@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.
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
#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.
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.
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.
@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?
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!
@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.
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
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.
@ 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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
@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.
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?
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
@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.
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
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
Re: VSTNowhere 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.)
It is clear that a lot of people don't know where eggs come from.
utahbluedevilI 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!!!
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
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.
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.
As they say, elections have consecenses. Oboma won and the Wild Ones
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.
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.
What's the point of making an agreement (2003) and then not sticking to it? The
Federal government is wrong on this.
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.
DC, SUWA, Sierra Club and others like them obviously know what's best for Utah -
and the West.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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!!!!!
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.
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.
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
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