Public lands war heats up between SUWA, Gov. Gary Herbert
- Thread starter ret32
- Start date
sixstringsteve
Well-Known Member
- Location
- UT
the comments on that article are awesome
- Location
- Riverton, UT
I will submit a letter to the editor today and post it here.
- Location
- Vehicular limbo
Some of them are downright scary, too.
- Location
- Riverton, UT
This is what I sent to the paper.
It is obvious how SUWA is using their $2 to $4 million dollar advertising budget to close down Utah. See article "Public lands war heats up between SUWA, Gov. Herbert" 23 July, 2012. They are buying space in local newspapers and then buying Amy Joi O'Donoghue for a front page article. Since they have not been able to get Utahan's, the BLM, or Utah's congressmen to give them all the wilderness they want, yes they have been successful to some degree, now they have to resort to an add campaign to discredit Utah wanting to be in charge of its own destiny. Utah and Nevada agreed to having the federal government control much of their states in order to gain statehood but that time has past. The US Constitution is specific about what land the federal government can own and Utah/Nevada should not be treated as lesser States any more. Utah should be in control of it own destiny and with its natural beauty and resources not being hampered by the federal government and groups like SUWA it would be free to do so.
It is obvious how SUWA is using their $2 to $4 million dollar advertising budget to close down Utah. See article "Public lands war heats up between SUWA, Gov. Herbert" 23 July, 2012. They are buying space in local newspapers and then buying Amy Joi O'Donoghue for a front page article. Since they have not been able to get Utahan's, the BLM, or Utah's congressmen to give them all the wilderness they want, yes they have been successful to some degree, now they have to resort to an add campaign to discredit Utah wanting to be in charge of its own destiny. Utah and Nevada agreed to having the federal government control much of their states in order to gain statehood but that time has past. The US Constitution is specific about what land the federal government can own and Utah/Nevada should not be treated as lesser States any more. Utah should be in control of it own destiny and with its natural beauty and resources not being hampered by the federal government and groups like SUWA it would be free to do so.
- Location
- Never Far From Nowhere
As much as I disagree with SUWA on 90% of everything they do and disagree with their tactics on everything, they do have one point in this: How can Utah afford to do this? The state is looking at shutting down state parks due to lack of funds. So how can we hope to afford to manage an additional 30 million acres? Amongst those the three most popular National Parks in the country (Arches, Canyonlands, & Zion)? I'd like to see some numbers on how much this will cost me, the Utah taxpayer.
Just playing the devils advocate here, but I think that Utah is taking the wrong approach to this. I know this is just sabre rattling, the Federal government will never hand over these lands, but its foolish and is still going to end up costing us millions of dollars that could be better spent on a cooperative approach. C'est la vie.
Just playing the devils advocate here, but I think that Utah is taking the wrong approach to this. I know this is just sabre rattling, the Federal government will never hand over these lands, but its foolish and is still going to end up costing us millions of dollars that could be better spent on a cooperative approach. C'est la vie.
- Location
- Sandy, Ut
Governor Herbert and the other legislative proponents of this push have made no secret of the fact they plan to 'sell off' land parcels for economic development, i.e. sell the land to private mining, oil, ranching and construction projects. Either way this represents a loss for the motorized community of Utah. We have lost as much quality routes on State lands in the last 5 years as we have on Federal Land, and they have 10% of the property coverage
Dump Bump, Lions Back... closed because "OHV use detracted from the real estate value of the land". Proving Grounds, Helldorado areas, the list goes on.
- Location
- Never Far From Nowhere
Governor Herbert and the other legislative proponents of this push have made no secret of the fact they plan to 'sell off' land parcels for economic development, i.e. sell the land to private mining, oil, ranching and construction projects. Either way this represents a loss for the motorized community of Utah. We have lost as much quality routes on State lands in the last 5 years as we have on Federal Land, and they have 10% of the property coverage
This is true. All in all I see this move as a lose/lose for the OHV community. We should really be asking our representatives to be looking for a true multiple use solution to Utah's public lands debate and try to get it to a resolution rather than continually upping the brinksmanship. The more intransigent that "we" become, so does the other side and the longer everything is in limbo and more money is flushed down the toilet.
- Location
- Riverton, UT
I think that it would be easier to deal with State government employees be cause we can vote them out if they do not do what we want whereas we only vote on a small portion of the federal bureaucracy. Private property only adds to the freedom of the state even if it costs some trails. I would rather have the State issuing oil and gas leases which would mean that the money would remain in the state rather than being siphoned through the federal government. I think it would be easier to squelch the machinations of SUWA and other groups. Also I believe it would more closely follow the constitution which I believe is the right way to run a country and keep us a country of laws which we have let be abused by the federal government.
- Location
- Never Far From Nowhere
Again, playing the devils advocate here (he's a nice guy. Pays me in top shelf whiskey).
Is it? I think we have a pretty solid brace of lifers in the Legislator, and state legislators have such a sterling reputation of not being in the back pocket of special interests.
I understand where you are coming from on this, but personally I think the right course of action would be to get to a point where "public" lands are treated as such, IE true multiple use management. Private property locks up the land so that the owner can do what they will with it. Imagine if the state starts selling off millions of acres to the highest bidder to fund this little adventure and SUWA and their ilk buy up huge swaths. Not the best scenario, eh? Its happened before.
Additionally, any loss of OHV trails currently open on public lands is unacceptable to me. This means being closed or improved to the point that it is no longer an OHV trail, but a highway. The later would likely happen to help funnel tin-can tourists to hot spots that the state could charge for or to aid in oil and gas development.
I more or less agree with you on this. I think the state that the leases are being issued should see more of the profits. That said, this could be done in conjuction with the BLM, rather than booting them out of the state.
Would it? As stated before, it could open a path for radical groups like this to buy up huge swaths of land and turn them into private wilderness areas with NO input from citizens at all. Additionally, state representatives can be bought for a lot cheaper than federal ones...
This can get into a whole discussion of what is the Constitution, a living document or a static one. Has it been abused or interpreted for the times. But I digress. Basically I think that the more Utah tries to "go rogue", the more that we offend the federal government (which some see as good) and the less likely they will be to come to the table and negotiate with us in the future. As stated in my previous post, I think that HB148 is a lose/lose for our user gourp and will ultimately cause Utah more pain than good.
Mmmm, this High West Rendezvous Rye is really good...
Is it? I think we have a pretty solid brace of lifers in the Legislator, and state legislators have such a sterling reputation of not being in the back pocket of special interests.
I understand where you are coming from on this, but personally I think the right course of action would be to get to a point where "public" lands are treated as such, IE true multiple use management. Private property locks up the land so that the owner can do what they will with it. Imagine if the state starts selling off millions of acres to the highest bidder to fund this little adventure and SUWA and their ilk buy up huge swaths. Not the best scenario, eh? Its happened before.
Additionally, any loss of OHV trails currently open on public lands is unacceptable to me. This means being closed or improved to the point that it is no longer an OHV trail, but a highway. The later would likely happen to help funnel tin-can tourists to hot spots that the state could charge for or to aid in oil and gas development.
I more or less agree with you on this. I think the state that the leases are being issued should see more of the profits. That said, this could be done in conjuction with the BLM, rather than booting them out of the state.
Would it? As stated before, it could open a path for radical groups like this to buy up huge swaths of land and turn them into private wilderness areas with NO input from citizens at all. Additionally, state representatives can be bought for a lot cheaper than federal ones...
This can get into a whole discussion of what is the Constitution, a living document or a static one. Has it been abused or interpreted for the times. But I digress. Basically I think that the more Utah tries to "go rogue", the more that we offend the federal government (which some see as good) and the less likely they will be to come to the table and negotiate with us in the future. As stated in my previous post, I think that HB148 is a lose/lose for our user gourp and will ultimately cause Utah more pain than good.
Mmmm, this High West Rendezvous Rye is really good...
Last edited:
I've said it before and will say it again. Government is government. Whether it's federal government, state government, or local government; all good citizens should keep a leery eye on it. As a public land user group, our recreation isn't 100% safe from any of them. None of them are our eternal BFFs.
Personally, as an individual, I feel like I have more sway with my state lawmakers than I do with my federal lawmakers. I can call my state senator or my state representative on the phone and he/she will answer personally and discuss my concern at length. The federal lawmakers: not so much. On the other hand the federal government has one huge thing going for them, with so much red tape and bureaucracy, things happen very slowly: which is an advantage to the citizens in public lands issues - IMO.
To the subject of a managing agency, I keep hearing the State Parks/ SITLA arguments and I'm not sure they completely hold water.
The State Parks have very specific recreational purposes and they collect recreational fees to support them: their structure and purpose is completely different from public lands in general (personally, I think the State Parks problems have to do simply with relying too much on flooded sagebrush fields to generate revenue). It would be like comparing the current management of National Park Service properties to the current BLM properties. I'm not sure there is enough similar about the funding sources, use, and types of lands to even put together a coherent analysis.
As for SITLA, it again has a very specific mandate attributed to a very specific set of land parcels. To suggest that most public land under a state ownership would become subject to the same purposes and procedures as current SITLA land is a bit of a stretch in my view. A Utah Homesteading Act, designed to attract more taxpayers, seems just as unrealistically likely to me.
Within the State Of Utah's Department of Natural Resources is an already existing "Division of Forestry, Fire & State Lands." I think if any currently existing State organization should be looked at as a forecast for how that state might manage some future state public lands program, this division would be the one to look at, not State Parks nor SITLA. Personally, I know nothing of it's history and management practices to make a case for or against it.
Either way, it would take as much work and scrutiny to keep the State legislators in check and would require as much cooperation with a State public land agency as is required now with Congress and the US Department of Interior.
Anybody that feels there is a realistic chance that the public lands WILL eventually get turned over to the state, should start developing those relationships with their State legislators and with various divisions within the Utah DNR now. Sounds like a lot of you don't think it's realistic though. I believe SUWA is betting against it as well. I imagine their current media push is the same as it's always been. Simply feigned and exaggerated shock. Designed to attract the attention of potential supporters of ARRWA in the US Congress. And to create a false sense of urgency for the ARRWA, before a long, drawn out march toward the Supreme Court turns HB 148 into old, unexciting news (either that or a sense of urgency for a use of the Antiquities Act). It simply wouldn't make sense to spend lots of advertising dollars now, to create hype against something that has several years of litigation before it would become a viable issue. It would be better to save those dollars for some future election year just prior to implementation of the theoretic new Utah public land agency. Speaking of ARRWA, isn't it about that time of year?
As an aside, to an earlier comment, my understanding is that congressionally designated Wilderness Areas and National Park Service properties are not being sought by the State in it's suit.
Personally, as an individual, I feel like I have more sway with my state lawmakers than I do with my federal lawmakers. I can call my state senator or my state representative on the phone and he/she will answer personally and discuss my concern at length. The federal lawmakers: not so much. On the other hand the federal government has one huge thing going for them, with so much red tape and bureaucracy, things happen very slowly: which is an advantage to the citizens in public lands issues - IMO.
To the subject of a managing agency, I keep hearing the State Parks/ SITLA arguments and I'm not sure they completely hold water.
The State Parks have very specific recreational purposes and they collect recreational fees to support them: their structure and purpose is completely different from public lands in general (personally, I think the State Parks problems have to do simply with relying too much on flooded sagebrush fields to generate revenue). It would be like comparing the current management of National Park Service properties to the current BLM properties. I'm not sure there is enough similar about the funding sources, use, and types of lands to even put together a coherent analysis.
As for SITLA, it again has a very specific mandate attributed to a very specific set of land parcels. To suggest that most public land under a state ownership would become subject to the same purposes and procedures as current SITLA land is a bit of a stretch in my view. A Utah Homesteading Act, designed to attract more taxpayers, seems just as unrealistically likely to me.
Within the State Of Utah's Department of Natural Resources is an already existing "Division of Forestry, Fire & State Lands." I think if any currently existing State organization should be looked at as a forecast for how that state might manage some future state public lands program, this division would be the one to look at, not State Parks nor SITLA. Personally, I know nothing of it's history and management practices to make a case for or against it.
Either way, it would take as much work and scrutiny to keep the State legislators in check and would require as much cooperation with a State public land agency as is required now with Congress and the US Department of Interior.
Anybody that feels there is a realistic chance that the public lands WILL eventually get turned over to the state, should start developing those relationships with their State legislators and with various divisions within the Utah DNR now. Sounds like a lot of you don't think it's realistic though. I believe SUWA is betting against it as well. I imagine their current media push is the same as it's always been. Simply feigned and exaggerated shock. Designed to attract the attention of potential supporters of ARRWA in the US Congress. And to create a false sense of urgency for the ARRWA, before a long, drawn out march toward the Supreme Court turns HB 148 into old, unexciting news (either that or a sense of urgency for a use of the Antiquities Act). It simply wouldn't make sense to spend lots of advertising dollars now, to create hype against something that has several years of litigation before it would become a viable issue. It would be better to save those dollars for some future election year just prior to implementation of the theoretic new Utah public land agency. Speaking of ARRWA, isn't it about that time of year?
As an aside, to an earlier comment, my understanding is that congressionally designated Wilderness Areas and National Park Service properties are not being sought by the State in it's suit.
Last edited:
- Location
- Riverton, UT
Fires on BLM, FS, and land owned by other government agencies are paid for by those government agencies. Most States have a yearly budgeted item for fire suppression, for instance California had a budget of $182 million dollars for fiscal year 2009-2010. Also most states ask the federal government for grants to help when they go over budget and these are usually granted. Since most of Utah land that would be requested from the government is desert and not forest the cost would be less and the additional cost of fire suppression would be budgeted from taxes that now go to the federal government. Floods and other natural disasters would be handled as they are now so there would be no change. If the land belonged to Utah then Utah would collect any fees and taxes that now go through Washington. SUWA is grasping at straws and half truths to make their case.
Jack
Jack