Comments about ‘Letter: Land management by the state of Utah is both environmentally and fiscally responsible’

Mr. Overfelt,
Federal land management in Utah is funded by the entire tax paying population of the United States. Utah's 3 million people is about 1% of the US population. So we pay 1% of the management costs. If Utah controls these lands, all of that funding must come from Utah taxpayers. Making us pick up the other 99% is fiscally responsible how? Oh yes, because then you can auction it all off to the highest bidder. That truly is environmentally responsible.

Please Feds: Don't take your eyes off Utah. I know what "stewardship" means to the Utah Republican.

Frank, there is no way, no way in the world Utah can manage these lands. You are right that it costs us in Federal taxes to manage them but at least the rest of the nation shares the cost. Do you really think Utah will manage them because if you do then you should check out the beach front property next to the Great Salt Lake.

Open up your eyes Frank. Utah cannot and will not manage these lands. If we try then who will share the burden with Utah? It can't be done without selling them off even if you put Gary the Gov in ranger suit. Do you really want to sell them off to people who will be given special tax breaks and wavers to environmental laws? That's what it will take. It defies logic. Period, exclamation point.

Pure nonsense.

Utah already manages large amounts of lands in Utah (SITLA lands) and has made over a billion in profit on them. Moneys that are used to help finance education in the State. These lands are also the most user friendly areas in the State. Expanding State control is a win-win for everyone except SUWA.

Mr. Overfelt's endorsement of Herbert and Romney's scorched earth policy is completely misguided. The earth does not exist for our unlimited, insatiable consumption with no regard for the future. Once these lands have been pillaged for their mineral wealth, all that will remain will be the scars of industrial decimation. Ecosystems will fail, wildlife will be forced to extinction, aquifers will be contaminated, toxic sludge pits will dot the landscape, and this country will look like China - a vertiable wasteland of depleted resources and industrial carnage unfit for man or beast. In the 21st Century, protecting the environment, not destroying it, should be our top priority.

Demo Dave, you just don't get it.

There is no need to conserve the earth because God will soon be here and the earth will be no more. It's coming any day now.

If Utah doesn't want higher taxes then why would it want to take on the responsibility of managing those lands? Sure, freeing them up to drilling might make a few folks rich. But we'll ultimately be the ones paying for it.

The state of Utah will sell it to the highest bidder. You like hiking, camping or hunting? You won't after private organizations own it.

@ one old man: Oh yeah, I forgot about that. Sorry.

@KDave, you make too much sense for those who follow along with the liberal sheeple. Don't confuse them with the facts, they'd rather beleive all the spin from articles designed to keep the Federal Government growing and controlling every state's right to their own land. Scare tactics used to coerice the gullible into believing that states couldn't possibly survive on their own, utilizing their own resources and making their own, individual decisions, the way the Founders had intended. To keep the POWER with the PEOPLE of each state, NOT with the Feds. Time to stand up and take back control over our own lives and states once again. Why should someone in Rhode Island have to pay taxes toward "maintaining" the lands in another state, or all of the other states? Why should the profits from those lands in each state go back to the GOVERNMENT? Does the govt then distribute that profit equitably? no Think.

@odewan

Quick question for you. How can you take back something that was never yours to begin with?

Anyone who supports the transfer of public lands to Utah's oversight had best study the history of our public lands in America. The governor, when asked, has no real plan for how to handle these "new" lands, but history shows that the "real" plan is to privatize these lands and run over them for the benefit of a few at the expense of many. These lands are our legacy for the future. Many Utah politicians can't stand to see land that is "empty" in their opinion. "Empty" is in the eye of the beholder Mr. Urquhart and others. For some "empty" represents respecting what we've been given and providing "openness" that humans can enjoy, reflect on and regenerate through. Our school trust administrators (SITLA) are already making a lot of money on their lands through oil/gas/mineral development but is that money really being passed along to school children, who are always used as the scapegoats for why we need more public lands? Hardly! Their billion dollar portfolio is still giving schools a paltry $24 million every year when they could be doing much more. Do you think that more public lands would do better?