# Proof Utah lawmakers know they have no case on public lands



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

http://www.sltrib.com/home/3651047-155/noel-timing-is-bad-for-utah

The wrong time? If you believe this has anything to do with the law you wouldn't need heavy political favoring to accomplish it. This is proof current Utah leadership at every level understands they have no LEGAL case, but are setting up pathways and millions of dollars for a fight even they know they have no chance at. Yeah....have I mentioned it's time to get rid of some of these career politicians, that continue to waste tax money. Anyway, let's not turn this into a political thing again, but into another public lands thread.


----------



## swampfox (Dec 30, 2014)

From the sounds of things, as long as Ted Cruz doesn't win, we should have 4-8 more years of enjoying public lands in their current form. I'll take it.


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

This thread was 100% politics from the very first post.----SS


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Technically only the first reply, and that may be arguable, depends on the timing......


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

Look it up on Google....it's a fact that any thread with posts by both Lonetree and 1-I is officially classified as political in nature.-------SS


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

If all the western states were on board with this, I'd say they had something. But, it appears only one state won't let it be, so, I doubt UT legislator's have a snowballs chance of getting this pulled off.

This topic is a double edged sword, both sides has its pros and cons. One sides' pro is the others con. On one hand you have the protection of public land in its perceived 'pristine' condition, and on the other, you have a decrease in what all wealthy, prosperous, and powerful nations require - affordable and efficient energy.

You can make the arguments of clean air, clear view, and panoramic awe of the wilderness and at the same time be hurting economically because you can't compete with a global economy. If a nation wants to be completely independent of global trade and be self sufficient, you gotta extract minerals for energy. Most third world countries have the wilderness and ghetto look all wrapped up in one with the missing common denominator of prosperous nations, energy.

So, with state control, the state can decide what do with the public land and be the beneficiary of any profits that can come with it. Under federal control, political favor and the most vocal special interest group(s) will dictate the fate of the land. It's too ambiguous to say what the real outcome would be. There needs to be a balance in this debate. Kinda hard to use the public land when you can't drive to the trail head and a week long horseback ride to get there just isn't a logical move either...


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Springville Shooter said:


> Look it up on Google....it's a fact that any thread with posts by both Lonetree and 1-I is officially classified as _political in nature_.-------SS


:mrgreen: My apologies, I thought you were referring some actual act of overt politics. I don't carry water.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

High Desert Elk said:


> If all the western states were on board with this, I'd say they had something. But, it appears only one state won't let it be, so, I doubt UT legislator's have a snowballs chance of getting this pulled off.
> 
> This topic is a double edged sword, both sides has its pros and cons. One sides' pro is the others con. On one hand you have the protection of public land in its perceived 'pristine' condition, and on the other, you have a decrease in what all wealthy, prosperous, and powerful nations require - affordable and efficient energy.
> 
> ...


We know what the outcome would be..........SITLA. I fight with the FS all the time, I can fight with them, there is a process, it sucks, I disagree with them on many, many things, the process it is not always transparent, they are slow, and the bureaucracy is ridiculous. And it is forever better than the state of Utah.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

I'm as non political as can be but it never ceases to amaze we where this idea gained traction. Somebody who rejected medical MJ is smoking it on the side.
Why anyone would pay a bunch of lawyers to come up up with the answer they want and then vote to spend money on a doomed quest is beyond me.
Seems the only way to get their attention is personally kick them where it hurts. Apparently banging their heads against the wall does not work to knock some sense into their heads.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

I keep seeing this theme of intoxication come up through allot of threads.


----------



## Trooper (Oct 18, 2007)

High Desert Elk said:


> If all the western states were on board with this, I'd say they had something. But, it appears only one state won't let it be, so, I doubt UT legislator's have a snowballs chance of getting this pulled off.
> 
> This topic is a double edged sword, both sides has its pros and cons. One sides' pro is the others con. On one hand you have the protection of public land in its perceived 'pristine' condition, and on the other, you have a decrease in what all wealthy, prosperous, and powerful nations require - affordable and efficient energy.
> 
> ...


I completely disagree with this. Consider Germany. China is using less and less coal while its solar technology is exploding. As to special interests, it's a lot easier to buy a state than the nation. Need proof? Consider just about every bill approved or denied at the Utah legislature this year.


----------

