Counties hammer out conservation plans

Officials hope making local conservation plans will keep trust lands usable

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • tq2
    July 12, 2010 10:54 a.m.

    Bob Bennett was thrown out of office, in part because of his support of this kind of anti-tenth amendment stuff. Matheson needs to get a life and start support the people who live, work, and vote in Utah, instead of the radical environmentalists who live somewhere else. Matheson has lost my vote forever. Morgan Philpot would never consider this kind of land grabbing nonsense by the feds.

  • canyonist
    July 10, 2010 12:03 p.m.

    As L and others have mentioned Trust Lands can and are swapped out as great advantage to the State of Utah politicians and businesses. So tied up Trust Lands is a bogus contention.

    The State of Utah benefits greatly through its natural and cultural (archaeological, especially rock art) resources...tourism is a much larger part of our economy than cow punching, mining and timber is and will ever be...but no one comes to see overgrazed, cow-pied land, nor slag heaps, nor tree stumps.

    That's the human factor...but what about the original inhabitants of the area we call Utah? The wild families...from the smallest to the largest, from those that move around and need a decent habitat to survive to those who are rooted and move only through seed.

    The Trust Land needs to get their heads out of their bonus checks and the politicians need to get off their high horse and self-centeredness and think about those who cannot grease their skids with money.

    Values indeed...!

  • L
    July 10, 2010 9:46 a.m.

    @ Geezer | 6:22 a.m. July 10, 2010
    .... I worked for BLM, and I've seen these cases
    resolved time after time.

    Maybe we havemet as I have worked for local government and worked on successful land exchanges as well, not only with other government agencies but with private companies as well. In one case it was a 3 way deal that benefited everyone.

    Now as I remember history, Utah got twice as much land at statehood than most other states. Sections 2,16,32 and 36 in each township was given to the State, I believe with the intention of supporting schools.

    Of course since many of the rougher part of the State were not surveyed until relatively recently, you didn't even know where the boundries were for sure. Even though accessible, it was not economical to fence them so use was traded with adajacent private landholders or with government. The section will support so many cows, so that number was just incorporated with the others in a grazing allotment. Sometimes, by the luck of the draw, the State section had no water so by itself could not be used for graging. All are used by wildlife!

  • Geezer
    July 10, 2010 6:22 a.m.

    No trust lands will be lost, because they are always exchanged-out. SITLA comes out ahead because they can get larger and more accessible blocks of land from BLM to replace the remote, scattered sections. They may also end up with lands that have more dollar-value because of minerals or other exploitable resources. I worked for BLM, and I've seen these cases resolved time after time.

  • My2Cents
    July 10, 2010 4:13 a.m.

    Don't know why they call it conservation when they mean develop the wilderness. Development and conservation are opposite ends of land use.

    Besides, the state control of the trust lands are defrauding education of the funds they bring in, it all goes to the general fund budget for general distribution, and not to education. The state looks at trust lands as general fund land and conservation is the last thing they intend to do with these lands.

    Get involved, sure, save the wilderness areas and stop development. Once all the trust lands are sold for development what lands will remain in trust? That's the future they should be looking at. Trust lands in national parks are not lost, they are still there, they just can't be developed. This is the thorn that irritates developers and fraudulent sale and abuse of these lands.

    The living today are the caretakers of land for the future generations and that is what our problem is. Idle land is never lost, and the future generations if we care to look 200-300 years in the future, is the important issue. Remember too, food is grown on idle undeveloped land.

  • Mom of Five
    July 9, 2010 11:32 p.m.

    Utah citizens need to wake up and let their voices be heard on this issue. I love nature and wilderness, but the loss of such a large portion of our trust lands will be DEVASTATING. Please, let's not let this happen without a fight. Get involved!