# The Political Battle for America’s Public Land Is Happening Below the Radar



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

Sometimes it's hard not to lose hope...

"There have always been some politicians who have hated the idea of public land. When President Theodore Roosevelt created the national forest system, for example, critics called him a Bolshevik. Today, Utah Sen. Mike Lee, for example, has vowed to transfer public land to states or sell them off."

https://www.outdoorlife.com/political-battle-for-americas-public-land-is-happening-below-radar/


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

Why is it that the epicenter of public lands "transfer" is based in UT? I don't hear much from other states taking this same platform, or maybe it's just not a hot topic in those states?

Odd, since UT has rather large outdoor recreation industry. Tough to have an industry like that if most all lands were privately held.


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

High Desert Elk said:


> Why is it that the epicenter of public lands "transfer" is based in UT? I don't hear much from other states taking this same platform, or maybe it's just not a hot topic in those states?


...

Early Utah, that is, the Mormons under Brigham Young, claimed a huge piece of the West and claimed it as a free country. Unfortunately, most of the land was also claimed by the federal Government and was owned under the "territory" structure. As chunks of it were divvied out to groups forming the western states, the Mormons saw their empire shrinking and felt a great resentment. This resentment has lingered on and is still being kept alive, especially in old Mormon families like the Lee's. Basically, many feel that the states are in reality "free and independent countries" and any rule, including control of any portion of the land must reside at the state level.

Senator Lee stands firm in his belief, as it has been passed down to him, that all power must reside at the state level, and that includes ownership/control of all land within a states borders. Many silently do not truly accept the "United States" as it is structured and fight endlessly to transfer all power and rule of law to a less centralized group of locals.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

BPturkeys said:


> ...
> 
> Early Utah, that is, the Mormons under Brigham Young, claimed a huge piece of the West and claimed it as a free country. Unfortunately, most of the land was also claimed by the federal Government and was owned under the "territory" structure. As chunks of it were divvied out to groups forming the western states, the Mormons saw their empire shrinking and felt a great resentment. This resentment has lingered on and is still being kept alive, especially in old Mormon families like the Lee's. Basically, many feel that the states are in reality "free and independent countries" and any rule, including control of any portion of the land must reside at the state level.
> 
> Senator Lee stands firm in his belief, as it has been passed down to him, that all power must reside at the state level, and that includes ownership/control of all land within a states borders. Many silently do not truly accept the "United States" as it is structured and fight endlessly to transfer all power and rule of law to a less centralized group of locals.


Sounds like Senator Lee has a personal problem and I would like to see documented evidence that the "Mormon" faith really believes that.

Same can be said about the old Spanish Land Grants in NM, yet I rarely see Marty and Tommy Boy shout to sell it back to the Baca's...


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

BPturkeys said:


> ...
> 
> Early Utah, that is, the Mormons under Brigham Young, claimed a huge piece of the West and claimed it as a free country. Unfortunately, most of the land was also claimed by the federal Government and was owned under the "territory" structure. As chunks of it were divvied out to groups forming the western states, the Mormons saw their empire shrinking and felt a great resentment. This resentment has lingered on and is still being kept alive, especially in old Mormon families like the Lee's. Basically, many feel that the states are in reality "free and independent countries" and any rule, including control of any portion of the land must reside at the state level.
> 
> Senator Lee stands firm in his belief, as it has been passed down to him, that all power must reside at the state level, and that includes ownership/control of all land within a states borders. Many silently do not truly accept the "United States" as it is structured and fight endlessly to transfer all power and rule of law to a less centralized group of locals.


By chance, did you forget to take your senile medicine this morning? Your first paragraph is one of the most ridiculous spouts of BS I've heard in a long time.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

Funny Oped article a couple years old, speaking a bit along the lines of BP's post. Yeah, consider the source, both publication and author, but still, food for thought should one choose to delve further down the rabbit hole...

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-trimble-utah-public-land-mormons-20180918-story.html

And one of my favorite articles showcasing our hero Don Peay:

"We're proud of what we've done here," Peay said. "It shows that local people know the land better than bureaucrats from Washington or tourists from California."

"Doesn't it belong to all of us?" I asked, noting that the land we stood upon was managed by the federal government, in trust for the American people.

His answer was unexpected.

"Yeah," he replied. "But it belongs more to me than it does to you."

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jun/10/utah-public-lands-mormons-national-parks-trump


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

Look, I am just the messenger here. What part of the "spout" do you believe not to be true? 
Oh, and by the way, I don't believe this is an official stance of the LDS church and I never said is was. 

Resentment over "stolen land" is nothing new. You need go no further than say Texas and the original owners, or the Native Americans, or the Palestinians, etc, etc, ...are you suggesting that their is no lingering resentment? How about the Confederate States and these knuckleheads that still go around flying the Confederate flag. Some things are as old as mankind, and this is one of them.


----------



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

stillhunterman said:


> Funny Oped article a couple years old, speaking a bit along the lines of BP's post. Yeah, consider the source, both publication and author, but still, food for thought should one choose to delve further down the rabbit hole...
> 
> https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-trimble-utah-public-land-mormons-20180918-story.html
> 
> ...


"It belongs more to me than it does to you"

NO IT DOESN'T


----------



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

CPAjeff said:


> By chance, did you forget to take your senile medicine this morning? Your first paragraph is one of the most ridiculous spouts of BS I've heard in a long time.


Not really, there's some deep rooted issues. There's a reason Utah is the only place that's this ridiculous about it and why he rest of the country looks at us funny.


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

BPturkeys said:


> ...
> 
> Early Utah, that is, the Mormons under Brigham Young, claimed a huge piece of the West and claimed it as a free country. Unfortunately, most of the land was also claimed by the federal Government and was owned under the "territory" structure. As chunks of it were divvied out to groups forming the western states, the Mormons saw their empire shrinking and felt a great resentment. Source? This resentment has lingered on and is still being kept alive, especially in old Mormon families like the Lee'sSource? . Basically, many Define many and list a few feel that the states are in reality "free and independent countries" and any rule, including control of any portion of the land must reside at the state level.
> 
> Senator Lee stands firm in his belief, as it has been passed down to him, Really, from who? Source? that all power must reside at the state level, and that includes ownership/control of all land within a states borders. Many once again, define many and provide a source silently do not truly accept the "United States" as it is structured and fight endlessly to transfer all power and rule of law to a less centralized group of locals.


Which portion of your spout do I not believe?? Let's start with my questions, comments in red.

In a world full of "fake news" it seems that your quick to fly the "don't kill the messenger" flag.

I'm VERY familiar with the real estate and land issues which are handled by the Corporation of the Presiding Bishopric. Your senseless post surrounding how people "feel" should be such to distance persons and their opinions far from the Church and its position on land issues.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

The Republican Party actually made the transfer of federal lands to the possession of the state a basic tenant of the party platform. Notice how I did not say the “Utah Republican Party.” This was done on the federal level. Party wise, all across the country, this is in the party platform. Lee is simply doing what his party has asked him to do, I’d guess? 

This is not just a Utah issue. The sage brush rebellion of yesteryear was not a just Utah issue. Utah just happens to be ripe for the discussion because of the national monument designation debacle in conjunction with the huge amounts of federally owned land. I don’t intend to debate the good/bad of that here, or to say I agree with transfer to state control. I’m simply answering the question posed. 

I’m sure that’s far less sexy than the other conspiracies, but I’ve never been more concerned about a cool story over accuracy before, so I won’t start now.


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Not really, there's some deep rooted issues. There's a reason Utah is the only place that's this ridiculous about it and why he rest of the country looks at us funny.


Ok, deep rooted issues - like what? Documented sources?

Remember - I've lived in other states also, so I'm not naive to how the rest of the country views Utah.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

Nobody was here first. Everyone, archaeologically, came here from Asia or Europe via walking or sailing. The deep rooted "resentment" is because this side lost some conflict in some fashion or another.

To step back in early US western history, a group of people came out west to seek refuge from persecution full well knowing it was Mexican territory. Wonder how bad it must've been to leave the good 'ol USA to seek refuge in a foreign country...


----------



## Hoopermat (Dec 17, 2010)

And the first person to step up and run for Bishops seat is preaching the same old Utah land grab agenda
So and once again UTAH is the laughing stock of public lands

I wonder why

https://www.standard.net/news/gover...cle_30723096-f7cd-502d-9744-161b60318ab5.html


----------



## Hoopermat (Dec 17, 2010)

Worth a read

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ly-protected-land-their-history-explains-why/


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

Utah was not the first to take up the battle cry. The original sagebrush rebellion was in Nevada.
Two thirds of Utah's population is between Ogden on the north and Spanishfork on the south. They are the ones you need to convince to alter the republican platform. The good old boys in the south should not be the only people affecting policy.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

*This Sums It Up*

https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/bagley/2020/02/07/bagley-cartoon-utah/


----------



## Gordon (Sep 11, 2007)

We just suck at picking our politicians here. Some crack pot like Ken Ivory, Bishop, Lee, Mike Noel, etc.... comes up with these ****amamey ideas and instead of slapping them down we just keep electing them. Unreal.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

paddler said:


> https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/bagley/2020/02/07/bagley-cartoon-utah/


Sure. This all started with Trump.


----------



## caddis8 (Sep 10, 2007)

Different perspective here. 

Would state land remain public access? What does transferring actually do?

I live in a state that is 95% private. I pay higher taxes and higher license fees. 

I had a cow elk tag that went unfilled because I could only find one place that would allow me access to shoot a cow without a $500 tresspass fee. 

One landowner actually got 50 depredation tags via a shady call with a local legislator after lots of damage to his corn crop (legitimate complaint) but says he can't control the elk, while charging $1,000-$1,500 for access for a cow tag. Bull tag $5k-$10k for a public resource.

Utah has it pretty good, actually. Federal or state owned as long as it remains open to the public for public consumption. But be prepared for taxes to likely go up to maintain those lands.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

caddis8 said:


> Would state land remain public access? What does transferring actually do?


It would still remain public land, per se. However, it would likely enter as SITLA land which has a constitutional mandate not to remain open to public access, but to maximize profit.

And many believe (including myself) that much of this land would be sold off to the highest bidder and leased out even if it wasn't sold. That is the biggest concern about the land transfer. In principle, I'd prefer state control of the land if it was guaranteed to remain open and the state had the resources to manage it.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

There is only one way to make up the revenue lost from PILT and that is by taxing private property.

The property would need to be leased or sold to even think about paying for the upkeep.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

RandomElk16 said:


> Sure. This all started with Trump.


Are you referring to " A Very Stable Genius"? Great book, everyone should read it.


----------

