# Find out if your county gave to the American Land grab



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

Here is a link:

http://westernpriorities.org/2015/0...ch-could-result-in-them-losing-millions-more/

The 4th paragraph from the bottom their is a hyperlink that says "click here" it will download and open a document in Excel and show the counties and the amounts donated to the ALC. If your county donated I would sure be writing the representatives of that county ASAP. We have to stand up on this issue and not allow those that represent us to throw our money away and then screw us over. And I'm sad to say Utah is leaps and bounds ahead of stupidity in other states with this idea.


----------



## Old Fudd (Nov 24, 2007)

Holly crap!! What a cluster pooop!!


----------



## swampfox (Dec 30, 2014)

I'm constantly embarrassed by the politics in this state. It seems almost all politicians are snakes, but we seem to have a particularly vile breed. Ignoring common sense and the will of your constituents for personal financial gain (see: corruption) doesn't even register as something newsworthy around here. Its common practice.


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

I call horse hockey. The report on this page says that Utah will need to generate $432 million if it takes over the property to maintain levels. Hello people the report says the federal government paid Utah $29.7 million last year. $432 million is only about 14.55 times the amount of the annual payment to Utah from the feds right now. So why does Utah need to generate $432 million? Sounds like common core math to me.


----------



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

LostLouisianian said:


> I call horse hockey. The report on this page says that Utah will need to generate $432 million if it takes over the property to maintain levels. Hello people the report says the federal government paid Utah $29.7 million last year. $432 million is only about 14.55 times the amount of the annual payment to Utah from the feds right now. So why does Utah need to generate $432 million? Sounds like common core math to me.


These lands would have to be managed. Wildfires would have to be dealt with. Adminstrative costs would be huge. To do all of this you would need hundreds more of employees that would cost a lot of money. If you believe lawsuit groups are going to stop litigating you're up in the night, that will cost a lot to . Along with losing the PILT money the state would have to absorb all of those costs and need to get the $432 million to keep revenue at current levels. The forest service spent $700 million on wildfire fighting this year alone. Yes, land management is an expensive business and if anything these counties should be hoping the current system is never changed because they are all benefiting greatly from PILT.


----------



## GeTaGrip (Jun 24, 2014)

Pretty sure that the $432 million is not only the PILT funds for the counties that currently get paid by the feds but also the monies to manage the rest of the federal lands in the state. IMHO the state can't find it's ar$$ with both hands, I most definitely don't want them trying to manage our public lands.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

LostLouisianian said:


> I call horse hockey. The report on this page says that Utah will need to generate $432 million if it takes over the property to maintain levels. Hello people the report says the federal government paid Utah $29.7 million last year. $432 million is only about 14.55 times the amount of the annual payment to Utah from the feds right now. So why does Utah need to generate $432 million? Sounds like common core math to me.


Sounds like some one can't do common core math(I have yet to have a problem doing it, same with my kids)

Uncle Sam spent ~$8 per acre in 2012, or a total of $247 million to manage the people of the United States of America's land that is held in trust in Utah. About how many acres does Uncle Sam hold in trust for ALL the citizens of the United states of America(sp) here in Utah?

If you look at the most optimistic numbers produced by a Utah study that says that Utah can swing this financially, there is one big deal breaker. It assumes that Utah can manage these monstrous numbers based on oil and gas revenue, so long as oil and gas do not go down in price. Well guess what......oil and gas has plummeted, so that $432 million probably looks a lot more like twice that in todays dollars.

Other studies? Take a look at every other Western state that looked at the economics of transfer, they all said it was not possible. And the Utah study that says it is, is based on skyrocketing oil prices that have since plunged. And most were conducted prior to one of the largest Western wildfire seasons on record, as has already been mentioned.

So not only does the state want to take our land, they want our gas prices to be twice what they are now.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

More common core math: The United States of America(sp), with a very large tax base, acting as trustee over federal lands to the American(sp) people, charges public land ranchers ~$1.69 an AUM to run stock on federal property. States with much smaller populations and tax bases charge ~$10 per AUM, while private property owners(smaller number of vested owners with no tax base) with the highest profit to acre ratio demand and get ~$20 per AUM. So if AUM prices go up as the number of vested owners goes down, what will happen to the $1.69 federal AUM price if a state were to attain control of federal properties within it's borders?


----------



## Old Fudd (Nov 24, 2007)

Heres what Utah Does.( I mean I Love the State Been here 71 years.) Raise GAS TAX>> Bingo theres ONE. Raise Property Tax>> Seems like every year. Why do people not PANIC an Extra 15.00 year for the next 30 years Bingo do the Math> Sue the Tabaco industry for millions and millions. Put it into a rainy day fund. . where did it go? not to smokers with illness..We need an independent audit., the entire state something smells very very bad.,


----------



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

Also some interesting information. The two biggest donar counties in Utah that donated $25,000 each to ALC have a commissioner from both counties that sit on the board of the ALC. One is the VP the other the chair elect. Seems like a real conflict of interest to me.

Alan Gardner is a Washington county commissioner, and Doug Heaton is a commissioner in Kane county. It amazes me how corrupt all this BS is. These men should be ashamed wasting $50,000 of taxpayers money. Here is the link:

http://www.americanlandscouncil.org/our_team

Then I saw this:
http://kutv.com/news/local/washington-county-search-and-rescue-out-of-money

Maybe if their commissioners hadn't wasted $25,000 earlier they would have money for a productive program.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

And how much does Ken Ivory pay himself as president of ALC? 

A guess, this is like doing BGF payroll math......


----------



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

Lonetree said:


> And how much does Ken Ivory pay himself as president of ALC?
> 
> A guess, this is like doing BGF payroll math......


Don't forget Ken Ivorys wife is on the payroll too. Between him and his wife I believe around 50% were retained for wages and a total of only about 10% of money raised with ALC was used for their cause. I can't remember where I saw that figure but it's close.

The best I could find quickly was 2013: ALC raised $203,000, Ken Ivory alone that year pulled $95,000 as a salary. Maybe I should start a non-profit, apparently Utah representatives are so incompetent they will hand out tax dollars to about any corrupt organization. Total salaries for that year were $146,300.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Im not sure why the UWN is the only place I hear such angst about this stuff. 

I know you guys hate the question. But I can't help but wonder what the church thinks about the land swap. 

They're just standing back praying Ken Ivory fails? Or do they support him? I can't imagine they could care less.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Who is funding Western Priorities?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Iron Bear said:


> Im not sure why the UWN is the only place I hear such angst about this stuff.
> 
> I know you guys hate the question. But I can't help but wonder what the church thinks about the land swap.
> 
> They're just standing back praying Ken Ivory fails? Or do they support him? I can't imagine they could care less.


The UWN must be the only conservation minded place you go.

The church is irrelevant, that is a complete tangent.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Iron Bear said:


> Who is funding Western Priorities?


Center for Western Priorities is incubated under New Venture Fund. Their president is this guy:

http://www.arabellaadvisors.com/about-us/our-people/staff-directory/eric-kessler/

He happens to be involved with some ventures, one in particular that I have some serious issues with. That said, he is not soliciting tax dollars like Ivory, it is almost entirely philanthropic.

You are probably getting at some "green" money, anti hunting BS, but considering that he is a member of a group that operates a 10,000 acre CWMU here in Utah, I think you would be hard pressed to make the claim.

Washington DC ties and money? Yes Our tax dollars? no.

Do you want their 990s?


----------



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

Iron Bear said:


> Who is funding Western Priorities?


ACLs 990s are available. The information on them is verifiable.


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

Iron Bear said:


> Who is funding Western Priorities?


I'm assuming you're trying to instill fear into the hearts of all the conservative sportsmen here that would be appalled to find out that it is those dang liberals supporting this particular conservation org in part?

While I may differ politically in many ways from some of those who fund the Center for Western Priorities, I'm also willing to compartmentalize my politics and look at things issue by issue. If the Center for Western Priorities and it's donors are for public land and public access, I'll stand with them on this one.

That doesn't mean I support turning in guns, or many other non-outdoor-related(and thus not mentioned here) issues.

Implying that because you agree with an organization on 1 issue makes you somehow complicit in other differing or flawed political viewpoints is nonsensical.

Similarly, implying that because you agree with many tenets of a party's platform means you have to toe the party line on every issue is irrational as well.

Of course I probably just derived way too much from what you will say was just a simple honest question. If so, my apologies.


----------



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

So here's their 990 from 2013:

http://990s.foundationcenter.org/99...990O.pdf?_ga=1.62556143.2129086696.1423234335


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> So here's their 990 from 2013:
> 
> http://990s.foundationcenter.org/99...990O.pdf?_ga=1.62556143.2129086696.1423234335


Oh...so they only pocketed 70% of the money they raised. That's not a scam..........:shock:


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

Iron Bear said:


> Im not sure why the UWN is the only place I hear such angst about this stuff............


1.Because this is a place full of a lot of people that are passionate about outdoor recreation. Largely on public land.

2.Because this issue directly affects those whom the first statement defines.

3.Because you choose not to listen to the countless conservation organizations and discussions currently going on in the country.

The LWCF not being re-authorized has drawn the ire of politicians on both sides of the aisle and received a fair amount of national coverage in non-conservation-oriented media. The public land debate has received a fair amount of coverage as well.

I don't watch much Fox News, so maybe it wasn't mentioned there?


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Wow I sure struck a nerve there. 

Environmentalist unite! 

Geez, it was a simple question. I'm not a part of any group conservative or liberal. I'm about as neutral as you can get. 

Sorry for trying to learns something. Just wanted to know who was influencing me. 

Trust me the only major players in this matter aren't mr Ivory and mr Bishop. 

Why isn't this on the news? Why isn't it national fodder to make fun of cooky Utah politics. 

Why is a guy who is part of a cwmu a player but Deseret land and livestock isn't?


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Does the LDS church buy land? Do they even have the money to do so? They had enough interest in Florida to spend a half billion. 

Please don't tell me the church is irrelevant.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Why can't the church put an end to this awful notion. That will so badly hurt the citizen of Utah and bankrupt our local governments. 

I expect them to lead on serious issues such as this gays and liquor immigration and what not.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Iron Bear said:


> Wow I sure struck a nerve there.
> 
> Environmentalist unite! -Doubt casting political tangent, like we have been accusing you of-
> 
> ...


Do you ever have anything of substance to offer?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Iron Bear said:


> Does the LDS church buy land? Do they even have the money to do so? They had enough interest in Florida to spend a half billion.
> 
> Please don't tell me the church is irrelevant.


The church can BUY all the private land it wants.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Iron Bear said:


> Why can't the church put an end to this awful notion. That will so badly hurt the citizen of Utah and bankrupt our local governments.
> 
> _I expect them to lead on serious issues such as this gays and liquor immigration and what not._


You would. Can the church have a stance on the issue? Sure why not. Does it matter from a legal or historical perspective? No, not really.

Are you deflecting and way off course as usual? Yep....


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

So this is like when Kane county succeeded from the UN. It made global news but much to do about nothing? 

Is there any traction to this land swap actually happening? 

That could be a very good reason why it's crickets from the largest land owner in the country.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Lonetree said:


> The church can BUY all the private land it wants.


It can buy public land too. Y mountain.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Iron Bear said:


> So this is like when Kane county succeeded from the UN. It made global news but much to do about nothing?
> 
> Is there any tracking to this land swap actually happening?
> 
> That could be a very good reason why it's crickets from the largest land owner in the country.


Again, how is this relevant? What context does this add?

I'll play along.

It is not so much about the vehicle(TPL) in this case, but rather what is being carried all over the place in that vehicle. Who is driving, who is in the back seat, where they are going to, where they coming from, etc etc.

Yet you are talking about some people standing on the side of the road that appear, at least, to have no interest or stake in said vehicle or it's passengers. Do you understand relevancy?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Iron Bear said:


> It can buy public land too. Y mountain.


I've said it here and elsewhere, that was a test run for Bishop, along with the frame work for the Skilink sale.

That is why I said _private_ land.


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

Sorry I missed out on the last bit of conversation. I just got back from hiking the Y like I do LITERALLY every day on my lunch break. Let it be known, I'm not for the transfer of public land in the least, including Y mountain. However, Y mountain is still accessible and well-maintained. So, for now, I won't use that as an example of the adverse impact of the land transfer.

Ultimately, I don't fault a private entity for purchasing land. I do fault a lawmaker(or a whole state full of them) for being so openly supportive of efforts to enact a statewide takeover/selloff of all federally owned land.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Lonetree said:


> I've said it here and elsewhere, that was a test run for Bishop, along with the frame work for the Skilink sale.
> 
> That is why I said _private_ land.


That's weird because it was Chaffetz and Hatch's bill.

I thought Lee and Bishop were the snakes in the grass?


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

So Y mountain is OK because you can still hike it. 

Do you oppose the ski resorts expanding into AF. To my knowledge you will still be able to hike that.


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

Iron Bear said:


> So Y mountain is OK because you can still hike it.
> 
> Do you oppose the ski resorts expanding into AF. To my knowledge you will still be able to hike that.


Note where I said that I was still opposed to Land transfer to the state/ private entities, including Y mountain. I would have rather had the forest service retain ownership.

However, access to Y mountain hasn't fundamentally changed, so I don't think it's the strongest example of what would happen were the state to wrest control of all public land.

Ski resorts are much more intrusive than anything that has happened since the big bad church has taken ownership of the Y mountain. It's a poor comparison at best.

What it really boils down to is that you are holding the church accountable for that exchange and a plethora of the other land issues facing us currently. I think it was facilitated by our state lawmakers. While I would have preferred a different result, I don't fault a private entity for making a purchase.

I do fault the state lawmakers(The whole lot of them, since you asked if it was one specifically) for pushing for and allowing things like this to happen.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Iron Bear said:


> That's weird because it was Chaffetz and Hatch's bill.
> 
> I thought Lee and Bishop were the snakes in the grass?


http://capitolwords.org/date/2013/06/17/H3661_y-mountain-access-enhancement-act/

Yeah, Bishop had nothing to do with it.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Iron Bear said:


> So Y mountain is OK because you can still hike it.
> 
> Do you oppose the ski resorts expanding into AF. To my knowledge you will still be able to hike that.


Does it involve the transfer of public lands to private entities? Does it lock hunters out? Is it bad for wildlife? Then, yeah I'm against it.


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

Lonetree said:


> http://capitolwords.org/date/2013/06/17/H3661_y-mountain-access-enhancement-act/
> 
> Yeah, Bishop had nothing to do with it.


Let's not let facts get in the way of a good argument....


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Kwalk3 said:


> Let's not let facts get in the way of a good argument....


Iron Bear never does.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Like the fact it was Chaffetz bill co sponsored by Hatch and supported by Bishop? 

And that it was passed up for vote twice by the senate when it was stand alone, but only passed when attached to a can't fail national defense appropriation bill.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Iron Bear said:


> Like the fact it was Chaffetz bill co sponsored by Hatch and supported by Bishop?
> 
> And that it was passed up for vote twice by the senate when it was stand alone, but only passed when attached to a can't fail national defense appropriation bill.


Is it that we are not beating up on Chaffetz and Hatch enough for you? Believe me I've given it to Chaffetz on sportsmens issues. Hatch will at least pay lip service.

I'm still not fully understanding where you are coming from, or what you are getting at. The way you are parsing this is just not going anywhere.

Chaffetz introduced the bill because of district lines, Hatch had the senior support. That's why it was not Bishop/Lee.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Lonetree said:


> I've said it here and elsewhere, that was a test run for Bishop, along with the frame work for the Skilink sale.
> 
> That is why I said _private_ land.


Well you said^^^^^

And it was Chaffetz bill not a "test run for Bishop, along with the frame work for the Skilink sale."

It also had a few other co sponsors all BYU alum in the congress.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Lonetree said:


> The UWN must be the only conservation minded place you go.
> 
> The church is irrelevant, that is a complete tangent.


You also said ^^^^^

Which incited debate from me. Hard for me to believe the largest land owner in the country may not benefit if ivory is successful. I'm told public land will be offered off to the highest bidder and Im supposed to forget the church as a possible future bidder if this goes through?

I just want to be as informed as possible about the issue and there is plenty off BS on both sides. From environmentalist as well as capitalists.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Iron Bear said:


> You also said ^^^^^
> 
> Which incited debate from me. Hard for me to believe the largest land owner in the country may not benefit if ivory is successful. I'm told public land will be offered off to the highest bidder and Im supposed to forget the church as a possible future bidder if this goes through?
> 
> I just want to be as informed as possible about the issue and there is plenty off BS on both sides. From environmentalist as well as capitalists.


First off, I'm an environmentalist/capitalist by practice.

Second, I'm seeing what you are saying about the church, as far as motivations and potential reasons to support the TPL. But until they come out one way or another, it is all just speculation, but I see what you are getting at.

And yes it was Chaffetz' bill, but back when I was actively involved with Skilink opposition, and the Y was peripheral, Bishop was very active in both. But I am more than glad to give Chaffetz the credit he deserves on this.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Lonetree said:


> First off, I'm an environmentalist/capitalist.


So is T Boon Pickens.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Iron Bear said:


> So is T Boon Pickens.


:mrgreen:


----------



## massmanute (Apr 23, 2012)

Iron Bear said:


> Why can't the church put an end to this awful notion. That will so badly hurt the citizen of Utah and bankrupt our local governments.
> 
> I expect them to lead on serious issues such as this gays and liquor immigration and what not.


Iron Bear,

Don't forget to blame cougars too. We know how much you hate them as well.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

I'm sorry that's one of the parts to being impartial and unbiased. 

Nobody is immune from my scrutiny. After all I want to make an informed decision based on all the facts.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

20 million acres sold at $6500 a piece is a bunch of money.


----------



## massmanute (Apr 23, 2012)

Iron Bear said:


> 20 million acres sold at $6500 a piece is a bunch of money.


Can you give us a little context for this comment?


----------



## brendo (Sep 10, 2013)

Iron Bear, Go listen to episode 10 of randy newberg's podcast. That guy knows his stuff and he has some good information on the subject.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

When one says this land swap will bankrupt Utah's local governments because of the loss of PILT and other subsidies. That may not be true. I'm not saying I want to sell Utah's public acreage. But it may be the case that it would be a financial boom for Utah.


----------



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

Iron Bear said:


> When one says this land swap will bankrupt Utah's local governments because of the loss of PILT and other subsidies. That may not be true. I'm not saying I want to sell Utah's public acreage. But it may be the case that it would be a financial boom for Utah.


So I guess there would be no wildfires, no lawsuits, no extra personnel needed,etc.? Again you're denying reality of these costs and the liability that comes along with these lands.

The only way they could afford it is if they absolutely neglected management and the environment as well as wildlife and used as strictly profit driven along with selling the best areas to the highest bidder.

Take a look at the great salt lake, and then between funding and management tell me how the state can manage these lands and afford it. They can't even afford or won't afford to control Phragmites on the most important parcel they manage. This state knows how to neglect everything but profit and our legislature is full of scumbags.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

I'd list the Chinese as potential buyers to large tracts of land for sale in Utah.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/world/article24769813.html


----------



## grizzly (Jun 3, 2012)

Please see this thread as it is related... http://utahwildlife.net/forum/22-everything-else/139041-help-protect-public-land.html#post1427049


----------

