$14 million to fight public lands laws?

[franklin]

Personally, I want that $14 million to go to buying up land and donating it to the federal government, but hey what do I care about such a waste of taxpayer money? Why not give it to the Bundy family of felons?

 

[babe]

Personally, I want that $14 million to go to buying up land and donating it to the federal government, but hey what do I care about such a waste of taxpayer money? Why not give it to the Bundy family of felons?

The State of Utah charges about twenty times as much for grazing as the BLM. It would be great for the schools if all the Federal land were given over to the State.

The State of Utah hires sharpshooters to ride in airplanes and hunt coyotes, too. The BLM won't react to wet years with tons of cheatgrass, and the Forest Service believes in burning old trees along with the undergrowth to simulate natural fire cycles. I bet the State of Utah would up the grazing permits to enable ranchers to effectively clear the excess undergrowth, and harvest some of the old timber for revenue, before doing the fire.

The State of Utah would not pave little hiking trails in the middle of nowhere where less than ten people will walk in a year, and certainly could not be as corrupt as the BLM running the Bunddys off their grazing area so Harry Reid's son Cory, former Clark County commissioner and head of SNWA and Nevada Power, can make a billion off miles and miles of solar reflectors in the desert, an operation that is the ultimate antithesis of environmental conservation on the face of that land.

Only 14M? That would be about a 14B swing in the State tax revenue. Hell yeah, I'd spend $1 to rake in $1000 every year.

The Fed govt is all about locking people off the land and putting them on metropolitan revervations, for all the same reasons it did the Native Americans over a hundred years ago.

If you can stand sitting in a squalid Revervation govt.-built shack for a week, I'd give you credit for at least being a sincere believer in socialism.

 

[♪alt13]

I don't like how the feds manage the land, especially the BLM, and I don't think Congress is the right institution to decide land use policy in Utah. At the same time I fear that the jerks at the Utah state capitol just want to develop sensitive and fantastic pieces of land that we all love.

I want a master plan that would:
1)remove all BLM and school trust land from the state
2)Keep all of it public
3)Give it a use designation(perhaps not limited to the current land use designations)
4)Ban all future federal land designations in Utah
5)Create a new department to oversee Utah Land that would draw from both the state and the fed for its board.

 

[♪alt13]

Here is a map that shows Utah land status

https://tlamap.trustlands.utah.gov/download/maps/statewide/SurfaceMineral_st36x48_shd.pdf

 

[The Thriller]

Have any of you paid attention to how poorly we fund our schools?
How about how our legislature will focus for weeks debating state guns and anti-porn legislation while the state suffocates on the worst air quality in the Western Hemisphere?
How about the way our legislature hands out billions to developers like Greg Hughes (draper) and Brad Wilson (Woods Cross) for a prison no one wanted to be relocated?
How about that $2 billion Lake Powell handout that everyone admits is a Ponzi scheme?
Or the governor handing out $13 million to a losing UDOT contractor?
How about the poor maintenance of our state parks? I'm an outdoors person and I can't believe how poorly they're maintained.
Finally, how about this creepy $54 million dollar Oakland coal project that we all know is tainted?

I trust the Utah state government about as much as I'd trust Bernie Madoff with my retirement. If Utah can't even fund and maintain the lands and programs it already has how can they be expected to fund additional lands and programs? Just who exactly is going to pay for the firefighting of these lands? Just a few years ago Utah sucked $55 million off the fed's teet to pay for fires.

If you want your public lands to quickly become privatized, pillaged, sold off, and scarred with "No Tresspassing" signs then support this ridiculous Koch/ALEC sponsored proposal. Similar legislation is being pursued by other red Koch bought off states. Of course, our legislature and the bulk of voters are too stupid/bought off to care. So I leave it to the moderate feds to strike this proposal down just as they did the gay marriage ban.

Your tax dollars being wasted once again! The funny thing about conservatism is that eventually you run out of someone else's money.

 

[The Thriller]

I don't like how the feds manage the land, especially the BLM, and I don't think Congress is the right institution to decide land use policy in Utah. At the same time I fear that the jerks at the Utah state capitol just want to develop sensitive and fantastic pieces of land that we all love.

I want a master plan that would:
1)remove all BLM and school trust land from the state
2)Keep all of it public
3)Give it a use designation(perhaps not limited to the current land use designations)
4)Ban all future federal land designations in Utah
5)Create a new department to oversee Utah Land that would draw from both the state and the fed for its board.

BLM manages the land far better than any state entity.

The 9 most terrifying words In the English language are:

I'm from the legislature and im here to help.

From gay marriage bans to our dead last in per pupil funding to ridiculous prison relocations to being captive by a lobbyist mascaraing as a church. Keep your damn Utah government hands off my public lands! Our legislature is easily the most arrogant, corrupt, and inept state government in the country.

They know that they can go balls deep on you every year and you'll continue to let them do it as long as they have a RM by their name.

 

[babe]

Here is a map that shows Utah land status

https://tlamap.trustlands.utah.gov/download/maps/statewide/SurfaceMineral_st36x48_shd.pdf

Look at it this way. . . .

This is what happens when the Federal Government owns land.

First of all, US citizens put their necks on the line to throw off the British, and got the Northwest Territories ceded in the settlement, mostly lands the British had promised to the American native tribes who sided with the British. North of the Ohio and east of the Mississippi. The US Congress became the battle ground between States, former colonies, jealous for their respective interests, and the grandiose pompous windbags all knew ordinary American citizens wanted that land for themselves.

But well-meaning progressive politicians decided public education was a public interest, though the US Constitution was constructed to deny the Federal Government from becoming powerful enough to ever hold sway over anything the way the British oligarchs had done. But who the Hell cares what the Constitution says when there's votes to be won with power you can just pull out of thin air?

So they passed the law that required certain sections of every township, 6 of every 36 sections, a square miles of US territory not already in State hands to be deeded to local territorial governments (future States) to support public education. The law anticipated that the sections would be sold and the money used to build little schoolhouses all over the country, close enough to the people their children could walk to school. . .yah, within a couple of miles.

Great idea, right. See what it does to the map. That's all those little green squares.

It's also proof that according to the original intent of the Constitution, the government was not supposed to be a land holder.

You don't want people to own the land because "the people" would likely be corporate interests owned by the same kind of oligarchs our founders had to fight against for a the very idea of actual human liberties, and that would likely be the result if the we took the Feds out of their squatters rights today. There's no denying that of all the territory acquired by the US government was originally supposed to turned over to the states and then to the people. It's only in the arid areas that could not be successfully farmed by homesteaders using horse-powered equipment that any land remained in Federal hands. And there is no question but that the Federal government acted illegally and contrary to laws passed by the US Congress, to retain so-called ownership even there.

I like that land being open for use under good management, with it's scenic values and environmental values protected, and our right to go out there protected, and free.

I don't like it becoming a political sell out like the Sooners land rush where we sold off native American lands for a pittance, or for it to be handed over by the Feds to Harry Reid's son.

Probably we could get some laws passed which amount to a land use plan, imposing essentially some idea of zoning regulations, to protect a lot of it, but we should allow more private ownership of the Western States where the idea fits with long-term growth needs or resource utilization, and allow some to be converted to farm land where new technology and water conservation methods or public works would make it an economically successful venture.

I don't think we will ever solve this riddle, but we have really, really bad management as things stand.

The "progressive" Left has it's shorts in a bunch over all private property, and wants Government to run everything, and those ideas or ideals are the exact opposite of the basic founding ideals of this country. Whatever it takes to shoot those morons out of their saddle, we have to do it. Kicky and half of Jazzfanz forum are my little piece of that fight.

And my wife tells all her conservative friends I'm a socialist. LOL. No, but I believe people have the right to act as community to protect their basic interests and wishes, and needs, and that oligarchy or mob democracy and most other ideas of government generally break down, with the result that real power generally falls into the hands of the few who want it most, and care the least about the common good.

Even a utility coop will eventual be run that way. So if you want to make a difference, your best bet is to become a private landholder and hope your kids will follow your ideals somehow. . . .

Sad, but true.

 

[franklin]

The State of Utah charges about twenty times as much for grazing as the BLM. It would be great for the schools if all the Federal land were given over to the State.

The State of Utah hires sharpshooters to ride in airplanes and hunt coyotes, too. The BLM won't react to wet years with tons of cheatgrass, and the Forest Service believes in burning old trees along with the undergrowth to simulate natural fire cycles. I bet the State of Utah would up the grazing permits to enable ranchers to effectively clear the excess undergrowth, and harvest some of the old timber for revenue, before doing the fire.

The State of Utah would not pave little hiking trails in the middle of nowhere where less than ten people will walk in a year, and certainly could not be as corrupt as the BLM running the Bunddys off their grazing area so Harry Reid's son Cory, former Clark County commissioner and head of SNWA and Nevada Power, can make a billion off miles and miles of solar reflectors in the desert, an operation that is the ultimate antithesis of environmental conservation on the face of that land.

Only 14M? That would be about a 14B swing in the State tax revenue. Hell yeah, I'd spend $1 to rake in $1000 every year.

The Fed govt is all about locking people off the land and putting them on metropolitan revervations, for all the same reasons it did the Native Americans over a hundred years ago.

If you can stand sitting in a squalid Revervation govt.-built shack for a week, I'd give you credit for at least being a sincere believer in socialism.

Have you heard either of these phrases:

"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me 50 times, I'm an idiot"

"Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it."

Talk to virtually anyone who lives in an Eastern state with zero open spaces and they will tell you how plain stupid turning federal lands over to the states will be. It is very predictable what will eventually happen -- there will inevitably be little left for you to leave your children and grand children to enjoy. Is that worth a few precious school dollars to you?

 

[♪alt13]

Look at it this way. . . .

This is what happens when the Federal Government owns land.

First of all, US citizens put their necks on the line to throw off the British, and got the Northwest Territories ceded in the settlement, mostly lands the British had promised to the American native tribes who sided with the British. North of the Ohio and east of the Mississippi. The US Congress became the battle ground between States, former colonies, jealous for their respective interests, and the grandiose pompous windbags all knew ordinary American citizens wanted that land for themselves.

But well-meaning progressive politicians decided public education was a public interest, though the US Constitution was constructed to deny the Federal Government from becoming powerful enough to ever hold sway over anything the way the British oligarchs had done. But who the Hell cares what the Constitution says when there's votes to be won with power you can just pull out of thin air?

So they passed the law that required certain sections of every township, 6 of every 36 sections, a square miles of US territory not already in State hands to be deeded to local territorial governments (future States) to support public education. The law anticipated that the sections would be sold and the money used to build little schoolhouses all over the country, close enough to the people their children could walk to school. . .yah, within a couple of miles.

Great idea, right. See what it does to the map. That's all those little green squares.

It's also proof that according to the original intent of the Constitution, the government was not supposed to be a land holder.

You don't want people to own the land because "the people" would likely be corporate interests owned by the same kind of oligarchs our founders had to fight against for a the very idea of actual human liberties, and that would likely be the result if the we took the Feds out of their squatters rights today. There's no denying that of all the territory acquired by the US government was originally supposed to turned over to the states and then to the people. It's only in the arid areas that could not be successfully farmed by homesteaders using horse-powered equipment that any land remained in Federal hands. And there is no question but that the Federal government acted illegally and contrary to laws passed by the US Congress, to retain so-called ownership even there.

I like that land being open for use under good management, with it's scenic values and environmental values protected, and our right to go out there protected, and free.

I don't like it becoming a political sell out like the Sooners land rush where we sold off native American lands for a pittance, or for it to be handed over by the Feds to Harry Reid's son.

Probably we could get some laws passed which amount to a land use plan, imposing essentially some idea of zoning regulations, to protect a lot of it, but we should allow more private ownership of the Western States where the idea fits with long-term growth needs or resource utilization, and allow some to be converted to farm land where new technology and water conservation methods or public works would make it an economically successful venture.

I don't think we will ever solve this riddle, but we have really, really bad management as things stand.

The "progressive" Left has it's shorts in a bunch over all private property, and wants Government to run everything, and those ideas or ideals are the exact opposite of the basic founding ideals of this country. Whatever it takes to shoot those morons out of their saddle, we have to do it. Kicky and half of Jazzfanz forum are my little piece of that fight.

And my wife tells all her conservative friends I'm a socialist. LOL. No, but I believe people have the right to act as community to protect their basic interests and wishes, and needs, and that oligarchy or mob democracy and most other ideas of government generally break down, with the result that real power generally falls into the hands of the few who want it most, and care the least about the common good.

Even a utility coop will eventual be run that way. So if you want to make a difference, your best bet is to become a private landholder and hope your kids will follow your ideals somehow. . . .

Sad, but true.

We only have so much water. Even if we use our entire Colorado river allocation there is not going to be enough water to farm or develop that land. There may not even be enough for the current private land to be fully developed and farmed and there probably isn't when we include the reservations.

Even if there was enough water I would rather not Utah became Kansas. Sorry, but that's just a lame proposal. We should continue to grow the Wasatch front as our metro. We could easily double our population in its current footprint. We should keep the patchwork of rural communities, ranches, and farms that polka dot our state but we should not sacrifice our public land to them.

As far as what the founding fathers may have thought about this, if you want Utah to end up like the eastern half of this country you go ahead and follow that line of thinking.