Comments about ‘Letter: A balanced policy about public lands in Utah? Not so far.’

Utah won't have to manage the public lands that they are trying to get from the federal government. Utah will sell those lands to the highest bidders so fast that it will make your head spin, and then the public will have ZERO access to the lands.
Right now we can have it both ways, we get to use federal lands and the feds have to manage them. In Washington State deer hunters have to grovel up to the lumber companies on their knees to petition for the PRIVILEGE of hunting on the huge expanses of private timber land. The hunters can hunt, but only under the supervision of trained volunteers, who make sure the hunters don't get lost, or do anything rowdy.
So go a head all you "states rights" advocates, and fight for the right to sell off Utah's federal lands. Mining companies, gas companies, and large cattle conglomerates thank you!

There is no proposal to sell of public lands. The feds are slowly closing public lands to the general public as political payoffs to enviro-groups that donate big bucks to Dems. The Gov and Legislators are trying to stop this and make public lands public again.

'Take back Utah' from what? The VAST majority of Utah land is open to recreation and the tiny parcels of Wilderness that remains is open, as long as you're willing to walk in.
I just don't see how the "take back" crowd have any sort of valid argument. Look at them, they could use the exercise.

KDave said: "There is no proposal to sell of public lands."
Only because they don't have access yet.

"The feds are slowly closing public lands to the general public as political payoffs to enviro-groups that donate big bucks to Dems."

Want to bet who is donating more? All Enviro's Or Oil & Gas & Real Estate Lobby's

Re: "A balanced policy about public lands in Utah? Not so far."

What a surprise that Ms. Carter, Democrat Party apparatchik and advisory board member of a group called "Peaceful" Uprising [whose masthead includes an upraised, clenched fist] would suggest that the Governor's approach to public lands policy is out of balance.

It does, after all, takes into account the needs of people engaged in agriculture, mining, recreation, and tax policy.

That's undoubtedly what renders it "out-of-balance" to someone on the radical environmental left. Like Ms. Carter.

Look at the backgrounds of those who proposed this and signed bill:

Clark Ivory, land developer and realtor, ALEC member
Wayne Niederhauser, realtor, ALEC member
Gary Herbert, developer

Follow the money and motives. I don't for one second think it is as altruistic as all the conservatives want us to believe. It doesn't have anything to do with state's rights and everything to do with developer$ right$.

Re: "I don't for one second think it is as altruistic as all the conservatives want us to believe."

But the radical environmental left, that opposes any change to the deranged status quo, is altruistic?

Hmmmmm.

What's so altruistic about exploiting the politically under-represented Inter-mountain West to buy back-East votes and mollify a radical Democrat base? Or about turning it into a large, off-limits plantation for marijuana growers? Or a petting zoo for out-of-state leftist elites?

Permitting the people of a state to influence what goes on in the majority of their state's territory -- just like they do in back-East and Left-Coast states -- has nothing to do with that state's rights, huh?

Well, maybe in Bizarro World.

@procuradorfiscal

I guess you can be naive enough to believe that $$$$ for private development isn't at the root of this debacle. You can also be naive enough to believe that the State will protech that land from exploitation. But I'm the one living in Bizarro World.

And you're right. We should aspire to be just like Texas, Delaware, etc and make sure to lock up all land and sell it off for private development. That's so much better than what we have here. Try to take your kids hunting in Texas without paying a private landowner fees to hunt on his land. You're right. That is so much better than the open, public land we have here.

Re: "That is so much better than the open, public land we have here."

Open? Public?

Try getting into parts of the Grand Staircase/Escalante National Monument where an ancestor ranched. Unless you're willing to walk close to 30 miles, on roads into the area that have existed for 100+ years, you can't. President Clinton's revenge for coming in third in Utah elections.

Shortly, Obama intends to gift to tree-huggers most of the Arizona Strip [south of St. George], locking it away from meaningful recreational, mining, or agricultural use. To shore up his radical environmental base.

This, along with high-handed federal action on multiple-use lands outside parks, forests, and monuments [lands "too close" to "protected" lands, must also be "protected" -- FROM US], makes the agenda clear -- liberals believe they can lock away ALL federal lands -- using them as political party favors, tools to avenge political wrongs, or scrip to buy needed votes.

National politicians feel free to risk alienating underrepresented Westerners. But why would local politicians?

Think globally. Trust locally.

Utah will never get those lands. Uncle Sam just laughs. The only people getting paid are the attorneys for both the state and federal government.

@KDave

"There is no proposal to sell of public lands."

You mean that we know of? I wouldn't be surprised if our Republican legislature has already made some back room deal with their owners to divvy up the land. They seem to be good at the back room deals.