Utah v. United States

[smarandr]

The embarrassment is the UT residents. It shows a large portion of the population there are clueless sheep.

Exactly. Regrettably they're not isolated to Utah. Here in Idaho there's a large percentage of the population drinking from the same punch bowl. The sheep that are swallowing this line of BS need to follow the advice of one of their beloved leaders--El Rushbo's Undeniable Truth #25: Follow the money.

 

[bigskyblueman]

Sheep, a.k.a. , useful idiots.

 

[theRedneck]

This thread has certainly been educational for me. Thank you.

 

[1_pointer]

I know I've posted this before, but when I was at Utah State I went to a talk by an economist on the ability of the state to take over management of all federal lands. His position was that the state would have to sell the best 50% to even have a chance at keeping the worst 50%.

Canyonlands National Park Subdivision - 5-10ac lots starting at only....

 

[Zach]

CPW is cash strapped?

Colorado Parks & Wildlife Revenue Sources Total Revenue $198,712,410 (FY 12-13)
https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/About/Reports/StatewideFactSheet.pdf

 

[noharleyyet]

CPW is cash strapped?

Colorado Parks & Wildlife Revenue Sources Total Revenue $198,712,410 (FY 12-13)
https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/About/Reports/StatewideFactSheet.pdf

.....................

 

[Nameless Range]

I think the evidence is overwhelming that the land transfer is a bad idea. It places our public lands at a greater risk of loss to/infiltration by filthy rich interests. But despite the fiscal and management reasons to not go through with the transfer, the greatest reason IMO, and curiously the one nobody ever brings up, is the ideal of public lands.

Is it not beautiful that anyone, of any class, in any state, can dream and pursue the experiences our public lands offer because they are public trust? They are America's shared backyard. 400+ million acres available to anyone, and no state can tell you otherwise. They are an equalizer of sorts, in a world in desperate need of such things. They are a symbol of a mature Social Contract.

I don't need Utah's permission to wander what is currently the Dixie National Forest - no American does. A dirt poor kid from New York does not need the approval of any state or entity to thumb across the country and burn boot leather in the Bob. That's a special type of freedom - and only one public lands as an American ideal , not an ideal differing by state, can offer.

When you ask Americans what makes their country special in comparison to others you'll get an array of answers -from guns, to freedom of speech, to freedom of religion. Those are nice, but I can get a lot of those elsewhere. They aren't in our constitution, but as they exist now, I would argue that public lands are one of the more beautiful - and important- aspects of the American experience.

Filthy rich interests are licking their chops and don't give a salient $#!t about the beauty of the ideal of public lands.

 

[Big Fin]

CPW is cash strapped?

Colorado Parks & Wildlife Revenue Sources Total Revenue $198,712,410 (FY 12-13)
https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/About/Reports/StatewideFactSheet.pdf

Thanks to adding a money losing parks program to the old Colorado Division of Wildlife, yes, there is a lot less cash to lease the hunting on state ground.

I don't think you are saying CPW has the funds to lease the hunting on all the current Federal lands, but maybe you feel that way. That's the point I make - if these lands go to the state, kiss your hunting good bye on 23 million acres we currently have access to.

Do you think CPW has the money to lease the hunting on 23 million Federal acres that would become state land in CO?

And if not, who do you predict will end up with the hunting rights on those 23 million acres?

I have my prediction, and it surely wouldn't be to the benefit of guys on this site.

 

[opyff]

Most likely the reason for the 5-7 year wait on the allotments is most likely because the federal government is mandated by law to go thru the NEPA process which is a long tedious process to do absolutely anything to public land. The NEPA process is a giant pain in the butt and costs a lot of time and money, but it is a checks and balance process so that gov't officials or politicians can't make poor decisions like cutting access to public land or selling off parcels of land to their buddies or drilling for natural gas in the back country. It's also a process that allows the public voice to be heard. But the states are not bound by the NEPA process, which is a double edged sword, states can pretty much do whatever they want without any checks and balances or public input.
You say that legislation could be put in place to stop that? You expect the guys that get to vote on their own pay raises to create laws that might bind their hands from doing whatever they want? Yeah right

 

[sagebrush]

In Az, state land is held in trust and your hunting license gives permission to enter. The purpose of state land was to provide cash from the sale to develop schools and other infrastructure after accepting statehood. Using the disposition of those state lands as a measure of how a state would manage all land under their jurisdiction is a little disingenuous.

There is currently no control on state legislatures to prevent land use change in the event of transfer of federal land to the states because there is no need for controls on a hypothetical. The controls would need to be established as part of the transfer and therein lies the problem. Whose interests would the state legislatures serve if they should suddenly gain ownership? Hard to leave the devil you know for the devil you don't.

The current system of land ownership could be vastly improved if the states actually had more input and control over land use. A lot of federal policy is set by outsiders who think they know better than the locals what policy should be in place and much of those decisions are made behind closed doors with "public comment" window dressing.

In any case, UT is spitting in the wind.

 

[Paul in Idaho]

I just saw this on the Idaho BHA Facebook page, and think this is the thread to add the update on:

A new legal analysis from a group of Western attorneys general casts doubt on many of the arguments Utah has put forward in its push to gain control of millions of acres of federal land.

The report, based on two years of work, doesn't address every argument Utah has floated, but it points out decisions by the Supreme Court and other federal courts that could put Utah on shaky ground if it sues the U.S. government for control. The analysis was drafted by lawyers from seven Republican attorneys general, three Democrats and one independent.

http://billingsgazette.com/news/sta...cle_21f44e53-cbcf-5192-b2d7-7ae0db2af68e.html

Report: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3117841-CWAG-Public-Lands-Subcommittee-Report-PDF.html

also at http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wire...ys-general-cast-doubt-utah-land-push-42481479

 

[Oneye]

Maybe it's time to stop digging Utah legislature, and stop looking so blissfully stupid to the rest of the nation. November sportsmen of Utah, make a vote to end this stupidity. Get rid of These politicians throwing your tax money at unwinnable lawsuits like candy. Amazing how a state is dead last in school kid spending but can afford multimillion dollar lawsuits.

 

[davinski]

Why, a person could snatch up some nice Utah state lands this month, see here on the SITLA auction site:

https://trustlands.utah.gov/land-sale-auctions/oct-19-2016-land-sale-auction/

Maybe that's how they're funding their suit.

 

[grizzly_]

Contact the Utah chapter of Backcountry Hunters & Anglers to get your yard sign.

Let's get the word out that hunters are against this.

 

[BillyGoat]

There it is from all but one of the attorney generals of the western states... The feds can indeed own public land and Utah's equal footing argument is "weak".

Overall, the report found that the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the Property Clause of the Constitution gives the U.S. government the right to own public lands and keep them public and the exclusive power to decide whether to dispose of them or sell them off.

While the court hasn't directly ruled on whether the U.S. government can keep the public lands forever, the court has made past statements indicating that the government can and has also found the government's authority under the Property Clause of the Constitution "has no limitations."

The report also says that while newer, Western states may be at an economic disadvantage with large portions of their land under federal control, legal arguments that federal land ownership unconstitutionally keeps them from having Equal Footing and Equal Sovereignty with older, Eastern states are weak.

Stratton and Ivory are fools and need to just go away.