Quantcast
Utah

Sparks fly on Capitol hill during BLM director's visit to Utah

Comments

Return To Article
  • Uncle Charles Where freedom and liberty reign, utah
    Jan. 17, 2011 3:23 p.m.

    @Dukie: you try so hard to be "above" the fray but you just can't help yourself with each of your posts. You claim to be independent but just constantly rip the Right and support the Left.

    There is a clear case to be made that Obama is a Marxist and using his own words to do it.

    The word is fair, not fare or perhaps that was a Freudian slip on your part since you are for taking our money to buy votes for your causes.

    ---

    As for the land grab, I say we just tell the BLM to take a hike and reclaim it as state land. Afterall, that's exactly what they do in the name of taking more and more state land. Just tell the Feds to shove it and we will do with our land, within our state boundaries, as we wish.

  • OpenToDiscussion Holladay, UT
    Jan. 16, 2011 9:24 p.m.

    Hey justamacguy, some people like me go to the land for peace and solitude and whining machines destroys that experience. Having less then 20% of the land set aside for that experience is not fair. Also wilderness means clean air and water available to those living around the wilderness areas. This is proven. The BLM land in Utah belongs to the people of the United States, not just those in Utah.

  • justamacguy Manti, UT
    Jan. 16, 2011 12:48 a.m.

    #1: OHV use is mutually exclusive to all other uses of the land.

    No it isn't... only in your mind.

    #2: Remember wilderness is beneficial, even if you never set foot on the land.

    Wilderness in nice... but not necessarily beneficial. Beneficial is a defined use, just like "wilderness characteristics". It depends a a person's point of view which may totally differ from the next persons perception. ...and something that I do not set foot on or gain something form directly or indirectly is not beneficial. I'm living just fine without the dodo bird or the dinosaurs. I can probably live adequately or even better without wilderness. Especially if I have never visited or will never get to visit it.

  • OpenToDiscussion Holladay, UT
    Jan. 15, 2011 9:25 p.m.

    Less then 20% of the BLM land in Carbon and Emery counties is closed to OHV use. Clearly much more protection is necessary to come close to the "balanced use" that the trail machine and corporate use groups speak about. OHV use is mutually exclusive to all other uses of the land. Remember wilderness is beneficial, even if you never set foot on the land.

  • Gr8Dane Tremonton, UT
    Jan. 15, 2011 7:16 p.m.

    I was amused to see Pat Shea get huffy and leave the meeting because Jim Hansen was invited to speak. Typical liberals who are tolerant only of those who hold their own liberal viewpoints! Jim Hansen had just as much basis to be there as Pat Shea... in fact even more so. Jim Hansen was expert on public lands for 22 years as Congressional chairman of public lands committee. Pat Shea was only BLM director under CLinton for about a year if I'm not mistaken. Before that time, Pat didn't have much basis in public lands policy at all.

  • wrz SLC, Utah
    Jan. 15, 2011 6:04 p.m.

    @Furry1993 1:27 p.m.:

    Where is what you posted, covered in the Constitution? If you recall reading the US Constitution, you will remember that the powers of the federal government are specific, listed, and limited. All other powers are given to the states and the people. I see nothing in there that allows the fed to acquire land (except for Post Offices and post roads, and for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings).

    Thirteen Original States were organized and in existence when the Constitution was written and signed. Those states should own all the land within each state (except that which was owned by private parties in those states and as allowed for above). None of the property should have reverted to the federal government in those states. This same procedure should apply to all states organized after that. Anything else is in violation of the Constitution, it would seem.

    PS: Why were tribal lands excluded?

  • Blaine Cedar City, UT
    Jan. 15, 2011 5:35 p.m.

    Much of the federal land across Utah and the West where my parents and grandparents took me hiking, camping, fishing, and hunting back in the '50s and '60s was accessible by car. Today, most of those old roads are still in excellent condition -- good enough for a Lincoln Town Car. But, thanks to the radicals that infest the BLM, National Forest Service, Sierra Club, SUWA, etc., those roads have been barricaded against all motor vehicle travel since the Clinton-Gore days. Now that I'm a disabled veteran in my 60s, I can no longer take my grandchildren on those memorable roads. Now, the BLM plans to remove even more public land from full public access. Itll be accessible only to healthy young adults. That is outrageous and unacceptable. The public land belongs to the people not the BLM, National Forest Service, and especially not to the Sierra Club, SUWA, etc. The BLM and the National Forest service have a duty to manage federal land for all the people not lock it up for a special few. Utah, wake up!

  • Neanderthal SLC, Utah
    Jan. 15, 2011 5:32 p.m.

    @Demo Dave:

    "All you anti-enviros may one day thank the environmental community for saving some of the Earth's most beautiful places from the wilderness marauders and the oil baron hucksters..."

    Thank you for your concerns. I like it when I'm able to go to the North Slope and view millions of square miles the tundra... which I've done... ZERO times.

    If you are so concerned about the environment, you need to park your car and never drive it again. And while you're at it, turn the heat in your house down to... zero. If/when you do that, I will know you're serious.

  • Runner4 Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 15, 2011 5:31 p.m.

    Once land has been 'used', there is absolutely no guarantee that it will be possible to return it to its natural state. Utah is lucky enough to have some of the best scenery in the country, including the redrock in the south, and the Uintas in the north. The Uintas are one of the few places in the country where one can spend a week backpacking, and during that week only see two roads - the road to the trailhead at the beginning of the trek, and the road to the trailhead at the end of the trek. If it takes federal regulation to preserve the land Utah is lucky enough to have, why resist? Opening land to public, recreational use is fun, but even if 99% of the users are responsible and stay on the trails, the other 1% can and will ruin it for the 99%. An example of this is when some yahoo decides to run a vehicle up the side of a mountain, causing a lot of erosion and defacing the mountain, rather than staying on the trail where the vehicle should be. And don't get me started on industrial destruction of the land.

  • Furry1993 Somewhere in Utah, UT
    Jan. 15, 2011 1:27 p.m.

    to Miss Piggie | 11:11 a.m. Jan. 15, 2011

    Here's how it works.

    Prior to statehood, the federal government is the owner of all of the land located within the state-to-be (with the exception of tribal lands). Over time the federal government will convey title to some of the land to individuals, but generally will retain ownership of the majority of it. When the state becomes a state, the federal government will convey title to parts (generally over 50%) of the land to the state government, but retains title to some of the land (land in which it believes it has an interest necessary to preserve for itself). As with any other real estate transactions, ownership remains vested in the original entity (the federal government) until that entity conveys out its interest.

    The BLM manages the land in Utah owned by the federal government. Like it or not, the BLM has every right to manage the land in Utah owned by the federal government. This isn't an issue of control, it's an issue of ownership.

  • MCFergy Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 15, 2011 1:22 p.m.

    @ Demo Dave; to label all people who promote responsible economic development and recreation as 'anti-enviros' is at best disingenuous. They're not proposing ATV trails over and under the Delicate Arch or off shore drilling in the Utah Lake Wetland Preserve.

    Government has always been long on legislation and short on oversight! Utah can prosper with responsible use of OUR Utah lands by ensuring that reclamation and restoration is the end game of economic use.

    Land preservation and use, or exploitation as you prefer, can coexist and oversight is the key. Many 'anti-enviros,' as you label them, reject the notion that our most beautiful sites would be diminished. Perhaps they simply do not eat as many granola bars as you do?

  • Grandma Char Kaysville, UT
    Jan. 15, 2011 1:19 p.m.

    How much more of Utah's land should the feds have? I believe we cannot afford to give them anymore. I wonder if the environmentalists and liberals know exactly who is calling the shots in this country and why. My guess is you do not.

    Do some research and see what it is George Soros wants...and how often he has the ear of the President. It might help you if you are humble enough to learn.

  • Demo Dave Holladay, UT
    Jan. 15, 2011 12:39 p.m.

    All you anti-enviros may one day thank the environmental community for saving some of the Earth's most beautiful places from the wilderness marauders and the oil baron hucksters who will have claimed it, raped it, and handed it back to you with all of its intrinsic value and beauty destroyed. Have you ever seen a strip mine, hilltop coal removal, or a tar sands or oil shale project? Is that what you want Utah to look like? Keep voting for Gary Herbert and that's exactly what you'll get.

  • 80 year old woman Wenatchee, Wa
    Jan. 15, 2011 12:34 p.m.

    Utah, I live in the state of Washington, and believe me I sincerely your taking a stand to support property rights----For those of you old enough to remember, about 20 years ago during the Clinton-Gore administration----we had Bruce Babbitt incuring the "War on the West!" Now it is happening again. Each and every state in the United States needs to take a stand and stand up against federal government takeovers (healthcare or land) Please read the Constitution and discover that a federation of states was created----not a dictatorship from Washington, D.C.

  • MCFergy Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 15, 2011 12:01 p.m.

    Kathleen Clarke, There is no certainty and we will see industry flee this state. The economy of the Uinta Basin has been flipped flat on its face, by the Department of the Interior and their decision to default on oil leases.

    Pre Obama Administration 400+ leases existed. After federal review 50+ were given a thumbs-up. Interim review, hundreds of trucks and drilling rigs sat idle. Post review and reassessment by petro companies, trucks and rigs disappeared overnight, reappeared in states like North Dakota and Montana.

    The DI killed thousands of jobs in the Uinta Basin, sending businesses reeling and ended flowing tax revenues and cash injections, from the petroleum industry into our State, now being absorbed by states other than Utah.

    Perhaps a handful of the 400+ granted leases should be recalled, but the 87% federal hack-job on those grants adversely affected the balance sheet of most businesses and every individual residing in the Uinta Basin.

    Add carte blanche federal wild land grabbing to the federal recant on oil leases and the Uinta Basin was hit with a fed-nuclear economic bomb. Perhaps the Uinta Basin could be appropriately renamed the Uinta Basin Federal Test Range.

  • Mr. Bean SLC, Utah
    Jan. 15, 2011 11:43 a.m.

    @AnH:

    "Every bit of land that's been protected has given much back to our culture."

    What we need right now more than 'culture' is oil.

    "I'd like to see the part of Marx you're referring to."

    Try this: 'Economic and political theories of Karl Marx hold that capitalism will ultimately be superseded by communism and the government will own everything.'

    ------

    @owlmaster2:

    "I really feel sorry for those of you that stand on the Constitution and have never read it or even understand its meaning."

    I'd like to see where in the Constitution the government is permitted to own any land (except for the District of Columbia).

    "If all Federal lands were released tomorrow who do you think would end up owning most of it IF NOT ALL???"

    As it now stands, China has a fair chance of owning most if not all of federal lands anyway... since they hold most of our $14 trillon federal debt which is on the verge of defaulting... and which China could insist on taking in settlement.

  • Zona Zone Mesa, AZ
    Jan. 15, 2011 11:37 a.m.

    A Republican is allowed to speak, and a Democrat storms out of the room. How can they even lecture us on civility when they refuse to listen to us?

  • Orem Parent Orem, UT
    Jan. 15, 2011 11:35 a.m.

    We the people are once again stuck between a rock and a hard place.

    Have the feds take over our land as "wilderness" or leave it in the hands of our state legislators who will do everything they can to keep it all away from our kids and their schools.

    We the people are going to lose.

  • Miss Piggie SLC, Utah
    Jan. 15, 2011 11:11 a.m.

    @Recommendations: 4 dumprake:

    "We should be going the other direction on this issue, and removing lands from federal control."

    How is it that the federal government owns land in any state (except for national parks, of course)? It would seem only fair and correct that states would own the land within the borders of their respective states. Inquiring minds wanna know.

  • Duckhunter American Fork, UT
    Jan. 15, 2011 10:32 a.m.

    I enjoy public lands and have no desire to sell them off so that they are al privately held. I also have no desire to turn another acre of them into wilderness, parks or monuments.

    I want them open for multiple uses that include all recreational uses and industrial uses. The philosophy that used land is ruined land is ridiculous in my opinion.

    I will give the enviromental movement credit in that it has raised awareness of the proper uses of public lands but much like labor unions that raised awareness of labor conditions it has now decended into an self perpetuating, and money grubbing, joke.

    I think awareness has been raised to the point most of us see the value in not simply strip mining every square inch of the state but of course most of us are still level headed enough to realize having dirt roads, access and multiple uses doesn't "ruin" things either.

    Sadly the radicals on the left seem to be the ones that drive the agenda from their side.

  • Linus Bountiful, UT
    Jan. 15, 2011 10:27 a.m.

    It is sad that so many Americans are so ignorant of the Constitution of the United States. It is also sad that so many are ignorant of Marxist history and the lessons of its failure. And it is sad that so much of Utah's lands are off of the tax rolls, since property taxes educate our children.

    It is so typical for environmentalists to place the welfare of a slug ahead of the welfare of the human race.

    What would happen if each state were asked to preserve one acre of wilderness per capita of human population. States should have equal rights to their land, and citizens of one state should not have dominion over the lands of another state unless they own and pay taxes upon said land.

  • Jash Clearfield, UT
    Jan. 15, 2011 10:19 a.m.

    Re: VST

    Nowhere in the constitution is there authority to create land preserves. Neither is there authority own lands within the borders of a state (excepting the second to last paragraph of article I, section 8.)

  • Where do eggs come from Sandy, Ut
    Jan. 15, 2011 10:19 a.m.

    It is clear that a lot of people don't know where eggs come from.

  • KM Cedar Hills, UT
    Jan. 15, 2011 9:08 a.m.

    utahbluedevil
    I was going to consider your words until you said that "marxists have not taken over our country," after that I could'nt read any more of what you have to say because you are in such a state of denial that you have become blind.
    No wonder the people of this country sent a strong message to "the marxist in charge" this last election. Enough federal abuse of power!!!

  • scottpehrson Monticello, utah
    Jan. 15, 2011 8:32 a.m.

    What is all this crap aboout the land belonging to "all the people". I wonder how successful an effort by westerners to dictate any sort of land use terms, i.e. "ownership", to the eastern states would be. This is nothing but a land grab, pure and simple. I agree with intelligent regulation of our federal lands but the descisions should be made at the state level. If you don't like what is done at that level then it is alot easier to effect change through the ballot box than try to change things that are dictated by political appointees at the federal level. Salazar is a flaming lib and beholding to the libs that got Obama elected. All else is BS

  • FreeMan Heber City, UT
    Jan. 15, 2011 8:30 a.m.

    My2Cents "All the land in Utah belongs to the federal government"

    You are exactly wrong. Our country was founded on the premise that all powers reside in the states and the federal government only gets what the constitution and the states explicitly give it.

  • pat1 Taylorsville, UT
    Jan. 15, 2011 8:03 a.m.

    One downside of living in a beautiful state with its unusual topography is that people on a national level forget that those of us who live here have to make a living.

    Our redrock and semi-arid land looks unique to everyone else, and we have encouraged that through our tourism and through encouraging the western movies to be made here, especially in the 1930s through the early 1960s. While that wasn't wrong,it seems to have perpetuated an idyllic view that most of the land must be preserved in a mythical pristine state for future generations. I guess that would make sense if no one lived here, and Utah were just a monument for others to view.

  • KDave Moab, UT
    Jan. 15, 2011 6:57 a.m.

    As they say, elections have consecenses. Oboma won and the Wild Ones "donated

  • Elcapitan Ivins, UT
    Jan. 15, 2011 6:47 a.m.

    Sounds like the reception committee was on the job.
    thanks Governor Herbert for being on our side. We need to keep these take over freaks under control.

    I was at the Condor release years ago when one of these easterners told me, "You Utah people need to realize this is not your land, it belongs to everyone". that told me something about how enviornmentalists feel in general....forget Utah's needs. Most of them live in states where there is little or no Federal land. they should put their efforts where they live. Condemn large parcels and destroy what they have built on their own wilderness. I love Utah wilderness and the people that make their livings on, and around it. good for the Gevernaor and the people of Utah who elected him big time. We knew what we were doing.

  • My2Cents Kearns, UT
    Jan. 15, 2011 4:29 a.m.

    When ever there is a major policy change it is natural all previous policies are nullified. It should not have surprised this State or the Governor at all.

    All the land in Utah belongs to the federal government and the country, the states are the wards of the land. And at the discretion of the BLM and federal controls decides its uses. Its the only way there can be any meaningful interstate controls so one state doesn't overpower another state. Land use agreements are zoning laws that owners control, not titles of ownership. The state should understand full well the meaning of zoning laws, they use them at will to steal land.

    Utah is out of water, and we are out of our element trying to develop as if there was no limits to resources to support over development.

    I speak for myself and I am tired of these idiots who keep trying to blame watchdog organization of land use out of context and misinformation as my voice. You don't have to belong to any group to know right from wrong and greed. Greed is the enemy, and I hate those who live by it.

  • VA Saint Chester, VA
    Jan. 15, 2011 3:55 a.m.

    What's the point of making an agreement (2003) and then not sticking to it? The Federal government is wrong on this.

  • Toonces the Cat Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 15, 2011 12:54 a.m.

    I want more Government in my life! I also want the Sierra Club and SUWA deciding what is best for me. I have no brain.

  • NT Springville, UT
    Jan. 14, 2011 11:24 p.m.

    DC, SUWA, Sierra Club and others like them obviously know what's best for Utah - and the West.

  • aUtahn pleasant grove, utah
    Jan. 14, 2011 10:06 p.m.

    Thanks to Amy and the Deseret News for this story. It would be informative if the D-News would run as a follow up an unbiased presentation of what the future ramifications might be if the BLM has their way. Consequences exist on both sides of this issue and it would be helpful for all us Joe Citizens to know what they are. An asside. I find it very appropriate that Jim Hansen was ask to give an oppinion. The man has experience here.

  • 10CC Bountiful, UT
    Jan. 14, 2011 9:09 p.m.

    Newslover is right - very difficult to trust our Legislators when the temptations to abuse their power and misuse natural resources is so proximate. I'd rather have professional scientists far removed make less biased decisions.

  • newslover Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 14, 2011 7:11 p.m.

    In this case... more Fed regulationis better... less state involvement... state legislaters have proven they are not responsible enought to make decisions... too much greed and personal motives.

  • mornixuur Layton, UT
    Jan. 14, 2011 7:03 p.m.

    If we somehow have to do it in the shadows than it is probably not the right thing to do, Herbert said.
    -------

    Can we expect the Governor to remember those words, when the bills come through which had no meaningful debate other than behind closed Republican caucus doors....

    I wish I could hope for that. But i can't.

  • oldmanwinter SLC, UT
    Jan. 14, 2011 6:59 p.m.

    I was at the meeting. The questions were fair and balanced until Noel got his turn. He used incorrect and inflammatory language. As a republican ORV user I was appalled by this republican whine-fest. Clark brought all sorts of unrelated issues to the table and seamed to forget about the millions of acres all set for energy resources that aren't proposed as wilderness. Also, those who think this was a land grab may have forgotten that the land already belongs to the AMERICAN people not just Utah, and that the BLM already manages it. Also this "new" policy only restores authority they have had for years until recently. And they cannot simply designate official wilderness under this new policy.

  • owlmaster2 Kaysville, UT
    Jan. 14, 2011 6:53 p.m.

    Define Marxist Dumbrake!! If you truly knew you wouldn't be using it.

    Oh ye of little minds and tiny hearts.

    I really feel sorry for those of you that stand on the Constitution and have never read it or even understand its meaning.

    I feel sorry for those of you that say baaaaa baaaaa and follow the lead sheep and don't know why you are following, other than the lead sheep baaaaaa's the loudest.

    We need a strong Federal Government. If all Federal lands were released tomorrow who do you think would end up owning most of it IF NOT ALL??? Not anyone reading this. You don't have the money it would take. To top that off, where are you going go fish, camp and hunt once there are no Federal lands?? The private owner isn't going to let you on his land to hunt or fish or camp. BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR!!!!!

  • AnH Salt Lake City, Utah
    Jan. 14, 2011 6:38 p.m.

    I don't want to be rude, dumprake, but there's very little in your tirade that shows you've educated yourself about the issue. While you rail against the feds, you say nothing about the ecological implications of wilderness, and certainly you're not thinking about future generations. Every bit of land that's been protected has given much back to our culture. Add to this healthy watersheds and wildlife corridors and we're talking about a big deal. I'd like to see the part of Marx you're referring to. A passage or quote would go a long way in helping you prove your point.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Jan. 14, 2011 6:26 p.m.

    dumprake - I was reading your comments up to the point of " The Marxist leading this country...." which was the signal to now ignore everything else you have to say. It is too bad, because you might have some valid points, but so long as you feel the need to resort to name calling, it is clear your comments will not be balanced nor fare.

    It is too bad, you might have had some good points.

  • dumprake Toquerville, UT
    Jan. 14, 2011 5:03 p.m.

    The people in this country had better wise up to what's going on. The Marxists leading this country view real property as something citizens and states should not have, but the federal government should own or control it all. This charade of "inventorying federal lands for wilderness designation" is only one of many ways environmentalists use to take control of large chunks of land. Obama and the Democrats (Democrats for decades) are in bed with the environmentalists and give them carte blanche access to this process. There is absolutely no need for any more public lands, and certainly not any more wilderness areas. We should be going the other direction on this issue, and removing lands from federal control

  • owlmaster2 Kaysville, UT
    Jan. 14, 2011 4:51 p.m.

    Why was Jim Hansen even at the meeting?? And more to the point why was he allowed to ask a question????

    He's an EX----- An EX with an attitude....