Quantcast
Utah

Hatch says liberal senators seeking new monument should 'keep their mitts off Utah'

Comments

Return To Article
  • Jimmytheliberal Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 16, 2014 4:23 p.m.

    @Hank Jr...Hey Hank. Liberal worthless States such as New York, New Jersey and the entire East Coast, All of New England, California, Colorado, Washington and Oregon. Obviously that was a.m. talk radio rhetoric or last night's talking point on Faux News. Take a trip outside The Planet Utah bubble my friend. It's quite liberating to think for yourself!

  • Jimmytheliberal Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 16, 2014 4:13 p.m.

    As long as there are neo-cons such as Hatch which continue to come across as true intellectuals the Democrats are guaranteed to win another Presidential election in 2016. Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin was mentioned as a Republican candidate. Absolutely hysterical. Let's elect a man as President with no college degree! Can't wait to hear the spin regarding this fact.

  • Unclefred Ticonderoga, NY
    Aug. 11, 2014 9:22 p.m.

    Source: NY Times
    States With the Most Land Owned by the Federal Government
    The top states with the greatest percentage of federally owned land are all the Western states, including Alaska and Hawaii.
    Nevada
    84.5%
    Alaska
    69.1%
    Utah
    57.5%
    Oregon
    53.1%
    Idaho
    50.2%
    Arizona
    48.1%
    California
    45.3%
    Wyoming
    42.3%
    New Mexico
    41.8%
    Colorado
    36.6%
    Washington
    30.3%
    Montana
    29.9%
    Hawaii
    19.4%
    This actually shocked me. How does the federal government own almost 60 percent of a state?

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Aug. 11, 2014 6:15 p.m.

    @DannyBoy:
    "Federal land. Belongs to all Americans - not just Utah. They are are not suggesting "taking" land from Utah. Federal land - belongs to all Americans."

    That is right. But what the rest of Americans doing to mitigate the financial struggles by people in southern Utah living in counties where 98% of the land is owned by an absentee landlord? Nothing.

  • Hank Jr Draper, UT
    Aug. 11, 2014 9:03 a.m.

    May I suggest the Liberal Senators put National Monuments in their own worthless states.

  • ? SLC, UT
    Aug. 9, 2014 6:45 a.m.

    Fair enough,Eliyahu. Congress is to blame, too,. The president isn't off the hook, though. He is just as much responsible for what is going on.

  • Gary Federal Way, WA
    Aug. 8, 2014 9:19 p.m.

    Don't see what the problem is here. It's a good deal preserving Federal land that's already there. Is Hatch so hateful of Obama that he has to say these senseless things? He's not the same senator he was when first elected decades ago. Wonder why people keep electing him? He speaks for the 1 percenters now instead of you the people of the state and country. Interesting...

  • S.Laws Monument Valley / San Juan , UT
    Aug. 8, 2014 5:52 p.m.

    I live on the Navajo Reservation. What most people don't realize or understand is that the proposed area to be shut down, would close it to where the Navajo people would not be able to go get some of the herbs and plants needed for Ceremonies. It is the only place we can go to get them for some of our Ceremonies and Sacred prayers. A lot of our Elders are not in good enough health to walk the distance needed to harvest some of the plants. Doing this Greater Canyon-lands Monument will be denying the Navajo People there Religious freedom, Hasn't the white man taken enough from us??? Why do you want more??

  • merich39 Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 8, 2014 5:19 p.m.

    I would much rather have these lands managed by the federal government than some for-profit corporation.

  • hanfrina Buffalo, NY
    Aug. 8, 2014 5:13 p.m.

    ... So tired of Sen. Hatch throwing thee word "Liberal" around like it's a bad. I'm a lifelong "Liberal," proud of it. & in my book, thee Jesus of Nazareth I know was a-VERY-Progressive Liberal!!!

  • esodije ALBUQUERQUE, NM
    Aug. 8, 2014 4:59 p.m.

    Since the main criterion for selecting sites for national monuments now is the potential they have for fossil-fuel development, I half-expect the entire state of North Dakota to be made a national monument in the next five years.

  • kimnprovo Orem, UT
    Aug. 8, 2014 4:26 p.m.

    GaryO (and anyone else who doesn't seem to know this)... the "federal lands" in Utah should no long belong to the federal government. They were given to the government as part of the deal to become a state. They were to be disposed of and the state to receive 5% in the deal to put toward public education. That has never happened. Once again, the federal government overstepped and no one has done anything about it.

    My suggestion is you read the enabling act of 1894.

  • Seldom Seen Smith Orcutt, CA
    Aug. 8, 2014 2:47 p.m.

    I don't recognize my country anymore, this is just one issue among hundreds. It's sad at the number of people willing to surrender power and control to the federal government.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Aug. 8, 2014 2:26 p.m.

    ""It all comes down to money. It's a good way to raise money from the environmental community. They should keep their mitts off Utah," he said. "They shouldn't be interfering with our state."

    I would say there are multiple parties from both sides trying to leverage this as a money raising opportunity. The truth is the land is federal, but has a local impact. I think the feds could do better in partnering with the states to make sure what ever is done happens in a way that both sides benefit. It takes a bit more work... but in the end, you can create jobs and a sustainable future for future generations, and preserve the irreplaceable assets this nation has.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Aug. 8, 2014 1:30 p.m.

    Either we have a Constitution that limits government or we have a government that limits the Constitution. We can't have it both ways.

    Our history has proven that we can't trust ANY government to do the right thing without limits placed on it by the people. One of those limits is to restrict the Federal Government from owning ANY land or controlling ANY land except as authorized in Article 1, Section 8. That is the Supreme Law. NO legislation that violates the Supreme Law is valid. ANY part of the Constitution can be amended if 66% of Congress agrees that an amendment is necessary AND if 75% of the States ratify that amendment. Until that is done, the Constitution, as written, not as you wish that it had been written, is the Supreme Law of the Land.

    The Federal Government cannot own or operate "Monuments", "Federal Parks", or "Federal Land".

    We are citizens of the State in which we reside. No person who does not have a deed to land within Utah or is not a citizen of Utah has any right to dictate usage of the land inside Utah.

  • Grover Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 8, 2014 1:16 p.m.

    You know a public official has been in office too long when everything that comes out of their mouth that goes into print looks like a sound byte.

  • What in Tucket? Provo, UT
    Aug. 8, 2014 12:56 p.m.

    The Federal govt land in Utah amounts to 2/3 or 66.5% of the land. Only Nevada has a higher per cent of Federal land. I hate to see senators making money on us, but I like some land to be set aside.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    Aug. 8, 2014 12:31 p.m.

    @ Jim Cobabe, uh, the federal government is the people of the entire country. It represents the interests of all of us, in all 50 states.

  • Cheesecake Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 8, 2014 12:07 p.m.

    Dear Utahans,

    Why did you vote for this guy?

    Thanks,

    -New to the area.

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    Aug. 8, 2014 12:03 p.m.

    Most of you pro lock-up the land folks are missing the point. My guess is that most of you haven't ever been in the area in question and driven some of the dirt roads.

    1.2 million acres is very excessive and nothing but a land grab for political purposes.

    A smaller designation after consultations with Congress, Utah, the people who live down in that area, and energy developers would be appropriate. Or maybe just expand the borders of Canyonlands to what makes sense.

    Also, there is a lot of school trust land parcels that would be locked up in the current proposal by these out of touch senators. That would negatively impact school funding in our state. The big land grab by Clinton caused problems that still haven't been solved. There have been parcel trades but Utah school children have suffered because some of the traded parcels were not as valuable as the ones locked up.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Aug. 8, 2014 11:26 a.m.

    "The problem is when the government declares these as "monuments" we LOSE all access to it."

    Absolutely FALSE!

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Aug. 8, 2014 11:24 a.m.

    Nice try, Hatch, but ultra-conservatives don't have the intellectual depth to understand Utah past the woefully short-sighted greed of ultra conservatives who worship money and simply cannot grasp the concept of beauty or other values that don't translate directly into dollars.

  • Eliyahu Pleasant Grove, UT
    Aug. 8, 2014 11:14 a.m.

    @?
    SLC, UT

    " Do you not remember the national parks shutdown about a year ago. MurrayGuy has a legitimate concern about people not being able to have access to this land at the whim of the president on whether or not the park is open."

    It wasn't the president who shut down the national parks. It was congress, by blocking funding and the budget. And it wasn't a "whim", either. It was part of a calculated strategy by the right wing to harm the president by bringing the country to its knees. To try and attribute the actions of the GOP to the president is downright disingenuous.

  • silo Sandy, UT
    Aug. 8, 2014 10:55 a.m.

    @Mike Richards

    The Property Clause, Article IV, ยง 3, Clause 2, gives Congress authority over
    the lands, territories, or other property of the United States. This was upheld by the Supreme Court as recently as 1976 in Kleppe vs New Mexico.

    The Heritage Foundation legal experts disagree with you. The Congressional Research Service disagrees with you. The Supreme Court disagrees with you. Politifact website calls your claims a 'pants on fire' lie and provides extensive citations in support of their statement.

  • ulvegaard Medical Lake, Washington
    Aug. 8, 2014 10:43 a.m.

    I think there was a time when 'Federal Land' belonged to all of us, but more and more, this seems not to be the case. The Federal Government has become quite adept at declaring possession of land, resources and places regulations on all of it so that the average citizen or states in general have no further say or access to the land in question.

  • Curmudgeon Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 8, 2014 10:38 a.m.

    Mike Richards:

    Speaking of constitutions, do you accept the Utah Constitution as binding on the State of Utah? If so, then why are you ignoring Article III, which provides in pertinent part:

    "The people inhabiting this State do affirm and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within the boundaries hereof . . . and that until the title thereto shall have been extinguished by the United States, the same shall be and remain subject to the disposition of the United States. . . ."

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Aug. 8, 2014 10:36 a.m.

    So according to Mike all National parks, monuments, forests etc.should be for sale to the highest donor.

    Weren't you trying to use the constitution to silence free speech from Al gore the other day?
    So I'm not sure you really have a good grip on what the constitution protects and doesn't.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Aug. 8, 2014 9:39 a.m.

    According to the Constitution, the only "Federal Lands" in Utah are the "forts, magazines, and land upon which federal building are standing. The Federal Government only "owns" the District of Columbia, which is not to be larger than ten miles square.

    Anyone who can read can that in Article 1, Section 8.

    As far as I have read, there is NO AMENDMENT to the Constitution that entitles the federal level of government to own land within a State. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, without an amendment changing Article 1, Section 8, that clause is the Supreme Law regarding federal ownership of lands. The President MUST abide by the Constitution or be removed from office.

  • JayTee Sandy, UT
    Aug. 8, 2014 9:34 a.m.

    Dear Liberal Politicians: Do you really want to protect the lands in our country? Then how about doing something meaningful to curtail the massive invasion of our homeland across our southern border?

  • mufasta American Fork, UT
    Aug. 8, 2014 9:22 a.m.

    Utah is a afforded rights as a sovereign state. If it were not so, all lands in the US would be Federal Lands. In your reasoning, exactly what percentage of a state should be subject to usurpation as Federal lands? Utah has an excellent track record of managing its lands. Why in the world, would you sanction its stewardship to Federal policy rather than state policy?

  • Wayne Rout El Paso, TX
    Aug. 8, 2014 9:08 a.m.

    The core Democrat senators would take all land everywhere for the federal government when they can get away with it. Hatch has supported liberal causes all his life and must be held responsible for the problems this has caused. I doubt that any of the Democrats involved have ever seen any of the land they want to steal. Their goal is to punish Utah for electing Republicans. The theft of land by the Clinton administration was the start of this trend. The only surprise is that Obama and his henchmen have waited so long.

  • Shimlau SAINT GEORGE, UT
    Aug. 8, 2014 8:29 a.m.

    To GaryO and all others that think that the Fed Gvt. has a right to all of the land in the west, read the Constitution.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    Aug. 8, 2014 8:26 a.m.

    What's wrong with protecting beautiful lands in Utah? Don't oil companies have enough ugly land in Texas to exploit?

  • Jim Cobabe Provo, UT
    Aug. 8, 2014 8:04 a.m.

    Actually, almost ALL of the land in the proposed monument area is ALREADY "managed" by the federal government. Along with the other vast federal land management holdings in Utah and throughout the West.

    Anyone who believes that this means the land really belongs to the people of the US is hopelessly naive. Not so far past was the time when the federal government closed the gates of the parks and put up barricades to prevent public access. People were not even permitted to so much as LOOK at the closed off lands while passing by on public highways.

  • jonjon Cedar Hills, UT
    Aug. 8, 2014 8:01 a.m.

    When the government shut down recently all the national parks went with it. Visitors were turned away. I think what he's saying is let the state run this land. We don't what's happening in Washington to effect the use of public land. If Utah runs it, it has a lot better chance of always being accessible.

  • Jeff Harris Edmonds, WA
    Aug. 8, 2014 7:54 a.m.

    It seems American voters decided to keep the Republicans' Mitt off our country.

    We the people of the United States own the land in question. The State of Utah does not.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    Aug. 8, 2014 7:50 a.m.

    I wonder if, in all his decades in the Senate, if Hatch ever was involved in an issue that was of particular interest to people in other states. I'm not so sure he has clean hands. This is more about appeasing certain local interests. And, as correctly pointed out by others, this land does not belong to Utah, nor to the mining companies and other business interests that want to cheaply exploit this land, so the Federal government, acting for the interests of the whole of the nation, can and should do as it deems best. Getting input from various interests is good, but the decision is not Utah's to make.

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    Aug. 8, 2014 7:44 a.m.

    Hey SilverCloud -

    "we surely don't want to give the Feds any more reasons to usurp our State's rights/lands and share/give them to others."

    The state of UTAH has NO right to federal lands.

    We the people of the United States own that land, and we don't want Utah to despoil and pillage our land.

    . . . Got it yet?

  • ElmoBaggins Escalante, UT
    Aug. 8, 2014 7:44 a.m.

    We all know the agenda of Utah dinosaurs like Hatch,Bishop,Herbert,et al....drill baby drill!Fortunately they are dinosaurs and doomed to extinction

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 8, 2014 7:42 a.m.

    Senator Hatch and his contributors own Utah.

  • Vince Ballard South Ogden, UT
    Aug. 8, 2014 7:39 a.m.

    JMH's comment is right on. I remember in effect what Dodd said in reply,in effect; 'Well we need that land for economic development.' So the "line" isn't in the same place for Eastern liberals as for Western conservatives. Also, those who say that the Federal Government is preserving this land for us are not telling the truth. The fact is that the ultra environmentalist community wants to restrict a great many recreational activities which Utah's people enjoy, and which they despise. The Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance has made this known for a long time. I was told by an official on their website and comment page that if I can't backpack in 30 miles I don't belong there. It's this 'all or nothing' attitude, which former Congressman Bill Orton decried, and for which he was "thrown over" by the environmentalist community that most Westerners hate.

  • silvercloud41NE Fremont, NE
    Aug. 8, 2014 7:23 a.m.

    Keep Utah's land out of Federal hands, Sen. Hatch! I can't tell if Danny Boy is being facetious or not but we surely don't want to give the Feds any more reasons to usurp our State's rights/lands and share/give them to others. We can share far less expensively than can the Federal Government, in my opinion.

  • happy2bhere clearfield, UT
    Aug. 8, 2014 6:25 a.m.

    So much to be said about this kind if issue. Federal Government vs. States Rights. The thing I hope for is that if Obama does do this, (and why wouldn't he as mean spirited as he is, he would love to punish states that don't support him or his fellow Democrats and their liberal causes), then I hope the next Republican President can/will change the policy, and turn back the land to Utah, or any other state where this kind of BIG GOVERNMENT meddling is going on. Take a look at how much land in Utah, and all the Western States is ALREADY owned by the Federal Government. They don't need any more.

  • Strider303 Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 8, 2014 6:07 a.m.

    When all is said and done, more will be said than done. That being said, what will the aging senator do to support his rhetoric?

  • I know it. I Live it. I Love it. Provo, UT
    Aug. 7, 2014 10:52 p.m.

    ODannyBoy,

    Right...

    It seems you believe the Federal Government perfectly represents the American people.
    It seems you believe the Federal Government would never stick it's nose where it ought not.

    I don't believe either.

    And if you still aren't convinced, then fine. I'll agree to the government taking land south of my home if you agree to them testing nuclear weapons north of yours.

    Locals clearly shouldn't get a say in anything. After all- the land belongs to all Americans.

  • Howard Beal Provo, UT
    Aug. 7, 2014 9:49 p.m.

    To answer the question posed by ?

    Because Utah is beautiful and Connecticut not so much...

    So let them tear down the trees and pave themselves a parking lot...

  • southmtnman Provo, UT
    Aug. 7, 2014 9:44 p.m.

    A story and interview about federal lands and monuments, and then Mitt Romney is thrown in there?

    What?!

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    Aug. 7, 2014 9:30 p.m.

    Hey ? -

    "Those so anxious to take land from Utah . . ."

    Federal land in Utah is Federal Land.

    Nobody wants to take OUR land from Utah. We can't take what's already ours.

    It's ALREADY our land.

    It doesn't belong to Utah.

    Get used to it.

    Face the facts.

  • Kim Cedar Park, Texas
    Aug. 7, 2014 9:12 p.m.

    I don't understand why people think this is a proposal for taking Utah land. This is already federal land. There is no taking of any land owned by the State or private individual. What is proposed is a change in designation of already existing federal land. Yes, it will entail additional restrictions on usage, but if the land meets the criteria, it should be so designated. Hopefully they will go through a fair process to reach that conclusion. Preserving federal land with outstanding recreational features benefits everyone, including those in Utah!

  • ? SLC, UT
    Aug. 7, 2014 8:38 p.m.

    Byronbca: Do you not remember the national parks shutdown about a year ago. MurrayGuy has a legitimate concern about people not being able to have access to this land at the whim of the president on whether or not the park is open. Taking more land from Utah doesn't seem right. A similar thing in happening in Idaho with some folks wanting to create the Boulder-White Clouds national monument. Why the need to create these monuments? Who does it help and who will it hurt in the long run? JMH makes a good point. Those so anxious to take land from Utah, are they just as willing to give up land in their own states to match land taken from Utah and other states out west? If not, why?

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    Aug. 7, 2014 8:24 p.m.

    Utah has such beautiful federal lands.

    By rights, at least half the state should be a national monument.

  • homers Provo, UT
    Aug. 7, 2014 7:50 p.m.

    Before we trash Hatch here we should remember that the High Uintas Wilderness, Vermillion Cliffs, Paria Canyon, and the 800,000 acres of wilderness in the state are all the result of legislation cosponsored by Senator Hatch. I think that painting him as some kind of rabid anti- environmental type is inaccurate. If I remember correctly he also co- sponsored the attempt to designate Westwater and Cataract Canyons as wild and scenic rivers and also fought to keep the Atlas Mill Tailings pile from being capped on site. My experience with him in Grand County is that when it comes to Grand County he puts a higher premium on what the citizens of Grand County want than what the citizens of Salt Lake County want to have happen in Grand County and that he realizes that while public lands "belong to all Americans" how those public lands are managed effects the people who are local to those lands a lot more than they effect Salt Lake County citizens or, especially, citizens of another state. I think this view is as it should be.

  • byronbca Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 7, 2014 7:49 p.m.

    Re MurrayGuy: When you say we lose all access to land that becomes a monument what exactly do you mean? You do realize that if this national monument goes through it will mean that every person in the United States of America can legally walk on just about every inch of land in that monument literally any time they want right?

    So by lose all access do you mean that we lose access to exploit the land for mining? And who is the "we" in your statement? You can't possibly be referring to regular Americans or even foreign tourists? Does your "we" refer to only oil, gas and coal?

    Do you realize that "we" as in every person in the world, have access to visit and explore National Monuments any time we want?

  • Curmudgeon Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 7, 2014 7:24 p.m.

    Hatch: "[W]e understand our lands a lot better than they'll ever understand them." Translation: We know how to exploit the federal lands in Utah better than those gol-durned Easterners."

    In that one sentence, Hatch exposes the fatal flaw in his argument. It's not "our lands," meaning Utahns' lands. He can't seem to comprehend the fact that federal lands belong to all Americans.

    I hope Pres. Obama has a commission study and hear all the competing viewpoints, then exerts his authority under the Antiquities Act to designate a new Greater Canyonlands National Monument, citing all the reasons why. At least then Hatch and his cronies can't complain that they were hit by a Pearl Harbor-like "sneak attack."

  • MurrayGuy Murray, UT
    Aug. 7, 2014 7:12 p.m.

    The problem is when the government declares these as "monuments" we LOSE all access to it. So those of you who say "what's the big deal?" Big deal is that this is our State, we should have a say in what happens to it and he's dead on by saying what does a Senator from another state know about us. I would guess if you wanted the same in another state you would get the same response.

  • RichardB Murray, UT
    Aug. 7, 2014 6:27 p.m.

    I have no problem with preserving the land for future generations. It's our gift to America, and Gods gift to us.

  • Steve C. Warren WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    Aug. 7, 2014 6:23 p.m.

    In the late 1970s, a friend name Penny supported Sherman Lloyd for the Republican senatorial nomination while I supported Hatch. As the years have passed and I see what Sen. Hatch has accomplished during his decades in office, one thing has become clear: Penny was right.

  • byronbca Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 7, 2014 6:14 p.m.

    The problem Mr Hatch is that decisions like protecting land isn't made by the people of Utah, it is made by politicians who are getting a lot of money for their campaigns from companies, many of which are not Utah companies, to keep land available for mining and oil and gas.

    If it came down to a vote by Utahans, and the question was "Do you think land surrounding Canyonlands NP should be federally protected? I think that vote comes back as a yes.

    My advice to Utah politicians is if you think this is going to happen, come up with a compromise fast, take some action, because when it comes to invoking the antiquities act the President doesn't need you.

  • FT salt lake city, UT
    Aug. 7, 2014 4:59 p.m.

    Me thinks Hatch is doing the same thing he is accusing the "liberal senators" of. That being trying to raise money from the capitalist cronies in the oil business. If Senator Hatch would look at the Utah polls as well as the National polls he'd see that the majority of Amercians want their public land protected from the very people they'd sell them off too.

  • mcclark Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 7, 2014 4:43 p.m.

    Hatch has worked very hard to make sure that "nutritional supplements" have never been studied to see if they are good for you, bad for you, or don't do anything at all. He has earned the money their lobbyists have given him.

  • ODannyBoy Sandy, Utah
    Aug. 7, 2014 4:29 p.m.

    Dear Senator Hatch,
    Federal land. Belongs to all Americans - not just Utah. They are are not suggesting "taking" land from Utah. Federal land - belongs to all Americans.

  • Incite Full Layton, UT
    Aug. 7, 2014 4:25 p.m.

    Nice try, Hatch, but ultra-liberals don't have the intellectual depth to understand Utah past the woefully inadequate label of a state filled with ultra conservatives they can poke in the eye.

  • JMH Provo, UT
    Aug. 7, 2014 4:17 p.m.

    Former Senator Jake Garn had it correctly when he admonished Senator Dodd of Connecticut that he would be willing to match him acre for acre in wilderness areas. If they wanted 50K acres in Utah then Dodd should find 50K acres in Connecticut. It is all to easy for Senators of other states to propose wilderness and monuments for states that have no impact on their constituents. Hatch is exactly right when he states they make these proposals to satisfy the demands of their liberal campaign donors. I think we should make all of Hollywood and much of Silicon Valley national monuments and tell the people there to find another place to reside. (TIC)