Utah v. United States

[Big Fin]

Well, the sand has finally drained from the hour glass down in Utah. They issued an ultimatum to the Feds that the lands needed to be turned over to Utah by December 31, 2014, or else.

Or else what?

Well, looks like "or else" means that Utah is going to spend $2 million to get all lawyered up and take on the Feds. Not sure what it is about Utah that compels them to use taxpayer money to fund every private enterprise disguised as a non-profit group. In this case, they have a legislator whose non-profit (is it a non-profit if most money goes to family and friend salaries?) is leading the charge on the idea to sue the Feds.

Rather than pony up his own money for this losing legal cause, he has now convinced the folks of Utah to write the check. Watching from afar, it seems conflict of interest has never been a problem in Utah politics. A summary of the threats and promises in the article link below.


http://www.mohavedailynews.com/news...cle_eeab7f22-93e5-11e4-ae16-83aaab4ca192.html


Looking at this, and all the money SFW/BGF has bilked the Utah taxpayers of, I am thinking I need to start a non-profit down in the Beehive state and get in on some of this easy pickens. Lots of dough, no accountability, manufacture your own crisis, and then give a little back to the legislators controlling the purse strings. That has to be a pretty high profit margin business model.

Will be interesting to see what Utah gets in exchange for their $2 million. Probably a king sized asshat and a request for more funds from the fringe to continue promoting the Cliven Bundy gospel of public land mismanagement.

Really, I'm not make this stuff up. You could conjure up such insanity if you tried. Should be fun to watch and surely a topic for much needed humor.

 

[BuzzH]

I'm just glad the brain trust in Utah is wasting their money and embarrassing themselves rather than any other State.

Will be hilarious watching Utah take on the Feds. The spanking will be swift and harsh.

 

[noharleyyet]

Lawmakers are preparing for a potential lawsuit to push the issue in the next year or so. The Utah Legislature has set aside $2 million to prepare a legal fight for the state attorney general to pursue. A state public lands commission is in the process of hiring special lawyers to help them prepare strategies for a lawsuit.

$2mil will assuage a lot of embarrassment.....

 

[BuzzH]

A foolish state and their money are easily parted...

 

[opyff]

I would be curious what would happen if the Feds allowed Utah a 2 year trial opportunity to run all federal lands without any Federal funding and see how successful they are. Oh and while they are at it, just as well shut down all those federal interstates and highways and see how many tourists show up to the Beehive state. I would hate to see some of those great muley spots destroyed by drilling and mining

 

[bigskyblueman]

P.T. Barnum was right.

 

[Big Sky]

I grew up during the majority of my youth in Utah. I moved away over 20 years ago. Let me count the days I've missed living there. Oh wait, there aren't any!

 

[Pinecricker]

What I find so ironic, is that the politicos behind this stuff, that claim to be so conservative, always pick these lost cause issues (i.e. taking control of federal lands, nullification of federal laws) instead of actually accomplishing something useful or relevant, like say property tax reform, that might actually help. I guess its easier to be a politician when all you have to do is blow hot air.

 

[theRedneck]

Montana, Wyoming and Nevada have passed resolutions or requested studies of the legal arguments and costs and benefits of the issue. Idaho passed a resolution in 2013 demanding the federal government hand over control of public land in that state, but a state committee studying the issue now says working with Washington, D.C., for a solution will work better than issuing a demand. The committee is set to issue a recommendation in January about how Idaho should pursue the land.

So why are the BLM/NFS/FEDs better land managers than the states in which these lands reside?

 

[Big Fin]

So why are the BLM/NFS/FEDs better land managers than the states in which these lands reside?

From a management standpoint, an unanswered question that none of the promoters has provided any evidence for is the corollary to your question, "So why are the states better managers in which these lands reside?"

From an access standpoint, none of the states provide better levels of access than we currently enjoy for recreation on Federal lands. And most provide lower levels of public recreation access.

 

[theRedneck]

I mean right over here in this thread: http://onyourownadventures.com/hunttalk/showthread.php?t=261975

"Even if the BLM put a priority on Robbins’ leases, it could take five to seven years before all 18 allotments are returned to Hay Creek Land and Cattle Co., Robbins’ business, said Mike Phillips, assistant field manager of resources for the BLM.

5-7 years to draw up some leases? Meanwhile the bighorn herd is threatened with a pneumonia induced die off...

The states could be a little more nimble handling these issues than the fat bloated slow ass bureaucracy of federal government agencies.

 

[opyff]

The only way I really see the states being better land managers is that they could bypass the NEPA process which binds all federal agencies hands when it comes to managing lands and would expedite the process much quicker. But on the other hand that could also be a bad thing. My biggest fear of handing land over to states is when they realize how much it costs to manage all that land, employees and infrastructure, they will start selling off parcels of land to their cronies and little by little we will lose access to a lot of current public land

 

[theRedneck]

From a management standpoint, an unanswered question that none of the promoters has provided any evidence for is the corollary to your question, "So why are the states better managers in which these lands reside?"

From an access standpoint, none of the states provide better levels of access than we currently enjoy for recreation on Federal lands. And most provide lower levels of public recreation access.

Access issues could be remedied via legislation or state constitutional amendment: Utah Sportsmen's Access Act or the like. I mean public land is public land regardless of who is administering it. Or am I just whistling in the wind?

 

[BuzzH]

I think whistling...

NPS, BLM, USFWS, USFS, all have different regulations and laws that apply to them and how they administer said lands.

State is a whole different deal.

I wouldn't put much faith in the State Legislature to even think about Sportsmen, wildlife, or public access.

The mandate(s) that drive the management of State Lands is much different than Federal Lands.

 

[Big Fin]

Access issues could be remedied via legislation or state constitutional amendment: Utah Sportsmen's Access Act or the like. I mean public land is public land regardless of who is administering it. Or am I just whistling in the wind?

You are correct the access issue could be addressed via a Constitutional Amendment in each state that required state land agencies to amend the deeds of every piece of state owned land to grant a perpetual access easement on the property. Deed restriction follow with the property, so if the state disposed of it, the public would still have access.

Yet, when such and idea is proposed, these people squirm like a can of worms. They know they have been called out and they have no interest in protecting our access in perpetuity.

Are you whistling in the wind? Not sure. Some things to consider as it relates to access of state held lands.

CO - no hunting unless CPW pays for the hunting rights. As a result, the cash strapped agency cannot afford hardly to lease even a fraction of the state held lands. If you are from a state that allows hunting on state lands, pay attention when you go to CO. Take the 23 million acres of Federal land in CO and make it state land and you lose 23 million acres of hunting access. How does an agency, or the hunting community, replace 23 million acres?

WY - Not allowed to camp on state land. All the backpack/horseback hunts in the WY backcountry are now down the tubes. Just not practical to hike into the backcountry every morning and hike back out every evening. That impacts a majority of the deer, elk, sheep, moose, goat hunting west of I-25.

NM - Same as WY. You cannot camp on state land. Same example of WY would apply for the area where people set up their elk camps in the Gila, Cibola, Carson, and other National Forests. Impossible to hunt the Gila and drive to/from Datil every morning/night.

MT - You can camp on state land in MT for two days and must camp within 300 yards of the nearest access point. It was only in 1995 that we won the battle that we could pay a few to hunt state lands in MT. We are one legislative session and one anti-access governor away from having that overturned. All the great elk public land hunting in MT where hunters camp on the forest would be two day trips and we would all have to camp in the same area, 300 yards from the nearest access points.​

I could go on and on. And none of that addresses how all the Western state have programs in place to sell these state lands. Every state does it. NV received 3 million acres from the Feds in the 1920s and 1930s. Today, their state land board does not own any of it. By 1970, they sold every acre that did not get claimed for a Wildlife Management Area (a very small part for WMAs).

Wyoming got 4.2 million acres as part of their admittance to the Union. They started a program to dispose of these lands in the 1930s. So far, they have disposed of 17% of those lands. That is 700,000 acres sold that hunter no longer have access to in WY. They continue to sell state lands.

Alaska has the most aggressive program for selling state lands to help fund their University System, their Mental Health, and a few other state agencies. You can go online and find a ton of state lands being sold by AK.

MT, CO, NM, UT, and AZ all have those programs in place. I think ID also has the same, but I have not researched it lately.

Summary to your question - The promoters of this scheme have no interest in permanently protecting public access via perpetual means. Rather, they claim they will pass laws to prohibit such. Any law passed can be repealed, so that is a hollow promise to deflect the real lack of substance their positions have on the issue of public access.

 

[schmalts]

The embarrassment is the UT residents. It shows a large portion of the population there are clueless sheep.
But hey, nonprofits maybe chain a little juniper, plant a few food plots, and pockets a ton of cash and spends a ton of it in other states to try and spread the cancer. So all is good.

 

[theRedneck]

Summary to your question - The promoters of this scheme have no interest in permanently protecting public access via perpetual means. Rather, they claim they will pass laws to prohibit such. Any law passed can be repealed, so that is a hollow promise to deflect the real lack of substance their positions have on the issue of public access.

I see what you're saying. The state gets a hold of the lands and later on due to budget issues, some state senators buddy gets a great deal on a ranch and oil leases.

Shame.

 

[OriginalOscar]

Utah is a disgrace with public lands initiatives. Recent examples

- SILTA (state agency directed to maximize revenue) leased oil/gas in the Book Cliff roadless areas. Even the governor questioned this action but he can't veto SILTA decisions.

- Stream Access - Several years ago the state lost a lawsuit which allowed sportsmen to wade in the streambed. Utah rewrote the law.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I think whistling...

NPS, BLM, USFWS, USFS, all have different regulations and laws that apply to them and how they administer said lands.

State is a whole different deal.

I wouldn't put much faith in the State Legislature to even think about Sportsmen, wildlife, or public access.

The mandate(s) that drive the management of State Lands is much different than Federal Lands.

Bingo. State land is not public land. It is land that is owned by the state for the benefit of the state. It's Government land in the truest sense. Public land however is owned by the citizens of the United States and is held in trust by the federal government. They are two completely different legal concepts.

 

[.280 Remington]

My guess is, if Utah is successful, in a generation or two all of the Utah hunters will be flooding the other western states because just like Texans say, "there ain't no public land back home"