Utah People, thoughts on this?

[ismith]

And before us Montana folks get all self-righteous about the misguided politicians in Utah, I suggest we re-read Page 13 of the Montana Republican Party Platform, adopted June 29, 2024.

Link here - https://mtgop.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/2024_Party_Platform.pdf

Cut and Paste for those not inclined to read the document.
View attachment 342554

For the sake of argument, does it really matter who's in charge of it as long as it stays public and wild?

 

[KingOfTagSoup]

For the sake of argument, does it really matter who's in charge of it as long as it stays public and wild?

No it wouldn't in theory, but states aren't seeking control because they want to keep lands wild. They want to parcel it off for revenue

 

[Big Fin]

For the sake of argument, does it really matter who's in charge of it as long as it stays public and wild?

In theory or in practicality? In theory a case can be made that it wouldn’t matter. Yet in practicality and under law, the states can’t leave them as is and make them “public.”

All the western states claim their State Trust Lands are NOT public lands. No state land board has any incentive to keep them wild they have every incentive to give the highest priority to income producing activities. And MT DNRC is charged with making a profit, which means unprofitable lands get sold.

I remember when MT state lands were the same rules as CO has for their state lands - no hunting without permission of the lessee. Going back to that is not out of the question with folks asking to be in charge of public land policy at the state level.

And this is really not about what Montana voters want, regardless of political affiliation. Every poll, for both R and D voters, shows overwhelming support for public lands and improved management. Same in Utah, the state that is the origin of this thread.

What this is about is a fringe element that has ideological opposition to public ownership of land and an intense desire to see those lands get privatized. They’ve been at it for decades. They don’t intend to stop their efforts until these lands are privatized.

That’s the practicality surrounding the issue.

 

[ismith]

No it wouldn't in theory, but states aren't seeking control because they want to keep lands wild. They want to parcel it off for revenue

I understand that, but in theory aren't their ways to ensure that the land stays undeveloped and accessible?

 

[KingOfTagSoup]

I understand that, but in theory aren't their ways to ensure that the land stays undeveloped and accessible?

In theory probably, but it requires an assumption that keeping it undeveloped is the intention of the state. And @Big Find makes a good point in that legally the state is required to generate revenue from state trust lands....which usually doesn't involve keeping them wild. Kind of a "lesser of two evils" thing I would say.

 

[KingOfTagSoup]

In theory probably, but it requires an assumption that keeping it undeveloped is the intention of the state. And @Big Find makes a good point in that legally the state is required to generate revenue from state trust lands....which usually doesn't involve keeping them wild. Kind of a "lesser of two evils" thing I would say.

Meant @Big Fin not Big Find

 

[ismith]

In theory or in practicality? In theory a case can be made that it wouldn’t matter. Yet in practicality and under law, the states can’t leave them as is and make them “public.”

All the western states claim their State Trust Lands are NOT public lands. No state land board has any incentive to keep them wild they have every incentive to give the highest priority to income producing activities. And MT DNRC is charged with making a profit, which means unprofitable lands get sold.

I remember when MT state lands were the same rules as CO has for their state lands - no hunting without permission of the lessee. Going back to that is not out of the question with folks asking to be in charge of public land policy at the state level.

And this is really not about what Montana voters want, regardless of political affiliation. Every poll, for both R and D voters, shows overwhelming support for public lands and improved management. Same in Utah, the state that is the origin of this thread.

What this is about is a fringe element that has ideological opposition to public ownership of land and an intense desire to see those lands get privatized. They’ve been at it for decades. They don’t intend to stop their efforts until these lands are privatized.

That’s the practicality surrounding the issue.

Both are fair game I suppose. In theory is common sense; practicality and under the law is common sense after considering all the greed, apathy and corruption in state and federal government. The states will leave them as is if the people the states represent demand it, unless of course the state isn't "for and by the people". The idea that state school trust land isn't public must be challenged.

I don't have all the answers, or probably any of the answers, but we are currently watching everything slip away, and that's a non-partisan damned shame.

 

[SAJ-99]

The states will leave them as is if the people the states represent demand it

Sure they will…

IDL Priest Lake lot auction raises over $11 million for public school endowment fund

IDL says the money will go toward funding Idaho state public schools.

www.krem.com

 

[ismith]

Sure they will…

IDL Priest Lake lot auction raises over $11 million for public school endowment fund

IDL says the money will go toward funding Idaho state public schools.

www.krem.com

"unless of course the state isn't "for and by the people".

 

[TheTone]

Sure they will…

IDL Priest Lake lot auction raises over $11 million for public school endowment fund

IDL says the money will go toward funding Idaho state public schools.

www.krem.com

I bet the rates I pay in taxes to support schools don’t go down at all.

Last I knew IDL was sitting on lots of money that was earmarked for purchasing more land but they’ve taken lots of heat from farmers, private timber companies and legislators that they can out pay others and thus need to not spend the money

 

[ismith]

I bet the rates I pay in taxes to support schools don’t go down at all.

Last I knew IDL was sitting on lots of money that was earmarked for purchasing more land but they’ve taken lots of heat from farmers, private timber companies and legislators that they can out pay others and thus need to not spend the money

Seems like they put forward a new mill levy for schools ever damn year.