Quantcast

Comments about ‘Utah public lands policies could drive Outdoor Retailer show out of Salt Lake City’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, Aug. 1 2012 5:57 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Kings Court
Alpine, UT

It is good to see private enterprise push back against the legislature's radical agenda.

Bearone
Monroe, UT

If they are in such a hurry to find another place for their convention--more power to them. I think it has been great to have them in SLC twice a year---however just because they come and spend lots of money here does NOT give them the right to dictate our state's policies.

I do feel that they will not find a better venue to hold their show than Utah because our state has OUTDOORS!!

Remember that unless we rein in the federal government and the extreme tree-huggers, there will be no outdoors for any of us to enjoy.

Conner Johnson

Good to see the OR taking a stand against 'The Great Herbert Land Grab.' The ball is in your court governor, drop the lawsuit or lose the OR... Take a stand Gary!

Brave Sir Robin
San Diego, CA

OK Outdoor Retailers...you win. Pack up and take your show - and your $40 million - to Anaheim (by the way, great choice - they really know how to preserve the "outdoor recreation infrastructure" in Anaheim). Meanwhile, once we get our state lands back and can start developing our natural resources, the state will make 10x the $40 million that we lost from your show, and us outdoor enthusiasts can still enjoy the 99.8% of public lands that won't be affected. Sounds like a good deal to me and the rest of the rational part of the population.

Just say no to the OR show, Herbert.

Kings Court
Alpine, UT

Brave Sir Robin, you are disillusioned if you think Utah's message bill is going to get the Federal Government to give up its land. Even if it did, it would sell it to private interests, not turn it over to the state (this is how they disposed of other federal land in the East). Yet disposing of the land by selling it to private interests is very difficult given there are no water rights attached to those land parcels since those rights have been already claimed--making the arid land quite worthless. The reality is that Utah will lose $40 million and gain nothing in return, and better yet to make up for the shortfall, they will take the money from the school kids since education is not valued in this state.

Emajor
Ogden, UT

"Meanwhile, once we get our state lands back and can start developing our natural resources, the state will make 10x the $40 million that we lost from your show"

Have any idea how much the federal government spends to manage those lands? Well, the state will have to spend that now. Gonna eat into profits. Want to know what locks up lands faster and harder than wilderness study protection? Private sale and the leasing of public lands to private entities.

Utes Fan
Salt Lake City, UT

We need to remember the 2008 unanimous Utah Supreme Court decision concerning stream access: that Utah's rivers and streams belong to the public and are accessible by the public.

Guess what? Gov. Herbert and Utah's legislature overturned that UNANIMOUS Supreme Court decision by declaring that the state controls who can or cannot access Utah's rivers and streams. The bill that the governor signed into law was heavily lobbied by wealthy landowners whose intentions were to buy up the rivers and lock out the public. The Utah legislature and governor caved into the many wealth landowners by overturning the Supreme
Court decision.

Do you enjoy camping, hiking, etc. in Utah's public forests? You might not be able to in the future if the same trends happen as did with the stream access laws. I have EVERY reason to believe that the legislature and the governor will do it again with the public forests. They locked the public out from what the public owns - rivers and streams, and there is no reason to think they won't do it with public lands.

Utah_1
Salt Lake City, UT

Under the US Constitution, Art. 1, Sec. 8, Clause 17, and the 10th amendment, the Federal Government can not exercise exclusive jurisdiction or own land in Utah, unless it is for Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings, and it was purchased by the Consent of the Utah Legislature.

When Utah became a state, the Federal Government committed to selling the unappropriated public lands, extinguishing the title, and providing 5% of the proceeds of the sales to the State School Trust Fund.
I believe it would be better to have the land transferred to Utah as opposed to requiring the Federal Government sell the land to developers or other countries like China. The Utah State Constitution is designed to protect the Public Land based on Article XVIII, Section 1, Forests to be preserved, and Article XX, Section 1, Land grants accepted on terms of trust.

If the Federal Government sells or transfers any public land to Utah or others, 5% of the proceeds of the sales should got to the School Trust Fund. There is a gaping loophole in that process which we need to close.

My2Cents
Taylorsville, UT

My understanding of the convention heads it is not the public lands policy that is the problem. The OR does not want Utah to have control of the public lands and for a good reason, the developers and politicians will begin a land grab equivalent to the opening up land under the Homesteading Act, except the state doesn't want anyone else to homestead the land.

This associations problem with Utah is it doesn't have the infrastructure to host the convention any more. And Utah is not a an outdoor destination the governor thinks it is. We became available because we were cheap with illegal labor. Utah outdoor recreation which really not much at all. Hunting and camping is diminishing thousands of acres a year by developers and oil companies.

I sure do hope the federal government maintains control of all BLM property. The BLM land belongs to all of America, not to the governor or Utah. If the BLM should happen to relinquish the land. we can only hope that it will be under the rules of the federal "Homesteading Act" and give all americans equal access to this land.

Wouldn't that frost the governor's empire.

NeilT
Clearfield, UT

Ute Fan. Good point. I was going to make it but you beat me to it. Herbert is not fooling anybody. This is all about privitization and taking away public access to all that makes Utah so great. I hope the OR stays. I will not be voting for Herbert. He is nothing but a puppet of the right wing extremists that have managed to take control of our legislature. One of the worst governors Utah has ever had.

chaliceman
Salt Lake City, UT

I think we would be better served to use taxpayer money to support schools, teachers pay, infrastructure, existing state parks and enticing new businesses to come to Utah rather than spending money we don't have on maintaining lands which are being well managed by the BLM. As a Utah taxpayer, I don't want my taxes to increase for the privilege of maintaining BLM property along with its 12,000 roads. Under our current budget, how would we pay for this? Increase taxes is the only answer. Isn't this the Red States agenda, no new taxes?

RN4moms
Bountiful, UT

I know money talks but this is one more way big business can run politics. If we cave on something that is actually in Utah's best interest because of threats like this, we are no better off than allowing the Feds to run over us. We need to make decisions that are right regardless of the threats.

sorrytowakeyou
Heber City, UT

So Ute Fan, you're saying that the State Supreme Court should replace the state legislature? What happened to separation of powers? You whiny libs are always looking for ways to take private property. The US Supreme Court ruled about 6 months ago, that the State of Montana also got it wrong on public access. You're getting whipped both in the legislature and the court on this issue. Get over it. If you want to access the state water, just stay in your dingy.

And to those citing the management cost of federal lands as something the state cannot bear.....are you serious? The BLM and the Forest Service are 2 of the most pathetic "management" agencies in the world. They hire 10 times the amount of employees needed and they rarely get out to see what they are managing. We would actually utilize some of the resources and cut the overhead dramatically. Yet another reason why the federal government was never intended to own or manage land.

Mark from Montana
Aurora, CO

I do not like the Fed owning so much land in any of the western states. The question is will I like the the State of Utah owning those lands instead? Or how about Montana, Colorado, Wyoming or Idaho?

I can honestly say that I trust the Feds more than the state governments. There is more scrutiny on the Fed than on the states. I have seen so many tricks and shady deals that allow friends of those in office to gain advantage over the normal citizens. Even if transactions are completely above board, choice lands will be sold to the highest bidders. In Montana I saw so many lands bought up by the Hollywood elite, or music stars, or other wealthy out of staters, that I promise you it will happen her.

Why is the state so desperate to gain these lands? I believe it is so they can sell them off, and all of the average joes will never set foot on the choice lands again. How about Arches, anybody want to buy their favorite arch? Bidding for Rainbow Arc will start at $125 million.

RRB
SLC, UT

The kids are playing video games, because unlike their grandparents that bought big lots and built small houses, their parents built large houses on small lots. Our canyons and outdoors is going private. Just ask the governor and his blocking citizens from fishing on private streams. (he did authorize the government to buy rights to fishing on private land by the way, including his brother in laws place in Provo canyon.)

Getting the land from the feds would end open land in Utah, and make it private. Just look at their actions in the past. We have a billion dollars of free outdoor space, and business wants to sell it back to us.

justamacguy
Manti, UT

Don't let the door hit you on the way out. If the Outdoor Retailers want to go let them. Utah makes billions of dollars off it rural trails and lands. The Outdoor show only brings in a fraction of that. Federal Management of our public lands is pathetic as can be seen by the fires we have had on it do to senseless fuel build up. Unmanaged forests are dying across the state. And what wildlife projects the feds to initiate are done in a manner that does not benefit wildlife, but instead destroys habitat. An example is our deer herds. The fed range land continues to be turned into grass ranges which deer can not use in the winter. The BLM won't even add browse species to reseeding's after the fires unless someone else pays for it. And people say we are better off with fed management? You better do your research people.

New to Utah
PAYSON, UT

It is good to fight for federal lands within the state. A great concern is the power of contruction interests and homebuilders and destruction of needed farmland,orchards and open space. Public lands need to be better maintained than what the government has done. The real estate market is still soft and shuffling homes from Sandy and Bountiful to Harriman and Daybreak does not solve the oversupply. Quality of life, including less crime and ability to get fresh fruits and vegetables in the long run is better than wall to wall houses.

mcdugall
Layton, UT

@Bearone "Remember that unless we rein in the federal government and the extreme tree-huggers, there will be no outdoors for any of us to enjoy."

How does one even come to that conclusion? The EPA/Department of the Interior/BLM try to protect the lands from reckless human destruction/exploitation. If your reference is to the unwillingness of the Federal Government to allow ATVs vehicles on sensitive land, use the two feet that you were given and walk. Riding an ATV through the outdoors is not how God intended man to see the great beauty of the outdoors.

Utes Fan
Salt Lake City, UT

@sorrytowakeyou

Nothing in that 2008 Supreme Court ruling stated that the public has the right to take private property away. That is a common misconception that uninformed people use to strike it down. The rivers belong to the public, and there has ALWAYS been an easement for the public to use it - that is how the Utah Supreme Court ruled. And might I add, Utah's Supreme Court is arguably the most conservative in the nation. Private property does not take away that easement, much like a sidewalk. No I don't believe that the Supreme Court is above other branches of govt. Do you think the governor and legislature should be above the laws as defined? I don't. Conservatives don't - but liberals often do. You might want to evaluate who is being "liberal" here.

You said:
"The US Supreme Court ruled about 6 months ago, that the State of Montana also got it wrong on public access."

That ruling applies to the riverbeds immediately under the PPL dams in question and whether the state can or cannot charge rent for their use. Montana's public access to rivers is still very much intact, as it should be.

one old man
Ogden, UT

BearOne -- you are ABSOLUTELY WRONG. If it were not for those "extreme tree huggers" and the BLM, NPS, USFS and others like them, there would be no outdoors worth visiting in Utah.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments