# Mike Lee's Office on Public Lands



## maverick9465

Would love to get y'all's take on this response I got from Mike Lee's office after I sent them an email stating my position against federal land transfers and the shrinking of national monuments. They make the same arguments for state ownership as do for federal ownership. Thoughts? 

"Senator Lee shares your concerns about keeping our natural parks pristine and protecting access for all to enjoy the great outdoors. It is in the interest of protecting those amazing resources that he strongly supports transferring control of public lands to states. The federal government owns more land than it can take care of and has failed to make sure that our national parks are properly maintained and remain accessible to the American people. Transferring ownership of some federal lands to states would allow the federal government to focus on maintaining our national parks and a more manageable amount of public land. The Senator does not advocate selling public lands to the highest bidder. Rather, Senator Lee strongly believes that lands are most effectively managed by the people who live, work, and recreate on the lands, people like you and your family, not unelected bureaucrats and special interests in Washington, D.C. He believes that states and local communities are more effective at protecting and managing our public lands than the federal government, which has restricted use and access to public lands and allowed them to fall into disrepair. Rest assured that he has been made aware of your thoughts, and he will keep them in mind as he continues to address this issue."


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Mike Lee wants nothing more than privatization of federal public lands. It's great you got a hold of him, although he will be hard to sway. The voting booth is the best place to convince Mike Lee it's time to change his opinion and stances on OUR public lands.


----------



## Springville Shooter

1-I. Please dissect the response from Mr. Lee's office and add notes in red where you disagree. ------SS


----------



## paddler

maverick9465 said:


> Would love to get y'all's take on this response I got from Mike Lee's office after I sent them an email stating my position against federal land transfers and the shrinking of national monuments. They make the same arguments for state ownership as do for federal ownership. Thoughts?
> 
> "Senator Lee shares your concerns about keeping our natural parks pristine and protecting access for all to enjoy the great outdoors. It is in the interest of protecting those amazing resources that he strongly supports transferring control of public lands to states. The federal government owns more land than it can take care of and has failed to make sure that our national parks are properly maintained and remain accessible to the American people. Transferring ownership of some federal lands to states would allow the federal government to focus on maintaining our national parks and a more manageable amount of public land. The Senator does not advocate selling public lands to the highest bidder. Rather, Senator Lee strongly believes that lands are most effectively managed by the people who live, work, and recreate on the lands, people like you and your family, not unelected bureaucrats and special interests in Washington, D.C. He believes that states and local communities are more effective at protecting and managing our public lands than the federal government, which has restricted use and access to public lands and allowed them to fall into disrepair. Rest assured that he has been made aware of your thoughts, and he will keep them in mind as he continues to address this issue."


How's this, SS? Oh, and Senator, that goes for the horse you rode in on also.


----------



## Vanilla

#1DEER 1-I said:


> The voting booth is the best place to convince Mike Lee it's time to change his opinion and stances on OUR public lands.


Voting him out is the only way that will happen. Mike Lee is never going to change his poisition on public lands. He simply just does not hold them in the same view and value as I do. I know that never is a strong word, but I'm pretty confident it applies in this situation.

If the state actually had the ability to manage the lands without leasing/selling off most of it, and I thought they would manage for public access and use, I would be totally okay with a full transfer of all federal lands to the state. In fact, is prefer it. But those are just not realities. I've seen the Utah legislature's priority on public resources. Public access is not even near the top.


----------



## Idratherbehunting

maverick9465 said:


> Would love to get y'all's take on this response I got from Mike Lee's office after I sent them an email stating my position against federal land transfers and the shrinking of national monuments. They make the same arguments for state ownership as do for federal ownership. Thoughts?
> 
> "Senator Lee shares your concerns about keeping our natural parks pristine and protecting access for all to enjoy the great outdoors. It is in the interest of protecting those amazing resources that he strongly supports transferring control of public lands to states. The federal government owns more land than it can take care of and has failed to make sure that our national parks are properly maintained and remain accessible to the American people. Transferring ownership of some federal lands to states would allow the federal government to focus on maintaining our national parks and a more manageable amount of public land. The Senator does not advocate selling public lands to the highest bidder. Rather, Senator Lee strongly believes that lands are most effectively managed by the people who live, work, and recreate on the lands, people like you and your family, not unelected bureaucrats and special interests in Washington, D.C. He believes that states and local communities are more effective at protecting and managing our public lands than the federal government, which has restricted use and access to public lands and allowed them to fall into disrepair. Rest assured that he has been made aware of your thoughts, and he will keep them in mind as he continues to address this issue."


I got the exact same response when I emailed. Word for word. Just made me shake my head and realize that voting is indeed the only way to change his mind.


----------



## paddler

Idratherbehunting said:


> I got the exact same response when I emailed. Word for word. Just made me shake my head and realize that voting is indeed the only way to change his mind.


Our entire congressional delegation and governor march in lockstep with Lee. Same for the Republicans in our legislature. I think the Bears Ears resolution passed along strict party lines.


----------



## Idratherbehunting

paddler said:


> Our entire congressional delegation and governor march in lockstep with Lee. Same for the Republicans in our legislature. I think the Bears Ears resolution passed along strict party lines.


It would appear that way based on the responses I have gotten. I agree with Vanilla, in theory the states having the land with more local control makes sense, until you realize the state's track record and their ability to afford the lands.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Springville Shooter said:


> 1-I. Please dissect the response from Mr. Lee's office and add notes in red where you disagree. ------SS


I don't have to dissect a clearly broad written automatic reply response from a Senator who has made no secrets about his intentions or pursuits as it pertains to public lands. You know where he stands just as much as I do, and whether your a fan of many of the things he does , that DOES NOT mean he is good on public lands and should be followed blindly on the subject.


----------



## backcountry

Maverick,

As others have pointed out its clearly a template form. That said, I don't know of any representative that doesn't use them. 

I think you will have to consider his rhetoric (in totality), voting record and your own values. 

There was a time that I firmly believed only the federal government should be the steward of USFS and BLM lands. I am more amenable to the idea of state ownership, though only partial, but have yet to evidence that any state has though the implications of that through or prepared for that massive responsibility. At a minimum the idea of possibly having to pay non-resident fees to access lands that are either now free or included in a single $80/year pass is a staggering concept. Do you think the states will have many free or $10 campgrounds like I will be using in a few weeks?


----------



## paddler

So, if federal lands were ceded to the state, Utah would receive all the money generated by those lands. Grazing fees, extraction fees, user fees, etc. It would be interesting to read a study showing the financial impact to the state. I would guess that the federal government spends more to operate our public land than it collects, thus the state would actually lose money on the deal. 

Then there's the trust issue.... Anybody follow the whole UTA deal with Hughes and Diehl? Don't smell right.


----------



## middlefork

32 M at this time for the Brian Head fire. Yea right the state is going to pick up the tab


----------



## Vanilla

The financial study has already been done. Read until your heart is content.

http://publiclands.utah.gov/current-projects/transfer-of-public-lands-act/


----------



## backcountry

Plus I have yet to hear of how the acquisition would offset the PILT taxes each county receives. Iron County alone receives more than $3 million annually from the federal government to offset the taxes lost from federal land ownership. We never hear much about that figure.


----------



## Vanilla

backcountry, that is discussed to some extent in the almost 800 page report that was completed.


----------



## Packout

The State has already written the scope of how they will manage Federal Lands in HB 0276, if they gain title. Within that Bill is outlined how the State can sell those lands. Selling could be easily done without Legislative approval. It doesn't matter what any politician says if they support the transfer- simply because the State already has the triggers in place to sell off any or all of it.

..


----------



## paddler

PLPCO does the bidding of the governor. It's not clear that any study by them is unbiased. Rather than go through their entire study, I'd like to see a financial feasibility study by a group without an obvious conflict of interest. Are there any? Maybe something like a CBO report?


----------



## Vanilla

Because you're going to review such a study with such an unbiased eye? 

Just for record, this report shows a bleak outlook for the finances without maximum returns on leases and extraction royalties. Maybe take 5 minutes to read a Trib article about this before you suggest the report is incorrect and biased.


----------



## paddler

Vanilla said:


> Because you're going to review such a study with such an unbiased eye?
> 
> Just for record, this report shows a bleak outlook for the finances without maximum returns on leases and extraction royalties. Maybe take 5 minutes to read a Trib article about this before you suggest the report is incorrect and biased.


Is there a Trib article about the financial feasibility? Life's too short to read a report written by Herbert's lackeys. I am completely unbiased when it comes to reviewing factual information.


----------



## Vanilla

paddler said:


> I am completely unbiased when it comes to reviewing factual information.


Clearly...


----------



## Springville Shooter

These guys can't even read a form letter from the senator with an unbiased eye. I actually thought that I recognized a slight shift of position that might be a reflection of the senator listening to his constituents. He did say that he does not support the sale of lands......is that not progress? I disagree with him that the state has the ability to better manage lands on a large scale but thought that he explained his position adequately. I agree with his statements regarding the shortcomings of the federal government but I'm not sold on the solution. 

I also think it's great that concerned folks are writing letters and expressing concern. I see evidence of the impact of this message. That's how it's supposed to work. You may get a form letter back, but don't think that no one is keeping score. Public opinion is what politics is all about. I wonder what the form letter says to all those writing in favor of transfering lands to the state? ------SS


----------



## Springville Shooter

paddler said:


> Is there a LIB article about the financial feasibility? Life's too short to read a report written by Herbert's lackeys. I am completely biased when it comes to reviewing information.


.......there, fixed it for you.-----SS


----------



## paddler

Springville Shooter said:


> These guys can't even read a form letter from the senator with an unbiased eye. I actually thought that I recognized a slight shift of position that might be a reflection of the senator listening to his constituents. He did say that he does not support the sale of lands......is that not progress? I disagree with him that the state has the ability to better manage lands on a large scale but thought that he explained his position adequately. I agree with his statements regarding the shortcomings of the federal government but I'm not sold on the solution.
> 
> I also think it's great that concerned folks are writing letters and expressing concern. I see evidence of the impact of this message. That's how it's supposed to work. You may get a form letter back, but don't think that no one is keeping score. Public opinion is what politics is all about. I wonder what the form letter says to all those writing in favor of transfering lands to the state? ------SS


So, you actually thought you saw a *slight* shift....? Now that's what I call verifiable information. What did he say about BENM?



Springville Shooter said:


> .......there, fixed it for you.-----SS


Thanks! Seriously, is there an unbiased feasibility report?


----------



## backcountry

Vanilla said:


> backcountry, that is discussed to some extent in the almost 800 page report that was completed.


Thanks for the link, Vanilla. For some reason I could not get the pdfs to download from that site but found a pdf of the document. Glad to see they have done a thorough analysis. Will take me a while to even skim through that beast but saw a couple areas to hone in on.

Thanks!


----------



## Springville Shooter

paddler said:


> Thanks! Seriously, is there an unbiased feasibility report?


Probably not. Why would someone with no bias take time to write a report? And if there were an unbiased report would anyone without bias be willing to read it?

My gut feeling is that the result of an honest study would show that a large scale transfer would not be feasible......but then again, I'm biased.-------SS


----------



## LostLouisianian

paddler said:


> Is there a Trib article about the financial feasibility? Life's too short to read a report written by Herbert's lackeys. I am completely unbiased when it comes to reviewing factual information.


Look here is my take on this and it's not like I ever managed private lands for multiple uses (ok I did for a few years). I don't think anyone here really wants to see the public lands sold off to anyone...I think we can all agree on that pretty solidly. I think where the disagreement comes in is how to manage those public lands for the benefits of all people, NOT JUST outdoor recreationists. It's pretty simple, the land has to break even or make a profit or the public has to be taxed to pay for it. That is where the disagreements come into play. Mineral extraction, timber harvesting and grazing are not mutually exclusive of being able to manage the lands for recreational purposes, although I am not a big fan of grazing even though I was raised on a cattle farm. To say that one political party or another is saving or destroying the land is pretty naive in my opinion. I can point out a hundred instances of both parties passing legislation and doing things that are counter productive to the environment and preservation of land. Power corrupts regardless of whether someone has a D or R after their name. I seriously doubt if anyone here has sat in on some of the off the record conversations with a governor or Lt. Governor as I have. My cousin (who was almost my uncle) was the only 4 term governor in LA (aka 16 years) and he was a Democrat (ended up in federal prison for what he finally was nailed on) and my classmate from LSU was Lt. Governor for 8 years and he was a Republican but is now a Democrat. I've also had numerous friends, family and relatives in all levels of state and Parish governments. If you really think any politician regardless of party gives two flips about anything other than campaign donations and being re-elected I have some beach front property in Dugway I'd like to sell you really cheap. As for Mike Lee's letter it's SOP (standard operating procedure) with MOST politicians that receive hundreds of emails a day. There simply isn't enough time to respond to each one personally so the staff creates templates to respond with. They do catalog the emails they receive and provide this info regularly to the politician that says "we received X number of emails on this topic and Z were in favor and A were against".

Rant over.


----------



## Vanilla

backcountry said:


> Thanks for the link, Vanilla. For some reason I could not get the pdfs to download from that site but found a pdf of the document. Glad to see they have done a thorough analysis. Will take me a while to even skim through that beast but saw a couple areas to hone in on.
> 
> Thanks!


It's a huge amount of information. I have not read it all. But I think you will find everything you're looking for in there. Despite what has been alleged, I think most people believe that the study completed by researchers and economists from the U Of U, USU, and WSU was fairly unbiased. It would be nice for those alleging it is wrong and biased to cite sources and specific examples in the document. :grin:


----------



## LostLouisianian

Vanilla said:


> It would be nice for those alleging it is wrong and biased to cite sources and specific examples in the document. :grin:


Well that would certainly take all the fun out of it.... :shock::shock::shock:


----------



## paddler

LostLouisianian said:


> Look here is my take on this and it's not like I ever managed private lands for multiple uses (ok I did for a few years). I don't think anyone here really wants to see the public lands sold off to anyone...I think we can all agree on that pretty solidly. I think where the disagreement comes in is how to manage those public lands for the benefits of all people, NOT JUST outdoor recreationists. It's pretty simple, the land has to break even or make a profit or the public has to be taxed to pay for it. That is where the disagreements come into play. Mineral extraction, timber harvesting and grazing are not mutually exclusive of being able to manage the lands for recreational purposes, although I am not a big fan of grazing even though I was raised on a cattle farm. To say that one political party or another is saving or destroying the land is pretty naive in my opinion. I can point out a hundred instances of both parties passing legislation and doing things that are counter productive to the environment and preservation of land. Power corrupts regardless of whether someone has a D or R after their name. I seriously doubt if anyone here has sat in on some of the off the record conversations with a governor or Lt. Governor as I have. My cousin (who was almost my uncle) was the only 4 term governor in LA (aka 16 years) and he was a Democrat (ended up in federal prison for what he finally was nailed on) and my classmate from LSU was Lt. Governor for 8 years and he was a Republican but is now a Democrat. I've also had numerous friends, family and relatives in all levels of state and Parish governments. If you really think any politician regardless of party gives two flips about anything other than campaign donations and being re-elected I have some beach front property in Dugway I'd like to sell you really cheap. As for Mike Lee's letter it's SOP (standard operating procedure) with MOST politicians that receive hundreds of emails a day. There simply isn't enough time to respond to each one personally so the staff creates templates to respond with. They do catalog the emails they receive and provide this info regularly to the politician that says "we received X number of emails on this topic and Z were in favor and A were against".
> 
> Rant over.


This post suggests an equivalency between Democrats and Republicans on the issue of public lands, and I strenuously object to that premise. There is no equivalency between the parties on the issue of public lands, conservation or the environment either here in Utah or nationally. LL, if you can find evidence to support your point of view, please post it up. As I said previously, these issues have been decided along party lines for years here in Utah. Just about every day we see examples of Republicans favoring extraction over the environment and therefore sportsmen. Anybody see this today in the Trib?

http://www.sltrib.com/home/5498846-155/epa-seeks-to-reverse-its-opposition

The Obama administration blocked this, Trump's EPA supports it. Gold mining vs sockeye? Classic case, and that's just today. Do you have any examples of Democrats acting similarly, LL?

I did not say that the PLPCO is biased. I said the PLPCO does the bidding of the governor, who, along with our congressional delegation and the Republicans in our legislature, are anti public lands and pro extraction. That's a matter of public record, and casts a pall over the PLPCO. I'd rather look at a report prepared by an organization without this stigma. I'm certainly not going to spend a lot of time on the PLPCO if there's a better source readily available. Has NPR covered this??


----------



## Finnegan

"..._Senator Lee strongly believes that lands are most effectively managed by the people who live, work, and recreate on the lands, people like you and your family, not unelected bureaucrats and special interests in Washington, D.C. He believes that states and local communities are more effective at protecting and managing our public lands than the federal government_,..."

That's the founding premise of Utah's argument. Seems sensible enough, but Lee "believes" it only because there's no evidence to support it. Given the stakes, is it wise to take such the state's radical proposal?

Our public lands are in trouble. That's a fact. We can argue til the cows come home about how much BLM and USFS contributed to this situation, but the fact remains. It's also a fact that Utah has no experience in land management on this scale.

Utah has submitted a management plan to put faith into action and manifest local (better) land management. That plan copies Utah's favorite management template - a gubernatorial board...similar to the Wildlife Board.

I've been involved with several state boards in my lifetime and never got much local love. I was one of those guys who argued for statewide archery.

I'm sure others have had more productive and worthwhile experiences with state boards. Those boards serve at the pleasure of the Governor. Times change. Utah's population is booming. Who will be in the Governor's Mansion 10 years from now? 20? How wise is it to give control of our public lands to the same person who controls our wildlife?


----------



## backcountry

paddler said:


> This post suggests an equivalency between Democrats and Republicans on the issue of public lands, and I strenuously object to that premise. There is no equivalency between the parties on the issue of public lands, conservation or the environment either here in Utah or nationally. LL, if you can find evidence to support your point of view, please post it up. As I said previously, these issues have been decided along party lines for years here in Utah. Just about every day we see examples of Republicans favoring extraction over the environment and therefore sportsmen. Anybody see this today in the Trib?
> 
> http://www.sltrib.com/home/5498846-155/epa-seeks-to-reverse-its-opposition
> 
> The Obama administration blocked this, Trump's EPA supports it. Gold mining vs sockeye? Classic case, and that's just today. Do you have any examples of Democrats acting similarly, LL?
> 
> I did not say that the PLPCO is biased. I said the PLPCO does the bidding of the governor, who, along with our congressional delegation and the Republicans in our legislature, are anti public lands and pro extraction. That's a matter of public record, and casts a pall over the PLPCO. I'd rather look at a report prepared by an organization without this stigma. I'm certainly not going to spend a lot of time on the PLPCO if there's a better source readily available. Has NPR covered this??


I think these conversations often end up being misunderstandings because of the assumed shared values and generic language.

For instance, I don't think Utah is anti-public lands but simply pro-state ownership of public lands. Public lands aren't always federal nor is the federal government inherently the best steward.

Its also a matter of differing values, even if its just by degree. LL seems more comfortable and satisfied (inferring from post, willing to be corrected) with some level of extraction or harvest alongside recreation. Paddler, and actually myself, prefer to recreate on lands without that use.

I think these misunderstandings have been going on for decades now. And that is why I can read a statement like LL's and interpret it to mean that neither party is inherently better at pubic lands policy. Instead, one party appeals to a more ecological land ethic, ie the Aldo Leopold quotes you use Paddler, while another values/accepts a higher degree of utilitarian influence/impact, or in this case approaches it from a different political ideology. At the end of the day there is no right and wrong without an awareness and acknowledgement of those subjective values. Utah is just currently the tip of the spear of that battle and I think it does a disservice to the dialog to ignore the possibility that their ideas might have some merit when judged by their own values.

I also agree with SpringvilleShooter that there seems to be a subtle shifting of language coming out of Utah politicians. I can only imagine that has happened because of the citizens with diverse worldviews but overlapping desire for accessible, healthy lands applying political pressure. Mike Lee still hasn't presented a pubic lands platform I agree with but I can still choose to understand and dig into their policy and papers. Bias is not a reason to ignore arguments or papers but a justification to approach them with a healthy level of skepticism and constructive criticism.


----------



## paddler

I see LL's post as an attempt to blur the lines between the two parties with regard to public lands, conservation and the environment. I believe it's not a blurry line, but rather a chasm, a wide gulf. The actions of the Obama administration regarding the Pebble Mine, contrasted to Pruitt's, are polar opposites. There simply is not a shred of commonality. This is just one example of many. Here's just one more, again representative of a well-established pattern of behavior:

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/319938-trump-signs-bill-undoing-obama-coal-mining-rule

I am not anti-extraction. I am against extraction without regard for the environment. The two examples I have cited are unwise, and pose a clear threat to wildlife and clean water. They are not isolated occurrences, nor are they bipartisan. Neither is Utah's approach to public lands. Again, take the Bears Ears. Not only did our entire congressional delegation oppose it, the resolution from our legislature passed 60-14 in the House, only one Republican, Cutler from Murray, voted against it. It passed 22-6 in the Senate, the only Republican to vote against it was Brian Shiozawa from Cottonwood Heights. I know Brian pretty well, he was a year ahead of me in the Family Practice residency program at the U eons ago. I've followed his career in the Senate and have been pleased with his positions on a wide range of topics.

Posts #2, #5 and #6 in this thread were encouraging, in that they stated the only way to change Utah's approach to public lands is at the ballot box. LL's post appears to be an argument against that, that Republicans (elected representatives, not the rank and file) really aren't so bad. My point is that they really are that bad on these issues, and actually betray the interests of not just Democrats, but their Republican supporters. Republican outdoorsmen, as shown by the Roosevelt survey, strongly support conservation, yet vote for those who fail to represent their stated interests.

I think a TR quote best expresses my thoughts with regard to mans interaction with natural resources:

*Conservation means development as much as it does protection. I recognize the right and duty of this generation to develop and use the natural resources of our land; but I do not recognize the right to waste them, or to rob, by wasteful use, the generations that come after us. *

I have hunted grouse in close proximity to people cutting firewood. No problem with that, it's a renewable resource and harvesting it poses little threat to the areas. Mining gold and while doing so threatening sockeye salmon runs is an entirely different kettle of fish.


----------



## wyoming2utah

In this whole debate, I don't understand how state politicians like Lee can't see the burning forest and the dollars spent trying to slow that burning. The Brian Head fire, for example, had cost around 2 million dollars (at least the last figures I had seen). Where would the state come up with those extra dollars that currently come from the Feds? Also, consider the expenses the Feds waste on lawsuits and litigation? How much money was used just to fight lawsuits over timber sales around Brian Head? What about other environmental lawsuits where litigation is paid with federal dollars that constantly come up? I don't think advocates of state land management understand that land management still has to abide federal laws including the ESA and wetlands. The exact issues that tie the hands of federal land mangers would slit the throats of state managers.

Although I can agree that local control of issues is more often better, it is not always. I can think of two specific situations where local control--county--of state controlled land has actually hurt the local users. The first was at Gunlock reservoir where local control of the park led to boat ramp closures during the week because of the lack of resources to check for quagga mussels. The other is at Minersville Reservoir where large swaths of access were closed so that the county could recoup lost fees through the park entrance. In both cases the public lost access because of local control.

Also, in light of what some are indicating as a change of rhetoric regarding loss of public lands, I don't want the door ever opened to the possibilty of lands being sold. Mike Lee can say he opposes such sales, Governor Herbert can make the same promise, and so can any other politician. BUT, none can close that door on future legislators and none can make the promise that it will NEVER happen if states do gain control. Yet, as long as the Feds control that land, we know it won't happen. I would much rather see the Feds struggle to manage the land because of the countless lawsuits and court cases that tie their hands and/or the lack of resources to manage them exceptionally well than risk losing them when the states can't!

So, in response to Mike Lee and his form response....I say BS!


----------



## backcountry

One caveat, state ownership only has to abide by the laws that apply, like the ESA, etc. But things like FLPMA won't, which is where a bulk of the lawsuits base their filings on (ie failed EIS, etc). With elements like ESA, the states are not obligated to maintain habitat in any fashion unlike federal lands controlled by environmental reviews mandated by FLPMA. It would still prevent take of protected species but that becomes secondary if the endangered species don't have viable habitat to begin with.

The state will be sued but I would wager it would be less often and less severe. 

The Brian Head Fire is now up to $35 million or more in costs. The link Vanilla provided has a lengthy financial analysis that would take weeks to read in detail. It covers wildfire suppression costs. The numbers I saw seem optimistic but it was a skimming. My question in that regard would be how they accounted for the federal money spent for each fire, versus just the cost billed to the forest affected. I have sneaky suspicion the feds would be less inclined to absorb the cost of sending their crews to a state fire which means the state would absorb the total cost not just that of its regional crews. Either that or always have a big enough wildfire crew to manage state fires but sustaining 1800 employees (highest # at Brian Head) and the number of resources (planes, dozers, helicopters, hose length) is unsustainable for any one region/district/agency, hence the current interagency system. It took fire crews from all over the nation to contain the Brian Head Fire because the feds learned long ago that sharing such resources is a sustainable way of offsetting the otherwise debilitating cost of suppression. Maybe the report covered that but the numbers I saw were relatively minuscule compared to the total cost of fighting one fire. And that doesn't bode well for a state that resists taxes and loves to run a surplus instead of deficit.


----------



## backcountry

paddler said:


> I see LL's post as an attempt to blur the lines between the two parties with regard to public lands, conservation and the environment. I believe it's not a blurry line, but rather a chasm, a wide gulf. The actions of the Obama administration regarding the Pebble Mine, contrasted to Pruitt's, are polar opposites. There simply is not a shred of commonality. This is just one example of many. Here's just one more, again representative of a well-established pattern of behavior:
> 
> http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/319938-trump-signs-bill-undoing-obama-coal-mining-rule
> 
> I am not anti-extraction. I am against extraction without regard for the environment. The two examples I have cited are unwise, and pose a clear threat to wildlife and clean water. They are not isolated occurrences, nor are they bipartisan. Neither is Utah's approach to public lands. Again, take the Bears Ears. Not only did our entire congressional delegation oppose it, the resolution from our legislature passed 60-14 in the House, only one Republican, Cutler from Murray, voted against it. It passed 22-6 in the Senate, the only Republican to vote against it was Brian Shiozawa from Cottonwood Heights. I know Brian pretty well, he was a year ahead of me in the Family Practice residency program at the U eons ago. I've followed his career in the Senate and have been pleased with his positions on a wide range of topics.
> 
> Posts #2, #5 and #6 in this thread were encouraging, in that they stated the only way to change Utah's approach to public lands is at the ballot box. LL's post appears to be an argument against that, that Republicans (elected representatives, not the rank and file) really aren't so bad. My point is that they really are that bad on these issues, and actually betray the interests of not just Democrats, but their Republican supporters. Republican outdoorsmen, as shown by the Roosevelt survey, strongly support conservation, yet vote for those who fail to represent their stated interests.
> 
> I think a TR quote best expresses my thoughts with regard to mans interaction with natural resources:
> 
> *Conservation means development as much as it does protection. I recognize the right and duty of this generation to develop and use the natural resources of our land; but I do not recognize the right to waste them, or to rob, by wasteful use, the generations that come after us. *
> 
> I have hunted grouse in close proximity to people cutting firewood. No problem with that, it's a renewable resource and harvesting it poses little threat to the areas. Mining gold and while doing so threatening sockeye salmon runs is an entirely different kettle of fish.


I am curious how willing you are to see different views in regards to the interpretation of "conservation"? I am being serious as that word has held many meanings over the years and involved some noticeably different camps. I ask your willingness to understand those distinctions as you clearly have the right to persuade but how much time I personally invest in a dialog will be related to how much flexibility the people I am interacting with exhibit. I respect your opinion and values, even share some, but will just approach the conversation differently on the forum.

Per the TRCP....I am optimistic about those figures but there are caveats. First, it was a national poll so its hard to distinguish Utah outsdoorsmen as a subset in those answers. Two, the questions about conservation were vague though there were ones explicitly about land ownership. The divided answers to the question about the transfer to state ownership should be telling of how diversely people interpret the concept of how we define conservation and who is in charge of stewardship.


----------



## paddler

backcountry said:


> I am curious how willing you are to see different views in regards to the interpretation of "conservation"? I am being serious as that word has held many meanings over the years and involved some noticeably different camps. I ask your willingness to understand those distinctions as you clearly have the right to persuade but how much time I personally invest in a dialog will be related to how much flexibility the people I am interacting with exhibit.
> 
> Per the TRCP....I am optimistic about those figures but there are caveats. First, it was a national poll so its hard to distinguish Utah outsdoorsmen as a subset in those answers. Two, the questions about conservation were vague though there were ones explicitly about land ownership. The divided answers to the question about the transfer to state ownership should be telling of how diversely people interpret the concept of how we define conservation and who is in charge of stewarship.


Not sure what you mean exactly. The TR quote clearly states that conservation means development and protection. I think that means choosing whether or not to develop a given resource must be done according to general, sensible guidelines but also comes down to a case by case decision.

Let's take coal, for instance. Choosing to mine coal, or not, is very complex. It must be weighed against other sources of energy, renewables as well as natural gas. Some say that because burning coal releases CO2, the term "clean coal" is a misnomer. But, just based on the amount of CO2 released per kilowatt-hour produced, is it any less clean than natural gas? I don't know the answer to that question, but would guess those figures are pretty comparable. Aside from that concern, if coal mining can be done without any more negative impacts than drilling for natural gas, I see no rational reason to favor one over the other. But that leaves the other concerns with burning coal; SO2, particulates, etc. If the stacks can be scrubbed so that the other pollutants are no greater than natural gas, then I don't see a reason to favor one over the other. That leaves mining site restoration and economic considerations. It's not clear that coal can compete with natural gas economically if the total impact of coal on the environment is held equal to natural gas.

As I said, it's quite complex, may vary from one locale to another, and so may be decided on a case by case basis. Having said that, the Trump administration's actions regarding waterway pollution appears shortsighted. 
As a general rule, I'm sure we all agree that man has a significant impact on the planet. I just think we should minimize the negative impacts insofar as possible.


----------



## backcountry

First, lets not bring Trump into this as the OP is focused on Mike Lee. I think we can focus examples of party platforms on Utah or Mike Lee.

Two, the question is can you recognize others will interpret conservation differently than you based upon their values and ideology?


----------



## paddler

backcountry said:


> First, lets not bring Trump into this as the OP is focused on Mike Lee. I think we can focus examples of party platforms on Utah or Mike Lee.
> 
> Two, the question is can you recognize others will interpret conservation differently than you based upon their values and ideology?


Trump is fair game when his and Lee's policies coincide, or when the Utah Republican party's platform coincide with either. They're inextricably linked. I prefer to talk policy rather than personality.

I think the answer to your question is quite obvious.


----------



## backcountry

The answer is not obvious to me, hence my question.


----------



## Vanilla

wyoming2utah said:


> Also, in light of what some are indicating as a change of rhetoric regarding loss of public lands, I don't want the door ever opened to the possibilty of lands being sold. Mike Lee can say he opposes such sales, Governor Herbert can make the same promise, and so can any other politician. BUT, none can close that door on future legislators and none can make the promise that it will NEVER happen if states do gain control. *Yet, as long as the Feds control that land, we know it won't happen.*


W2U- Not necessarily true. How do we know the feds will not sell lands? They have before, and will in the future. There is no doubt about that. I agree they are more safe under the current climate of things, but politics have a way to sway back and forth across the pendulum, and we can't say for sure that as long as they are in federal control we know that they won't be sold.



backcountry said:


> The Brian Head Fire is now up to $35 million or more in costs. The link Vanilla provided has a lengthy financial analysis that would take weeks to read in detail. It covers wildfire suppression costs. The numbers I saw seem optimistic but it was a skimming. My question in that regard would be how they accounted for the federal money spent for each fire, versus just the cost billed to the forest affected. I have sneaky suspicion the feds would be less inclined to absorb the cost of sending their crews to a state fire which means the state would absorb the total cost not just that of its regional crews. Either that or always have a big enough wildfire crew to manage state fires but sustaining 1800 employees (highest # at Brian Head) and the number of resources (planes, dozers, helicopters, hose length) is unsustainable for any one region/district/agency, hence the current interagency system. It took fire crews from all over the nation to contain the Brian Head Fire because the feds learned long ago that sharing such resources is a sustainable way of offsetting the otherwise debilitating cost of suppression. Maybe the report covered that but the numbers I saw were relatively minuscule compared to the total cost of fighting one fire. And that doesn't bode well for a state that resists taxes and loves to run a surplus instead of deficit.


The amount the report projects for fire suppression is discussed in there. I don't know the exact numbers without spending way more time, but the projected cost to the budget is significant. According to a Salt Lake Tribune article at the time the study came out, the total costs of managing the lands each year was $245 million, with approximately 1/3 of that cost in fire suppression and fuels management.



paddler said:


> I think the answer to your question is quite obvious.


I agree 100%.


----------



## paddler

Vanilla said:


> I agree 100%.


This is getting weird, V. First you "like" several of my posts in a row, now you agree with me 100%. Unprecedented.


----------



## LostLouisianian

I've been giving this a lot of thought and I think the federal government needs to start declaring imminent domain on private property in Utah and buying up subdivisions in rural areas and on the outskirts of towns/cities and tearing down the homes and letting the land revert to it's natural state to create more habitat for wildlife. I mean c'mon the trees and animals were here first right and if we REALLY care about them and the ecosystems then as homeowners and landowners we won't mind getting 25 cents on the dollar for our property so the wildlife can have it...right?


----------



## Vanilla

LL, 

That might not be as big of a joke as you think. There have been proposals for this very thing to happen at the inlet of the Provo River to Utah Lake. There are some that want to restore to Provo River delta to help the June Suckers. 

This would not impact a ton of homes, per se, but a lot of private property nonetheless. So while you use the extreme to illustrate a point, there are people that actually want this to happen.


----------



## LostLouisianian

Vanilla said:


> LL,
> 
> That might not be as big of a joke as you think. There have been proposals for this very thing to happen at the inlet of the Provo River to Utah Lake. There are some that want to restore to Provo River delta to help the June Suckers.
> 
> This would not impact a ton of homes, per se, but a lot of private property nonetheless. So while you use the extreme to illustrate a point, there are people that actually want this to happen.


It's not as extreme as you think. In the 60's the State of LA did this to our family and took our lake and land to create a WMA. My grandfather got a grand total of one nickel on the dollar for his property. Now the place looks like a shizhole thanks to the State of LA compared to how we kept it. We allowed free fishing and hunting on it with the exception of duck hunting. Anyone could hunt deer and other game just not ducks and we let anyone fish it all they wanted.


----------



## backcountry

Eminent domain and easements happen across the board, local to federal. I bought a property with a recreational easement. At the end of the day I would rather lose property to recreational or wildlife corridors than boulevards and highways. I think we have all seen abuses of power and failure to compensate adequately, like LL highlights (though I haven't experienced that level of abuse).


----------



## maverick9465

Thanks for the comments, all. It was an astounding letter, to say the least. The idea that he puts forth regarding the federal govt restricting use and access. As has been pointed out, the fees states charge for use of land is ridiculous. I also think it's funny that he has it's the people live, work and recreate on the lands should be the ones managing it. So, like the local BLM, NFS, DWR employees who are already doing this?


----------



## klbzdad

backcountry said:


> Thanks for the link, Vanilla. For some reason I could not get the pdfs to download from that site but found a pdf of the document. Glad to see they have done a thorough analysis. Will take me a while to even skim through that beast but saw a couple areas to hone in on.
> 
> Thanks!


Page 289 second paragraph. Then read the fiscal section that follows. Its not about management, its about revenue. Even if oil prices remained at $74.00 per barrel for a decade, the reality is that extracting oil and natural gas drives prices down. Supply and demand. There are literally thousands of extraction leases not being used because there is not enough money for oil, gas, and lumber to make it profitable. And interestingly enough, here in Iron County our politicians are completely Broke Back Mountain for our federal delegation and the idea of the revenue they perceive is locked in public lands.

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

I think this is a more practical analysis:
http://dc.law.utah.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1007&context=scholarship


----------



## tomsands

Hello, sorry for bumping this thread, has the situation changed since?


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

tomsands said:


> Hello, sorry for bumping this thread, has the situation changed since?


In regards to what exactly?


----------



## nukenbu

I am also interested to hear news about the privatization of public land this year. Actually, I consider many actions on the part of the government illegal and they often observe their own interests instead of the public ones. What do you think about it? Moreover, this is a difficult time for everyone because of the pandemic, and working conditions have been changed in our office, so I decided to improve my life, move to Singapore, and become a freelancer. But I still have to find a workspace that will motivate me, because I can't work from home. So I found the website https://osdoro.com.sg/co-working/coworking-singapore where you can find information about available coworking spaces in Singapore. I hope I get a comfortable place to work that will meet my expectations.


----------



## backcountry

I think you are being flanked by bots, 1-I. Better run now.


----------



## Vanilla

backcountry said:


> I think you are being flanked by bots, 1-I. Better run now.


Are we sure 1-I isn't a bot?


----------



## Airborne

Vanilla said:


> Are we sure 1-I isn't a bot?


I got a buddy that knows somebody that knows him or at least that's the rumor. :grin:

Who knew that Sevier County would be such a hot bed for Russian wildlife forum infiltration bots hehehe!


----------



## wyogoob

*Sounds like Richard Nixon*



nukenbu said:


> I am also interested to hear news about the privatization of public lands by this year.


Uh....This reminds me of what Richard Nixon once said, and I quote, verbatim:
 
"I don't think you quite understand that what you believe I may have meant isn't what you think I said."


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Vanilla said:


> Are we sure 1-I isn't a bot?


I just may be, you all look like fools now lol.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Seeing some of the old frequenters of the forum in this post who no longer frequent it kinda made me sad. I don’t post near as often anymore, we’ve lost some members. As much as I argue with some of you at times, I’m glad many familiar faces remain, wish we could get some back.


----------



## wyoming2utah

Without reading anything in this thread other than the original post, I suggest researching the Valles Caldera experiment in New Mexico:
https://www.hcn.org/articles/an-experiment-in-privatizing-public-land-fails-after-14-years
And wonder, just how people like Mike Lee thinks the same actions would go any better in Utah....?


----------



## paddler

wyoming2utah said:


> Without reading anything in this thread other than the original post, I suggest researching the Valles Caldera experiment in New Mexico:
> https://www.hcn.org/articles/an-experiment-in-privatizing-public-land-fails-after-14-years
> And wonder, just how people like Mike Lee thinks the same actions would go any better in Utah....?


And another item from the same source:

https://www.hcn.org/articles/opinion-politics-biden-needs-to-go-beyond-a-trump-reset


----------



## High Desert Elk

paddler said:


> And another item from the same source:
> 
> https://www.hcn.org/articles/opinion-politics-biden-needs-to-go-beyond-a-trump-reset


Has nothing to do with the transfer of public lands to the state's.

Obama only "oversaw" an oil boom because of the development of state and fee minerals taking federal minerals out of the equation because of regulation.

I know, I was there...


----------



## colorcountrygunner

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Seeing some of the old frequenters of the forum in this post who no longer frequent it kinda made me sad. I don't post near as often anymore, we've lost some members. As much as I argue with some of you at times, I'm glad many familiar faces remain, wish we could get some back.


 but still...back at ya, 1-I


----------

