitution, and thus for liberty. I know ol' not so wileywapati holds individual liberty with disdain, but I thought....or at least hoped 'sportsmen' held liberty and freedom in higher regard across the board, but it appears people love entitlements far more than liberty...................... -)O(-


----------



## Yonni

Treehugnhuntr said:


> I'm pretty sure the issue is the land getting sold to private companies and individuals. The only concern about transfer to the state is regarding SITLA. And, I guess I'm a dirty hippie liberal, but I like the idea that we share certain things as a nation instead of all being sovereign and divided. Don't get me wrong, I'm for more state control on most things, but I see huge value in a standardized public land system that exists nation wide. I like being able to go to national forests in other states without hinderance. Id sure hate to have to know the rules and pay the tolls associated with making public land rules and ownership on state levels, much less trying to navigate or deal with the associated risks of privatizing public lands.
> 
> There are very few things that I agree with that look like "socialism" and this is one of them.


I appreciate the honest answer

The only time I have thought you where a dirty hippie liberal is when I saw a pic of you with that dirty beard recently...


----------



## Treehugnhuntr

Ugggh, that dirty beard made a brief appearance on KSL outdoors last week. I should have shaved....... -O,-


----------



## Huge29

I am going to move this thread to the Great Outdoors section as this thread has nothing to do with Big Game.

Further, let's please keep the discussion to being outdoor related and not on politics; that may merit a discussion, but this forum is only outdoors related.


----------



## TopofUtahArcher

proutdoors said:


> You are using flawed data, or at least you are lumping apples to oranges and trying to make pumpkin pie. You can't include urban areas, ALL urban areas have little/no access to hunting/fishing/camping. And the percentage of the population living in urban areas is increasing by the day. The great thing about stats, depending where you start/end, what/who you include/omit, a person can 'prove' any stance they wish.........there are lies, **** lies, and statistics......


From my experience, urban sprawl happens on private lands, not public. So if what you say is true and we "cannot include urban areas" then we MUST keep it public, otherwise EVERYTHING will become urban if it isn't bought up by the wealthy and connected. That is why in the east EVERYTHING is considered "urban"... usually I am on your side Pro, but I disagree with you on this issue.

The only way to properly "dispose of" federal lands would be to equally divide the land among current residents and then let them trade, sell, barter, etc their small piece of the "pumpkin pie" how the would. If you don't do this, you would be creating "class warfare" to the umpteenth degree.


----------



## Vanilla

Pro, ad hominem attacks don't add to anything here. I usually find people use them when they have nothing else to say. And the bet ought to tell you everything you need to know. Your understanding of the issue is flawed. Yes, the 10th amendment says that but it doesn't apply here. So the statements of "FACTS" is indeed a lie. For the state of Utah to even come into existence they had to agree to certain things. Otherwise, Utah would not even be a state. (at least not as we know it) 

You are using the constitution. But it is up to one, and only one branch of the government to tell us what the constitution says and means. And it ain't the corrupt legislature! (we agree on that though....I'm not sure there is a more out of touch and corrupt group than up in the hill in SLC) 

Like I said, when the courts slap down our legislature on this, what will you be saying then?


----------



## Packout

Tree gets it. 

Sorry to say that some do not. Comparing the the Whitetail rich East, where deer home-ranges can be less than 5 square miles, to our mule deer, antelope and elk, which can range 100+ square miles over the course of 12 months, is as wacky as one can get. Imagine the loss of winter range if our State Legislatures get their way in "liquidating" lands which are not "scenic" or gas/oil rich. 

This issue will have an extreme negative effect on the quality of life for Utah residents. Negative for the majority if the State obtains and sells OUR public lands. Positive for the majority if those lands remain public (either state/fed) for those who came before us, those who are here now, and those who will come after for generations. Once it is gone, it is gone.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr

Watch kjzz right now.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr

I'm a bit surprised mike Swenson is pushing for state control.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

I switched over to KJAZZ and 'Pre-Auction Real Estate Riches" was on. Couldn't have been more ironic


----------



## Treehugnhuntr

Haha, they had mike Swenson and a guy from the Sierra club on discussing this topic. Showed clips of mike Noel and the Don. Interesting perspectives. Can't say I would follow either one of their leads.


----------



## WesternPDX

For anybody who is for this transfer: what makes you think the state's agenda is liberty and freedom? I will gladly choose the feds if they are the lesser of the two evils.. So far I don't see any evidence that the state is doing this in the name of idealism. They say it's for the economy and education, but politicians will always say things like that (at what point does the system ever not need fixing?). Anyways, to stay on topic I predict this transfer would have a net negative effect on outdoor recreation in Utah.


----------



## Catherder

Yonni said:


> Ya know I hope you fools get your wish and all land becomes federal land,
> 
> Oh wait I used hyperbole in the above paragraph.... bring on the insults


Yep, you sure did use hyperbole. :roll:

Opposition to an idiotic bill does not mean that we propose or desire the taking of existing private property. Give me a break. _/O

Pro wrote; I thought....or at least hoped 'sportsmen' held liberty and freedom in higher regard across the board,

Pro, I see a lot more* LIBERTY * in a National Forest sign than a No trespassing sign.


----------



## Yonni

I never said there would be a taking of existing private land, you misunderstood what I wrote. 

Thanks for doing the very thing I knew would happen, and that is my cue to leave this conversation, thanks!


----------



## proutdoors

TS30 said:


> Pro, ad hominem attacks don't add to anything here. I usually find people use them when they have nothing else to say. And yet, it was YOU that started such tactics..... And the bet ought to tell you everything you need to know. Your understanding of the issue is flawed. Yes, the 10th amendment says that but it doesn't apply here. The 10th Amendment doesn't apply, the Equal Footing Doctrine doesn't apply, all that applies is emotions apparently. So the statements of "FACTS" is indeed a lie. For the state of Utah to even come into existence they had to agree to certain things. Otherwise, Utah would not even be a state. (at least not as we know it) The 10th Amendment is a "lie".....that explains your stance!
> 
> You are using the constitution. But it is up to one, and only one branch of the government to tell us what the constitution says and means. And it ain't the corrupt legislature! (we agree on that though....I'm not sure there is a more out of touch and corrupt group than up in the hill in SLC) No, instead of the corrupt legislature, it is the corrupt judicial system.....different pile, same stink. Are you seriously suggesting the Utah State Legislature is more corrupt than those in Washington DC? Seriously?
> 
> Like I said, when the courts slap down our legislature on this, what will you be saying then? I will say this country is hell bent on ending any thread left connecting this nation to the Founding Principles.......





Catherder said:


> Pro, I see a lot more* LIBERTY * in a National Forest sign than a No trespassing sign.


 More evidence that our public education system is a complete failure! There is NO liberty without property rights. That is what has separated the American Revolution/Constitution and all the others.....property rights!


----------



## xxxxxxBirdDogger

> More evidence that our public education system is a complete failure! There is NO liberty without property rights. That is what has separated the American Revolution/Constitution and all the others.....property rights!


Gee, thanks a million. All those kids I've taught reading and writing skills to were just a figment of my overactive imagination. :evil:


----------



## Catherder

proutdoors said:


> Catherder wrotero, I see a lot more LIBERTY in a National Forest sign than a No trespassing sign.
> 
> More evidence that our public education system is a complete failure! There is NO liberty without property rights. That is what has separated the American Revolution/Constitution and all the others.....property rights!


LOL, I would have to say my eduction was pretty good and I also feel I'm capable of independent thought. Sometimes it gets me in trouble with fellow Utah county "R"'s.  Sorry, but you've never made a convincing case that the *presence of public lands *threaten your own (or my) property rights. I suppose that's why we have this debate on UWN about annually. Its all cool.

Yonni is right about one thing. It's time to move on. Here is my last "contribution" on the subject regarding the legal issues we've been arguing about and especially the bill in question, FWIW.

There are 3 legal issues that are intertwined in this debate.

1. The first is the assertion that Pro makes that the federal government cannot control land over what is specifically specified in the Constitution. The judiciary has up to now not agreed with such a strict interpretation as what Pro asserts, but if the legislature filed a lawsuit contending such instead of what they ARE doing, then we would be having a more fruitful discussion and the state would get a final answer on the question through the courts. Heck, Pro's side might even win (I doubt it though) or perhaps a Constitutional convention may be called and an amendment passed to clarify or settle the issue. But that isn't what our esteemed legislators did.

2. The second principle is the Supremacy clause of the Constitution. This very clearly states that the States cannot constitutionally tell the Federal Government what to do by local legislation or other action besides the courts. Precedent clearly tells us that the bills our fine reps are considering (and have passed HB143) *will* be struck down as unconstitutional.

3. The third legal issue the dimwits on the hill asserted was that the State Enabling act for statehood allows them to take this legislative action. I posted up the Enabling act earlier but I presume nobody read it. How they can assert that the Enabling act justifies them in any way is beyond me when it is clear that it does the opposite. Let me repeat this line one last time.

"That the people inhabiting said proposed State do agree and declare that they *forever* disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within the boundaries thereof;"

I'm not sure what part of forever these guys don't get. :?:

Anyway, due to legal reasons 2 and 3, I oppose what the legislature is doing as an unconscionable waste of money. Admittedly, I also oppose the State saying that their intention, if successful, is to sell the land through SITLA to the highest bidder in a buying free-for-all. For reasons we have discussed ad nauseum, I don't like the look of our state, its overall quality of life, and its hunting,fishing, and outdoor activity potential if the legislators by some stretch do succeed.

Happy debating all.


----------



## Vanilla

Hey Pro....I'll just copy and paste for you what the legislature's own attorneys, you know...the guys and gals that write this stuff for these crooks, think will happen with this bill.

_*Legislative Review Note* as of	2-14-12 12:40 PM
As required by legislative rules and practice, the Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel provides the following legislative review note to assist the Legislature in making its own determination as to the constitutionality of the bill. The note is based on an analysis of relevant state and federal constitutional law as applied to the bill. The note is not written for the purpose of influencing whether the bill should become law, but is written to provide information relevant to legislators' consideration of this bill. The note is not a substitute for the judgment of the judiciary, which has authority to determine the constitutionality of a law in the context of a specific case.

*H.B. 148* 
This bill enacts the Transfer of Public Lands Act, which requires the United States to extinguish title to public lands and transfer title to public lands to the state on or before December 31, 2014. If challenged, this bill raises questions of who has the right to dispose of and possess the land held by the United States.

The "Property Clause" of the Constitution of the United States authorizes Congress "to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States . . ." U.S. Const. art. IV, sec. 3, cl. 2. The Supreme Court of the United States has held that "Congress has the same power over [territory] as over any other property belonging to the United States; and this power is vested in Congress without limitation . . ." United States v. Gratiot, 39 U.S. 526, 537 (1840). See also Kleppe v. New Mexico, 426 U.S. 529, 539 (1976). Pursuant to its broad authority under the Property Clause, Congress may enact legislation to manage or sell federal land, and any legislation Congress enacts "necessarily overrides conflicting state laws under the Supremacy Clause." Kleppe, 426 U.S. at 543. See U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2.

The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that "[w]ith respect to the public domain, the Constitution vests in Congress the power of disposition and of making all needful rules and regulations. That power is subject to no limitations. Congress has the absolute right to prescribe the times, the conditions, and the mode of transferring this property, or any part of it, and to designate the persons to whom the transfer shall be made. No State legislation can interfere with this right or embarrass its exercise; and to prevent the possibility of any attempted interference with it, a provision has been usually inserted in the compacts by which new States have been admitted to the Union, that such interference with the primary disposal of the soil of the United States shall never be made." Gibson v. Chouteau, 80 U.S. 92 (1872).

The Transfer of Public Lands Act requires that the United States extinguish title to public lands and transfer title to those public lands to Utah by a date certain. Under the Gibson case, that requirement would interfere with Congress' power to dispose of public lands. Thus, that requirement, and any attempt by Utah in the future to enforce the requirement, have a high probability of being declared unconstitutional.

*Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel*_


----------



## Huge29

At the caucus meeting tonight a state rep is in my precinct, so it was interesting to hear his points, which are no where really mentioned in 10 pages of discussion here, that I noticed. 65% of the state controlled by BLM/FS, etc. then add to that about another 5% owned by charity institutions like churches and you have 70% of the state's land not providing any property taxes, which is the primary source for education. In my high school area, there was a whopping $2,500 from STLA. I forget the act/law that he stated about the agreement from about 100 years ago in which the Fed is supposed to pay to the state a SILT??, which is a pittance and they have not kept that original agreement. It was interesting to hear the issue from the source of those who actually are in there with the gloves on trying to balance a budget compared to those who write the headlines. And then he went to the sex education bill....also interesting, but this is not the place.


----------



## GaryFish

There is a federal payment made on Federal Lands. It is not a tax, because states are not allowed to levy taxes against the Federal Government. It is called PILT, or Payment In Lieu of Taxes. And like a property tax, it changes from year to year, based on valuation. And true, it is not assessed on the fully developed value of the land, as some would like, and what numbers are based upon. But it is nearly identical to what is paid in property tax on undeveloped agricultural land. So while some may say that 70% of the land isn't taxed, that fails to tell the whole story. Your friends down in Carbon County love to bring that one up. I remember reviewing several proposals from Carbon County asserting how many billions they'd get in tax revenue if the lands were privitized. The reality was, they were using fully developed residential and commercial land tax rates instead of the comparative rates for undeveloped parcels. The Feds do pay the PILT fees. It just usually doesn't happen until Congress passes their budget, which in recent years, has come anywhere from 6-10 months AFTER when they have supposed to pass them. Hate to say it, but your state rep is drinking the kool-aid of misinformation on this one.

The other thing - local school districts have all the power they need, given to them through the State Constitution, to increase property taxes to whatever level they want to pay for education. But none will. It would be political suicide. Because here it isn't a matter of having enough to pay for education, it is a matter of wanting someone else to pay for it. If the people of each school district really WANTED to fund education at a higher level, they could, and do it on a very local basis. But that would be asking too much I guess.


----------



## proutdoors

GaryFish said:


> The other thing - local school districts have all the power they need, given to them through the State Constitution, to increase property taxes to whatever level they want to pay for education. But none will. It would be political suicide. Because here it isn't a matter of having enough to pay for education, it is a matter of wanting someone else to pay for it. If the people of each school district really WANTED to fund education at a higher level, they could, and do it on a very local basis. But that would be asking too much I guess.


I think you are missing the point, why raise property taxes on people surrounded by under-used land, when if the land was state/private the resources would be bringing in a higher revenue? Increased wages, increased production is a far better option than increased taxation, at least in my book!


----------



## richardjb

If you want more money for the children, how about a head tax. It's for your children! You want em, you pay for em. So simple it's stupid!


----------



## Huge29

proutdoors said:


> I think you are missing the point, why raise property taxes on people surrounded by under-used land, when if the land was state/private the resources would be bringing in a higher revenue? Increased wages, increased production is a far better option than increased taxation, at least in my book!


Bingo! Greenbelt taxes certainly are a pittance; I saw a 100 acre parcel assessed at about $9,000,000 located right on the old Bingham Hwy and about 4000 west that pays less than $75/year as they dry farm about 1/3rd of it. But again, to have 70% of the state at these types of rates located 100 yards away from a 2-acre parcel with a cabin located in the mountains that pays $4,500/year (second home not getting the residential reduction). I don't believe in privatizing all of it, but the study from a few years ago by the federal government concluding that there are thousands of acres that have zero access to the public and therefore zero public benefit (can't find the study off hand) sure wouldn't seem to be missed by the 100% of the public that has no access to them, right?



GaryFish said:


> It would be political suicide. Because here it isn't a matter of having enough to pay for education, it is a matter of wanting someone else to pay for it. If the people of each school district really WANTED to fund education at a higher level, they could, and do it on a very local basis.


 Sounds like a pretty logical solution to me! If I were the person responsible for financing the school district I would look at the situation similarly. My primary source of financing is real estate and 65% of the land is owned by BLM/FS paying about $0.70/acre compared to residential paying about $15,000/acre (in the case of my home) or commercial paying about $33,000/acre to ignore the obvious here seems downright ludicrous. Not that I support this exact bill, but the idea of looking at the concept certainly has merit IMHO. I think the primary issue with budget shortfall is the 65% land owned. I would be interested to see the relationship of spending/pupil as it relates to % of land owned by fed govt, just a thought. I don't know that taking the lands is the answer, but how to make the resource be more productive in making up for the discrepancy. The land certainly brings tourism, but do those tourism funds do anything for the school budgets as they would if the land were private?


----------



## GeorgeS

Huge29,

You are not comparing apples to apples with your taxation numbers. Greenbelt is applicable to "farms" enrolled in the program and yes the taxes they pay are dirt cheap (pun intended). Greenbelt cannot be compared to PILT (payments in lieu of taxes). PILT is a higher rate. I haven't divided the amount out by the acres of public land in Utah, but we do receive over $30 million dollars each year for the Federal lands in Utah. Last year we received (FY11) $34,659,277. These monies are supposed to go to roads, schools, emergency services, and search and rescue. Where is this money going? Do you know? I don't.
Your figures for residential and commercial are estimated sales dollars per acre, not tax rates. Do tourism dollars go into schools, of course they do. They pass through many hands before doing so, so no one wants to take the time to accurately figure it out. The rural gas station that depends on tourism pays sales tax (into general fund) and income tax (100% of which goes to schools). When you think of the thousands of businesses and the 10's of thousands of employees dependent upon tourism and recreation, you can connect the dots and see that tons of money goes to education.
No one seems to want to dive into the details, but everyone gets sucked into the topical discussion that if the public lands in Utah were given to the state, that everything would be rosy.
Who gets screwed? We do.


----------



## richardjb

GeorgeS said:


> Huge29,
> 
> You are not comparing apples to apples with your taxation numbers. Greenbelt is applicable to "farms" enrolled in the program and yes the taxes they pay are dirt cheap (pun intended). Greenbelt cannot be compared to PILT (payments in lieu of taxes). PILT is a higher rate. I haven't divided the amount out by the acres of public land in Utah, but we do receive over $30 million dollars each year for the Federal lands in Utah. Last year we received (FY11) $34,659,277. These monies are supposed to go to roads, schools, emergency services, and search and rescue. Where is this money going? Do you know? I don't.
> Your figures for residential and commercial are estimated sales dollars per acre, not tax rates. Do tourism dollars go into schools, of course they do. They pass through many hands before doing so, so no one wants to take the time to accurately figure it out. The rural gas station that depends on tourism pays sales tax (into general fund) and income tax (100% of which goes to schools). When you think of the thousands of businesses and the 10's of thousands of employees dependent upon tourism and recreation, you can connect the dots and see that tons of money goes to education.
> No one seems to want to dive into the details, but everyone gets sucked into the topical discussion that if the public lands in Utah were given to the state, that everything would be rosy.
> Who gets screwed? We do.


Thats worth repeating!


----------



## Huge29

First of all, I don't argue that all land should be private, but simply passing on my state rep's thoughts-good intentions, but they seem to be a little off in their solution. 


GeorgeS said:


> Huge29,
> You are not comparing apples to apples with your taxation numbers. Greenbelt is applicable to "farms" enrolled in the program and yes the taxes they pay are dirt cheap (pun intended). Greenbelt cannot be compared to PILT (payments in lieu of taxes). PILT is a higher rate. I haven't divided the amount out by the acres of public land in Utah, but we do receive over $30 million dollars each year for the Federal lands in Utah. Last year we received (FY11) $34,659,277.


Here we go:
Area of Utah = 84,899 square miles = 54,328,960 acres , of which Fed owns about 65% = $0.98/acre. 


GeorgeS said:


> Your figures for residential and commercial are estimated sales dollars per acre, not tax rates.


 Thanks again for stating what was already clearly stated; what is your point? To review those figures here are very rough estimates just going from properties with which I am familiar (my work's retail location for commercial, my own home for residential and the greenbelt property near Copperton for Greenbelt), tax rates vary in every single municipality, so these are not necessarily the mean, but somewhere near the average-all figures are property tax revenue/acre:
Fed PILT = $0.98/acre
Greenbelt = $0.75/acre
Residential = $15,000/acre
Recreational (2nd homes pay the full commercial rate, cabin on 2 acres assessed at $400k) = $3,000/acre 
Commercial = $21,308/acre
Clearly an enormous difference. I think the largest error in the legislator's idea is that even if the federal land is converted to private it would most likely be greenbelt as the great majority of this land would have no residential or commercial appeal therefore resulting in a reduction in revenues of about 25% compared to their potential thought of increasing it by a minimum of 3,000% by conversion to private land. 


GeorgeS said:


> Do tourism dollars go into schools, of course they do. They pass through many hands before doing so, so no one wants to take the time to accurately figure it out. The rural gas station that depends on tourism pays sales tax (into general fund) and income tax (100% of which goes to schools). When you think of the thousands of businesses and the 10's of thousands of employees dependent upon tourism and recreation, you can connect the dots and see that tons of money goes to education. No one seems to want to dive into the details, but everyone gets sucked into the topical discussion that if the public lands in Utah were given to the state, that everything would be rosy.


The obvious answer to your rhetorical question is that it is impossible to measure. The next logical question would be-how would the jobs and tourism change if it were privately owned as the legislature wishes? One may argue that the revenue would increase as the marketing would be better to bring in more tourism... Better herds of wildlife would equal more hunters from out of state and more residents hunting also. Not that I believe it or want that, but one could make a logical argument.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr

richardjb said:


> If you want more money for the children, how about a head tax. It's for your children! You want em, you pay for em. So simple it's stupid!


+1


----------



## Huge29

richardjb said:


> If you want more money for the children, how about a head tax. It's for your children! You want em, you pay for em. So simple it's stupid!


 Interesting concept. The more I think about it I can't think of another aspect of government service that is completely government subsidized such as k-12 schooling. For highways we all at least pay the $0.43(?)/gallon, sales tax on all purchases, property taxes, income tax, etc. So, would it be a tuition only paid while kids are in school? Certainly not a politically popular item I would guess.


----------



## Yonni

http://www.abc4.com/content/news/top_st ... vN3QA.cspx

Governor to sign today

"The bill is demanding the federal government relinquish millions of acres of land within the state by 2014. National parks, wilderness areas, military installations and Indian reservations are exempted."


----------



## proutdoors

Yonni said:


> http://www.abc4.com/content/news/top_stories/story/Governor-Herbert-signing-bill-taking-federal-lands/dVKih9dqeU-TsPKS3vN3QA.cspx
> 
> Governor to sign today
> 
> "The bill is demanding the federal government relinquish millions of acres of land within the state by 2014. National parks, wilderness areas, military installations and Indian reservations are exempted."


 OOO°)OO *-band-* :-|O|-: :O--O: :O||:


----------

