# Utah Public Land Transfer



## RandomElk16

Ok, can anyone tell me what I can do to help prevent this from happening? Petitions, meetings, anything of the sort? 

There is a new "study" on KSL about how great it will be when the state screws us out of this resource. 


I will link the article from KSL when I am not on my phone.


----------



## The Naturalist

We missed a great opportunity to do something about it in November with the last election. All the State Legislators that were co-sponsors to this Bill were reelected.

I know environmental groups like SUWA aren't always popular with hunters/sportsmen, but they are "spot on" with this topic and have a lot of resources to back them. You could contact one of these groups for more info.


----------



## Finnegan

RandomElk16 said:


> Ok, can anyone tell me what I can do to help prevent this from happening? Petitions, meetings, anything of the sort


Good question. I don't have the answer - just know what I'm doing. I joined Backcountry Hunters and Anglers and took a seat on the state board. BHA is a non-partisan national organization with chapters in 16 states and we actively and unequivocally oppose the transfer.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Pray the feds don't give into this, I am doubtful it'll happen but anythings possible. I would join Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, RMEF also opposes the land transfer. Voice your opinion through email, phone, mail, to representatives and let them know you don't want this and the reasons why. I'm tired of seeing things about it, the state wanted the land by 2015, where approaching it and I don't see the Federal government blinking to Utah, especially when most western states have changed their minds on the issue, I think all states were not in favor of it except the greedy, uninformed people of Utah who are trained to only vote one way.


----------



## klbzdad

Maybe do some research? I support it and I'm likely to get skewered here, but I've studied this almost as much as LT has studied selenium....almost.

Fiscal Report:
http://publiclands.utah.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/1. Land Transfer Analysis Final Report.pdf

Methodology on the transfer:
http://publiclands.utah.gov/wp-cont...ands-Policy-A-Case-Statement-for-H.B.-148.pdf

Legislative Report on HB 148:
http://publiclands.utah.gov/wp-cont...ahs-Transfer-of-Public-Lands-Act-H.B.-148.pdf

Governor's Office Report Based on the Study:
http://publiclands.utah.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Summary-20141128_FINAL.pdf

There is a NO NET LOSS OF ACCESS. The lands stay public owned by the state of Utah (which means everyone who is a resident of Utah owns the land but anyone, including foreigners can still access it). There is nowhere in the study that suggests managing the land will require selling it. And, by the way, most western states are following suit and have only held off pending action by Utah and this particular study and another that will be released soon. SUWA is running adds against the TPL. I am instantly inclined to join anything SUWA opposes, including punching baby pandas if SUWA is against it publicly. Facts are pesky critters, we all can agree to that. In any case, let the punches begin.


----------



## utahgolf

klbzdad said:


> Maybe do some research? I support it and I'm likely to get skewered here, but I've studied this almost as much as LT has studied selenium....almost.
> 
> Fiscal Report:
> http://publiclands.utah.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/1. Land Transfer Analysis Final Report.pdf
> 
> Methodology on the transfer:
> http://publiclands.utah.gov/wp-cont...ands-Policy-A-Case-Statement-for-H.B.-148.pdf
> 
> Legislative Report on HB 148:
> http://publiclands.utah.gov/wp-cont...ahs-Transfer-of-Public-Lands-Act-H.B.-148.pdf
> 
> Governor's Office Report Based on the Study:
> http://publiclands.utah.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Summary-20141128_FINAL.pdf
> 
> There is a NO NET LOSS OF ACCESS. The lands stay public owned by the state of Utah (which means everyone who is a resident of Utah owns the land but anyone, including foreigners can still access it). There is nowhere in the study that suggests managing the land will require selling it. And, by the way, most western states are following suit and have only held off pending action by Utah and this particular study and another that will be released soon. SUWA is running adds against the TPL. I am instantly inclined to join anything SUWA opposes, including punching baby pandas if SUWA is against it publicly. Facts are pesky critters, we all can agree to that. In any case, let the punches begin.


until the legislature changes what they promised right? I don't trust the state to keep to it's word. They will drum up some sort of claim that we need to sell a little bit of the land for some sort of fiscal crisis and then it begins!


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

klbzdad said:


> Maybe do some research? I support it and I'm likely to get skewered here, but I've studied this almost as much as LT has studied selenium....almost.
> 
> Fiscal Report:
> http://publiclands.utah.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/1. Land Transfer Analysis Final Report.pdf
> 
> Methodology on the transfer:
> http://publiclands.utah.gov/wp-cont...ands-Policy-A-Case-Statement-for-H.B.-148.pdf
> 
> Legislative Report on HB 148:
> http://publiclands.utah.gov/wp-cont...ahs-Transfer-of-Public-Lands-Act-H.B.-148.pdf
> 
> Governor's Office Report Based on the Study:
> http://publiclands.utah.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Summary-20141128_FINAL.pdf
> 
> There is a NO NET LOSS OF ACCESS. The lands stay public owned by the state of Utah (which means everyone who is a resident of Utah owns the land but anyone, including foreigners can still access it). There is nowhere in the study that suggests managing the land will require selling it. And, by the way, most western states are following suit and have only held off pending action by Utah and this particular study and another that will be released soon. SUWA is running adds against the TPL. I am instantly inclined to join anything SUWA opposes, including punching baby pandas if SUWA is against it publicly. Facts are pesky critters, we all can agree to that. In any case, let the punches begin.


Why don't you first explain why this should happen before giving information about what happens if it does ? Utah doesn't own the land they waived the rights of it decades ago and it belongs to every member of the public, including those outside Utahs borders. Utah has no more right to the land than anyone , they sit here and bash the BLM and Forest Service about not owning the land and yet want to make there own free handout claim to it. How have the BLM and forest Service mismanaged the land? By trying to make sure it isn't over utilized or sold to the highest bidder? There's a reason groups like RMEF, Backcountry, TU and others oppose this , and why groups like SFW have no comment on the issue. It's about money, if there wasn't money tied to this agenda it wouldn't even be brought up. I'm sure the state just wants the land as a burden not financial reasons right klbzdad?


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

And you honestly think the state will keep there word? Have you not seen how easily money talks in this state? I thought you were for the average guy just wanting to enjoy public lands and hunting which you are allowed to do today? Why does there need to be a fix for something that isn't broken? The state wants the land so bad for a reason, and right now public has full access to the land so what more do you really want? I don't get why anyone would support something for no reason whatsoever, you have access and use of public lands whatever changes the state wants to take place can't in the future be for what it is now or they wouldn't be fighting so hard to get a hold of it.


----------



## Kwalk3

I wholeheartedly oppose this transfer. Our governor and politicians look more at the fiscal side of resources and in my opinion have not proven to be friends of access. 

There may be no definitive mentions in the language of the bill to sell the land to the highest bidder, but when the state is not beholden to anyone else, they could ultimately do what they want with it. I'm sure they would be able to justify the selling of parcels here and there that they determine have "little value" to the non-hunting public. 

This is solely my opinion that I have formulated through my own research and based on the track-record of our local politicians. Utah is such an echo-chamber politically, and as much as we would like to believe they care about hunting and public access, I am skeptical to say the least. While I disagree with much of what SUWA does and promotes, it is not all bad to have an opposing point of view, especially when it is regarding preserved access for all. 

Also, oftentimes these conservation groups are made out to be the boogeyman because they are not proponents of hunting. However, many orgs like the Nature Conservancy allow hunting as a management tool on many of their properties and they have conserved a lot of land that would be lost otherwise.. I think that we do ourselves no favors by not being willing to at least discuss some of the non-hunting-centric conservation organization's viewpoints and ideas as valid. In certain instances it makes sense to join hands with other organizations and other people on one specific issue even though we may have vastly differing opinions on a plethora of other issues.


----------



## wyoming2utah

klbzdad said:


> Maybe do some research? I support it and I'm likely to get skewered here, but I've studied this almost as much as LT has studied selenium....almost.
> 
> Fiscal Report:
> http://publiclands.utah.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/1. Land Transfer Analysis Final Report.pdf
> 
> Methodology on the transfer:
> http://publiclands.utah.gov/wp-cont...ands-Policy-A-Case-Statement-for-H.B.-148.pdf
> 
> Legislative Report on HB 148:
> http://publiclands.utah.gov/wp-cont...ahs-Transfer-of-Public-Lands-Act-H.B.-148.pdf
> 
> Governor's Office Report Based on the Study:
> http://publiclands.utah.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Summary-20141128_FINAL.pdf
> 
> There is a NO NET LOSS OF ACCESS. The lands stay public owned by the state of Utah (which means everyone who is a resident of Utah owns the land but anyone, including foreigners can still access it). There is nowhere in the study that suggests managing the land will require selling it. And, by the way, most western states are following suit and have only held off pending action by Utah and this particular study and another that will be released soon. SUWA is running adds against the TPL. I am instantly inclined to join anything SUWA opposes, including punching baby pandas if SUWA is against it publicly. Facts are pesky critters, we all can agree to that. In any case, let the punches begin.


Ok...a question for you, then. I haven't studied this issue a lick and don't know a heck of a lot about it, but I have great fear for two main reasons: 1) public land being sold off and access being limited (you addressed this already) and 2) exploitation of wildlife habitat through mining, timber, and other natural resource sells/extraction. My question then is this: Do you not fear that any efforts to get at our natural resources will have a negative impact on fish and game habitat? Or, do you believe that going after and utilizing our natural resources more will have more benefits to our state than negative consequences like the loss of habitat?


----------



## martymcfly73

With the governor and the legislature pro real estate I am against this. You will see it sub divided and sold to the highest bidder.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

And klbzdad remember, wildlife is also a "state managed public resource" but hell a few hundred thousand and you can kill as many animals as you want. That's a public resource, they sale it off like its going out of style, don't be so easily fooled in the short term to miss what could very well happen once they have a hold of the land.


----------



## Trooper

Can't wait... once Utah owns it, all the federal rules will disappear and it will be legal to drive a wheeler off-road any where! Think of all the new "trails"! Hiking will be only for suckers!


----------



## Catherder

klbzdad said:


> There is a NO NET LOSS OF ACCESS. The lands stay public owned by the state of Utah (which means everyone who is a resident of Utah owns the land but anyone, including foreigners can still access it).


You aren't a stream/flyfisherman are you? Most flyfishermen would differ from your opinion on the State being inclined to protect public access.

I don't have the link to this specific proposed version of the land grab, but most of these are merely "wish lists" from the State in snagging Federal land. The fact remains that disposition of Federal properties is *solely controlled by the US Congress. *As of now, I doubt that Congress and the Prez is inclined to accede to the wishes of the State legislature.


----------



## GaryFish

In review of the links you posted, they are banking on using the bill passed by the legislature as a grounds for getting the lands through judicial action. That is legally flawed. 

The ONLY way the lands can be transferred to the State is through authorization of the United States Congress, and signature by the President. The Utah Legislature and Governor can pass what they want, but they have no jurisdiction on this matter, outside of succession. 

If Utah, and other western states are serious about this, then ALL the senators and congressmen from those states need to form a united coalition to make it happen in Congress. Utah (and other western states) had until 1976 to claim, and for private parties to claim whatever of BLM lands they wanted. And what was left after 1976, no one wanted. Utah could have, and should have claimed these lands when they had the chance. But at this point, to do what some are suggestion will take an act of Congress, and nothing less.


----------



## Catherder

GaryFish said:


> In review of the links you posted, they are banking on using the bill passed by the legislature as a grounds for getting the lands through judicial action. That is legally flawed.
> 
> The ONLY way the lands can be transferred to the State is through authorization of the United States Congress, and signature by the President. The Utah Legislature and Governor can pass what they want, but they have no jurisdiction on this matter, outside of succession.
> 
> If Utah, and other western states are serious about this, then ALL the senators and congressmen from those states need to form a united coalition to make it happen in Congress. Utah (and other western states) had until 1976 to claim, and for private parties to claim whatever of BLM lands they wanted. And what was left after 1976, no one wanted. Utah could have, and should have claimed these lands when they had the chance. But at this point, to do what some are suggestion will take an act of Congress, and nothing less.


Word! (But didn't I just say the same thing?;-))

Hows the new job?


----------



## RandomElk16

Klbzdad, don't say maybe do some research. I have done research, and have lived in the state long enough to know what a smoke screen is. 

But, I am sure once the friends of the capitol get their cut through various funded "projects" (finger quotes), we will see benefits... Heck, The Bookcliffs 2.0 is awesome.


----------



## martymcfly73

The state would go bankrupt fighting fires if the transfer were to happen. Another reason to say no.


----------



## klbzdad

I can answer each question with facts, not my opinion but 1-I has managed to steal a few brain cells and I'm being told by the commander in wife to get the hell of the computer. I will say this, there is absolutely NOTHING stopping the federal government from declaring a sale of public lands to China to pay our debt to them. There is no law, or published intent by any TPL proponent suggesting that lands be sold just to say we own our public lands. Quite the contrary. 

I'm also happy to bring both local, state, and federal officials into this discussion if you'd all like. But I just got the stink eye from my keeper.


----------



## RandomElk16

klbzdad said:


> I can answer each question with facts, not my opinion but 1-I has managed to steal a few brain cells and I'm being told by the commander in wife to get the hell of the computer. I will say this, there is absolutely NOTHING stopping the federal government from declaring a sale of public lands to China to pay our debt to them. There is no law, or published intent by any TPL proponent suggesting that lands be sold just to say we own our public lands. Quite the contrary.
> 
> I'm also happy to bring both local, state, and federal officials into this discussion if you'd all like. But I just got the stink eye from my keeper.


Just want to throw out there that the odds of us allowing mini-china to begin aquiring the United States seem slim to fat chance in h***.

The odds of Utah officials selling it to rich people, you know the kinda people that want us to be a nuclear waste dump for the world, seems high.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

And I'm the one who thinks the sky is falling. I don't have many worries that china will own our federal land one day, that would be giving up our country for the most part .


----------



## Catherder

klbzdad said:


> I can answer each question with facts, not my opinion but 1-I has managed to steal a few brain cells and I'm being told by the commander in wife to get the hell of the computer. I will say this, there is absolutely NOTHING stopping the federal government from declaring a sale of public lands to China to pay our debt to them. There is no law, or published intent by any TPL proponent suggesting that lands be sold just to say we own our public lands. Quite the contrary.
> 
> I'm also happy to bring both local, state, and federal officials into this discussion if you'd all like. But I just got the stink eye from my keeper.


I and others have always welcomed debate on this issue, but to me there are 2 points that simply derail much discussion on the issue.

1. The legal and constitutional grounds on which the state claims to wrest land away from the Feds *without US congressional and presidential consent *is improbable at best and most likely utterly preposterous to any court that would ultimately consider and decide such a case.

2. The State officials themselves have stated that a main goal of the "land grab" is to put more/most Federal (public) land in private hands. 
( Ie: sell it off.) My opinion is from simply taking these officials at their word.

One last thing on this "China" scenario that land grab proponents constantly spout out. States are usually more financially strapped than the Feds and they do not have the power to simply print more money or raise a debt ceiling, as the US Congress and Executive do. What makes you think a financially strapped state would be any *LESS *inclined to sell off public lands to a foreign power than the Feds would be? Based on the actions of our State government, I would submit the opposite is true.


----------



## The Naturalist

Here is my rant for the day...I too have been following this closely. It is amazing how much money has been wasted on this effort starting way back in the '80's when it was known as the "sagebrush rebellion".
The recent articles in support of the land grab, coming from economists at the various Universities, all full of "...if this...if that..." scenarios. These economists were bought and paid by the state legislature to come up with these iffy reports. I put no credence in them!
The tell tale sign in all political maneuvers, especially in this state, is "follow the money". If you look at who is donating to the political coffers of those legislators sponsoring and co-sponsoring this bill it becomes very clear who is actually behind this bill (it is public record).
The state legislature have put out the smokescreen that it is for our schools/children (to try and sell it to the public), but in reality it is for the realtors and extraction industry that lobby unceasingly at the state capitol.
I feel sad that the corruption in our state government doesn't just stop at the attorney general level. I love Utah, but wish our elected officials had more integrity to be honest with us.


----------



## spencerD

I'm a fishing columnist, for the Standard-Ex in Ogden. My job requires me to go out and fish quite a bit to get material for my column. What happens if Utah gets all this land, sells it to the highest bidder, and the land becomes private? How in the world am I supposed to do my job?

I honestly want to believe the best in people, including our state government. I agree with the governor and the legislature on probably the majority of what they do (I hate the 'nanny' state mentality that's taken over in recent years, but I digress.)

The fact of the matter is, Utah has a track record of selling land and diminishing access for all those who use it for employment and pleasure. Someone mentioned how much fly-fisherman have suffered in terms of access in recent years. Us dedicated fly flingers can't take any more lands becoming private.

And look at what happened a few months ago in Duchesne county. http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/mobile3/57981174-219/amp-lake-canyon-county.html.csp

The root of this problem is money - says it right there in the article. And I understand counties like Duchesne and Sevier needing more money to keep up infrastructure and other public things, and not getting enough property tax money to do it.

I'd like to think that by figuring out a solution to the money issue, we could help stave off the state buying up land. But even if we found a solution, the state would still want more. They'll take all the money they can until we're left with nothing.

I really dislike the federal government, but at least they've kept these lands open and available for us to use. If the state gets hold of it, I've got sinking feeling we'll be done with recreation in Utah.


----------



## RandomElk16

spencerD said:


> those who use it for employment and pleasure.


Be careful saying this! Folks around here don't like those that make money off public land!



spencerD said:


> I'm a fishing columnist, for the Standard-Ex in Ogden. My job requires me to go out and fish quite a bit to get material for my column. What happens if Utah gets all this land, sells it to the highest bidder, and the land becomes private? How in the world am I supposed to do my job?
> 
> I honestly want to believe the best in people, including our state government. I agree with the governor and the legislature on probably the majority of what they do (I hate the 'nanny' state mentality that's taken over in recent years, but I digress.)
> 
> The fact of the matter is, Utah has a track record of selling land and diminishing access for all those who use it for employment and pleasure. Someone mentioned how much fly-fisherman have suffered in terms of access in recent years. Us dedicated fly flingers can't take any more lands becoming private.
> 
> And look at what happened a few months ago in Duchesne county. http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/mobile3/57981174-219/amp-lake-canyon-county.html.csp
> 
> The root of this problem is money - says it right there in the article. And I understand counties like Duchesne and Sevier needing more money to keep up infrastructure and other public things, and not getting enough property tax money to do it.
> 
> I'd like to think that by figuring out a solution to the money issue, we could help stave off the state buying up land. But even if we found a solution, the state would still want more. They'll take all the money they can until we're left with nothing.
> 
> I really dislike the federal government, but at least they've kept these lands open and available for us to use. If the state gets hold of it, I've got sinking feeling we'll be done with recreation in Utah.


In all seriousness though, sounds like a fun job. You bring up a lot of good points. The root of this problem is money... so instead of our state looking to take away Federal Land that they can immediately sell or lease or whatever(a handout), they should be spending their time developing other ways to make money. You know, off our state owned resources. Further, they should figure out better places to put the money we do make.


----------



## spencerD

RandomElk16 said:


> Be careful saying this! Folks around here don't like those that make money off public land!
> 
> In all seriousness though, sounds like a fun job. You bring up a lot of good points. The root of this problem is money... so instead of our state looking to take away Federal Land that they can immediately sell or lease or whatever(a handout), they should be spending their time developing other ways to make money. You know, off our state owned resources. Further, they should figure out better places to put the money we do make.


I agree 100%. There's enough money in this state, and in the budget, to help out these counties with large swaths of public land in a fiscally responsible way. And without raising taxes, either. It'll just some ingenuity and determination, two things I think our current state legislature lacks in large quantities.


----------



## utahgolf

Just wait until it is wildfire season without that federal money......The state's budget plan would go up in smoke! (see what I did there?)


----------



## Iron Bear

I realize Utah does an amazing job at keeping church and state separate. But I wonder if the LDS church is licking their chops at a possible land grab. 

After all they already own more land in Utah then anyone else. They certainly have the money to be the "highest bidder" and have an approval rating through the roof here. 

Would that make any difference to the Mormons here? If the church was the major benefactor to the state getting land from the Feds. 

Which IMO will never happen. At best the Feds will throw Utah a bone and let up some land but not like some of the worries expressed here. It's just as foolish as Texans attempts or threats to secede from the US. Ain't gonna happen.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

Iron Bear said:


> I realize Utah does an amazing job at keeping church and state separate..


-_O--_O--_O-

Now that's funny right there.


----------



## johnnycake

Just a few things. I am a law student, focused on Natural Resource law. So needless to say I have spent hours and hours debating the legal twists and turns here. Ultimately, does Utah have a legal claim? Yes, actually. But is the Fed obligated to meet that claim? Nope, it is a political question. For those who think state ownership would be the end of the world, I ask this: Have you ever hunted or fished east of Colorado? There is some excellent opportunity in EVERY state, and yet, most of those states have less than 3% federal ownership as opposed to UT's ~56% federal ownership. I don't think that access would be vastly altered, but I do think that the state would derive more revenue and jobs. Like it or not, but the very purpose of the BLM and National Forest lands is to derive revenue from extraction. Changing to state ownership would only alter the % of revenue generated that the state would receive.

On the flip side, the wildfire issue is a very real and massive obstacle and I don't think that it gets enough attention. Also, there is some comment by the UT governor in the 1930-40's where he called the lands the feds were trying to give to Utah "worthless" and that it would be a drain on state funds to maintain them. Humorous IMO, the feds tried to give all the lands to the state 80 years ago and we refused...does that make this a reverse indian-giver situation?


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

johnnycake said:


> Just a few things. I am a law student, focused on Natural Resource law. So needless to say I have spent hours and hours debating the legal twists and turns here. Ultimately, does Utah have a legal claim? Yes, actually. But is the Fed obligated to meet that claim? Nope, it is a political question. For those who think state ownership would be the end of the world, I ask this: Have you ever hunted or fished east of Colorado? There is some excellent opportunity in EVERY state, and yet, most of those states have less than 3% federal ownership as opposed to UT's ~56% federal ownership. I don't think that access would be vastly altered, but I do think that the state would derive more revenue and jobs. Like it or not, but the very purpose of the BLM and National Forest lands is to derive revenue from extraction. Changing to state ownership would only alter the % of revenue generated that the state would receive.
> 
> On the flip side, the wildfire issue is a very real and massive obstacle and I don't think that it gets enough attention. Also, there is some comment by the UT governor in the 1930-40's where he called the lands the feds were trying to give to Utah "worthless" and that it would be a drain on state funds to maintain them. Humorous IMO, the feds tried to give all the lands to the state 80 years ago and we refused...does that make this a reverse indian-giver situation?


No thanks. I have hunted back east and I want no part of it here in the west. Permissions, smaller plots, pay to play, fences, fences, fences, rented blinds and stands. Access back east IS vastly altered and it would be the same for the west. Hunt with permission only.

I think that the guides would tend to reap some good benefits by gaining paid restricted access to private land.

How would that private land thing work out for the bison and deer hunting on the Henry's?

Won't happen though. It is one of the few things that the liberals and majority of conservatives agree upon with regards to the general public. Congress would not approve the sale in another 200+ years. Thankfully.


----------



## Catherder

johnnycake said:


> Ultimately, does Utah have a legal claim? Yes, actually. But is the Fed obligated to meet that claim? Nope, it is a political question.


Do explain.


----------



## willfish4food

johnnycake said:


> For those who think state ownership would be the end of the world, I ask this: Have you ever hunted or fished east of Colorado? * There is some excellent opportunity in EVERY state, and yet, most of those states have less than 3% federal ownership as opposed to UT's ~56% federal ownership.* I don't think that access would be vastly altered, but I do think that the state would derive more revenue and jobs. Like it or not, but the very purpose of the BLM and National Forest lands is to derive revenue from extraction. Changing to state ownership would only alter the % of revenue generated that the state would receive.


Define "excellent opportunity". I'm in Alabama right now and unless I find a friend with land they'll let me hunt, or I'm willing to pay for a lease, my hunting season is limited to the WMA's with drastically reduced seasons and obscene crowds, or the small amount of *federal *land that's accessible. Being able to shoot 3 bucks a year and a doe a day does me no good if I have nowhere to hunt.

And by the way Leases are not an awesome option from my view. You either pay for a cheap ($500ish/year) lease and see few deer while competing with the other members of your hunt club, or you pay for an expensive lease ($1500+ per year) and see lots of deer that you can't shoot because they're not big enough. Let alone the horror stories I've heard of trying to mash a dozen or more hunters with different objectives in mind onto the same property and under one set of management objectives. I have a coworker that shot a doe at his cousins hunting club, and when his cousin saw it, he made my coworker leave it in the field because "it didn't meet the club's objectives" and he didn't want to deal with the other members of the club if that deer got checked through the system. My coworker was displeased to say the least. Talked to him about it yesterday and he was still mad.

After I get a couple more seasons under my belt, I may change my tune. I got some good pointers from a member of this forum that used to live around here that I'm going to follow up on this season. But right now, I'll take the thousands upon thousands of open acres in the West any day to the limited open land in the East.

And lest you think that I haven't done my due diligence to find private land to hunt, I've contacted no less than a dozen landowners and every one either hunts the land themselves, has family/friends that hunt the land, or is already leasing the land to other people. I even found one person that was anti-hunting. Didn't think that was legal in Alabama.;-)


----------



## Iron Bear

So a guy from Alabama can move to Utah and get "excellent opportunity" without connections and money. But he may have to wait a decade for his tag? 

He might move back to Alabama where he gets to harvest like 5 deer a yr on some private land 4 miles from his house instead of spending $500 in fuel to get up into the uintah's he'll spend it on trespass fees.


----------



## willfish4food

Iron Bear said:


> So a guy from Alabama can move to Utah and get "excellent opportunity" without connections and money. But he may have to wait a decade for his tag?
> 
> He might move back to Alabama where he gets to harvest like 5 deer a yr on some private land 4 miles from his house instead of spending $500 in fuel to get up into the uintah's he'll spend it on trespass fees.


Again, this depends on *your *definition of "excellent opportunity". If pay to play is excellent opportunity, than yes the East has the West beat hands down by the length of seasons and the number of animals you can harvest in a season.

I think excellent opportunity is the ability I had in Utah to choose from dozens of great hunting areas without having to pay someone or ask permission. Legally hunting the general deer units and/or the any bull/spike units every year and drawing LE hunts once a decade is better than not hunting cause there's no land to hunt without trespassing. Excellent opportunity to hunt is different from excellent opportunity to harvest.

And let's not fool ourselves. Unless you live in the sticks, there's no "excellent opportunity" within 4 miles of your house in any state.


----------



## GaryFish

Yea. I've heard all the arguments. Utah has NO legal claim here, even within the State's constitution, let alone the Federal. Remember, the State must adhere to its' own constitution as well. And under either, Utah has no legal claim to the Federally owned lands in the State. 

Not that I agree or disagree about the State having the lands. That isn't my point. My point is, the only way it will happen is Congressionally.


----------



## johnnycake

The cliff notes version of the legal claims (sorry, finals are in 1 1/2 weeks and I'm publishing 2 papers with deadlines this month) revolve around the "equal footing" doctrine and that clause in the Utah constitution from 100 years ago. Where it is a political question is in the application of the equal footing doctrine to federal ownership of lands in the states--the fed doesn't have to make all states equal to the original 13 colonies regarding federal ownership of lands, but it can. The Utah constitution claim is likely void due to the Supremacy Clause. So, yes, equal footing doctrine claims exist, but are non-obligatory. 

As for hunting in the east, I have hunted VA, MD, PA, TN, MI, MN, MS, MO, FL, TX, and NY. Is it the same as we have here in the west? No. Is it worse? I don't think so. I've hunted private and public lands in many of these states, had buddies, paid for access, you name it. When it comes down to it, I personally do like knowing I can arrange limited access on a property. It reduces my costs of travel considerably, in many cases it equals out the access price. 

Personally, I don't think that Utah will win. But even if it did, I don't think that the access in 75% of the lands would change much. And ultimately I am going to moving to AK in 1.5 years :mrgreen:


----------



## massmanute

johnnycake said:


> The Utah constitution claim is likely void due to the Supremacy Clause. So, yes, equal footing doctrine claims exist, but are non-obligatory.


Just to be clear about Utah's constitutional claim to Federal land, here is what the Utah constitution has to say on the matter: " The people inhabiting this State do affirm and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within the
boundaries hereof, ... and that until the title thereto shall have been extinguished by the United States, the same shall be and remain subject to the disposition of the United States..."

Here is what the enabling act says: "That the people inhabiting said proposed State to agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within the boundaries thereof; ... and that until the title thereto shall have been extinguished by the United States, the same shall be and remain subject to the 
disposition of the United States"

Proponents of the land grab are promoting a fiction that during the process of obtaining statehood Utah was promised by the Feds that the Feds would give up the land to the state. However, there is no document showing that such a promise was ever made to the State of Utah.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

massmanute said:


> Proponents of the land grab are promoting a fiction that during the process of obtaining statehood Utah was promised by the Feds that the Feds would give up the land to the state. However, there is no document showing that such a promise was ever made to the State of Utah.


Well......Well........if it is said enough times doesn't it become true?


----------



## Catherder

massmanute said:


> Just to be clear about Utah's constitutional claim to Federal land, here is what the Utah constitution has to say on the matter: " The people inhabiting this State do affirm and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within the
> boundaries hereof, ... and that until the title thereto shall have been extinguished by the United States, the same shall be and remain subject to the disposition of the United States..."
> 
> Here is what the enabling act says: "That the people inhabiting said proposed State to agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within the boundaries thereof; ... and that until the title thereto shall have been extinguished by the United States, the same shall be and remain subject to the
> disposition of the United States"
> 
> Proponents of the land grab are promoting a fiction that during the process of obtaining statehood Utah was promised by the Feds that the Feds would give up the land to the state. However, there is no document showing that such a promise was ever made to the State of Utah.


Couldn't agree more. Here is another clause from the enabling act (section 12).

"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;"

Here is a link to the entire enabling act.

http://archives.utah.gov/research/exhibits/Statehood/1894text.htm


----------



## Finnegan

The legal debate might be moot because Constitutions and derivative laws can be changed. Seems to me that the state is ready. Congress is now ready (because proponents have successfully made this into a partisan issue even though there's nothing partisan about it). The SCOTUS is ready. The only component still missing from this perfect storm is the presidency.

The sky isn't falling, but outdoorsmen in general and Utahns in particular have a long history of waving issues off or discounting them, being apathetic and aloof. Then when the horse has left the barn, we get upset and shake our fists at "them" for not including us in the process. And in this case, if this land grab happens, it can never be undone. There'll be no going back.

But I think the core issue is about whether we honor the heritage passed on to us from those who went before and pass that heritage on to those who follow, or do we allow a few greedy bastards to grab it for themselves?


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Can someone post links here on who to contact to oppose the land transfer?


----------



## massmanute

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Can someone post links here on who to contact to oppose the land transfer?


I don't have the links, but contact your the state representative and state senator for your district. Contact the governor. Contact your US representative and Senators. Contact the party leadership. Find out what organizations are opposing the land grab and consider donating to them.

Maybe, if enough people do this, it could help put a stop to the madness.

Oh, one other thing: as pointed out by someone else, we just missed a golden opportunity, i.e. by voting against the architects of the attempted land grab.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

massmanute said:


> I don't have the links, but contact your the state representative and state senator for your district. Contact the governor. Contact your US representative and Senators. Contact the party leadership. Find out what organizations are opposing the land grab and consider donating to them.
> 
> Maybe, if enough people do this, it could help put a stop to the madness.
> 
> Oh, one other thing: as pointed out by someone else, we just missed a golden opportunity, i.e. by voting against the architects of the attempted land grab.


Alright I'll post links if I find them. As for voting against them , in this state one side always wins because of the pressures of certain beliefs and uninformed individuals who don't know what there voting for they're just voting red because it's not blue .


----------



## massmanute

Proponents of the land grab often say they want the Federal Government to "give the land back" to the State. This is very misleading because the State never owned the vast swaths of Federal land. However, even if the Federal Government were to "give back" to Utah the land Utah owned at the time of statehood the State wouldn't receive any land in the give-back because they never owned it to begin with.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Senators- http://www.utahsenate.org/aspx/roster.aspx
Governor- http://www.utah.gov/governor/contact/
US Represenatives- http://m.house.gov/representatives/states.php?state=UT


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Alright I'll post links if I find them. As for voting against them , in this state one side always wins because of the pressures of certain beliefs and uninformed individuals who don't know what there voting for they're just voting red because it's not blue .


so your solution would be to vote blue or for an individual person solely because they side with the federal government controlling the federal land?

"pressures of certain beliefs"......????? What is that? Care to elaborate? Is that another way of saying "guided by individual values"?


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Mr Muleskinner said:


> so your solution would be to vote blue or for an individual person solely because they side with the federal government controlling the federal land?
> 
> "pressures of certain beliefs"......????? What is that? Care to elaborate? Is that another way of saying "guided by individual values"?


No comment


----------



## GaryFish

I've heard and reviewed the equal footings clause several times. And it has nothing to do with land ownership, but instead, representation in Congress and the electoral college system of electing the president. Meaning, senators and representatives from states joining the union after the initial 13, get to vote just the same, and have the same standing in the Federal law making process. It is grasping at best for states like Utah and Nevada to say they should get all the lands based on that claim. Then it gets topped with the state constitutions and enabling acts that keep the Federal government as owner of the lands, essentially saying "we don't want them" in a legally binding way, and there is no legal claim under the equal footing clause. Which is why previous arguments have gone no where in the courts. 

Again, contacting your state representative and senator is not how this can be accomplished. Contact your congressional representative and US Senator. That means Senators Lee and Hatch, and Representatives Chaffetz, Stewart, Bishop, and soon Love. If these six can be united with the 4 from Idaho, 6 from Nevada, 11 from Arizona, 3 from Montana, 9 from Colorado, 3 from Wyoming, 3 from Alaska, and 5 from New Mexico, then you've got something of a movement that would be significant. That is almost 1/5 of the Senate, where Hatch is the President Pro Tem, and 33 votes, or 10% of the House, then you can make some noise on the issue in all of the major federal lands states. But it will take all of these people to be united in order to get this accomplished. If further support can be gained from other states that tend to lean towards the concept of states' rights, say, the 11 former confederate states, then you could add 22 more senate votes to that, as well as significant enough house votes to get the traction necessary. 

But the equal footing clause does not apply to the ownership of lands. Some have claimed that application, but have failed in such claims. 

Good luck on your finals though man. I hope they go well.


----------



## klbzdad

Again, I'm in a time crunch but I'll share this concerning enabling acts and the state constitutions and the supremacy clause:

http://archive.americanlandscouncil.org/myportfolio/4767/

Too many forget the Graduation Act of 1854, it will apply as the state moves forward:

http://archive.americanlandscouncil.org/myportfolio/1854-graduation-act/

While I completely understand the skepticism of handing lands over to an agency that who's wildlife division is influenced by those who would restrict opportunity and access, that is not the case with the intent of the Utah lands bill or proponents. I wish I could work on this full time to share everything I could and answer questions but its easy for anyone to simply decide they don't like something and find information that supports their dislike while ignoring the other side. We are all guilty of this. I've ready the op eds and opinions from both sides and the legal basis by which Utah will move forward. Finn is right, if you do or don't like this, Utah historically is so full of apathetic keyboard quarterbacks that nobody actually DOES anything but bitch and moan after the fact. Don't like the TPLA? Tell someone who can make a difference. I might be a lone dog in the fight here, but I refuse to bite people I otherwise have respect for and admire...agree or not.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

klbzdad said:


> Again, I'm in a time crunch but I'll share this concerning enabling acts and the state constitutions and the supremacy clause:
> 
> http://archive.americanlandscouncil.org/myportfolio/4767/
> 
> Too many forget the Graduation Act of 1854, it will apply as the state moves forward:
> 
> http://archive.americanlandscouncil.org/myportfolio/1854-graduation-act/
> 
> While I completely understand the skepticism of handing lands over to an agency that who's wildlife division is influenced by those who would restrict opportunity and access, that is not the case with the intent of the Utah lands bill or proponents. I wish I could work on this full time to share everything I could and answer questions but its easy for anyone to simply decide they don't like something and find information that supports their dislike while ignoring the other side. We are all guilty of this. I've ready the op eds and opinions from both sides and the legal basis by which Utah will move forward. Finn is right, if you do or don't like this, Utah historically is so full of apathetic keyboard quarterbacks that nobody actually DOES anything but bitch and moan after the fact. Don't like the TPLA? Tell someone who can make a difference. I might be a lone dog in the fight here, but I refuse to bite people I otherwise have respect for and admire...agree or not.


Utah's wildlife didn't start out being auctioned off either, if they get a hold of the land they make the rules, can change them, and do as they please with it once they've got it. As you've stated many times groups have took wildlife and public tags out of public hands over the last two decades. So what do you think will happen once greedy people get control of the lands? Over the next couple decades you'll watch access continually be taken from the public. Our wildlife didn't get sold out to private investors overnight either, but over time it has happened. Why would something even more valuable be more safe in the hands of the same people?


----------



## johnnycake

Gary, thanks for the wishes--I hope it goes well. I do think that it is important to note when something has a "legal claim" it doesn't mean that they will automatically prevail. It just means that they would survive the FRCP rule 12b6 motion to dismiss the suit before the case is heard.


----------



## klbzdad

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Utah's wildlife didn't start out being auctioned off either, if they get a hold of the land they make the rules, can change them, and do as they please with it once they've got it. As you've stated many times groups have took wildlife and public tags out of public hands over the last two decades. So what do you think will happen once greedy people get control of the lands? Over the next couple decades you'll watch access continually be taken from the public. Our wildlife didn't get sold out to private investors overnight either, but over time it has happened. Why would something even more valuable be more safe in the hands of the same people?


You haven't read the report or the act. Do that first and then I'll respond to any questions you have. Sometimes, its only beneficial to debate or engage in discussion with those willing to investigate both sides. Otherwise, you'd be exactly right. But reality is not one person being right. I might be wrong more times than I care to admit, but I will admit it. On this issue, I've read both sides.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

klbzdad said:


> You haven't read the report or the act. Do that first and then I'll respond to any questions you have. Sometimes, its only beneficial to debate or engage in discussion with those willing to investigate both sides. Otherwise, you'd be exactly right. But reality is not one person being right. I might be wrong more times than I care to admit, but I will admit it. On this issue, I've read both sides.


Since you represent the UWC, what is it's official stance on the matter? Does it have one?


----------



## Catherder

A few comments and musings here and there.

1. First this;



klbzdad said:


> http://archive.americanlandscouncil.org/myportfolio/4767/
> 
> Too many forget the Graduation Act of 1854, it will apply as the state moves forward:
> 
> http://archive.americanlandscouncil.org/myportfolio/1854-graduation-act/


Th first link shows how North Dakotas and Utahs enabling acts are very similar, as well as Nevada and Nebraska, and claims that Utah and Nevada are being hosed because they have so much federal land still. Well, this line of thinking conveniently ignores the fact that most of Nebraska and ND were claimed via the Homestead act into small to medium farms and ranches. If Utah and Nevada topography and climate were more amenable to farming, They would have been privatized too by the Homestead act. But they weren't, and the Homestead act has been replaced by Congress as is their right. Also, both also clearly state (and is highlighted in the link) that Congress decides how the lands are to be disposed and if they decided to treat Utah differently than North Dakota, that is their right.

The second link describes an 1854 act that was a precursor to the Homestead act. The Homestead act then was made law a few decades later. Congress then repealed these laws and set up the BLM in the early 1970's. The link merely points to an act that was twice superseded by Congress and the current law of the land on Federal land is encompassed by the most recent BLM act. We've already established that Congress has the right to do this. Nice try.

2. RE"Since you represent the UWC, what is it's official stance on the matter? Does it have one?"

I guess I'm also a small bit of a UWC "insider" as I get the recent communications and pitch in myself occasionally, and obviously, I see things differently than KLBZ. I know of no UWC pronouncement on the issue. It would be interesting to poll the membership and see what the consensus is.

3. RE: " The legal debate might be moot because Constitutions and derivative laws can be changed. "

Perhaps, but if the State of Utah is going about their efforts in a way that is patently unconstitutional, and wasting large sums of money in legal fees, I believe it is worth criticizing.

4. RE: " Seems to me that the state is ready. Congress is now ready (because proponents have successfully made this into a partisan issue even though there's nothing partisan about it). The SCOTUS is ready. The only component still missing from this perfect storm is the presidency."

Maybe, but one thing that is happening in much of the West is that some States are turning more "blue". When I lived in Nevada a decade ago, it was somewhat red, now it is a true swing state with Blue tendencies. Washington and Oregon are very blue, as is New Mexico. Colorado was a swing state that usually leaned red when I lived there 20 years ago, now it leans blue and everybody's too stoned to vote. J/K;-). The West would need to put up a pretty united front to win a land grab congressionally and blue legislators have a strong environmental constituency that is strongly against it. Which segues to my last point.

5. RE" 
Originally Posted by *#1DEER 1-I*  
_Alright I'll post links if I find them. As for voting against them , in this state one side always wins because of the pressures of certain beliefs and uninformed individuals who don't know what there voting for they're just voting red because it's not blue ._
so your solution would be to vote blue or for an individual person solely because they side with the federal government controlling the federal land?

"pressures of certain beliefs"......????? What is that? Care to elaborate? Is that another way of saying "guided by individual values"?"

If one opposes the land grab, it may be necessary to join forces with groups that some folks may not be comfortable in being associated with. Groups like SUWA and other environmentalists. I recognize that this may be hard for some as most hunters and fishermen seem to be conservative in nature in these parts. However, this is often how the real world works and refusing to fight for something you believe in, just because "those" people also favor it as well is shortsighted and foolish IMO.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

Catherder said:


> A few comments and musings here and there.
> 
> 1. First this;
> 
> Th first link shows how North Dakotas and Utahs enabling acts are very similar, as well as Nevada and Nebraska, and claims that Utah and Nevada are being hosed because they have so much federal land still. Well, this line of thinking conveniently ignores the fact that most of Nebraska and ND were claimed via the Homestead act into small to medium farms and ranches. If Utah and Nevada topography and climate were more amenable to farming, They would have been privatized too by the Homestead act. But they weren't, and the Homestead act has been replaced by Congress as is their right. Also, both also clearly state (and is highlighted in the link) that Congress decides how the lands are to be disposed and if they decided to treat Utah differently than North Dakota, that is their right.
> 
> The second link describes an 1854 act that was a precursor to the Homestead act. The Homestead act then was made law a few decades later. Congress then repealed these laws and set up the BLM in the early 1970's. The link merely points to an act that was twice superseded by Congress and the current law of the land on Federal land is encompassed by the most recent BLM act. We've already established that Congress has the right to do this. Nice try.
> 
> 2. RE"Since you represent the UWC, what is it's official stance on the matter? Does it have one?"
> 
> I guess I'm also a small bit of a UWC "insider" as I get the recent communications and pitch in myself occasionally, and obviously, I see things differently than KLBZ. I know of no UWC pronouncement on the issue. It would be interesting to poll the membership and see what the consensus is.
> 
> 3. RE: " The legal debate might be moot because Constitutions and derivative laws can be changed. "
> 
> Perhaps, but if the State of Utah is going about their efforts in a way that is patently unconstitutional, and wasting large sums of money in legal fees, I believe it is worth criticizing.
> 
> 4. RE: " Seems to me that the state is ready. Congress is now ready (because proponents have successfully made this into a partisan issue even though there's nothing partisan about it). The SCOTUS is ready. The only component still missing from this perfect storm is the presidency."
> 
> Maybe, but one thing that is happening in much of the West is that some States are turning more "blue". When I lived in Nevada a decade ago, it was somewhat red, now it is a true swing state with Blue tendencies. Washington and Oregon are very blue, as is New Mexico. Colorado was a swing state that usually leaned red when I lived there 20 years ago, now it leans blue and everybody's too stoned to vote. J/K;-). The West would need to put up a pretty united front to win a land grab congressionally and blue legislators have a strong environmental constituency that is strongly against it. Which segues to my last point.
> 
> 5. RE"
> Originally Posted by *#1DEER 1-I*
> _Alright I'll post links if I find them. As for voting against them , in this state one side always wins because of the pressures of certain beliefs and uninformed individuals who don't know what there voting for they're just voting red because it's not blue ._
> so your solution would be to vote blue or for an individual person solely because they side with the federal government controlling the federal land?
> 
> "pressures of certain beliefs"......????? What is that? Care to elaborate? Is that another way of saying "guided by individual values"?"
> 
> If one opposes the land grab, it may be necessary to join forces with groups that some folks may not be comfortable in being associated with. Groups like SUWA and other environmentalists. I recognize that this may be hard for some as most hunters and fishermen seem to be conservative in nature in these parts. However, this is often how the real world works and refusing to fight for something you believe in, just because "those" people also favor it as well is shortsighted and foolish IMO.


Great Post Catherder.

My question was legitimate. If the UWC should decide not to take an official stance that is fine but if they have one people should know what it is.

Personally I have no problem at all aligning myself with those that would fight to keep federal lands federal. It does not necessarily mean that a person need to just go red or blue though. There are plenty of treehuggin conservatives out there. When it comes to respecting the land and how it is used, it is my belief that each issue must be evaluated on it own. I would have no problem standing next to the Sierra Club or the SUWA on the steps of the capitol to prevent the land from transferring hands.

When it comes to protecting the wolf or grizzly bear it an entirely different matter. That is what I meant by being guided by individual values. I still have no idea what "pressures of certain beliefs" is supposed to mean.


----------



## Catherder

Mr Muleskinner said:


> My question was legitimate. If the UWC should decide not to take an official stance that is fine but if they have one people should know what it is.


I fully agree and I would hope that the UWC would not shy away from the tough issues and make public stands when needed. I would also hope that they would monitor the "pulse" of their members as well on these types of issues.

RE"I still have no idea what "pressures of certain beliefs" is supposed to mean."

You got me on that one.  At first read, I thought it might have been a swipe at the Mormon church, but truly have no idea. I suppose 1I will have to explain that one to us.


----------



## GaryFish

I think the politics really are a pretty interesting part of this one. Generally, most hunters tend to be a bit more red than blue. Which is fair enough. However, at the heart of this proposal is a very clear issue of federalism vs. state rights, a divide that dates back to pre-constitution days. It is the divide that had the country governed by the Articles of Confederation for 10 years before the colonies realized that some form of Federal government had to be there, so they created a centralized government - different than the more loose confederation of autonomous states.

If those that trend republican that would rather the reach of the Federal government be reduced in favor of state control, also hunt, then this issue puts that premise into question. The Federal management of lands in all reality, pushes aside the core concepts of capitalism, a typically republican virtue. Yet it also assures that we have large tracts of land we can access pretty much at no charge - which embraces the tenants of socialism in its most pure form. Like it not, the effort for the state to gain control of federally managed lands is an absolute capitalistic move by those in office in the legislature, and the checkbooks that buy them, er.... I mean donate to their campaigns and give them free Jazz Tickets and houseboat rentals. And as sportsmen with our four-wheel drives and 2nd amendment in one hand and our hunting rifle in the other, have to put our own political choices under a magnifying glass to really reconcile how we feel about all of this. If I am a republican, then really, I should lean towards the capitalistic, state driven solution. If I am a democrat, I'll lean to the more socialistic, Federalisitc solution. 

So yea, it is a very political thing whether we admit it or not. And admit it or not, we all have to take an honest look at what really is most important to us.


----------



## klbzdad

Mr Muleskinner said:


> Since you represent the UWC, what is it's official stance on the matter? Does it have one?


I haven't for a second suggested that the UWC subscribe or adopt my position on this issue. That's the beauty of being a part of a GROUP, I'm only a small piece to the puzzle with a point of view to bring to the table. I am more than willing to present my view on this to other board members but as of this very moment, it is my stance and my stance alone. Lee and Kris speak for the org as a whole, not I. It is a political issue. Again, don't want it to happen, do something about it.

"_*In any moment of decision, the best thing you can do is the right thing, the next best thing is the wrong thing, and the worst thing you can do is nothing.*_" *- Theodore Roosevelt

*FWIW - I'm also a member of RMEF, NRA, NWTF, SCI, and a couple of others that automatically get my membership dues annually. RMEF currently opposes the TPL. Doesn't mean I won't be a member or expect the org to change or else...


----------



## Kwalk3

GaryFish said:


> I think the politics really are a pretty interesting part of this one. Generally, most hunters tend to be a bit more red than blue. Which is fair enough. However, at the heart of this proposal is a very clear issue of federalism vs. state rights, a divide that dates back to pre-constitution days. It is the divide that had the country governed by the Articles of Confederation for 10 years before the colonies realized that some form of Federal government had to be there, so they created a centralized government - different than the more loose confederation of autonomous states.
> 
> If those that trend republican that would rather the reach of the Federal government be reduced in favor of state control, also hunt, then this issue puts that premise into question. The Federal management of lands in all reality, pushes aside the core concepts of capitalism, a typically republican virtue. Yet it also assures that we have large tracts of land we can access pretty much at no charge - which embraces the tenants of socialism in its most pure form. Like it not, the effort for the state to gain control of federally managed lands is an absolute capitalistic move by those in office in the legislature, and the checkbooks that buy them, er.... I mean donate to their campaigns and give them free Jazz Tickets and houseboat rentals. And as sportsmen with our four-wheel drives and 2nd amendment in one hand and our hunting rifle in the other, have to put our own political choices under a magnifying glass to really reconcile how we feel about all of this. If I am a republican, then really, I should lean towards the capitalistic, state driven solution. If I am a democrat, I'll lean to the more socialistic, Federalisitc solution.
> 
> So yea, it is a very political thing whether we admit it or not. And admit it or not, we all have to take an honest look at what really is most important to us.


Well said.

I will add that just because someone labels themselves republican or democrat should not imply that they cannot differ in opinion on a single issue, or even several issues. Especially when that issue has the potential to fundamentally affect one of the things that I( and I assume most here) am most passionate about.


----------



## Finnegan

klbzdad said:


> RMEF currently opposes the TPL. Doesn't mean I won't be a member or expect the org to change or else...


Hope RMEF's smarts rub off on you.

Just kidding. You actually bring up a great point. Folks spout off about the origins of our proud nation and forget that those few men who forged our founding documents were adamantly opposed to one another on a bunch of issues. Yet, look what they accomplished.

Utah's political system is built in keeping with those ideals, i.e. "We, the People..." But if the People don't do our part, well...


----------



## Lonetree

I'll be honest, I only scanned this thread. But if you want to know how State management will be, look no further than current Sate management. 

Think SITLA, the Bookcliffs, Stream access, DWR, lands purchased by hunters and then sold by the DWR, etc. We as sportsmen are extorted and double taxed, so that everyone else can access SITLA lands, and we then have no voice when it affects our wildlife and hunting. I use to be a climber, and if you know anything about the Access fund or the Mountain Project, here in Utah, next to private property, it was always about access to and through State lands. 

As for the financial aspect, how does it get managed at the same level, without increasing revenue(fees, taxes, etc.) Currently all Americans contribute to this, as it is owned by all Americans. When we as Utahans take on that burden, how do we do it without increasing revenue generated by these lands? The State charges more for grazing than does the feds, I'm guessing that is just one place we will start to see the increases. And if the way we as sportsman have to pay to access state lands is any indicator, plan on increases in license fees as well.

Then, how do we compensate all of the tax payers that have had a vested interest in these lands for over 100 years? I mean if WY gets transfer of federal lands, what kind of dividend should I expect to receive? How about the person in Kansas, what do they get? We are not talking about abstract concepts here, we the people of the United States of America have a vested interest in federal lands. Like I always say, if you can't pay your way, put your empty hand back in your empty pocket!

Shawn, nothing in those plans is binding, there are no guarantees. Current and past management by the State says something very, very different from what you are selling. I have read the propaganda, it does not add up. It takes a lot of ignorance or out right disrespect to quote Roosevelt, while proposing to sell off his legacy. Why don't you just quote Reagan while making communist arguments? And speaking of conservatism, the feds are the devil we know. But that won't matter to some in this state, with unfounded ideologies.

I am glad you mentioned selenium though. The Whiskey Mountain bighorn sheep(where the selenium thing all started) herd in WY has been increasing for the last two years. This is a first in 20 years. Mark my words, you heard it here first, it will start to decline again next year. Much as our deer already are. We can call this an early new years prediction, much like the one I made around 3-4 years ago about not reaching 400,000 deer by now. I do hate being right a lot of the time.

I hope everyone had a good Thanksgiving, have a good Christmas and New Years as well.


----------



## Lonetree

While we are at it, riddle me this: The DWR has to sell off lands to private interests, even those purchased by hunters, and the state passed on purchasing Deseret land and livestock years ago, but we want federal lands? And we are not going to lock them up or sell them? 

I was carjacked by a stoned drug addict trying to flee demons back in the 1990s. Lets just say he was more lucid than the state transfer argument.


----------



## klbzdad

Josh, 

All I'm going to say is, what did you or your ancestors get from their "interest" in owning Pennsylvania? I figured of anyone here, you'd have read the report and assessment.


----------



## Lonetree

klbzdad said:


> Josh,
> 
> All I'm going to say is, what did you or your ancestors get from their "interest" in owning Pennsylvania? I figured of anyone here, you'd have read the report and assessment.


I've read it. My family was never in Pennsylvania, but when we entered Massachusetts 400 years ago we purchased our land, rather than taking it like most did(documented). And when we left Illinois and Canada to come here we sold our land, ie. some one paid us for it. That is how property is "transferred", by Title and compensation. Pennsylvania was homesteaded, and has never been part of our public lands heritage, so my European ancestors never had a stake. Those that homesteaded it did, and do, and I don't see anyone asking them to "transfer" it without compensation. But your right, some people did get stiffed there as well.

I will ask again, what compensation do the current owners of our federal lands, ie. every US citizen get in exchange for "transferring" this land that we have had for 100 years to Utah? Don't think that us as Utahans are getting something here, becasue we are talking about "transferring" our ownership of federal lands in other Western states, uncompensated, to them.

Its funny how some will call national monument or wilderness designation a land grab, but out right extorted theft is called a "transfer".........BS


----------



## Catherder

GaryFish said:


> I think the politics really are a pretty interesting part of this one. Generally, most hunters tend to be a bit more red than blue. Which is fair enough. However, at the heart of this proposal is a very clear issue of federalism vs. state rights, a divide that dates back to pre-constitution days. It is the divide that had the country governed by the Articles of Confederation for 10 years before the colonies realized that some form of Federal government had to be there, so they created a centralized government - different than the more loose confederation of autonomous states.
> 
> If those that trend republican that would rather the reach of the Federal government be reduced in favor of state control, also hunt, then this issue puts that premise into question. The Federal management of lands in all reality, pushes aside the core concepts of capitalism, a typically republican virtue. Yet it also assures that we have large tracts of land we can access pretty much at no charge - which embraces the tenants of socialism in its most pure form. Like it not, the effort for the state to gain control of federally managed lands is an absolute capitalistic move by those in office in the legislature, and the checkbooks that buy them, er.... I mean donate to their campaigns and give them free Jazz Tickets and houseboat rentals. And as sportsmen with our four-wheel drives and 2nd amendment in one hand and our hunting rifle in the other, have to put our own political choices under a magnifying glass to really reconcile how we feel about all of this. If I am a republican, then really, I should lean towards the capitalistic, state driven solution. If I am a democrat, I'll lean to the more socialistic, Federalisitc solution.
> 
> So yea, it is a very political thing whether we admit it or not. And admit it or not, we all have to take an honest look at what really is most important to us.


Excellent post. A couple thoughts.

1. In addition to the capitalism/socialism and states rights/federalism questions you bring up, I would add one more and IMO it is important in regards to the sportsman and recreationalist. The question is whether government has the "right" to set aside and preserve wilderness, National parks and forests, and open spaces from maximum exploitation. The "preservation" ethic was behind the setting aside of all the National parks and monuments, all the National forests, and much BLM land. Lonetree mentioned the legacy of Roosevelt and that is in large measure what I'm talking about. Some are of the opinion that government does not have that right, others, including the courts since the early 1900's, have concluded they do. In this instance, we have the State, which would either maximally develop these lands that have energy or other reserves, or sell them off (or both) versus Federal ownership, which in most cases, while often allowing sustainable multiple uses on properties, tries to preserve forests, parks and monuments for the future. (This is not to say that a private landowner cannot preserve the ecology on his/her property, but I respect the owners right not to be forced to do so.)

In this instance, I believe government has the right to preserve recreationally valuable, beautiful and/or sensitive lands from exploitation and/or for public enjoyment and that desire supersedes a generally conservative worldview I usually espouse.

2. RE"And as sportsmen with our four-wheel drives and 2nd amendment in one hand and our hunting rifle in the other, have to put our own political choices under a magnifying glass to really reconcile how we feel about all of this."

Fair question and as I stated above, I do believe there are entangled core issues here. Personally, this is not unusual. For as long as I could consider these things and vote, I have generally been a fiscal and a social conservative. However, I've always had a strong "green" streak and still believe the environment should be protected. Many conservatives disown me because of my green viewpoints and the left is usually more favorable with the environment, but does nothing for me in other areas. I suppose I could look at the land grab similarly. Environmental protection, quality of life issues, and readily available, low cost, opportunity to pursue the activities I love trumps the classical socialism/capitalism question you correctly propose.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

Lonetree said:


> I've read it. My family was never in Pennsylvania, but when we entered Massachusetts 400 years ago we purchased our land, rather than taking it like most did(documented). And when we left Illinois and Canada to come here we sold our land, ie. some one paid us for it. That is how property is "transferred", by Title and compensation. Pennsylvania was homesteaded, and has never been part of our public lands heritage, so my European ancestors never had a stake. Those that homesteaded it did, and do, and I don't see anyone asking them to "transfer" it without compensation. But your right, some people did get stiffed there as well.
> 
> I will ask again, what compensation do the current owners of our federal lands, ie. every US citizen get in exchange for "transferring" this land that we have had for 100 years to Utah? Don't think that us as Utahans are getting something here, becasue we are talking about "transferring" our ownership of federal lands in other Western states, uncompensated, to them.
> 
> Its funny how some will call national monument or wilderness designation a land grab, but out right extorted theft is called a "transfer".........BS


touche'...........Bravo...........Bazinga


----------



## grizzly

A few years ago I couldn't imagine aligning myself with SUWA or Sierra Club, but I'll be standing with them if it comes to that. A state takeover of Federal lands would lead to the loss of huge tracts of public land within the next few generations.

The recently released "analysis" was extremely optimistic and depended on best-case scenarios to keep the state afloat (maintaining current oil prices, which are already falling below expected levels, as well as annual oil production increases of up to 15% which can't be maintained at falling oil prices)... and even those numbers only generated the conclusion that the State _could_ manage the land, not that it would generate additional income. Rob Bishop and his ilk claim it is to raise money "for the kids" as if this is about additional money for education. If that was truly the case, lets see him start lobbying to raise taxes for education as that would be a much quicker and sure-fire way to raise education funding. (Never mind that standardized test scores have dropped 30% since 1970 and education spending has increased 300%, adjusted for inflation, over the same period, proving that money does *not* equal improved education). This was never about raising money for education, this is about the rich and powerful getting more rich and powerful.

This whole charade is a sly way for a few state bureaucrats to raise money for their friends and donors, these are the same state legislators that stood proudly with Mark Shurtleff and John Swallow for heaven's sake.

I DON'T TRUST THEM!


----------



## The Naturalist

My post from a year ago if you want to help fight the transfer...

For those of you who enjoy our public lands in Utah I would strongly urge you to look at this website and consider adding your name to the growing list of hunters, educators, hikers, backpackers, and outdoor enthusiasts who oppose the Governor's land-grab.

http://www.forkidsandlands.org/

If you know of others that would like to consider adding their name please pass this along.


----------



## klbzdad

Lonetree said:


> I've read it. My family was never in Pennsylvania, but when we entered Massachusetts 400 years ago we purchased our land, rather than taking it like most did(documented). And when we left Illinois and Canada to come here we sold our land, ie. some one paid us for it. That is how property is "transferred", by Title and compensation. Pennsylvania was homesteaded, and has never been part of our public lands heritage, so my European ancestors never had a stake. Those that homesteaded it did, and do, and I don't see anyone asking them to "transfer" it without compensation. But your right, some people did get stiffed there as well.
> 
> I will ask again, what compensation do the current owners of our federal lands, ie. every US citizen get in exchange for "transferring" this land that we have had for 100 years to Utah? Don't think that us as Utahans are getting something here, becasue we are talking about "transferring" our ownership of federal lands in other Western states, uncompensated, to them.
> 
> Its funny how some will call national monument or wilderness designation a land grab, but out right extorted theft is called a "transfer".........BS


Homesteading wasn't a purchase. There are many layers to how people in the east came to own or earn ownership of the land. Hell, they tried the same thing in the west but once resources were discovered here, that is when the land grab took place. So what do easterners get in return for a transfer of public lands? They've been paid! The west pays billions in oil and gas $$$ to fund other programs with only a pittance being returned to Utahans who are the stewards of those resources. We are the ones impacted financially and environmentally the most so I ask you, what do we have to loose? Irregardless, I support most wilderness designations if done properly through Congress as we are about to see happen in a couple of neighboring states. By the way, why was homesteading ended again?


----------



## klbzdad

The Naturalist said:


> My post from a year ago if you want to help fight the transfer...
> 
> For those of you who enjoy our public lands in Utah I would strongly urge you to look at this website and consider adding your name to the growing list of hunters, educators, hikers, backpackers, and outdoor enthusiasts who oppose the Governor's land-grab.
> 
> http://www.forkidsandlands.org/
> 
> If you know of others that would like to consider adding their name please pass this along.


I've reviewed the entire website. People are wanting to say that the report and findings of the commissioned (by law) economists and state agency are trying to paint a rosy picture by playing nice with words. Yet, you're website there talks about how the act would mean states would manage national parks and monuments as part of the deal. Nope. And education funding? Decriminalize dope or rewrite the laws on certain drugs and you'll see plenty of money savings that can be applied to education. But, that takes effort so at least you and your website there are doing SOMETHING other than talking about doing something. Historically, that is the maximum effort in our state on anything. People bitch and moan until they are tired and then hope someone else will keep bitching and moaning the same thing for them.


----------



## Lonetree

The Naturalist said:


> My post from a year ago if you want to help fight the transfer...
> 
> For those of you who enjoy our public lands in Utah I would strongly urge you to look at this website and consider adding your name to the growing list of hunters, educators, hikers, backpackers, and outdoor enthusiasts who oppose the Governor's land-grab.
> 
> http://www.forkidsandlands.org/
> 
> If you know of others that would like to consider adding their name please pass this along.


+1, I did it a long time ago.


----------



## Lonetree

klbzdad said:


> Homesteading wasn't a purchase. There are many layers to how people in the east came to own or earn ownership of the land. Hell, they tried the same thing in the west but once resources were discovered here, that is when the land grab took place. So what do easterners get in return for a transfer of public lands? They've been paid! The west pays billions in oil and gas $$$ to fund other programs with only a pittance being returned to Utahans who are the stewards of those resources. We are the ones impacted financially and environmentally the most so I ask you, what do we have to loose? Irregardless, I support most wilderness designations if done properly through Congress as we are about to see happen in a couple of neighboring states. By the way, why was homesteading ended again?


Homesteading was a purchase, through sweat equity. You could not just lay claim to any piece of land, you had to do something with it. You had to farm it, log it, raise livestock on, etc. This utilization went towards the productiveness and expansion of the country. Homesteading was not free. My great grand parents were homesteaders, they worked for it.

We've paid who, What? I'm sorry, I don't like it either but Utah is a welfare state. We get more form the feds, than we pay out, not the other way around. This includes PILT(payment in lieu of taxes) to the counties from the feds. What do we have to lose? PILT is one, as you know if you read your own info. Not to mention our collective ownership of property that we have a birth right to.

Homesteading was suppose to end in the 1970s, but was extended by Reagan into the 1980s. So right up until ~30 years ago you could still homestead in the West, but almost no one was doing it. There were no land grabs in the West, the state never owned what it is asking for, it never held title to any of it. And as for resources, take a look at mineral rights in the West, gobbled up by private corporations in the 1880s. Most of us do not own the mineral rights on our own private property here in the West. And this is not because the feds took it from us. It got "transferred" to private interests by politicians over a 100 years ago. And that is exactly what some more politicians are trying to do again.

What is the plan to compensate the owners of these lands? We are talking about "transferring" real property that is currently owned by many, to a much smaller group of owners. Under conservative principles of capitalism this requires a buy out. Other wise it is what is know as wealth redistribution. Which does not surprise me given the kind of grifters pushing this.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

klbzdad said:


> Maybe do some research? I support it and I'm likely to get skewered here, but I've studied this almost as much as LT has studied selenium....almost.
> 
> Fiscal Report:
> http://publiclands.utah.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/1. Land Transfer Analysis Final Report.pdf
> 
> Methodology on the transfer:
> http://publiclands.utah.gov/wp-cont...ands-Policy-A-Case-Statement-for-H.B.-148.pdf
> 
> Legislative Report on HB 148:
> http://publiclands.utah.gov/wp-cont...ahs-Transfer-of-Public-Lands-Act-H.B.-148.pdf
> 
> Governor's Office Report Based on the Study:
> http://publiclands.utah.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Summary-20141128_FINAL.pdf
> 
> There is a NO NET LOSS OF ACCESS. The lands stay public owned by the state of Utah (which means everyone who is a resident of Utah owns the land but anyone, including foreigners can still access it). There is nowhere in the study that suggests managing the land will require selling it. And, by the way, most western states are following suit and have only held off pending action by Utah and this particular study and another that will be released soon. SUWA is running adds against the TPL. I am instantly inclined to join anything SUWA opposes, including punching baby pandas if SUWA is against it publicly. Facts are pesky critters, we all can agree to that. In any case, let the punches begin.


 *FROM PAGE 286 OF THE FISCAL ANALYSIS.....

HAVE YOU READ THE REPORTS???????? YOU AGREE WITH THIS???????



If the state takes over management of the federal land currently used for wildlife associated activities there is a chance a cost benefit analysis can be performed to determine the best use of
the public land. This could include reallocating hunting and fishing areas for alternative uses including oil and gas production, commercial development, or other types of recreation. This 
however, would likely have a negative effect on wildlife associated recreation as wildlife would 
be displaced by human intervention. Likewise, hunters and anglers may be discouraged from 
participating near private industry. Similarly, they may not desire an area that becomes developed 
and crowded by other industrial pursuits.

That should be all anybody has to read!*


----------



## Lonetree

Oh wait, wait, wait, I have it! We can go to the bank, and get a loan to buy the land. This way we can compensate those share holders that are losing their stake. And then after a couple of years we could short sale it to one of our close friends at a steeply reduced price, so we don't have to meet our obligations on the bank note..........


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

This is one of those fact versus feelings topics for sure. The feelings are blinding the facts of the matter to a few.


----------



## Lonetree

Mr Muleskinner said:


> This is one of those fact versus feelings topics for sure. The feelings are blinding the facts of the matter to a few.


We were saying for a long time that it was just a few, but the fringe is growing. What was originally looked at as lunacy by the left and right main stream, is now almost credible in some circles. I get all the grifters and greedy developers, I know where they comong from, that is easy to see. But it is much more alarming to see "hunters", coming from the tradition of Roosevelt, aligning themselves with this ridiculousness. It is much of the same failed ideology that has reduced our hunting in many other ways, and stifled our attempts to regain our once solid foot hold as hunters, conservationists, and stewards of the West.

My father calls it the apartheid of the West, where the few, rein tyranny over the masses.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

Agreed. The few that I was referring to are the few that are just on this forum. Reading the articles/studies that were posted I was stunned that a fellow outdoorsman could read what I read and make the claims that were made in favor of a "transfer".

Sorry to call you out on it KBLZDAD but it is you that are missing the boat. The articles that you posted just further cement the fact that things are far better now than they would be. I strongly suggest that you wash the chalkboard and start over with a clean slate.


----------



## Catherder

Mr Muleskinner said:


> This is one of those fact versus feelings topics for sure. The feelings are blinding the facts of the matter to a few.


+1, Speaking in general and not about any one person, I've noticed on issues like this that some folks hate the Federal government so much, no line of reasoning or overwhelming facts can be presented to dissuade them that the Feds are evil and the alternative is good/better. Its too ingrained to think otherwise. This tendency seems to be especially prevalent in the "435" and is compounded by the possibility that ones neighbors will come after you with pitchforks and torches if a person comes out as pro Federal government.


----------



## Lonetree

Catherder said:


> +1, Speaking in general and not about any one person, I've noticed on issues like this that some folks hate the Federal government so much, no line of reasoning or overwhelming facts can be presented to dissuade them that the Feds are evil and the alternative is good/better. Its too ingrained to think otherwise. This tendency seems to be especially prevalent in the "435" and is compounded by the possibility that ones neighbors will come after you with pitchforks and torches if a person comes out as pro Federal government.


That is because many people in the 801 or 435 are not principled, or tenet driven in their critical thinking. These types of overriding guidance have been replaced by sound bites, false populist rage, and an outright mis or non understanding of how we got here, or why. If any of these principles were still intact, we would know how to proceed,and by what means to get there. Just like with the wildlife/hunting debate, the issue is being wedged to purposefully fracture any cohesiveness, in an attempt steal from those being divided. The chaos provides the opportunity to further the agenda while distracting and confusing those that will be most deprived by the proposed agenda.

I know what you mean, I saw it when I was still living in the 435, but it is two fold. One being the group think, and the other being a complete lack of direction, past, present, or future.


----------



## redleg

The state land grabbers don't want the Bonneville Salt Flats. they want the few squaire miles that are actually prime hunting land. What would happen if the feds offered Dougway to the governor?
They are only after land they can sell.


----------



## klbzdad

redleg said:


> The state land grabbers don't want the Bonneville Salt Flats. they want the few squaire miles that are actually prime hunting land. What would happen if the feds offered Dougway to the governor?
> They are only after land they can sell.


According to who?


----------



## klbzdad

Lonetree said:


> Homesteading was a purchase, through sweat equity. You could not just lay claim to any piece of land, you had to do something with it. You had to farm it, log it, raise livestock on, etc. This utilization went towards the productiveness and expansion of the country. Homesteading was not free. My great grand parents were homesteaders, they worked for it.
> 
> We've paid who, What? I'm sorry, I don't like it either but Utah is a welfare state. We get more form the feds, than we pay out, not the other way around. This includes PILT(payment in lieu of taxes) to the counties from the feds. What do we have to lose? PILT is one, as you know if you read your own info. Not to mention our collective ownership of property that we have a birth right to.
> 
> Homesteading was suppose to end in the 1970s, but was extended by Reagan into the 1980s. So right up until ~30 years ago you could still homestead in the West, but almost no one was doing it. There were no land grabs in the West, the state never owned what it is asking for, it never held title to any of it. And as for resources, take a look at mineral rights in the West, gobbled up by private corporations in the 1880s. Most of us do not own the mineral rights on our own private property here in the West. And this is not because the feds took it from us. It got "transferred" to private interests by politicians over a 100 years ago. And that is exactly what some more politicians are trying to do again.
> 
> What is the plan to compensate the owners of these lands? We are talking about "transferring" real property that is currently owned by many, to a much smaller group of owners. Under conservative principles of capitalism this requires a buy out. Other wise it is what is know as wealth redistribution. Which does not surprise me given the kind of grifters pushing this.


I don't need you to explain to me how homesteading works. I have family with land in Alaska. Read what I wrote. It wasn't a purchase. Good grief. You'll argue with anyone without looking past your nose just to be right, won't you?

Who owned the lands east of Colorado when immigrants began to populate and settle that land? And paid who? What? Read the report, you bone head. Utah has exported more natural gas and oil than you might realize. The spit on royalties might be 50% but try telling me that our fine government is honest enough to honor that return? **** it, I'm arguing with you. No thanks. Don't like TPL, do something. SUWA and the Sierra Club are really REALLY going to like having you on their team!


----------



## klbzdad

Mr Muleskinner said:


> *FROM PAGE 286 OF THE FISCAL ANALYSIS.....
> 
> HAVE YOU READ THE REPORTS???????? YOU AGREE WITH THIS???????
> 
> 
> 
> If the state takes over management of the federal land currently used for wildlife associated activities there is a chance a cost benefit analysis can be performed to determine the best use of
> the public land. This could include reallocating hunting and fishing areas for alternative uses including oil and gas production, commercial development, or other types of recreation. This
> however, would likely have a negative effect on wildlife associated recreation as wildlife would
> be displaced by human intervention. Likewise, hunters and anglers may be discouraged from
> participating near private industry. Similarly, they may not desire an area that becomes developed
> and crowded by other industrial pursuits.
> 
> That should be all anybody has to read!*


Yeah, whatever you do, don't read anything else in the report!

We all love our Henry's herds, right?

This:

_"__An example of this [lack__ of inter agency cooperation by state and federal agencies] is the Indian Springs Habitat Enhancement Project on the Henry Mountains. Both livestock and wildlife interests support this 1200 acre habitat project, but the BLM has not taken any action on the project over the last 3 years because of the fear of being sued. In some cases, federal agencies have not allowed us to use helicopters to capture animals for transplants or research in wilderness areas, but other times they have."_

These are economists doing the report, not people who speak hunter or angler or to our wants or needs and I see that as a positive. They didn't try to sugar coat anything, however, the analsys is based on, once again, a tiny return from those hunters, anglers, and wildlife viewers (as they call them) not interested enough to take the time to provide information in past surveys. Apathy once again ruining our chance for input on an important issue.

They are talking about doing a cost benefit analysis. Not actually suggesting that areas will, should, or shouldn't be reallocated. That kind of analysis would include local input and data with a chance to tell them to piss off! I agree with the report, it would be a negative thing to reallocate hunting and fishing areas for other uses that would ruin those areas. But the state report emphasizes that one use isn't supposed to be put above another unless there is a general overall benefit for each use. If a chunk of crappy dirt with no wildlife on it can be reassigned or swapped with critical habitat elsewhere owned by a private individual, that is another possibility in this scenario where a CBA would be done. But that isn't the purpose of the TPL and I don't think anyone in their right mind would support doing that unless the benefit was an undeniable gain for all outdoor uses, especially hunting and fishing. Degrading a billion dollar industry that generates millions in revenue that we all DEMAND that we be able to spend would be stupid.


----------



## RandomElk16

federal agencies have not allowed us to use helicopters to capture animals for transplants or research in wilderness areas, but other times they have."

Oh s***! The feds aren't letting you do transplants! Ludicrous. We need to move more animals from A to B. Then from C to A. Then B to C. Then after we know how many die try it again.


On a real note, not sure if the Henry's is in bad shape or whatever, but it's freaking amazing! And, you don't see a ton of oil trucks or gates that say "State Land - closed to unauthorized vehicals"


----------



## The Naturalist

klbzdad said:


> ....Yet, you're website there talks about how the act would mean states would manage national parks and monuments as part of the deal. Nope....


 You are correct in that most National Parks/Monuments are not currently targeted in the TPL. However, the Grand Staircase *is* specifically targeted in the TPL. I would say that should be a yup.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

klbzdad when you refer to yourself as a "sportsman". I suggest you go home, empty your pockets on your nightstand, look in the mirror and ask yourself what your legacy is going to be. Right now it has nothing to do with conservation.

I could not give a rats ass about a billion dollar industry or somebody that _SHOULD_ be in their right mind, and I will not hope or bank that they are in their right mind when the rubber meets the road. I would sooner bet on horses.

What I care about is the here and now, wildlife, our mountains and streams. They are doing better now than they will when hundreds of wealthy capitalists intend to find a better use. Remember the great gold rush? Rushes??? Wake up!

I say this because I am a businessman for countless hours a week. I know how to make money. I have crossed the line to do so at times and I don't have squat for power. Guess what? The boys on capital hill do have power. So do the boys that have nowhere to dump their waste or drill their holes or are just looking for a cheaper place to do it. Build some subdivisions to raise tax revenue. Get a few building permit dollars to pay for roads, lay some pipe and provide for new communities to get elected or re-elected. Most people want to move up and be somebody. Have a house on the hill and make a name for themselves.

When or if this comes to pass you will not even remember what convention tags were. This is bigger than any of the BS that the SFW or UWC ever dreamed of. That said I bet Don Peay is licking his chops at this! Think about that.

All will be lost.

You will lose. I will lose. We will lose.

Big bucks will win.

Wildlife will die. Land gone forever.

It will be a keeping up with Jones's the likes the world has never seen.

The Rocky Mountain West is still the last real frontier. The only thing saving it is the fact that the federal government is inept and laws are currently protecting it. What the hell good is progress if it ruins and poisons the very things that created progress to begin with..........Natural Resources. What the hell do you have to lose by sticking with the status quo on this? What do you have to gain by change? By transfer?

I don't know how much more clear one can make it. You have NO idea of the big picture and what the greed of money will do. It will corrupt the purest of intentions.

Including mine.


----------



## Lonetree

Some more context, why did Roosevelt create the National Forests in the first place? And why do some people want to reverse that? The answer is one and the same. 

Most people, that support state transfer either don't understand the actual implications and history, or their ideology resembles a foundation less house of cards. Both of these conditions are the root problems that face most of our wildlife problems of the last 30 years. 

Shawn, trying to rewrite history, and the western land ethic, to favor state transfer, is a kin to Don Peay calling the NAMWC socialism. Its the same attack, of the same principles. Your signature line is one of the most hypocritical things I have ever seen, considering that YOU are the one standing behind the curtain on this.


----------



## Lonetree

I always pay very close attention to title abstracts when purchasing land. To many they are just words on paper, but I have found them to burn like gasoline and flares, in more ways than some can imagine.

Abbreviated Title abstract of the West:

13,000 BP homesteaded claim by the original immigrants. Details: multiple use and claims by various groups until ~1516.

1516: Much of the west is claimed by Spanish conquest, with claims being held and defended well into the 1840s, by both Spain and Mexico.

1847: My family enters the Salt Lake Valley. Brigham Young receives land grants from the Mexican Government for parts of the Salt Lake valley. He also enters into agreements with the Ute peoples, formally recognizing their land claims. Ogden's Fort Buenaventura is purchased from Miles Goodyear, by Brigham Young. Goodyear held claim based on a Mexican land grant. In 1847 the Mexican-American war was underway, with US troops in New Mexico and California.

"The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo specified the major consequence of the war: the forced Mexican Cession of the territories of Alta California and New Mexico to the United States in exchange for $15 million. In addition, the United States assumed $3.25 million of debt owed by the Mexican government to U.S. citizens. Mexico accepted the loss of Texas and thereafter cited the Rio Grande as its national border."

At this point in time Utah does not exist as a state in the union, and most of the west becomes US territory, paid for by US citizens, with much of it still being paid for and managed by and for ALL US citizens.

1896: Utah finally receives state hood. The Utah enabling act which created Utah, ceded ownership of most private property to Utahans, along with what we now know as SITLA lands.

1896-198? homesteading and many other programs made public lands owned by the federal government available for purchase, trade, and homesteading. Just like in Nevada, where millions of acres were available to the state, they were not claimed, or bought.

The simple truth in all of this, is that Utah never owned the land. It belonged to Mexico when we got here, and then the United states after that. And for 150 years after 1847, we have received millions of acres of property.

So now that we have received the abstract, who has the sales contract? Sorry, not those "documents", the sales contract. I want to know how much earnest money is being proposed, and what is the time line closing, ie. making full payment for the "transfer" of title.

Anything short of this, is theft from the American people. So should I be surprised that this being proposed by shady land developers, that are already trying to get their hands on what is current Utah property? Or that it is supported by grifter politicians that stick the American people with their mortgage, because they not fiscally responsible? Its as bad as hunting and conservation groups that reduce hunting and wildlife, seems to be the pattern with a lot of hypocrites.


----------



## klbzdad

So, I've been compared to Don, questioned as a sportsman and conservationist, and been likened to a thief and called a hypocrite. This is the kind of crap that keeps me from mm and other worthless forums. Maybe its time to ad UWN to that list. This was never about me, its about causing change. Real change. Its about people actually taking the initiative to move on their beliefs no matter what those beliefs are. Don't like the TPL? Then *DO* something about it. If you support it, then *DO* something. Do nothing more than degrade and belittle anyone who's *DOING* something either way, well then, *YOU* are the root cause of the problem to begin with.


----------



## Lonetree

Some here are simply supporting the NAMWC, and our long heritage of hunting and conservation, expression is doing something, you sound like muley73 and others that can't support your position. 

I'm pretty sure that you made reference to me, SUWA and the Sierra club, just like I tied you to the failed ideologies of Don. Doesn't bother me, I've stood next to SFW and MDF on habitat projects. I did this in the same way I stood with the Sierra club and Trout unlimited on stream/riparian projects. 

That's the difference between being principled, and being an ideologue. Its the difference between original cohesive thought supported by history and precedence, verses false derivative theory. So of course you talk in terms of "belief". Sure you are entitled to your beliefs, everyone is, but this is not about beliefs. That's the kind of relativism that utopia builders squawk about. Your feelings on the matter are fine, but when they adversely affect many, many other people, then they should very rightfully become relegated to be just your feelings. That's fine, no one is looking to take those from you, like you are looking to take from others. 

Screaming that people talking on the internet is not doing something, just solidifies what a hypocrite you are. It invalidates your own arguments, which is very telling. Ideas and expression are doing something, not being able to support those is what is contrary. If you think this is condescending and belittling, it is supposed to be, do something about it.

Got that sales contract?


----------



## massmanute

johnnycake said:


> Ultimately, does Utah have a legal claim? Yes, actually.


Please show us the language in the enabling document or the State constitution where the Federal government promised it would turn over Federal land to the state, other than certain tracts that are specifically specified in those documents. It isn't there. In fact, both of those documents specify that the State gives up any claim to those Federal lands, FOREVER.

There are also, as far as I am aware, any other documents that obligate the Federal government to give the lands to the state (notice I did not use the term "give back"), or even promise to do so.

This idea that the Federal government promised to give up the land is nothing more than a pipe dream from the proponents of the idea.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

klbzdad said:


> So, I've been compared to Don, questioned as a sportsman and conservationist, and been likened to a thief and called a hypocrite. This is the kind of crap that keeps me from mm and other worthless forums. Maybe its time to ad UWN to that list. This was never about me, its about causing change. Real change. Its about people actually taking the initiative to move on their beliefs no matter what those beliefs are. Don't like the TPL? Then *DO* something about it. If you support it, then *DO* something. Do nothing more than degrade and belittle anyone who's *DOING* something either way, well then, *YOU* are the root cause of the problem to begin with.


Klbzdad, you're not getting support and coming up against opposition so now your going to your corner because you aren't agreed with? Yet another hypocritical point of yourself you've made, you do the exact things you've listed above right here on this forum to many forum members so shove it. Where the hell are you not benefitting from the federal government controlling and protecting the public lands you claim to enjoy but want to give away? If it's not broke don't fix it. So the federal government isn't allowing the state to do what ever they want with the land? That's a great thing in my book because the states done a ****ty job of everything but making money and that's all that's behind this greedy agenda as well. If you cared much about conservation you'd realize all this will do is hurt . SFW has never taken as much opportunity away as this land theft will from all of us as sportsmen and conservationists of wild places and wild things. You're quick to criticize a few public tags being auctioned by SFW but are in high disregard to giving away millions of acres of land we all use and have access to , to the greedy few.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

klbzdad said:


> So, I've been compared to Don, questioned as a sportsman and conservationist, and been likened to a thief and called a hypocrite. This is the kind of crap that keeps me from mm and other worthless forums. Maybe its time to ad UWN to that list. This was never about me, its about causing change. Real change. Its about people actually taking the initiative to move on their beliefs no matter what those beliefs are. Don't like the TPL? Then *DO* something about it. If you support it, then *DO* something. Do nothing more than degrade and belittle anyone who's *DOING* something either way, well then, *YOU* are the root cause of the problem to begin with.


I am just calling it how I see. I don't see how transferring the land would ever be in harmony with conservation. Sorry.


Once again what do you have to lose by the land remaining under federal control?
What do you have to gain by the being under state control?
What is this "Real Change" that you speak of? That term rings a bell with me for some reason.
The author of the bill is the snake Ken Ivory. There is nothing he does in life that is not related to him and his family making money. Do a little research on Ivory. I assure you that you will not run out reading material. When you are done review my questions above. I don't need to have a response if you don't care to. You changed your stance on this once before. You can do the same thing again. I would bet you will once you really understand the true purpose of the bill.


----------



## Lonetree

massmanute said:


> Please show us the language in the enabling document or the State constitution where the Federal government promised it would turn over Federal land to the state, other than certain tracts that are specifically specified in those documents. It isn't there. In fact, both of those documents specify that the State gives up any claim to those Federal lands, FOREVER.
> 
> There are also, as far as I am aware, any other documents that obligate the Federal government to give the lands to the state (notice I did not use the term "give back"), or even promise to do so.
> 
> This idea that the Federal government promised to give up the land is nothing more than a pipe dream from the proponents of the idea.


^^^+1^^^

Here is the highlights from the HB0148:

" * Highlighted Provisions:*
34 This bill:
35 . enacts the Transfer of Public Lands Act;
36 . defines terms;
37 . requires the United States to extinguish title to public lands and transfer title to
38 those public lands to the state on or before December 31, 2014;
39 . provides that if the state transfers title to public lands with respect to which the state
40 receives title to the public lands under the Transfer of Public Lands Act, the state
41 shall retain 5% of the net proceeds the state receives, and pay 95% of the net
42 proceeds the state receives to the United States;
43 . provides that the 5% of the net proceeds of those sales of public lands shall be
44 deposited into the permanent State School Fund;
45 . provides a severability clause;
46 . requires the Constitutional Defense Council to study or draft legislation on certain
47 issues related to the transfer, management, and taxation of public lands, including:
48 . drafting proposed legislation creating a public lands commission; and
49 . establishing actions that shall be taken to secure, preserve, and protect the state's
50 rights and benefits related to the United States' duty to have extinguished title to
51 public lands and transferred title to those public lands to the state; and
52 . makes technical and conforming changes."

Much of this language is based on section 9 of the Utah Enabling Act which reads as follows:

*"SEC. 9.* That five per centum of the proceeds of the sales of public lands lying within said State, which shall be sold by the United States _*subsequent*_* to the admission of said State into the Union*, after deducting all the expenses incident to the same, shall be paid to the said State, to be used as a permanent fund, the interest of which only shall be expended for the support of the common schools within said State."

Section 9 is very dependent upon section 6 and section 10:

"UTAH ENABLING ACT
Land grant for common schools.

*That upon the admission of said State into the Union*, sections numbered two, sixteen, thirty-two, and thirty-six in every township of said proposed state, and where such sections, or any parts thereof have been sold or otherwise disposed of by or under the authority of any Act of Congress, other lands equivalent thereto, in legal subdivisions of not less than one quarter section and as contiguous as many be to the section in lieu of which the same is taken, are hereby granted to said State for the support of common schools, such indemnity lands to be selected within said State in such manner as the legislature may provide, with the approval of the Secretary of the Interior: Provided, That the second, sixteenth, thirty-second, and thirty-sixth sections embraced in permanent reservations for national purposes shall not at any time, be subject to the grants nor to the indemnity provisions of this Act, *nor shall any lands embraced in Indian, military, or other reservations of any character be subject to the grants or to the indemnity provisions of this Act until the reservation shall have been extinguished and such lands be restored to and become a part of the public domain.*
SECTION 6

Permanent school fund
That the proceeds of lands herein granted for educational purposes, except as hereinafter otherwise provided, shall constitute a permanent school fund, the interest of which only shall be expended for the support of said schools, and such land shall not be subject to pre-emption, homestead entry, or any other entry under the land laws of the United States, whether surveyed or unsurveyed, but shall be surveyed for school purposes only. 
SECTION 10"

The whole thing is no different than convention tags, its a BS scam.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

http://www.suindependent.com/news/i...t-are-bamboozling-you-about-public-lands.html

Good Read.


----------



## GaryFish

> This bill:
> 35 . enacts the Transfer of Public Lands Act;
> 36 . defines terms;
> 37 . *requires the United States* to extinguish title to public lands and transfer title to
> 38 those public lands to the state on or before December 31, 2014;


And right there is the problem. The State of Utah, cannot REQUIRE the United States to do anything.


----------



## massmanute

Here is a link to an interesting article written by former senator Bennett on the topic of the grab by the state.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865596679/Utah-unlikely-to-take-back-federal-lands.html?pg=all

One interesting thing he pointed out is that the State actually had a chance to take over Federal land, back in the 1930s but turned it down. He also pointed out (as had several posters in this thread) that Utah never had title to the land in question, so it makes no sense to talk about "taking back" the land.


----------



## GaryFish

Interesting discussion with our neighbors to the north. Idaho has the same idea to take control of the federally managed lands there. Upon further look, they decided it is a bad Idea. Interesting.

http://www.localnews8.com/news/federal-lands-transfer-could-idaho-cost-millions/30121082

http://www.localnews8.com/news/idah...nger-demanding-public-lands-takeover/30145100


----------



## goonsquad

martymcfly73 said:


> The state would go bankrupt fighting fires if the transfer were to happen. Another reason to say no.


that would become their reason for liquidating it!


----------



## Kwalk3

http://onyourownadventures.com/hunttalk/showthread.php?t=261622

Interesting to see opinions from people outside of Utah about this issue. A lot of our neighbors have similar bills being tossed around.

The idaho analysis in Gary Fish's article is fairly telling.....


----------



## Lonetree

My favorite:

"*WEDS DEC 10 - MISSOULA, MT: Montana Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife
(MT-SFW) will host an informational meeting about Transferring Federally Controlled Public Lands to the state. *
WHERE: C'Mon Inn in Missoula, MT.
TIME: Doors open for social hour at 5pm. Official meeting begins at 6pm. (see attached flyer)
WHO: open to MT-SFW members and guests. New members can sign up at the door.
*Sen Jennifer Fielder has been invited to provide key findings from
Montana's Study of Federal Land Management as well as the legal,
environmental, social, and economic case for shifting to state based public land management."


----------



## massmanute

Today on Radio West they discussed the State’s attempted grab for Federal land. Among the guests was Carl Graham of the conservative Sutherland Institute and Director of the Coalition for Self Government in the West. He is, of course, in favor of the land grab, though he prefers to call it by some other euphemistic terms


Mr. Graham spent a lot of time saying that the word "shall" in the enabling act is an imperative, in other words that it requires the Federal government to turn over the land to the state. He is wrong. Here is the definition of word "shall" in Black's Law Dictionary. Pay particular attention to the last sentence.


"As used in statutes and similar instruments, this word is generally imperative or mandatory; but it may be construed as merely permissive or directory, (as equivalent to "may,") to carry out the legislative intention and In cases where no right or benefit to any one depends on its being taken in the imperative sense, and where no public or private right is impaired by its interpretation in the other sense. Also, as against the government, "shall" is to be construed as "may," unless a contrary intention is manifest...."


The last sentence says that when “shall” is used against the government it means "may", i.e. it is not an imperative. This means that in the context of the enabling act the word “shall” does not require the Federal Government to turn title of the land to the State, but rather it is at the discretion of the Federal Government whether to do so or not (“may”). As to the concept of "contrary intention", it is not manifest in the enabling act. In fact, just the opposite is true because both the Enabling Act and the State Constitution of the Sate of Utah specify that the state forever gives up any claim to the land. Let me repeat that word with emphasis: “FOREVER!” This pretty clearly demonstrates the intention of the Enabling Act, and the similar wording in the State Constitution shows that the State of Utah agreed. I wonder what part of FOREVER the land grabbers like Graham don’t understand.


----------



## massmanute

One more thing. Near the end of the enabling act it says:

"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;..."

This passage more or less puts an explanation mark on the fact that Utah forever gave up forever any claim to the unappropriated Federal lands at the time of of the granting of statehood.


----------



## Lonetree

but, but, but, but..............look, all the cool kids are doing it these days. Grifting is the latest rage, and continuation of the sell off of our Western heritage. Come on, you don't want to look uncool do you? First ones free.......


----------



## GaryFish

Well, in Montana, the two senators and one congressmen united in a push for a Montana Wilderness Settlement bill. United in their effort, they were able to provide permanent protection with some lands designated as wilderness, and other wilderness study areas released from study. The legislation had unanimous support from all of Montana's congressional delegation. And it passed both houses of Congress and is awaiting signature from the President. 

My point in bringing this up is this. Montana could do it with their united front of three guys. Utah has 6 people that need to be united. And Utah has the new President Pro Tem of the Senate. So if Utah wants this to happen, then all six of our Congressionals need to make it happen. That is the ONLY legal way to transfer the lands from Federal to state ownership. I'll believe there is merit to any of it, when I see all six of Utah's congressionals holding hands and singing kum-by-ya over the Utah Lands Bill in Congress.


----------



## Iron Bear

So again I ask. Is it ok for the church to buy up land from the Feds?

http://m.heraldextra.com/news/local...55ad-9212-c23a4783ed20.html?mobile_touch=true


----------



## redleg

I would be against this land grab if the US Forest Service were allowing the public access to public lands. But National Forest and even BLM land is being closed every year. Roads that my friends and I used since the 1960s has been locked up. Like the roads above Pleasant Grove and Alpine that are now locked up and even the trails have been intentionally plowed up and ruined, to satisfy PETA and a bunch of granola chewing hippies.
The Utah legeslature will immediately sell ALL the valuable land it can take from the feds. Then if we want to hunt or fish we will have to lease hunting rights from the land owners but that is still better access than we have to some of Utah’s national forests now.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

redleg said:


> I would be against this land grab if the US Forest Service were allowing the public access to public lands. But National Forest and even BLM land is being closed every year. Roads that my friends and I used since the 1960s has been locked up. Like the roads above Pleasant Grove and Alpine that are now locked up and even the trails have been intentionally plowed up and ruined, to satisfy PETA and a bunch of granola chewing hippies.
> The Utah legeslature will immediately sell ALL the valuable land it can take from the feds. Then if we want to hunt or fish we will have to lease hunting rights from the land owners but that is still better access than we have to some of Utah's national forests now.


So assuming that you can lease the private lands in the future.....they are going to reestablish the roads, swing the gates open and let you ride your atv on their newly purchased private property?

You have that same opportunity with the private lands that exist now don't you?......oh wait.......

Jeez.......I'm confused again.


----------



## RandomElk16

redleg said:


> I would be against this land grab if the US Forest Service were allowing the public access to public lands. But National Forest and even BLM land is being closed every year. Roads that my friends and I used since the 1960s has been locked up. Like the roads above Pleasant Grove and Alpine that are now locked up and even the trails have been intentionally plowed up and ruined, to satisfy PETA and a bunch of granola chewing hippies.
> The Utah legeslature will immediately sell ALL the valuable land it can take from the feds. Then if we want to hunt or fish we will have to lease hunting rights from the land owners but that is still better access than we have to some of Utah's national forests now.


Wow... You have read about this right? You know how much land the feds own that you have access to right? Saying we maybe can lease some is better than current access is a major general assumption.


----------



## Catherder

GaryFish said:


> Well, in Montana, the two senators and one congressmen united in a push for a Montana Wilderness Settlement bill. United in their effort, they were able to provide permanent protection with some lands designated as wilderness, and other wilderness study areas released from study. The legislation had unanimous support from all of Montana's congressional delegation. And it passed both houses of Congress and is awaiting signature from the President.
> 
> My point in bringing this up is this. Montana could do it with their united front of three guys. Utah has 6 people that need to be united. And Utah has the new President Pro Tem of the Senate. So if Utah wants this to happen, then all six of our Congressionals need to make it happen. That is the ONLY legal way to transfer the lands from Federal to state ownership. I'll believe there is merit to any of it, when I see all six of Utah's congressionals holding hands and singing kum-by-ya over the Utah Lands Bill in Congress.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is a huge difference between a bill that defines wilderness designations (an effort that IMO has merit) and an attempt to take Federal land and transfer ownership to the state. I could see moderates from both sides of the aisle supporting the former, but I have grave doubts that legislators nationally would favor a nationally unpopular move to give away Federal land to a state that will drill it all and/or sell it off. Particularly when many are pressing the President for more National Monument designations and other protections by executive order as it is.


----------



## Catherder

redleg said:


> The Utah legeslature will immediately sell ALL the valuable land it can take from the feds. Then if we want to hunt or fish we will have to lease hunting rights from the land owners but that is still better access than we have to some of Utah's national forests now.


Seriously? How much access do I have at DL&L, Chalk creek, or any number of other private tracts of land with good hunting right now. There is a tiny amount of access on the owners terms if I'm able to pay boatloads of cash. It is pure fantasy to believe that the "new" private huntable land would be any different than existing private huntable land in this state right now.

Also, it cracks me up that folks bellyache about the EEEvil Feds doing a few road closures and would prefer to have the State sell off the land and lose ALL access forever than to get a map and use the usually more than adequate jeep, ATV, or foot access that in almost every range is still available.


----------



## Finnegan

Catherder said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is a huge difference between a bill that defines wilderness designations (an effort that IMO has merit) and an attempt to take Federal land and transfer ownership to the state. I could see moderates from both sides of the aisle supporting the former, but I have grave doubts that legislators nationally would favor a nationally unpopular move to give away Federal land to a state that will drill it all and/or sell it off. Particularly when many are pressing the President for more National Monument designations and other protections by executive order as it is.


You're not wrong, but there's another approach to public land issues. Rob Bishop's Public Lands Initiative is an example. The Daggett County proposal is a compromise between stakeholders that prefers negotiated land "swaps" over "grabs". Interesting that the proposal includes transfer of some federal land to state control, but also includes transfer of some state lands to federal control.

In concept, it's a common sense approach to managing our public lands. But in practice, it only works if citizens do our duty and participate in our own government. In Utah, I think that's a legitimate concern.


----------



## Finnegan

Another alternative (in some cases) is my adopted pet cause: Wasatch National Monument. This is NOT the same process that brought about the Grant Staircase and it is NOT the same process that's driving the Greater Canyonlands proposal. In those cases, a relative few activist/lobbyist stakeholders work to gain Executive favor.

But the Wasatch Monument proposal is based on the aggregate wishes of individual citizen users. While the proposal comes from SOC, SOC is aggressively gathering input by means of surveying users on the mountain. Can't get more "local" than that.


----------



## massmanute

Finnegan said:


> You're not wrong, but there's another approach to public land issues. Rob Bishop's Public Lands Initiative is an example. The Daggett County proposal is a compromise between stakeholders that prefers negotiated land "swaps" over "grabs". Interesting that the proposal includes transfer of some federal land to state control, but also includes transfer of some state lands to federal control.


Land swaps already occur from time to time.

One thing about a swap is that you have to have something to swap. The land owned by the State is only a fraction of that owned by the Feds, so even if Utah swapped all of its land for Federally owned lab it would still only be a small amount.

By they way, why in the world would the Federal Government just give the land to the State free gratis?

And another thing. One of the main reasons the State wants the land is for the mineral rights. But right now, when mineral rights come up for auction does the State bid on them so they could develop them or have them developed? I think not!

And yet one more thing. Those who think the transfer will open more land to outdoorsmen need to look at recent history wherein the Utah legislature has made it much more difficult for outdoor sportsmen to have access to private land. Right there it shows the intent of the State.


----------



## GaryFish

First, nice top of page.



Catherder said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is a huge difference between a bill that defines wilderness designations (an effort that IMO has merit) and an attempt to take Federal land and transfer ownership to the state. I could see moderates from both sides of the aisle supporting the former, but I have grave doubts that legislators nationally would favor a nationally unpopular move to give away Federal land to a state that will drill it all and/or sell it off. Particularly when many are pressing the President for more National Monument designations and other protections by executive order as it is.


Catherder, the point in the comparison is one of the united front from the state's congressional delegation was the key to getting it accomplished. The other parallel is that the decisions that Montana pushed through - designation of wilderness, and release of lands from wilderness study - are decisions ONLY Congress can make, just like the transfer of the federally managed public lands in Utah.

All the state posturing is what is driving me crazy. Now the legislature is trying to hire a law firm to advise them on the legality of what they are trying to do. And getting that legal opinion is going to cost a million or two dollars of taxpayer money, to tell them that the Utah Legislature has NO authority to tell the Federal government what to do. If these are the people making laws for Utah, and they lack that level of understanding, then I fear for the good people of Utah. At what point do the legislative leaders hold a meeting with Utah's congressional representatives, and get them to unitedly pursue a bill in Congress to transfer the lands? Then there is no law suit, there is no legal defense fund, and there is no defeat in court and proverbial waste of tax payer money.

The Montana example I used was to show that can happen with a united Congressional delegation. Utah should take note and do the same on this issue. It is the ONLY way to get what these yay-hoos are chasing.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

http://www.denverpost.com/outdoors/...-approach-managing-land-is-far-superior-utahs


----------



## Lonetree

Finnegan said:


> Another alternative (in some cases) is my adopted pet cause: Wasatch National Monument. This is NOT the same process that brought about the Grant Staircase and it is NOT the same process that's driving the Greater Canyonlands proposal. In those cases, a relative few activist/lobbyist stakeholders work to gain Executive favor.
> 
> But the Wasatch Monument proposal is based on the aggregate wishes of individual citizen users. While the proposal comes from SOC, SOC is aggressively gathering input by means of surveying users on the mountain. Can't get more "local" than that.


The preservation of hunting within this proposed monument is being penned, and supported by a few conservation orgs. While some "hunting" groups are lining up in opposition, side by side with the interests that want to develop this area, and shut down hunting and access.

Funny how some groups claim to be pro hunting, predicated on on Western land ethic that brought about the conservation movement, but their actions say something entirely different.


----------



## Lonetree

We always hear about the feds closing roads, here is the other side of that coin.

I own a "ranch", and the access to this property is via a forest service road. 20 years ago there were at least 3 ways to access this property, now there is just one. None of these road closures were the result of the feds, they were all private land owners shutting down county right of ways. I'm just a small piece of the lands that are accessible by this forest service road, the vast majority are public lands. So who has maintained the access to all these public lands, and my access to my private property? The State? the county? other private land owners? no, the Forest Service.


----------



## GaryFish

Interesting article on Colorado. Not sure it is comparing apples to apples, but that's fine. 2/3 of Colorado is flat, farmed, and private. I've worked enough environmental analysis projects in eastern Colorado to know that wind, solar, gas and oil companies all gravitate to private lands for any kind of energy or pipeline development and placement. They stay away from the federal lands as much as possible. And in the west, where checkerboards of state parcels are the same as in Utah, drilling pads are at frequent and high densities on the State Trust Lands because dealing with the Feds is too cumbersome. Colorado as a rule, is far "greener" politically than Utah. Colorado actually has two political parties, so there is a need to cooperate, or at least to listen to another side of an argument. 

The model worth noting however - similar to the Montana model I already mentioned - they got their congressional guys to do what only can be done by congress. That is the ONLY way Utah will get what some are wanting with the transfer of lands.


----------



## Catherder

Finnegan said:


> You're not wrong, but there's another approach to public land issues. Rob Bishop's Public Lands Initiative is an example. The Daggett County proposal is a compromise between stakeholders that prefers negotiated land "swaps" over "grabs". Interesting that the proposal includes transfer of some federal land to state control, but also includes transfer of some state lands to federal control.
> 
> In concept, it's a common sense approach to managing our public lands. But in practice, it only works if citizens do our duty and participate in our own government. In Utah, I think that's a legitimate concern.


I'm aware of the Public Lands initiative and I think it is a good idea. It sounds more like what Colorado is doing as explained in the link Muleskinner posted. The problem I'm seeing right now with it in Utah is that many of the counties are loathe to cooperate at all with the Feds and seem to be drinking the Kool-aid from the State that they can pull off a takeover of the lands instead.

Addendum. Hot-dang, top of page two pages in a row. I'm on a roll.


----------



## Catherder

GaryFish said:


> All the state posturing is what is driving me crazy. Now the legislature is trying to hire a law firm to advise them on the legality of what they are trying to do. And getting that legal opinion is going to cost a million or two dollars of taxpayer money, to tell them that the Utah Legislature has NO authority to tell the Federal government what to do. If these are the people making laws for Utah, and they lack that level of understanding, then I fear for the good people of Utah.


Nicely stated. It is also worth noting that the State AG office has already basically said that they don't have very good legal odds when the TPL bill and the "Eminent domain" bill (hb143) were being considered by the State legislature. What part of "no" don't they understand?


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

GaryFish said:


> Interesting article on Colorado. Not sure it is comparing apples to apples, but that's fine. 2/3 of Colorado is flat, farmed, and private. I've worked enough environmental analysis projects in eastern Colorado to know that wind, solar, gas and oil companies all gravitate to private lands for any kind of energy or pipeline development and placement. They stay away from the federal lands as much as possible. And in the west, where checkerboards of state parcels are the same as in Utah, drilling pads are at frequent and high densities on the State Trust Lands because dealing with the Feds is too cumbersome. Colorado as a rule, is far "greener" politically than Utah. Colorado actually has two political parties, so there is a need to cooperate, or at least to listen to another side of an argument.
> 
> The model worth noting however - similar to the Montana model I already mentioned - they got their congressional guys to do what only can be done by congress. That is the ONLY way Utah will get what some are wanting with the transfer of lands.


I agree other than 2/3 of Colorado being flat, farmed and private. Probably correct on the farmed and private part. There are many aspects to Colorado and it's culture that I far prefer over Utah. Some not so much. I do like the fact that it is more liberal and more "green" on some issues, not all.


----------



## Catherder

GaryFish said:


> Interesting article on Colorado. Not sure it is comparing apples to apples, but that's fine. 2/3 of Colorado is flat, farmed, and private.


When I lived in Colorado, most of us wanted to give the flat part, East of the Front range, to Kansas anyway.


----------



## GaryFish

Years ago, I got pretty involved with the Utah legislature. One day, one of the reps said to me, "We can do anything we want in Utah. We control everything." Which scared the living daylights out of me to be honest. The irony here, is that a state of one party, and that party so oppossed to government control of any kind, put in a legislature that want to control everything in the state - not just the state level kinds of things. They want to control the counties, the cities, the school districts, you name it. Why? Because they think they can, and the arrogance is nauseating. And it costs Utahns millions in court battles that these idiots could avoid simply by understanding the boundaries of their jurisdiction. 

I guess that for sportsmen, as long as the state legislature wants to go about things this way, we have nothing to worry about other than wasted tax dollars to lose in court. When you see a press conference with Hatch, Lee, Chaefftz, Bishop, Stewart and Love standing united, talking about the bill going before Congress, then we'll need to worry.

AND - nice top of page. Well played. Twice in a row.


----------



## Iron Bear

Are you talking about the Mormon party?


----------



## Lonetree

Iron Bear said:


> Are you talking about the Mormon party?


Only statistically, its not representative representation, even amongst Mormons.


----------



## Lonetree

Along with what Gary said, and just like with the BYU land sale, it requires an act of congress..........To authorize a sale, there is even less basis for a "transfer", let alone a sale.


----------



## HighNDry

2, 700 miles of stream and river access was taken away from outdoor recreationists by the Utah legislature in the past few years. Give them control over the BLM land and the Forest Service land and you can start kissing the hunting, ATV riding, camping, more fishing, hiking, bird watching, kayaking, canoeing, hang gliding, swimming, boating, and recreational marajuana smoking goodbye!

My experience with the Utah legislature leads me to believe that they will do anything for a dollar. Some things need to remain common to the public or you will continue to see the rich getting richer, the poor getting poorer, and the privatization of historically used lands and waters being locked up or becoming pay to play.


----------



## Iron Bear

Lonetree said:


> Along with what Gary said, and just like with the BYU land sale, it requires an act of congress..........To authorize a sale, there is even less basis for a "transfer", let alone a sale.


Or they can just piggy back it on a larger more important bill. Like the BYU land grab. It couldn't pass on its own merits so they came in the back door by attaching it to a larger homeland security bill at the last minute. But I guess its gods work so not gonna get any criticism here.


----------



## Iron Bear

Public land that is now private but tax exempt. 

Id buy 80 acres of Wasatch front for $500k with no property tax for life. Where do I sign up? The least they could do is swap us with another 80 acres somewhere else.


----------



## Lonetree

Iron Bear said:


> Or they can just piggy back it on a larger more important bill. Like the BYU land grab. It couldn't pass on its own merits so they came in the back door by attaching it to a larger homeland security bill at the last minute. But I guess its gods work so not gonna get any criticism here.


 I agree that there is no logical reason or need for the Y sale. I pointed out that when it was first proposed that half the reason to try it was for a test run on the 40 acres that they are trying to sell to Talisker for Ski Link. Those are its origins, from several years ago.

My only point is that its a purchase. Land grab? I'd agree with that framing as well. But even Bishop's "Grand Bargain" involves swaps, trades, and compensation in accordance with normal real estate deals.

The TPL on the other hand is nothing but a blueprint for theft by extortion.

So if the Y sale is bad, the TPL is exponentially worse.


----------



## Lonetree

HighNDry said:


> 2, 700 miles of stream and river access was taken away from outdoor recreationists by the Utah legislature in the past few years. Give them control over the BLM land and the Forest Service land and you can start kissing the hunting, ATV riding, camping, more fishing, hiking, bird watching, kayaking, canoeing, hang gliding, swimming, boating, and recreational marajuana smoking goodbye!
> 
> My experience with the Utah legislature leads me to believe that they will do anything for a dollar. Some things need to remain common to the public or you will continue to see the rich getting richer, the poor getting poorer, and the privatization of historically used lands and waters being locked up or becoming pay to play.


 Did some one say marijuana?

Seriously, this point can not be over emphasized. The past is prologue, we know how the State would "manage" these lands. We know how they currently manage State lands, and how most state agencies are run. We know what the legislature thinks of the Utah constitution and the stream access it is suppose to afford us.

One can disagree with the feds, but if they think the state is better, they are out of their mind.


----------



## Finnegan

Lonetree said:


> The past is prologue, we know how the State would "manage" these lands. We know how they currently manage State lands, and how most state agencies are run.


I get your point, but truth be told, Utah has never had management responsibility anywhere near this scale. To even suggest that the state is qualified is like saying I'm a qualified surgeon because I've pulled a few slivers.


----------

