"Failed federal policies are devastating forests, killing millions of
animals, spewing billions of pounds of pollution into the air and have decimated
watersheds for decades. This is not the case on private, state and tribal
forests. " Prove it!I believe much of Utah is in Federal
ownership because the Federal government purchased it from Mexico. Correct?
Why the difference?It is probably due to the fact that the millions
of Americans who took advantage of the Homestead Act, which gave free land to
farmers, would not have had a chance of producing a crop of anything except
rocks on that arid land, and so there was no point in including that land along
with the Homestead giveaway.Whatever the reason, it is what it
is.And it's a good thing. States by and large have proven
themselves much less responsible than the Federal government in responsibly
utilizing that land as consistent with the best interests of the people.
I think the simple reason that states don't "control" the federally
owned and controlled public lands is that the rest of the country does not trust
the various states to do the right thing.Imagine if one state or
another had control of now public property. I see nothing but mining pits the
size of New jersey or a sea of oil derricks. All of this "development"
would pollute not only the state but also the rest of the country. I see the
devastation of public forests, pollution of lakes and overgrazing of public
lands.Apparently, this is the estimation of the rest of the country
as well. Nope, don't trust some of the various states contending for
control of federal lands. It ought to be preserved for everyone.
Two pieces of information should give Utahns pause about having the US give this
massive handout to our state legislature:1. Over half of the land
originally set aside for Utahs's school children has been sold off, never
to benefit our children again. Now the legislature and other right-wing
fanatics are asking for more land, again to ostensibly benefit our school
children. "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me".2. One of our rural counties has convinced the state to sell over 1000
acres of state land to private interests, so the county can get more property
tax revenue. Any guesses how they would handle additional land given to
them?Does anyone seriously believe the Legislature would be able to
make wise decisions that will impact generations in the future? The Legislature
has difficulty resisting local economic interests for short term gain, and
actually, since there is no real conflict-of-interest laws prohibiting it, the
Legislators can shamelessly usher through laws that directly benefit them.Case in point: Ken Ivory is a real estate developer.
"Forever disclaim all right a title" That sounds pretty cut and dried to
me Rep. Ivory
This is a self-serving piece, meant to foment the issue, which means more
support for Ivory's lobbying group, which means a secure income for him.
Too bad he has never convinced me that other than serving the special economic
interests of a few, his plan would benefit Utahns as a whole. It doesn't.
By the way, visit West Virginia or Western Pennsylvania and take a look at the
strip mining. Go to the Hudson River Valley and look at all the fences around
beautiful, undeveloped land that tell folks to get lost. Go to any number of
streams in the East where fishing is prohibited because it means accessing
private lands. The folks like Ivory are selling something that would mean a
great loss to something that makes Utah special. You won't like it if he
gets his way.
Why the huge rush to privatize Utah public lands? The future of
Utah is intellectual capital, and we attract it with high quality of life. This
means clean air, well run governments, cultural venues, and outdoor
recreation.Worldwide, countries that live on mineral wealth are
corrupt, horrible places to live. Anyone want to move to Saudi Arabia, South
Africa, or Nigeria?We need more talk about education, and less
dreams of tar sands, coal mines, and oil shale.
Mr. Ivory is on the trail of the scent of MONEY again.
Mr. Ivory's second paragraph is a textbook example of taking selected
and/or false facts to prove a false conclusion. He is allegedly disposing of
the "arid" FACTOR in the majority federal ownership of western
states.He claims that "Oregon, Washington and Alaska are the
states with the most precipitation..."False. It is
indeed wet west of the Cascade Mountains and the Alaska panhandle is very
wet.#1 Hawaii 63 inches#2 Louisiana 60 inches#3 Mississippi 59 inches#29 Washington 38 inches#36 Oregon
27 inches#39 Alaska 22 inchesMr. Ivory should tour
Harney and Lake counties in Oregon. I would claim that aridity is the major
reason they contain 18,000 square miles and a total population of 16,000
people.Southeastern Oregon is often called their "Outback".
Like most of Australia, it is arid and with few people. The Rum Jungle near
Darwin does not prove that Australia is endowed with plentiful precipitation.Aridity is indeed a major FACTOR in the ownership and settlement of the
western states of the United States of America.
@10cc First of all a disclaimer, I don't know Ivory, nor did I know he was
the ivory of the property developer. There are some issues with what you said,
here they are; First if the federal government owns the land, taxes cannot be
collected from it. Payment in Lieu of Taxes (pilt) runs seriously below market
value. Second, The insustrial park that I work in was all School trust land.
It was sold off to private entities and those private entities pay property
taxes, I believe at a higher rate than residential. On my houses property tax,
over 75% of the taxes paid to the county, are alocated to the school district.
Your statement that "Over half of the land originally set aside for
Utah's school children has been sold off, never to benefit our children
again." is misinformed at best, or outright false at worst.
The far eastern states were largely settled into towns and communities before
the U.S. government even existed. The western states were largely purchased by
the U.S. government before being significantly settled by Americans. That's
the main difference.
Finally, a common-sense, educational statement on federal/private ownership of
land within a state's borders. Thank you, Mr. Ivory. (On a side
note, boy, the enviros are sure in a tizzy over this thread and still
haven't made a good argument.)
In my humble opinion Utah and other western states should be treated the same
way the eastern states have been. Federal control seems to not only shut down
energy development but is putting further restrictions on visitors to the point
of making even that source of income less likely.
Mr. Ivory. I suggest if you like the idea of your state owning all of the land
within it's boundaries that you move out East. Have fun paying insane
amounts of money for hunting on private land and good luck finding a spot where
you can camp your jeep and watch the stars without trespassing on private land.
The public lands in Utah are one of the things that make this state great,
without them a whole lot of us would move elsewhere. How would that be for
economic improvement?Most of the rest of us in this state love our
public lands and are quite upset with your crusade of trying to take them away,
privatize them, and give them to the state so they can be sold off for real
estate development (funny how that's your background isn't it) and
energy extraction. Last I checked Eastern Utah is in a huge oil and gas boom, so
it's a bit hard to feel sorry for you that you can't drill, mine, and
develop every acre of our state.
Read the Constitution. The Federal Government is not allowed to own land except
for a district that is 10 miles square, or for forts, magazines of for federal
buildings. The people of New York have no "joint ownership" of land in
Utah. The people of the commonwealth of Virginia have no "joint
ownership" of land in Utah. The State of Utah is separate and distinct from
all other States. We are not a "county" of the Federal Government. We
are a State. As a State, we have full autonomy, just as New York, or Virginia,
or Mississippi has.If the people of New York think that they own
Utah, then the people of Utah have equal claim to the property of New York. How
about handing over Manhatten to all the citizens of the United States?
Mike Richards -It is true that we the people of the United States
own that public land in Utah.You must as well accept and embrace
that fact.That means, BTW, that Utahns can't exploit that land
at America's expense.Get used to that too.
Mike Richards wrote: "We are a State. As a State, we have full autonomy,
just as New York, or Virginia, or Mississippi has."This is
There is big deception by the left.It is not between federal and
private but between federal and state ownership.And it is ludicrous
to believe the feds can control better than the state.It is
insulting to say the eastern state stares can control their lands but the
western state states cannot.When a state became a state the lands
should have turned over to them?The real question is why didn't
that happen? The eastern state didn't have that problem.
@liberal larry, you asked:"Why the huge rush to privatize Utah public
lands? "My response -Because I'd rather see America in the hands
of Americans than in the hands of China or any other Anti-Americans.You stated:"We need more talk about education, and less dreams of
tar sands, coal mines, and oil shale."My response- Are you also one to
think that we can just run to the grocery stores when the cattleman and farmers
are all put out of business? I agree with 'the truth' in the
statement, "It is not between federal and private but between federal and
state ownership. And it is ludicrous to believe the feds can control better than
the state.It is insulting to say the eastern state can control their lands
but the western states cannot".
I don't trust the State of Utah to own the federal lands. That will result
in the land being sold off to a few wealthy individuals or corporations who will
promptly post NO TRESPASSING on the land. Average folks will not then be able
to access the land for any purpose. Drive up west of Tremonton and you'll
see a huge sign that says "NOT TRESSPASSING NEXT 5 MILES". That land at
one time was accessible to regular folks for hunting, camping and such. Now a
wealthy ranch owner wants you all to just keep on driving by as fast as you can.
That is just one of many such "private" lands in that area.
It is amazing that people can read a story without comprehending exactly what it
says. The eastern states received all the land when they became states while
the west did not. A lot of this country became part of this country with the
Louisiana purchase and the eastern part is state land and the western part is
not.Th public land in the West should be controlled by the states and not
the federal government as was intended. This us nit complicated and quite easy
to understand if one takes their personnel prejudice out of it.
Re: Meckofahess"I don't trust the State of Utah to own the
federal lands. That will result in the land being sold off to a few wealthy
individuals or corporations who will promptly post NO TRESPASSING on the land.
"Exactly so. Had these public lands been under Utah state
control since statehood, all of it would be privately owned by rich Californians
with access to everyone else severely restricted.
It sounds like Mr Ivory wants utah taxpayers to subsidize his business.No thanks ivory. We refuse to make you rich by us giving away our lands, our
money, and our freedom.
The picture accompanying this article tells a big story and the text backs it
up. Near my home town in southeastern Idaho is the Curlew National Grassland.
The Curlew Grassland was inhabited by the Bannock and Shoshone Indian Tribes
before the settlement of the pioneers. In the late 1800s and early 1900s the
Curlew Valley had a ranch on every 160 acres. When drought years of the late
20's and early 30's came, the land wouldn't support these
homesteads.The Federal Government purchased several thousands of
these acres between 1934 and 1942. Today the Curlew National Grassland is
administered by the Forest Service, and managed to promote and demonstrate
grassland agriculture and sustained-yield management of forage, fish and
wildlife, water and recreation resources. So as usual, the government bailed out
the private sector and now the private sector is crying foul.Another
folley about this essay "...other western states — where polygamy was
never an issue..." The Idaho Constitution not only outlaws bigamy but also
bars polygamists and persons "celestially married" from public office
and voting. Not until the Budge V. Toncray case in 1908 did the court say that
did not include monogamous Mormons married in an LDS temple.
For those who think the federal government is doing a good job managing
"our" lands here are some facts pertaining to the 2012 Fires in Idaho
County where I am a commissioner.1.7 million acre burned in Idaho
2012246,000 acres burned in Idaho CountyTypical timber
inventory per acre in the Nez / Clearwater forest is 15,000-25,000 BDFT per
acre, source Idaho Department of LandsTypical historical harvest Nez
/ Clearwater forest 10,000 BDFT per acre, source USFSFor example
purposes let use 5,000 BDFT burned per acre in Idaho County246,000
acres @5,000 BDFT per acre equates to 1.23 billion BDFT burned@$300.00 per thousand this equals $369,000,000.00 in burned treesThe multiplier in a timber manufacturing economy is 5-7 lets use 3. This
equates to 1 Billion in lost economic activity. That's lost salaries which
pay taxes, taxes to fund state and county governments, education, social
security, Medicare, Medicaid, Workmans Compensation, and unemployment taxes12.8 Million tons of Green House Gases released into the atmosphere,
source USFS750,000 dead Animals, Source USFSAmerica's ownership is destroying Idaho's environment.Respectfully,Jim ChmelikIdaho County Commissioner
So a county commissioner in Idaho's largest county is claiming the US
Government is responsible for lightning strikes (or human arson) that caused the
burning of thousands of acres. He must think the federal government has powers
beyond my knowledge. And would those acres not have been burned had they been
in private hands? Would there be private resources available to put out the
fires? Or would the private sector rely on the government to do that?I suppose I am most concerned about his last sentence "America's
ownership is destroying Idaho's environment." Who would he suggest own
This was an excellent history lesson describing how we have so fortuitously come
to have so much amazing Western land in the hands of the public trust. God bless our predecessors for being so prescient as to know future
generations could not be trusted to remain good stewards of our precious
Jim Chmelik -I’m sorry sir, but your claims make absolutely NO
sense at all.You’re suggesting that private or state ownership
of those lands would keep fires away? . . . Or maybe they would just
go out by themselves because God likes State and private ownership but not
Federal ownership?Most fire crews, BTW, are federally funded
operations.One big reason for the greater number of fires these days
is past fire suppression. In other words, the more successful you are at
preventing fires, the more dead brush piles up and smaller type 2 fuels can
accumulate that can really spread a fire when it happens. Are you
suggesting that the local town fire department would be equipped to fight vast
wildfires?. . . As if every town has air tankers capable of spreading
fire retardant in critical areas and a helicopter fleet trained in fire
What private land owner proponents and elected officals on this thread fail to
acknowledge is the vast majority of Americans want to maintain control of our
public lands. The more they push their agenda the greater resistance they find
from we the people. Western public lands will remain public because the
majority of people want it to remain that way.
"Utah is more than $2.5 billion below average in per-pupil funding for
education because less of the lands in Utah are taxable."Hey
Kenny boy, do you really expect us to believe that if the reason Utah is last in
per pupil spending is due to the fact that you and your cronies can't
develop these lands? Seriously, you and your cohorts in the legislature have
ZERO intention of spending any proceeds on the children. I'm willing to
wager that more money from these lands would line the pockets of you and your
owners than would go to the students of Utah.
Why the difference? TIME.We are now in a 21st Century with severe
environmental, population, economic, and governmental problems.The
enabling act language was based on 18th and 19th century assumptions about
vastness, lack of constraints, the desirability of growth. The land and air are
no longer vast, we need to begin to operate under some constraints (we engineers
call them 'boundary conditions'), and we can no longer accept
unlimited growth.In addition Utah is governed by a Legislature and
Governor who subscribe to a 19th Century, hard-wired, ideological mentality that
is no longer relevant - and indeed is very dangerous - to societal and national
survival in the 21st Century. We cannot afford to permit such a
Legislature and Governor to have any authority over now-Federal lands, for fear
that the state would mis-manage and degrade such lands. It is your (and my) kids
and grandkids who will most suffer those consequences.Talk with (not
to) your kids - they understand.
The oligarchs are alive and well here in utah. Kenny and the one percenters want
is to hand over our lands and freedoms so that he can enrich himself. It's
funny how the oligarchs are attacking American salaries, schools, unions, and
lands with cheap promises of "land development" and "local
control." In reality, all that means is, "average Americans, we want
what you have."Anyone who believes the Kool-aid that privatizing
these lands will improve our schools needs to have a quick 5 minute discussion
with someone from the east who has seen their public lands ripped from them.I'm sorry, Kenny, but your sly words aren't convincing.
Although we have an abundance of low information voters in this state, the vast
majority don't want these lands out of the hands of the Feds. They know
what you intend to do with them.Kenny, although that apple looks
awfully tempting, we the people shall not partake.
According to a ThinkProgress analysis, the American Lands Council (ALC) —
an organization created to help states to claim ownership of federal lands
— has collected contributions of taxpayer money from government officials
in 18 counties in Utah, 10 counties in Nevada, four counties in Washington,
three counties in Arizona, two counties in Oregon, two counties in New Mexico,
and one county in Colorado, Idaho, and Wyoming. In total, county-level elected
officials have already paid the ALC more than $200,000 in taxpayer money. This should be investigated immediately by the AG's office.
@Meckofahess@MarxistThat is utter nonsense and based all on
opinion.Are eastern state owned lands all privatized over the years?
I doubt it.We know our lands and know what is worth protecting. Some
ninny from the east or from the feds certainly doesn't know better.
As I read the comments here and noted that the majority are disdainful and/or
dismissive of Rep. Ivory's very logical and reasonable arguments in favor
of returning the property rights to land currently owned by the Federal
government to the States within which the property exists, I had a recurring
thought, "Why are liberals so predictably in favor of dictatorialism at the
highest governmental level?"Why not let the states and other
government entities that are closer in proximity and, usually, temperament to
the people of the area, have greater control? What is it about a liberal
mentality that sided, as Tories, with King George during the time of the
country's fight for independence? There is something a decidedly servile
nature that seems to be in play. For the life of me, I can't figure out
RE: Samhill ""Why are liberals so predictably in favor of
dictatorialism at the highest governmental level?"Because the
Federal government has been the most progressive, e.g. civil rights. The states
for the most part have been retrograde, e.g. the south and the Bible belt.
Mr. samhill has "...noted that the majority are disdainful and/or dismissive
of Rep. Ivory's very logical and reasonable arguments..."I
am "dismissive" because of the second paragraph in his essay. His
"facts" are false and they lead him to a false conclusion.See my post of 11:55 a.m. June 17.He claims that "Oregon,
Washington and Alaska are the states with the most precipitation..."False. It is indeed wet west of the Cascade Mountains and
the Alaska panhandle is very wet.#1 Hawaii 63 inches#2
Louisiana 60 inches#3 Mississippi 59 inches#29 Washington 38
inches#36 Oregon 27 inches#39 Alaska 22 inchesMr. Ivory
should tour Harney and Lake counties in Oregon. I would claim that aridity is
the major reason they contain 18,000 square miles and a total population of
16,000 people.Southeastern Oregon is often called their
"Outback". Like most of Australia, it is arid and with few people. The
Rum Jungle near Darwin does not prove that Australia is endowed with plentiful
precipitation.Aridity is indeed a major FACTOR in the ownership and
settlement of the western states of the United States of America.
@MarxistDid King George and his parliament do a better job watching
out for the colony than the locals?I am pretty sure our founding
fathers would disagree.Slavery was in place before the states were
formed, your analysis is incorrect and incomplete.Progressive central
control is not best.Just compare the first two hundred years of
progressive central control by a king thousands of miles away to the local
control of the last two hundred years.While change hasn't been
easy, it is a vast improvement over central progressive control.