Jan Brewer, Governor of AZ, took a pass on the opportunity to sue the Feds to
return their "public lands". Why? Because she at least had enough
sense to recognize that AZ cannot afford to maintain them and would have to sell
them off to private interests, smothering their golden
goose--tourism/recreation/hospitality. Yes, the same goose that lays the golden
eggs of OUR state's (& especially RURAL Utah's) #1 economic
Sorry procuradorfiscal but the bureaucrats in Salt Lake have the same fallings
as Washington. It's more about money than protecting and the author,
inspite of your futile attempt to besmerch, has expressed a common opinion of
the users of our states nature. Procuradorfiscal and others rail against one
evil beheast of another but the objective is still the same, money.
We have over 3,000,000 people living in Utah. Saying that we can't manage
public lands with people from Utah is complete, utter, unadulterated
nonsense.We can manage those lands.We, the people of
Utah, do not owe Washington any favors.We, the people of Utah, have
every right to manage UTAH lands.The Constitution does not allow the
Federal Government to own land in any State. That is not FEDERAL land. It is
not private land. It is public land. Because it cannot be owned by the Federal
Government, it reverts to the State.Read the Constitution, the
Supreme Law of the Land, before making statements about who owns what and who
has authority to "manage" STATE property.
Emajor --- Kudos and congratulations to you. That is one of the best posts from
a tree hugger in a long time.(I wrote pretty much the same thing
earlier, but DN must like to allow too many tree hugging posts. Ah, well.)
"I am responding to a true-believing liberal tree-hugger, after all"Thanks, procuradorfiscal. I will sincerely take that as a compliment.
You see, when I am labelled in such a way by someone who can see no value in the
Creation unless it can be sold for money, I don't take it as the insult
that it was intended. The rest of your arguments are illogical. The
reason the lands have been left in the "wonderful condition we find them in
today" is not because of Utahns being good stewards. I've seen too many
overgrazed rangelands, trampled streambanks, dewatered streams, illegal ATV
trails criss-crossing the landscape, shot-up pictograph panels to believe that
nonsense. The rampant overgrazing and subsequent landscape erosion in the late
1800s before the feds gained control of western lands also do not support your
argument. Your type are not good stewards.Marijuana growers?
Seriously? Well, people make meth labs in their basements, so I guess privately
owned housing is a bad idea too, eh? You didn't answer my
question about where on the map you cannot go because of the feds locking up
public land. The land is open.
A thoughtful and honest letter that should be read and heeded by every member of
the Utah Legislature. Sadly, they are genetically resistant to facts and
knowledge, and therefore wouldn't understand it anyway.
Re: "Are you hallucinating or just deluded?"Maybe both -- I
am responding to a true-believing liberal tree-hugger, after all.But
laying that aside for the moment, the real issue is local, accountable control
vs. distant, unaccountable, cynical political control.No one can
honestly suggest clueless Washington bureaucrats are better, more accountable,
more honest stewards of public lands than the Utah families who have, for
generations, been ranching, farming, logging, mining, camping, hunting, fishing,
and playing on those lands -- leaving them in the wonderful condition we find
them in today.At best, one might arguably suggest we've
benefited from benign federal neglect in past years. But that stopped when Bill
Clinton bought off tree-hugging radicals with Southern Utah lands. Similar scams
being pushed by liberals today, lock away even more lands, making them available
only to lawbreakers, like foreign marijuana growers.I can't
conceive of why that sounds better to tree huggers than either state
administration, or sale of lands or rights, preserving public access as a deed
condition or restriction.
@procuradorfiscalIt's the American way. We obviously know how
other countries should be run, as well. The same side of the aisle that screams
"LOCAL CONTROL" are the same guys who decry and work to topple other
governments and install what we think is best for them, whether they are
prepared and ready or not.
Procurawhatever -- you wrote: "State lands are administered, all over Utah,
as wild and open land. They could also be sold to private landholders, subject
to deed restrictions and conditions that leave public rights of use or
passage."Are you hallucinating or just deluded? Do you really
believe anyone would go for an idea like that?But I have to agree
with you that folks like you are, "fortunately, a tiny and dwindling
fraction of Utah's population." But, man, are you guys noisy!
Re: "What do you mean 'we'?"I mean the vast, vast,
vast majority of Utahns.Radicals who spout utter nonsense about
distant federal bureaucrats -- most of whom have never even seen Utah, let alone
lived here -- being somehow more knowledgeable and worthy of administering most
Utah land, than Utahns who've lived, worked, and played on that land for
generations are, fortunately, a tiny and dwindling fraction of Utah's
Utah does not have the resources to manage even the lands it does own. What
makes you think it can manage the massive amount of land it is seeking from the
Feds? The only way it to sell of the lands or rights, which will then restrict
access to the public. This is a fools errand.
The agenda of the rich and powerful in Utah is to flood the state with cheap
labor and at the same time reserve the land for the use of the rich and
powerful. By turning every thing into private property, the rich
and powerful can have their cake and eat it too. Cheap labor for their
businesses and no overrun of the good stuff by ordinary people.
It seems that some people think that citizenship entitles them to use
"public lands" without paying a "fee". I've always
considered it my "right" to hunt and to fish and to hike on public
lands, so I share those sentiments; however, the posters stated the obvious.
They attached "value" to hunting and fishing and hiking. When value is
associated with something, that implies that there can be (and probably ought to
be) a cost to the consumer of that "value".A license to fish
and a license to hunt does not include the use of any property, private or
public. It simply gives the user of that license the right to have in his
possession fish or game.A driver's license doesn't give us
the "right" to use roads. We pay $0.48 per gallon of gas to use public
roads. Owners of private roads are free to charge anything they want.I am not advocating that the "government" should charge us to use
"public" lands, but getting something of value and not paying for it is
simply "redistribution of wealth".The "privileged"
get something of value without paying the full price for that value.
If you don't ever want access to those lands ever again, no fishing, no
hunting, no hiking, then go ahead and privatize them.
It seems like some people think that we have authorized the Federal Government
to administer "public lands".Before we concede that point
and let the Federal Government manage those lands, would someone please show me,
in the Constitution, where the Federal Government has been authority to
"own" any land except for the District of Columbia?Sending
dollars to Washington so that they can send Federal busy-bodies to Utah to
administer lands within the State of Utah makes no sense. Utah has enough
people who will work and who can work to administer all the lands inside the
State of Utah - without Federal "help" and without Federal
Any proposal to transfer ownership of federal lands to state control needs to
have a very detailed cost analysis. The federal land management agencies spend
a lot of money (millions? tens of millions?) managing these lands, money that
the state will have to then spend just for basic oversight and management. Any
revenue generated off of these lands will need to have this management cost
subtracted from it before it will begin to benefit the public school funding
problem the legislature has been stubbornly denying for decades anyway.Can someone tell me with a straight face that the state legislature won't
have a powerful incentive to sell and develop these lands at a greater rate just
so they can bring in this revenue?
procuradorfiscal,What do you mean "we"? I'm a lifelong
resident and I certainly do not trust Utah politicians to handle our public
lands. Sorry, they only see dollars signs when they look at our landscapes, and
that's a morally impoverished viewpoint. I'm very pleased that federal
control has kept a Dutch coal strip mining company from ripping up the Grand
Staircase. State politicians want to generate revenue, so such development will
go up, and formerly public land will be locked up to private sale or leasing.
Since you are an outdoor enthusiast and feel terribly restricted by
federal land management, perhaps you could pull out a detailed map of Utah and
explain to me exactly where it is you want to go that the spiderweb of paved,
graded dirt, jeep, and ATV trails will not take you? I've got my map right
here. Seems to me 90% of federal land in this state lies within a mile or two of
some road. 90% isn't enough? There is no end to the places you can explore
with a 4X4 or ATV in this state. It would take a lifetime to see half of it.
Utahns won't like what the governor and his special interests have in store
for us if they could get their way. The writer of this letter is right.
An excellent and sensible letter. They've already made banks of streams
and rivers in Utah off limits to the public.
Re: "Now the governor and his buddies are trying hard to bring the
Texas-type "No Trespassing" signs . . . ."Wrong.State lands are administered, all over Utah, as wild and open land. They
could also be sold to private landholders, subject to deed restrictions and
conditions that leave public rights of use or passage.Any sentiment
among Utah politicians to lock public lands away from Utahns -- as unaccountable
tree-hugging, vote buying Washington politicians are wont to do -- would quickly
result in electoral defeat or recall of those politicians.It's
called accountability -- an unknown concept to federal bureaucrats.Utahns are among the most passionate outdoor recreationists in the world. We
won't stand for schemes -- like federal tree-hugging scams -- that would
remove public lands from public use, permitting access only to foreign marijuana
growers.We trust accountable, local, Utah common sense, WAY more
than we do faraway liberal, inside-the-Beltway bureaucrats.