Bebyebe--you're a prime example of someone educated/brainwashed in
government run schools.Ants can't cause an earthquake, and
humans can destroy the planet. Just that simple. Someday it's
going to be determined that you are destroying your house, yard, and
neighborhood. Better hold on.
Utah would destroy the national parks the second they gained them. Utah prefer
oil companies to people.Of course the state would still have a hand
out for the federal money.
Actually, when the "Mormons" first came to Utah, my ancestors, this was
NOT part of the United States. When my family built homes and a ranch,
there was no government land. They shared beef and land with the Native
Americans, whom they called "Lamanites" and whom they felt were a
choosen people. Descendents of the people spoken of in the Book of Mormon. Our land was taken in the late 1870s through the 1920s by the federal
govenment.It was and should still be our land!!!
@CHS 85:Ignorance stems from the the lack of research, and study.I'll just say this:* Bill Clinton* Search how
much of Utah lands are federally owned.If you really like to know,
do some homework.
@worfWhen did the feds take land from the State of Utah? Let's
see how well you think you know our history. I'd really like
bullet56, Feb 28, 10;51 am, what are you talking about? Most federal lands
in the state of Utah are criss-crossed by private lands.If they just let
it burn, that will allow someones home or cabin to burn, as well as grazing
cattle, wild horses, and millions wild animals who will run into fences, ditches
and highways. Let it burn only works if there are no people living there. Why do the firemen in Olympia put out house fires? They should just let
the entire block burn down, maybe even the entire city!Imagine the
wildlife 20+ years from now if Olympia burns to the ground!
If the feds can take land from the states, they'll someday take your
property.Hmm? Aren't the feds buying out mortgage loans?
Yes take a Stand Against all Big Government - State or Federal as they are all
Tax Parasites Downsize Downsize Downsize - Do more with Less -
Federal Government has no business getting involved in State Issues that always
affect a local lil guy somewhere. Trillions in debt and still they want to spend
spend spend - Madness
"The Lord has instructed us,in the Declaration of Indepencence." Are
you kidding me? Really, are you serious?
Noodle: When you know the difference between consumptive uses of water you
might become believeable.
Bravo Utah. We need to start standing up to the over reaching of the federal
government. Here is AZ in the past decade or so over 1 million acres of forest
have burned because the feds and environmentalists won't let anyone thin
out the forest to their pre-European state of 20-60 trees per acre. Today you
can find up to 1000 trees per acre in these forests. The feds can't manage
anything. Take it back from them before they ruin Utah,too. And now they want
to manage our health care? Heaven help us.
I-am-ISouth Jordan, UT said:The paranoid people commenting on here
about destroying all our public lands and strip mining the state are ridiculous.
Look to the west of your location in South Jordan, Awesome mtn
turned inside out for profit. Now look to your south at the disappearing
"point of the mountain" and that prime Real Estate under the State
Prison that the greedy little men on the hill want now. Sorry but
Utah puts "personal Business interests" ahead of the people of Utah
Bullet56, are you implying that the we who have a different point of view
don't have skin in the game? The massive fires that have occurred since the
early 1990's have burned so ferociously that even plants that require fire
to germinate can't survive. The damage to wildlife species and human
species is often disastrous. I used to agree to letting the back country burn
until wild-lands fires became so intense that they roar across millions of acres
and then encroach on inhabited areas. When you have the overcrowded, stress
weakened conditions we find in federally managed forests today fire is
uncontrollable and incredibly destructive. I believe states have
managed state parks and Endangered Species Conservation areas quite effectively
for years. It is absolutely amazing how well rural lands can be managed for
multiple use by state and county agencies.
As a citizen with skin in the game, I hope Utah is not selfish enough to land
grab property that I own in common with citizens all across the other 49 states.
I don't want to have game hunting ranch as the only hunting options. As for
fires, let them burn in the back country and you have the natural cycle. It is
needed, and makes the forest healthy, dynamic, diversified. The shingle fire?
12.5 sq miles. Not much of a fire. Yellowstone is so much better for wildlife
since the fire 20+ years ago.
Devolving control and management of these lands to the states, counties makes
sense. The experience we have in federal land management has proven over and
over that management is best handled by smaller government entities. They can be
held to account by local residents who are the most threatened by poor planning
and management practices. Why send land management funding to the federal
government to get a reduced portion of it back? Funding that comes with many
restrictions on how it can be used locally. Why continue to bankrupt Utah's
economy and shortchange state education through non-use of the resources of the
state? Payment in Lieu of Taxes is inadequate and always will be.
Given the choice of knuckleheads in Utah managing Utah or knuckleheads in
Washington D.C. managing Utah, I'll take the home-grown sort every time...l
Mugabe, this has nothing to do with the (L)ord. You are correct that we now live
in a democracy. This democracy has served us well for over 70 years. If problems
now exist it is with those elceted to govern under the system not the system
United States Congressional Record, March 17, 1993 Vol. 33, page H-1303Speaker-Rep. James Traficant, Jr. (Ohio) addressing the House:"It is an established fact that the United States Federal Government has
been dissolved by the Emergency Banking Act, March 9, 1933, 48 Stat. 1, Public
Law 89-719; declared by President Roosevelt, being bankrupt and insolvent.
H.J.R. 192, 73rd Congress m session June 5, 1933 - Joint Resolution To Suspend
The Gold Standard and Abrogate The Gold Clause dissolved the Sovereign Authority
of the United States and the official capacities of all United States
Governmental Offices, Officers, and Departments and is further evidence that the
United States Federal Government exists today in name only."With
the Constitutional Republican form of Government now dissolved, the receivers of
the Bankruptcy have adopted a new form of government for the United States. This
new form of government is known as a Democracy, being an established
Socialist/Communist order under a new governor for America.The Lord
has instructed us, in the Declaration of Indepencence on what we need to do when
we find our selves connected with another government. (continued)
Let's see, what percentage of our Utah legislators are realtors, land
developers or other folks who stand to gain personal financial benefits from
their schemes to take over Utah's public lands?A few years ago
it was about 80%. What is it now? Does anyone know?But then,
conflict of interest seems to be one of those elusive "Utah Values" we
keep hearing about.
We need to read between the lines here. This is just a few people trying to grab
some FREE assets that they can sell for billions in profit, at the expense of
the rest of us. They are trying to put lipstick on a pig and convince all of us
that it is really Miss America. I hope that Utahns are smart enough to see
I see nothing wrong with managing the land within our borders and believing that
since we are more apt to understand the local situation that we can do a better
job. I also see nothing wrong with accepting money to manage that land (because
technically it isn't the states land) to manage that land (that would only
seem normal, a management contract if you will). I especially think it's
the obvious choice if we assume that the state can do it better and cheaper than
the Federal Government. The paranoid people commenting on here about destroying
all our public lands and strip mining the state are ridiculous. It would still
be federal land. That means that the Federal government would have some say in
how the land is managed. That means that unless the federal government wants the
public lands violated then it won't happen.
Say goodbye to freedom.
So Deseret News, where is the story in your newspaper about the state Senate
vote on Tuesday night whether to reject or accept the federal government's
$71 million dollars for environmental programs? The Democrats on the committee
voted to reject the funds along with most of the Republicans. Guess which group
changed their vote to accept those funds - that's right, the Republicans.
When the time to stand up and be counted as Mike Noel from Kanab
says, the Republicans said yes to accepting federal money to manage lands in the
state. How can a group of people have their hand out to accept money while
talking smack at the same time? Did I miss it? It was in the other
Thomas Jefferson, panamadesnews, mikesmullin,Where will Utah get the
millions of dollars annually it takes to manage these lands? Because these are
currently federal lands, the entire nation of 300 million is subsidizing their
oversight. If Utah gains control, those expenses will have to be paid by the 3
million Utah residents. Where will the money come from? We can't even
afford to keep our state parks open. Fighting forest fires is extremely
expensive. Maintaining dirt roads and trails, developing resource management
plans, etc is expensive. Where will the money come from? User fees for every
hunter, ATV rider, and hiker? Selling off the resources to the highest bidder?
What a fool's errand. They've worked themselves into such a frenzy
that they've forgotten that they have no army. They spit in the face of a
united country except when they have their hands out for money or other personal
convenience. And like Mr. Gronberg points out, they struggle to manage what they
already have. This will go nowhere.
Like the Federal government is taking water from ranchers, today SLC is taking
water from 30 companies in the valley with SB 109.SB 109 (SLC's
water bill) in House seeks to take up to $180 million of contract water from 30
water companies in Salt Lake County without just compensation.SLC
sued Big Ditch to take their water without just compensation. SLC lost in the
the Utah Supreme Court. Last year, SLC ran HB 485. This year it's SB 109
to overturn their Supreme Court loss. SLC hired republican lobbyists,legislators
to sponsor the SLC water bill, got the State Engineer to co-sponsor their
bill,got the CUP to promote the bill, got the Water Task Force to write the SLC
bill, offered special treatment to cities in the bill, gopt Utah's water
cartel to support the bill, and offered new powers to the State Engineer to cut
water transfers(a judicial power. SLC owns over $1 Billion of the
State's water, but only beneficially needs $150 million worth. SLC nor the
Federal government does not need the water their grabbing. Why do
the big and powerful keep taking the small guys property without paying for it?
We have to remember that federal lands are not the property of Utah. What this
vagabond state government is doing is selling out the people of America.This passion for control is still confusing and we can be assured its
not for the benefit of the citizens and people of Utah. BLM and federal control
is the only thing stopping bill boards, smoke stacks, dust, oil spills,
pollution, wild fires, deforesting and depopulating Utah of its wildlife. Lining the pockets of the politicians and developers with billions of
dollars are not my idea of good management of state property. We have lost
Oquirrh hills and public canyons to development is a prime example of the future
if Utah is allowed to sell it. NO hunting, no sports, no rafting, no boating,
fishing, and no off road use. Utah government doesn't want the
land for recreational or public use. Its an asset to sell until the land runs
out. Its not about what the BLM doesn't do with it, its about what Utah
wants to do in destroying it as public property.
Darn skippy! I would have thought UT State controlled this already.
Was NOT the State of Utah closing state parks due to lack of money a year or two
The federal government should not and can not legally own water rights in the
state of Utah. Utah can actually own water rights here. The reason being,
protection for us from being closed off from our water.Water rights are
very clear in Utah. Even if you own the land you do not own the water that lands
on it or runs through it. It is more then ranchers that suffer from
federal water right grabs. I hope you all like to drink a little water
each day. Every drop of water we use all year long comes from our mountains, off
of federal lands. If they can take one persons water they can take it all
and literally leave us high and dry!As far as the existing powerplant is
concerned the farmers from Delta hired a lawyer to claim every dry gultch and
seasonal spring all along the Sevier River drainage, then they sold their water
to the IPP.Nuclear Power plants need heavy water and that is an entire
other kettle of "water".
@TJBut you think Utah can? The same politicians who want to build a
nuclear power plant, in a desert, and take 1000's and 1000's of
gallons of water(which we will need,to ya know, drink)out of our biggest water
source. The same politicians that expect US to pay for it. If the state really
got control of our land it would be strip mined and filled with toxic chemicals
within the next 10 years.
And the liberal Dems think that more and bigger govt is better?