Reader comments
Public lands coalition plans to 'Take Back Utah'
52 comments | Read story
Give Me A Break | 1:33 a.m. April 21, 2009
The Governor does not have political savvy. He will sell us out to further his
political ambitions. He lacks principles and governs based on pandering to the
SL media.
History | 6:03 a.m. April 21, 2009
History shows that Utah joined the Union, you know, the Union. The US of A.
America. The power sits in Washington, D. C. Check your 4th grade history and
political science book to see that fact again.
History shows that Utah has sucked at the federal chest for years in order to have income, growth, and money for the big cats. Think hiways and HAFB and the Air Material Area.
History shows that Utah has a bunch of greedy people, like all of the states. But the rest of the nation has realized that we are a republic, a union of one, not a bunch of whinny little powers scattered here and there.
History shows much if one is willing to look. But people are not willing to look if money is involved, and power. And if you are so stupid as to be manipulated by the "leaders"!
PS -- I see where the Utah Farm Bureau has finally come clean as a voice for the rich, big farming interests. For decades their national record shows that they only care about the big guy. It is the only surprise in the news article. They finally came out of the closet.
History shows that Utah has sucked at the federal chest for years in order to have income, growth, and money for the big cats. Think hiways and HAFB and the Air Material Area.
History shows that Utah has a bunch of greedy people, like all of the states. But the rest of the nation has realized that we are a republic, a union of one, not a bunch of whinny little powers scattered here and there.
History shows much if one is willing to look. But people are not willing to look if money is involved, and power. And if you are so stupid as to be manipulated by the "leaders"!
PS -- I see where the Utah Farm Bureau has finally come clean as a voice for the rich, big farming interests. For decades their national record shows that they only care about the big guy. It is the only surprise in the news article. They finally came out of the closet.
Knowwhat | 7:22 a.m. April 21, 2009
History shows he doesn't know anything about the founding fathers
organization of the government, rural Utah or the Farm Bureau and who they do
business with.
Comments continue below
Washington? | 7:47 a.m. April 21, 2009
To that guy who posted earlier claiming all the power resides in Washington, you
are very confused and incorrect on your understanding of federalism. The
Constitution gives only specific, carefully limited powers to the federal
government. If a federal governmental power is not spelled out in the
Constitution, then the federal government DOES, NOT, HAVE, IT. Let that truth
bore down into your cerebral reservoir. Read the 9th and 10th Amendments. All
powers not specifically delegated to the federal government are retained by the
States and the people, and the federal government cannot mandate that the States
do anything. What, are you trying to deny the reality of the 9th and 10th
amendments? Get a life and start reading those amendments.
The Constitution does not give the federal government the power to permanently hold on to vast tracts of land. Rather, Article I Section 8 says Congress may own land sufficient for the District of Columbia, and other needful buildings, forts and magazines. Period. And that only upon the consent of a state where such buildings, forts and magazines are located.
The Constitution does not give the federal government the power to permanently hold on to vast tracts of land. Rather, Article I Section 8 says Congress may own land sufficient for the District of Columbia, and other needful buildings, forts and magazines. Period. And that only upon the consent of a state where such buildings, forts and magazines are located.
Stand up to SUWA! | 7:53 a.m. April 21, 2009
It's about time we stepped forward and confronted radical
"environmentalists," like SUWA, Bobbie Redford, and Envision Utah.
There are way more of us than there are of them, and we're way overdue in
taking back Utah.
In fact, these radical groups are tiny cabals of back-east carpetbaggers and east-bench elites that exercise undue influence over Utah policy primarily because of their internet prowess and an ability to play the Utah media like a cheap fiddle.
Our combined voices can -- and should -- easily drown out their shrill non-use and access denial demands.
No other state in the Union has the draconian limits on land use and access we have to deal with here in Utah. We must seek reasonable land use and access policies, or content ourselves with being converted into a large national zoo. Where we're captive and on display like a bunch of pandas.
In fact, these radical groups are tiny cabals of back-east carpetbaggers and east-bench elites that exercise undue influence over Utah policy primarily because of their internet prowess and an ability to play the Utah media like a cheap fiddle.
Our combined voices can -- and should -- easily drown out their shrill non-use and access denial demands.
No other state in the Union has the draconian limits on land use and access we have to deal with here in Utah. We must seek reasonable land use and access policies, or content ourselves with being converted into a large national zoo. Where we're captive and on display like a bunch of pandas.
To The Anti-History | 7:55 a.m. April 21, 2009
He calls himself "History," but he is really the
"anti-History." The only reason Utah has taken federal funds, is
because Utah's state and local governments are unable to levy property
taxes on Utah's federal public lands even though state and local
governments provide basic services with respect to those lands. Also, the
federal carpet-baggers come in and rape Utah of 50% of valuable oil and gas and
other mineral royalties, all of which should be going to state and local
governments.
So its the rape and sucking off of royalties and the hand tying of state and local governments to levy taxes on lands to which they provided gov't services, that puts Utah in a position of having to accept federal revenues.
The better, more efficient, and more Constitutionally appropriate way, is for the feds to get out of the land management business and turn the public lands over to the State of Utah to own and manage.
So History, you are the anti-History.
So its the rape and sucking off of royalties and the hand tying of state and local governments to levy taxes on lands to which they provided gov't services, that puts Utah in a position of having to accept federal revenues.
The better, more efficient, and more Constitutionally appropriate way, is for the feds to get out of the land management business and turn the public lands over to the State of Utah to own and manage.
So History, you are the anti-History.
reasonable environmentalist | 8:03 a.m. April 21, 2009
Unfortunately that term is an oxymoron. I like to think that I am someone who
cares about the environment. I like clean air, water, and some wilderness areas
that are "unspoiled". But I also understand that public lands are
needed for a variety of uses, including energy exploration and production.
Ask an "environmental activist" how much public land should be set aside for things like off-road vehicles, development, and energy production. The answer always seems to be the same - zero.
Ask an "environmental activist" how much public land should be set aside for things like off-road vehicles, development, and energy production. The answer always seems to be the same - zero.
Hey History | 8:05 a.m. April 21, 2009
History shows that Utah and the federal government are governed by the
Constitution, you know the Constitution.
That pesky Constitution just blows a big gaping hole in your false claim that the power resides in Washington. Not according to the Constitution. Neener, neener.
That pesky Constitution just blows a big gaping hole in your false claim that the power resides in Washington. Not according to the Constitution. Neener, neener.
Geezer | 8:08 a.m. April 21, 2009
When will Mike Noel and his buddies be satisfied? They got most of southern
Utah handed to them on a silver platter in BLM's recent management plans -
most of it wide open to oil leasing, with thousands of miles of designated ORV
routes. Ken Salazar is right to push for a better multiple use solution.
Power to the People! | 8:13 a.m. April 21, 2009
August 8th! Got it, and I will be there.
Stand up to the Washington bureaucrats, and to the Utah politicians like Huntsman, Bennett and Hatch who have become part of the same elitist cabal, hoping to prolong their political careers.
Add to the list of grievances the overturning of the Bush Administration's changes to allow legally carried firearms in National Parks lands under the laws of the state where the parks are located. More "nanny state" intrusion that we simply should not put up with.
Utah needs to get with the other states and demand adherence to the 10th Amendment limiting the power of the federal government to those specifically enumerated in the Constitution, not whatever silly schemes a majority of 535 idiots on the Potomac suddenly endorse.
Less government, lower taxes and less spending!
Bring ice tea, it will be hot in August.
Stand up to the Washington bureaucrats, and to the Utah politicians like Huntsman, Bennett and Hatch who have become part of the same elitist cabal, hoping to prolong their political careers.
Add to the list of grievances the overturning of the Bush Administration's changes to allow legally carried firearms in National Parks lands under the laws of the state where the parks are located. More "nanny state" intrusion that we simply should not put up with.
Utah needs to get with the other states and demand adherence to the 10th Amendment limiting the power of the federal government to those specifically enumerated in the Constitution, not whatever silly schemes a majority of 535 idiots on the Potomac suddenly endorse.
Less government, lower taxes and less spending!
Bring ice tea, it will be hot in August.
Bill Hartley | 8:14 a.m. April 21, 2009
Hardly any of Texas is public land. Utah is 2/3 public land. I wish someone
would examine closely what happened in 1896 that allowed that to happen. This
website's recent article on that question gave a UTAH HISTORY ENCYCLOPEDIA
land summary that did not explain this at all. That original statehood
"deal" should be revisited by Utah officials and even challenged in
court. The feds wronged us then and we've paid for it ever since. This 2/3
"crime" explains why Utah can't fund education. UEA, of all
people, should be mad as hornets about that.
Matthew | 8:15 a.m. April 21, 2009
As a citizen of the USA I have a stake in those lands (along with every other
citizen else). Nobody better try to appropriate them for thier private,
selfish, shortsighted purposes. The lands belong to the people of the USA and
are therefore managed by the government of the USA.
The State of Utah entered the Union by an act of Congress. Selective reading (misreading) of history and the US Consitution doesn't change reality.
The Sage Brush Rebellion crowd is just one step (or less) removed from Timothy McVeigh.
The state of Utah has more private and/or state owned land than several of the states of the union. Its economy seems to be doing quite well under the existing arrangement.
Don't be fooled. The Sage Brush Rebellion is really about a land grab by a few selfish, greedy, and/or misguided people.
The State of Utah entered the Union by an act of Congress. Selective reading (misreading) of history and the US Consitution doesn't change reality.
The Sage Brush Rebellion crowd is just one step (or less) removed from Timothy McVeigh.
The state of Utah has more private and/or state owned land than several of the states of the union. Its economy seems to be doing quite well under the existing arrangement.
Don't be fooled. The Sage Brush Rebellion is really about a land grab by a few selfish, greedy, and/or misguided people.
Tuffy Parker | 8:23 a.m. April 21, 2009
Sign me up for the coalition! As the article states, the majority public land
in Utah is controlled by the federal government which in turn has it policy
directed primarily by special interest groups who have very little tie to Utah
or Utahns. If one were given access to the funding sources of groups like SUWA,
it would quickly be discovered that organizations and individuals with
leftist/socialist agendas are the primary benefactors those who eschew
government for the people, by the people and of the people in favor of
government of the people by the big government of self interest.
As a state, Utah (governed by Utahns) should have the right to determine our own policy. Anything less is in direct conflict with the states rights that our founding fathers envisioned and laid out in our foundational charter.
As a state, Utah (governed by Utahns) should have the right to determine our own policy. Anything less is in direct conflict with the states rights that our founding fathers envisioned and laid out in our foundational charter.
Satisfied? | 8:32 a.m. April 21, 2009
They will be satisfied when every extractable resource is extracted-when every
wildlife species only has value if it can be ranched or hunted. The bottom line
is money, and for all their rallying cries to the gullible, the citizens of Utah
will be the last to dip their fingers in that pot. Guess who gets to clean up
the mess?
1/36th | 8:33 a.m. April 21, 2009
The U.S. is divided into 1 mile square parcels. 1 of every 36th of those are
set aside as "school trust lands", and the procedes from the sale or
lease of those lands are to go to fund education. Except the federal government
is in effect appropriating those lands without compensation when they rule
against development of those lands.
Way to rob the kids of Utah, Salazar.
Way to rob the kids of Utah, Salazar.
Anonymous | 8:33 a.m. April 21, 2009
So Noel and his buddies want to "take back Utah." It always amazes
me how people whine about the government "locking up" lands in Utah;
but if you want to see lands that are really locked up, complete with fences and
security guards, go to the west side of the Salt Lake valley and try to hike in
the Oquirrhs. Wake up, you bunch of sheep; it's not the government,
it's the greedy fatcats like Noel and the rest of them who are using you to
get rich. Noel doesn't care about your access to public lands, he'll
use your anger at whatever to "take back Utah" so he can turn around
and sell it to his rich friends.
leave it alone | 8:34 a.m. April 21, 2009
utah is trashed out enough, this land is ours(all america) and i want it there,
i get there ..not no cow paddy and somanelli floating down the stream...!
sigh | 8:50 a.m. April 21, 2009
after reading all the post. I just dont care anymore.
Tuffy Parker | 8:51 a.m. April 21, 2009
Just read Matthew | 8:15 a.m. April 21, 2009. This is exactly the kind of
mentality that allows some moron in Massachusetts or Vermont, who will likely
never set foot in Utah, to drive policy that impacts me and every other citizen
of Utah.
If I recall history correctly, there was once a rebellion fueled by taxation on a group of people without meaningful representation in the formulation of policy. (Personally, I like the outcome of that rebellion.) Is the determination of land use policy without meaningful representation really any different?
Furthermore, I take offense to Matthews classification of this movement as being less than one step away from Timothy McVeigh. This kind of positioning by leftists is designed to divert meaningful discussion of substance by promoting fear. I wonder if Matthew makes the same judgement about anti-war protestors or Rocky Andersons public rants against G.W. Bush?
If I recall history correctly, there was once a rebellion fueled by taxation on a group of people without meaningful representation in the formulation of policy. (Personally, I like the outcome of that rebellion.) Is the determination of land use policy without meaningful representation really any different?
Furthermore, I take offense to Matthews classification of this movement as being less than one step away from Timothy McVeigh. This kind of positioning by leftists is designed to divert meaningful discussion of substance by promoting fear. I wonder if Matthew makes the same judgement about anti-war protestors or Rocky Andersons public rants against G.W. Bush?
jackjoh | 8:55 a.m. April 21, 2009
Ask the question, WHY. I want to keep public lands open for multiple use so I
can drive on existing roads and trails, see old ghost towns and mine sites, hike
and camp in the mountains and desert, drill for oil and gas so we have power and
are not dependent on foriegn imports, have access to low sulfur coal
(Escalante)to produce cleaner power, have open range for cattle raising, and
have a tax base for public schools.
Now ask the question WHY do some people want to close the land to these benefits?
Why some people will spend millions of dollars to save the whales, snail darter, spotted owl or a cactus but we kill thousands of human babies each year is unfathomable.
Now ask yourself the question WHY and be at the Rally August 8th.
Now ask the question WHY do some people want to close the land to these benefits?
Why some people will spend millions of dollars to save the whales, snail darter, spotted owl or a cactus but we kill thousands of human babies each year is unfathomable.
Now ask yourself the question WHY and be at the Rally August 8th.
Hatuletoh | 9:21 a.m. April 21, 2009
Candice Salima, one of the organizers is from Orem? I didn't realize there
was so much federally controlled land in Orem. I thought the rally was supposed
to be about "local control".
Speaking of local control, I just got back from visiting friends in Kanab and the surrounding areas, and I have to ask: what it is that can't be done on federal land that these folks want to do? I understand that some people want to drill for oil and gas, which requires supplicating to Lord Salazar and jumping through the government's hoops, but it's not as if the land can be farmed or grazed by anythingm, save maybe a few little goats. Not without using up every last drop of precious water, at least. In principle, I support the idea of "local autonomy", but not if the locals want to pillage the scant natural resources.
So what's the goal? Just more tea-baggin'? Man, Utahans sure do love to tea-bag.
Speaking of local control, I just got back from visiting friends in Kanab and the surrounding areas, and I have to ask: what it is that can't be done on federal land that these folks want to do? I understand that some people want to drill for oil and gas, which requires supplicating to Lord Salazar and jumping through the government's hoops, but it's not as if the land can be farmed or grazed by anythingm, save maybe a few little goats. Not without using up every last drop of precious water, at least. In principle, I support the idea of "local autonomy", but not if the locals want to pillage the scant natural resources.
So what's the goal? Just more tea-baggin'? Man, Utahans sure do love to tea-bag.
@ Matthew 8:15 | 9:49 a.m. April 21, 2009
This is exactly the kind of mentality that allows some moron in Massachusetts or
Vermont, who will likely never set foot in Utah, to drive policy that impacts me
and every other citizen of Utah.
If I recall history correctly, there was once a rebellion fueled by taxation on a group of people without meaningful representation in the formulation of policy. (Personally, I like the outcome of that rebellion.) Is the determination of land use policy without meaningful representation really any different?
Furthermore, I take offense to Matthews classification of this movement as being less than one step away from Timothy McVeigh. This kind of positioning by leftists is designed to divert meaningful discussion of substance by promoting fear. I wonder if Matthew feels the same way about anti-war protestors or Rocky Andersons public rants against G.W. Bush?
If I recall history correctly, there was once a rebellion fueled by taxation on a group of people without meaningful representation in the formulation of policy. (Personally, I like the outcome of that rebellion.) Is the determination of land use policy without meaningful representation really any different?
Furthermore, I take offense to Matthews classification of this movement as being less than one step away from Timothy McVeigh. This kind of positioning by leftists is designed to divert meaningful discussion of substance by promoting fear. I wonder if Matthew feels the same way about anti-war protestors or Rocky Andersons public rants against G.W. Bush?
BobP | 9:59 a.m. April 21, 2009
One way to counter Obama's socialist revolution is for those states who
oppose the idea to stickly adhere to the Constitution.
I remember a long time ago when BYU was investigated by HUD and found wanting (no co0ed dorms among other things) and was told its federal funding would be cut. They were able to respond that they don't get or want any federal funding.
I remember a long time ago when BYU was investigated by HUD and found wanting (no co0ed dorms among other things) and was told its federal funding would be cut. They were able to respond that they don't get or want any federal funding.
Anonymous | 10:22 a.m. April 21, 2009
the power is with the people...and who you vote into office.
the people of utah are no more greedy, or suckling than any other state.
other states just seem to have more influence than utah....so ask yourself WHY???
no one in washington pays attention when utah speaks. NO ONE>>>
the people of utah are no more greedy, or suckling than any other state.
other states just seem to have more influence than utah....so ask yourself WHY???
no one in washington pays attention when utah speaks. NO ONE>>>
Lame | 10:26 a.m. April 21, 2009
What a bunch of lame-o's. I mean, bah. How embarrassing.
Ah Geez | 10:56 a.m. April 21, 2009
Folks, I know that your narrow mindedness precludes this reality, but the
Constitution is not the only source of laws. If it was, we'd still be in
an 18th century mindset. There's something called the USC. Read it
please, all these things you seem to think aren't "legal"
actually are.
Josh | 11:37 a.m. April 21, 2009
Matthew and his ilk look at the actual acreage of a state like Utah and say,
"It has more private and state owned land than many other states."
Well duh! We have more acreage than most states. Look at percentages and then
paint the picture. We are nearly 50% federally managed. What is the percent of
land in most back east states that is federally managed?
History .... | 11:37 a.m. April 21, 2009
are you a little farmer? If not, are you an english professor or major at the U
of U? Maybe a poly science major? You should move to Washington if you have not
already. the Domos could use you there to expand the federal government.
Unconstitutional Laws | 12:30 p.m. April 21, 2009
Ah Geez said:
Folks, I know that your narrow mindedness precludes this reality, but the Constitution is not the only source of laws. If it was, we'd still be in an 18th century mindset. There's something called the USC. Read it please, all these things you seem to think aren't "legal" actually are.
If it is not supported by the Constitution then it is not legal. Ask yourself this question. How can a lesser law supersede the Constitution? You need to read the Constitution. It is not that difficult to understand. It might open your eyes.
Folks, I know that your narrow mindedness precludes this reality, but the Constitution is not the only source of laws. If it was, we'd still be in an 18th century mindset. There's something called the USC. Read it please, all these things you seem to think aren't "legal" actually are.
If it is not supported by the Constitution then it is not legal. Ask yourself this question. How can a lesser law supersede the Constitution? You need to read the Constitution. It is not that difficult to understand. It might open your eyes.
Lifelong Utahn | 12:30 p.m. April 21, 2009
I am not a "carpet-bagger" nor an "Eastern elite." I was
born in Provo and I live in a small rural farming town in Utah Valley. I have
lived in this valley my entire life (except for my two year mission). I am
curious as to how exactly these lands can be "taken back"? Since they
never actually belonged to the state of Utah (let alone the counties or private
interests), to whom are they being taken "back"? They belong to the
entire nation, including those darn easterners. Just imagine a scenario in which
the state of New York decided to "take back" Liberty Island because
they found a gold mine there, so they tear down the Statue of Liberty to develop
the land underneath. That makes just as much sense as Utah "taking
back" its federal public lands.
Here's a flash | 12:40 p.m. April 21, 2009
Note the name of the lands in questions. . . FEDERAL. This means that the land
belongs to EVERY citizen of the United States. Take Back Utah, what is that?
It's not Utah's to take back. Just because Rep. Noel, the Woolgrowers
Assn etc live closer to the land in question does not give them special control
or input on land use. The citizens of Boston and Chicago have the same interest
as the residents of Cedar City or Blanding. The "I'm going to take my
ball and go home" attitude of the right wing Cuckoo-Klux-Klan radicals will
not fly. The civil war is over as is the November election. We have a new
President and a new direction. Get used to it!
Doug Van Duker | 12:55 p.m. April 21, 2009
Dear History,
I disagree with others; your ignorance of history and the constitution are STUNNING!
1. Hill AFB, as well as the old steel mills in Provo, and the military supply depots in Clearfield and Ogden were built in Utah by the federal government to remove them from possible Japanese attack during WWII. It was self-interest--NOT, as you imply, some sort of federal largess.
2. How did 68% of Utah land wind up as Federal property? With NO constitutional support, the Federal government TOOK it. In 1974, lands previously taken by the Fed in TRUST, were converted to Federal OWNERSHIP--without ANY compensation.
3. The Fed owns ~60% of land West of the Mississippi (exception: TX). East of the river; >2%.
How about the next time there is a major flood, we sell off some land in Utah and fund an estuary in a state with NO national monument land, national park, national forest, wildlife reserves or BLM land? Surely there must be SOME land in the Mid-west and East that is deserving of being partitioned off by the Fed so that it is preserved for the enjoyment of future generations of Park Rangers only.
I disagree with others; your ignorance of history and the constitution are STUNNING!
1. Hill AFB, as well as the old steel mills in Provo, and the military supply depots in Clearfield and Ogden were built in Utah by the federal government to remove them from possible Japanese attack during WWII. It was self-interest--NOT, as you imply, some sort of federal largess.
2. How did 68% of Utah land wind up as Federal property? With NO constitutional support, the Federal government TOOK it. In 1974, lands previously taken by the Fed in TRUST, were converted to Federal OWNERSHIP--without ANY compensation.
3. The Fed owns ~60% of land West of the Mississippi (exception: TX). East of the river; >2%.
How about the next time there is a major flood, we sell off some land in Utah and fund an estuary in a state with NO national monument land, national park, national forest, wildlife reserves or BLM land? Surely there must be SOME land in the Mid-west and East that is deserving of being partitioned off by the Fed so that it is preserved for the enjoyment of future generations of Park Rangers only.
Ah Geez | 2:39 p.m. April 21, 2009
To Unconstitutional Laws: Thanks for the name calling and berating. Real
mature. Actually, you made my point for me. I didn't say that a lesser
law supersedes the Constitution. Previous posters were stating "it
isn't in the Constitution so therefore it's not a law!"
That's simply not true. I've read the Constitution many a time.
Please, if you want to have a debate on the issues, be mature. This
doesn't need to be like a high school popularity contest.
Shadow knows | 2:53 p.m. April 21, 2009
Lots of church vs. outside govt. views here today, mascarading as facts.
"History" has it right. Utah joined the Union, 1896? January? When
it did, it gave up its little state of dessert idea and status. It gulped, and
become a state of the greatest nation on the face of the earth. But now the
greedy think they are needy and they want to turn back the clock.
Imagine what would happen if Utah's southern boys and their toys got control of Utah. Imagine the pollution from the dryland drilling. Greed and need are getting all mixed up.
Ah, facts. Never let them get in the way of knowledge of political systems. I vaguely recall a petition passed in Provo Utah after Pearl Harbor was attacked, and it was against the US Steel corporation building Geneva (think steel, war)because the Mormons wanted their little valley to themselves. Sure, they wanted the Americans outside Utah to die for them, to keep the freedoms, but they did not want the big bad world to come to Zion. Look it up. Oh, yes, look it up.
Welcome to the Union, guys and gals. Welcome to the Union.
The Shadow Knows.
Imagine what would happen if Utah's southern boys and their toys got control of Utah. Imagine the pollution from the dryland drilling. Greed and need are getting all mixed up.
Ah, facts. Never let them get in the way of knowledge of political systems. I vaguely recall a petition passed in Provo Utah after Pearl Harbor was attacked, and it was against the US Steel corporation building Geneva (think steel, war)because the Mormons wanted their little valley to themselves. Sure, they wanted the Americans outside Utah to die for them, to keep the freedoms, but they did not want the big bad world to come to Zion. Look it up. Oh, yes, look it up.
Welcome to the Union, guys and gals. Welcome to the Union.
The Shadow Knows.
interesting phrase | 3:02 p.m. April 21, 2009
Take back utah? Who stole it? Utah joined the nation. Or did she?
Shadow seems to have it right on the money. Need and greed are all mixed up here. Utahns are not oil barons, but the oil barons are under the covers of this movement.
Utahns do not need more air pollution from the south, winds blow from the west and south for central utah a good share of the time, and letting the oil barons, intern. oil barons, do it is a bad joke to the health of the people of my state.
Buy political posturing is good for the soul, I guess. Stand up and kick the feds in the knee cap if you can. But don't take any more money from them for roads, universities, etc. Why... that would be hypocritical....... no?
Shadow seems to have it right on the money. Need and greed are all mixed up here. Utahns are not oil barons, but the oil barons are under the covers of this movement.
Utahns do not need more air pollution from the south, winds blow from the west and south for central utah a good share of the time, and letting the oil barons, intern. oil barons, do it is a bad joke to the health of the people of my state.
Buy political posturing is good for the soul, I guess. Stand up and kick the feds in the knee cap if you can. But don't take any more money from them for roads, universities, etc. Why... that would be hypocritical....... no?
Abominous | 3:51 p.m. April 21, 2009
Josh | 11:37 a.m. asks:
We are nearly 50% federally managed. What is the percent of land in most back east states that is federally managed?
Answer: Very, very little. Back East, almost all the land is private. Try riding your off-road toys back there and see how far you get. Want to go camping? Hope you like KOA.
Thank goodness for our public lands and for the people willing to stand up and defend them against Mike Noel and others who would like to grab these lands for their personal use and profit.
We are nearly 50% federally managed. What is the percent of land in most back east states that is federally managed?
Answer: Very, very little. Back East, almost all the land is private. Try riding your off-road toys back there and see how far you get. Want to go camping? Hope you like KOA.
Thank goodness for our public lands and for the people willing to stand up and defend them against Mike Noel and others who would like to grab these lands for their personal use and profit.
Raffle | 4:36 p.m. April 21, 2009
The US government owns the land. They have property rights.
Utah politicians have no say. Our federal representatives in Congress only have as much say as the representatives in any other state.
They own the land to do with it what they will.
Utah politicians have no say. Our federal representatives in Congress only have as much say as the representatives in any other state.
They own the land to do with it what they will.
KV2 | 4:55 p.m. April 21, 2009
Once more for right-wingers: If you want that land, then pay the fair market
value for it, including the minerals that lie beneth.
Why is it that any time the radical right-wing dosen't get its way, they always play the victim card? Our way of life, our values, blah, blah, blah. It's the same old, tired, familiar whining.
And let's be clear, Salazar stoping those leases was the right thing to do! Let's give more leases to those who would come in, drill and then ship their product to another country? Please!
Radicals like Noel play the victim anytime someone stands up and challenges their crazy beliefs that all public land belongs to them and they should be able to do whatever they want with it.
Mike Noel is a joke! Kanab should be embarrased to have such representation. Look out Buttars, Noel's right on your heels for the most crazy Utah Politician!
Why is it that any time the radical right-wing dosen't get its way, they always play the victim card? Our way of life, our values, blah, blah, blah. It's the same old, tired, familiar whining.
And let's be clear, Salazar stoping those leases was the right thing to do! Let's give more leases to those who would come in, drill and then ship their product to another country? Please!
Radicals like Noel play the victim anytime someone stands up and challenges their crazy beliefs that all public land belongs to them and they should be able to do whatever they want with it.
Mike Noel is a joke! Kanab should be embarrased to have such representation. Look out Buttars, Noel's right on your heels for the most crazy Utah Politician!
sagebrushrebel | 5:04 p.m. April 21, 2009
Take back Utah means telling the federal government that the equal footing
doctrine of the constitution means Utah deserves to manage the land within her
boundaries. That Utah citizens get to have the say in how we access these lands.
That Utah citizens own the water, the RS2477 roads, the 50% of the mineral
royalties from oil and gas development, the wildlife and on an on. Many of the
posts critized Noel for his stand on public lands, the Utah citizens rather that
elitists environmentalists and their federal bureaucratic DC buddies dont have
the right to take away the use of public lands in Utah. Come to the rally.
Support state sovereignty.
To Lifelong | 12:30 | 5:40 p.m. April 21, 2009
Thanks for making my point!
Liberty Island is owned by the Federal Government because it was bought and paid for from its original private owners. The State of New York still retains jurisdiction over it, Federal jurisdiction is limited to "proprietary jurisdiction," like the Federal courthouse in SLC.
Liberty Island is owned by the Federal Government because it was bought and paid for from its original private owners. The State of New York still retains jurisdiction over it, Federal jurisdiction is limited to "proprietary jurisdiction," like the Federal courthouse in SLC.
Take back Utah? | 7:16 p.m. April 21, 2009
Only if it's a coalition of Native Americans does this make any sense.
What's the real motive here? | 8:12 p.m. April 21, 2009
Why is anyone assuming that the state of Utah could, or would, manage these
federal lands any more effectively than the federal government has?
And could someone please cite specific regulations or laws that prevent the individual citizens of Utah (or any other state for that matter) from enjoying/accessing the vast majority of federal lands?
Other than access for "development" what would change as the result of the transfer of federal lands to state ownership? Or is this, as I suspect, all about local greed and selfishness?
And could someone please cite specific regulations or laws that prevent the individual citizens of Utah (or any other state for that matter) from enjoying/accessing the vast majority of federal lands?
Other than access for "development" what would change as the result of the transfer of federal lands to state ownership? Or is this, as I suspect, all about local greed and selfishness?
Patterson family loves Utah #1 | 9:06 p.m. April 21, 2009
I am proud to say that I grew up in Utah most of my life. I love the state,
the outdoors and the wilderness. My family came over with the pioneers and most
of the offspring is still in Utah.
Utah currently has the smallest percentage of designated wilderness of any Western State. Please dont think that every acre in the state should be destroyed. Please preserve some of it for future generations.
Utah currently has the smallest percentage of designated wilderness of any Western State. Please dont think that every acre in the state should be destroyed. Please preserve some of it for future generations.
Patterson family loves Utah #2 | 9:07 p.m. April 21, 2009
2. How did 68% of Utah land wind up as Federal property? With NO constitutional
support, the Federal government TOOK it.
Here is the history for the ignorant people who keep mentioning 1896 which had NO BEARING on wilderness or private vs public lands. Here is the TRUTH:
The final creation of the BLM was in 1946. This was because after 1934, congress proposed to give Western States control of all the "unwanted lands" from the 1934 Taylor Grazing Act and other previous mining and other usage laws. The intermountain western states (especially Utah, Arizona, and Nevada) strongly refused, and the governors from those states actually wrote up a huge petition saying that "We already have enough desert". The BLM was created in 1946 from these "left over" and "unwanted lands". The states refused control of the land and GAVE IT to the Federal Government.
The state of Utah didn't want those lands. They (intentionally) gave them to all Americans. People from out of state pay Federal taxes too. Why shouldn't they get any say involving Federal lands belonging to them?
Here is the history for the ignorant people who keep mentioning 1896 which had NO BEARING on wilderness or private vs public lands. Here is the TRUTH:
The final creation of the BLM was in 1946. This was because after 1934, congress proposed to give Western States control of all the "unwanted lands" from the 1934 Taylor Grazing Act and other previous mining and other usage laws. The intermountain western states (especially Utah, Arizona, and Nevada) strongly refused, and the governors from those states actually wrote up a huge petition saying that "We already have enough desert". The BLM was created in 1946 from these "left over" and "unwanted lands". The states refused control of the land and GAVE IT to the Federal Government.
The state of Utah didn't want those lands. They (intentionally) gave them to all Americans. People from out of state pay Federal taxes too. Why shouldn't they get any say involving Federal lands belonging to them?
Oh Please | 10:10 p.m. April 21, 2009
The U.S. government owns the land. AS the landowner, they should and do have the
right to decide what to do with it. Unless our "conservative" friends
want to abrogate the concept of land ownership.
Anonymous | 10:24 p.m. April 21, 2009
What word in "public land" do Utahans have such a hard time
understanding? This is why Americans are taxed to pay for wildfires in Utah and
to built new visitor centers that promote Utah tourism. On the subject of paying
federal taxes Utahans get $1.28 for every dollar Utahans pay in. It's
enough Americans carry Utah but could you get your spurs out of our backs?
5th Gen Utahn | 5:03 p.m. April 22, 2009
"Take it Back?" The environment-hating good ole boy redneck land
rapers never "gave it up." It;s time to act through congress to
protect what short sighted Utards will surely destroy.
chip | 6:55 p.m. April 27, 2009
What is forgotten is that all roads in the U S are public unless you can
prove by title other wise most law suits are ill-informed and are poorly
constructed one of the chief reasons states preform so poorly is they have
constructed law that are unconstitutional.
I have reconstructed the laws governing public roads from the beginning of time and fail to see why
counties would spend thousands of hard earned tax dollars on opinion that are not worth the paper they
are written on
I have reconstructed the laws governing public roads from the beginning of time and fail to see why
counties would spend thousands of hard earned tax dollars on opinion that are not worth the paper they
are written on
I want it back! | 12:34 a.m. June 13, 2009
I grew up in Utah. Spent my childhood hiking, camping, fishing in the Ashley
National forest. Some of my best childhood memories. Recently I wanted to take
my 4 year old grandson fishing. That was a joke. Every road to a lake, pond,
etc was closed and locked. I also noticed that many of the designated camping
spots were also closed off. Having public lands IS preserving the wilderness
for us, our children, grandchildren and their children to enjoy. Now they have
it all locked up so the only ones who get to enjoy it are the little critters
living there. Sure there needs to be regulations over it, but it should be
regulations made by the people of Utah. Not some one in Washington who jsut
wants to make a buck. I want my PUBLIC use of PUBLIC lands back. That was my
understanding of what this was about
Pat | 7:44 a.m. June 13, 2009
As a former Utah Resident I grow more and more disheartened by what Utah has
become. My hometown of Tooele you can barely go up in the Mountains anymore
since they have sold it to Kennocot, so that they can decimate the natural
resources. Settlement and Middle Canyon's in Tooele for example. The
argument for allowing the state to have control over it would only allow the
state to further try to profit off the land. Without the Government intervention
would we even have some of the wonders to show our children?
Add your comment
Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.
Words Remaining
E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.
- Warming fuels hidden wealth 9:44 a.m.
- 4 relatives shot dead on holiday 9:42 a.m.
- Criminal probe on party crashers? 9:40 a.m.
- Crashers posed no danger to Obama 9:37 a.m.
- Dubai seeks to assure markets 9:36 a.m.
- Iran censured at UN nuclear meeting 9:34 a.m.
- Sprinter took steriods to be fastest 9:34 a.m.
- Shoppers rev up holiday season 9:32 a.m.
- Shoppers 'experience' Black Friday 8:39 a.m.
- World markets fear Dubai debt 8:13 a.m.
- BYU would like friendlier rivalry
262 - Protests against Phoenix LDS temple211
- RSL wins MLS Cup on penalty kicks202
- Bronco, Kyle rubber match139
- Thunder rolls by Jazz136
- Letters: Rushing to judge Palin133
- Boys basketball rankings118
- Editorial: Poor welcome for Palin112
- Hall, Johnson matchup key102
- Man trapped in Nutty Putty cave dies101
Latest comments
Good luck to both teams and may both teams' fans applaud good plays and think...
Waaaah! It's all in fun. If you are looking to be offended, you will be...
People are so childish and apparently ignorant that they will sign up the...
Thanks to the Deseret News for posting this each year. It is a great service...
As much as some Utah fans would like to think so, Utah isn't nearly as good...
Hey Anonymous~ If you were active LDS you would know that hundreds, if not...
Smith--what do you have against libraries? Have you been in the Farmington...
Could I really the first person to comment on this story? Booz really D-will...
Bub, wow that was quaint. Is the Mtn. still broadcasting in Standard Def,...
Is that a word? See the "uneducated" posts in other articles. Exhibit B
Advertisements