"The folly of trusting the Fed to manage lands better than the states." Thread Split

[JL Rockies]

As much as I hate being right, I must point out that on multiple occasions I've posted the folly of trusting the Fed to manage lands better than the states. There have been multiple repsonses from some of you that Utah can't properly fund land management so the Fed is a much better choice. There have been characterizations of people who attended TBU rallies as "rednecks doing burn-outs" at the Capitol, and multiple references to that Mel Gibson movie.

When the Fed declared that they were in the land-management business, none of us were around and they are only in the land management business because they said so. The problem is when we as citizens accept government overreach, we don't get to decide which overreach is good and bad when it's government by fiat. Unfortunately, if you accept and the great things that the BLM and the NPS do for you, you also have to accept when Mordor on the Potomac knows what's best for you as well.

I totally support a campaign against the companies that have supported this route because Capitalism is the purist form of democracy and we can all use our dollar votes on each and every issue. It would be useful to brush-up on the Constitution as well.

 

[cruiseroutfit]

So Joseph, lets play a hypothetical game here. The Federal government caves and gives land to the state of Utah. How does this affect our trails? Which are re-opened? More importantly which are closed? Agencies of the State of Utah have showed their cards all to often, closing lands to OHV users because 'continued OHV use detracts from the future real estate value of the land'. Furthermore the state has shown its often happy to succeed to industry even if it locks out the public. Give me some specifics of what this will do on the ground because as of yet all we know is it will open up land to industry, not me.

The problem is HB148 presents far more questions than answers. Our state government is closing State Parks do to lack of budget, where does this budget come from to manage all these new lands. Rhetorical question as we know they will sell/lease land to ranching, mining, oil, gas interests, they were not initially shy about that. But what we don't know is how this affects the motorized community and to what extent. It could very well be an excellent move for the OHV community, but it could easily lead to further restrictions and closures.

I get that this would be better for overall economy of the State of Utah, but that doesn't necessarily equate to better for the OHV community and as my economy is tied to the OHV community I'm not willing to lend blind support for so many unknowns. Oil, gas & mining companies are not on our side, they'll trade land thus making WSA's possible (see SR Swell WSA note) if they get a better parcel elsewhere. It could be absolutely amazing for frederal lands, then again it could be worse then our current situation (think more state closures like Proving Grounds, Dump Bump, Lions Back, Upper and Lower Helldorado, the list goes on ) I get that mineral extraction is important to our economy (my family and friends are in the industry) and I think it should continue to be explored and extracted but I don't think we need to bend over backwards on public lands to let them do it. At least with the federal government we know everyone gets a little piece of the pie, everyone wants more of the pie and nobody is happy with everything they are doing. Add the fact that nothing happens fast and at least we have a predictable system lol. With the HB148 we don't have anything predictable, we have a bill that demands the land back and then instructs that a committee should be formed to determine how that land is funded, managed and disposed of (5% of the money to Utah, 95% of the money to the fed if sold?). When does Herbert Real Estate open up

I'm not saying the motorized community should boycott the HB148 situation, quite the opposite... I'm saying we should ask for answers, specifics, memo of understanding to protect at a minimum or current access and a process to regain our lost access.

This is a side note to the OIA support of the only GCNM proposal on the table, so despite their 'dodging' intentions when you support an action that has just a single course of action (SUWA proposal) on the table, you support that action and therefore I fully consider the OIA support of GCNM in fact support of SUWA's over-reaching GCNM and applaud efforts to make companies realize that. I think the motorized community should propose their own SE Utah motorized management plan and ask the OIA to support that too

 

[Stephen]

I couldn't say it better myself, Kurt. And that’s hard!

As much as I hate being right, I must point out that on multiple occasions I've posted the folly of trusting the Fed to manage lands better than the states. There have been multiple repsonses from some of you that Utah can't properly fund land management so the Fed is a much better choice. There have been characterizations of people who attended TBU rallies as "rednecks doing burn-outs" at the Capitol, and multiple references to that Mel Gibson movie.

Let’s think of something else, even if the state enshrines in law that all currently open roads will remain open, doesn't keep them from paving them. If an oil, gas, or dilithium deposit is found in Beef Basin, you can bet the state will pave the Cottonwood Road to allow big rigs to get in there to support the operation. That’s a loss to the OHV community every bit as much as closing a trail down.

The Feds have a record that we can look too and precedents to rely on. The state also does, to an extent. SITLA and State Parks. SITLA resembles the BLM (very roughly) and State Parks the NPS. SITLA wants money, and that’s it. As Kurt pointed out, this hasn't boded to well for the OHV community. I tend to think that SITLA would be the road map the state would use for "former" BLM lands. And State Parks, well I wouldn't call them much friendlier than the current NPS. And they are out of funds, so taking over an operation like Zion NPS... yeah. How?

When the Fed declared that they were in the land-management business, none of us were around and they are only in the land management business because they said so. The problem is when we as citizens accept government overreach, we don't get to decide which overreach is good and bad when it's government by fiat. Unfortunately, if you accept and the great things that the BLM and the NPS do for you, you also have to accept when Mordor on the Potomac knows what's best for you as well.

The feds are in the land management games because they are the Federal Government of the United States of America, and all land in this country is federal land unless it has been otherwise designated. We weren’t around, but our forbearers were and they elected representatives that approved laws that created the Interior Department, BLM, FS, NPS, Reclamation, et.all. It was not government by fiat. Your rhetoric is humorous, to say the least. We still have checks and balances, and when “Mordor on the Potomac” is gone, we’ll likely get “Sarumon on the Potomac” to the other side in due course that will help “our side”.

 

[Skylinerider]

Joseph, you're not right. How is trading one master for another any better? How is blindly trusting the State to do what's in the best interest of its people better than blindly trusting the federal govt. At least with the Feds there is a plan in place to bitch about. I don't see any plan from the state. I'm looking for specifics and don't see them at all. It's great to be all fired up over this stuff and you should be. Educate yourself a bit on why we have these govt land management organizations. It's not simply because "they said so". Believe it or not they all sprang up because of a very real need. Bring me a real reason why I should trust the state over the feds to manage all of my public lands.

 

[jackjoh]

I would rather have some one in SLC following my suggestions then some one in DC that listens to all the other states too. There is an old saying about keeping your enemy close so he is easier to hit in the head when he needs it.

 

[dieslcruisrhead]

The biggest issue for me is resources. The federal government is increasingly strapped for managing land, but the state is super strapped. As they say, it's cheaper to close roads than maintain them.

My other issue is the state seems to cave so quickly to wealthy and business interests, anyone who is perceived as being 'important.' AKA, oil and gas drilling, and not OHV users. Because we aren't a large single entity unlike some of these multi-billion corporations, and also because we can't grease the pockets of politicians with "campaign contributions" like these corporations do [which is also completely legal], we just don't have the pull.

I'd be worried it'd be all about oil and gas and not much else, just a different shift, not much that directly benefits us at first...

 

[JL Rockies]

Stephen,

Yes, they are the Federal Government and not the Central Government; you should look up the difference. Article One, Section 8, Clause 17, offers the only provision in the Federal Constitution for federal ownership of land. It provides for the creation of Washington, D.C. as the seat of the federal government and allows the federal government to purchase lands in a state with “...the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings.”

Once progressivism starts the infiltration of government in the 1900's we get the Antiquities Act which allows the executive branch to restrict access to federal land (which is federal land because they say so) by executive order. There is not a check or a balance so it's indeed government by fiat. I acknowledge that statism has become wildly popular these days but it's still anti-American.

So you can write your letters to BHO, and maybe that will turn his gaze upon the state the supported him the least in the last election and it will be up to him and him alone what should happen to the land that the Constitution says belongs to you and me.... they wrote a song about it even.

I find it interesting that a willingness to adhere to the Constitution is rhetoric and you my dissagree with me, but you are absolutely wrong.

 

[JL Rockies]

Joseph, you're not right. How is trading one master for another any better? How is blindly trusting the State to do what's in the best interest of its people better than blindly trusting the federal govt. At least with the Feds there is a plan in place to bitch about. I don't see any plan from the state. I'm looking for specifics and don't see them at all. It's great to be all fired up over this stuff and you should be. Educate yourself a bit on why we have these govt land management organizations. It's not simply because "they said so". Believe it or not they all sprang up because of a very real need. Bring me a real reason why I should trust the state over the feds to manage all of my public lands.

You musta went to public skool

 

[JL Rockies]

The biggest issue for me is resources. The federal government is increasingly strapped for managing land, but the state is super strapped. As they say, it's cheaper to close roads than maintain them.

My other issue is the state seems to cave so quickly to wealthy and business interests, anyone who is perceived as being 'important.' AKA, oil and gas drilling, and not OHV users. Because we aren't a large single entity unlike some of these multi-billion corporations, and also because we can't grease the pockets of politicians with "campaign contributions" like these corporations do [which is also completely legal], we just don't have the pull.

I'd be worried it'd be all about oil and gas and not much else, just a different shift, not much that directly benefits us at first...

I like oil and gas.... and I like it cheap... and I like a strong economy.

 

[JL Rockies]

So Joseph, lets play a hypothetical game here. The Federal government caves and gives land to the state of Utah. How does this affect our trails? Which are re-opened? More importantly which are closed? Agencies of the State of Utah have showed their cards all to often, closing lands to OHV users because 'continued OHV use detracts from the future real estate value of the land'. Furthermore the state has shown its often happy to succeed to industry even if it locks out the public. Give me some specifics of what this will do on the ground because as of yet all we know is it will open up land to industry, not me.

The problem is HB148 presents far more questions than answers. Our state government is closing State Parks do to lack of budget, where does this budget come from to manage all these new lands. Rhetorical question as we know they will sell/lease land to ranching, mining, oil, gas interests, they were not initially shy about that. But what we don't know is how this affects the motorized community and to what extent. It could very well be an excellent move for the OHV community, but it could easily lead to further restrictions and closures.

I get that this would be better for overall economy of the State of Utah, but that doesn't necessarily equate to better for the OHV community and as my economy is tied to the OHV community I'm not willing to lend blind support for so many unknowns. Oil, gas & mining companies are not on our side, they'll trade land thus making WSA's possible (see SR Swell WSA note) if they get a better parcel elsewhere. It could be absolutely amazing for frederal lands, then again it could be worse then our current situation (think more state closures like Proving Grounds, Dump Bump, Lions Back, Upper and Lower Helldorado, the list goes on ) I get that mineral extraction is important to our economy (my family and friends are in the industry) and I think it should continue to be explored and extracted but I don't think we need to bend over backwards on public lands to let them do it. At least with the federal government we know everyone gets a little piece of the pie, everyone wants more of the pie and nobody is happy with everything they are doing. Add the fact that nothing happens fast and at least we have a predictable system lol. With the HB148 we don't have anything predictable, we have a bill that demands the land back and then instructs that a committee should be formed to determine how that land is funded, managed and disposed of (5% of the money to Utah, 95% of the money to the fed if sold?). When does Herbert Real Estate open up

I'm not saying the motorized community should boycott the HB148 situation, quite the opposite... I'm saying we should ask for answers, specifics, memo of understanding to protect at a minimum or current access and a process to regain our lost access.

This is a side note to the OIA support of the only GCNM proposal on the table, so despite their 'dodging' intentions when you support an action that has just a single course of action (SUWA proposal) on the table, you support that action and therefore I fully consider the OIA support of GCNM in fact support of SUWA's over-reaching GCNM and applaud efforts to make companies realize that. I think the motorized community should propose their own SE Utah motorized management plan and ask the OIA to support that too

Constitutional government is more important to me than my recreation and even if we still have access, there is still a big problem.

 

[jackjoh]

Joseph, you are 100% correct. These other guys are mamby pamby talkers that do not want to get involved in actual action which I know is not true but that is the way it comes across. I wish all of our congressmen would read the constitution and we had enough guts to hold them to it.

 

[jackjoh]

Got this from Houndoc. "The ordinary traveller, who never goes off the beaten route...does not need to show more intiative & intelligence than an express package." Theodore Roosevelt

 

[Skylinerider]

I did go to public school, and I'm proud of it. I also have a degree in this stuff and know exactly what I'm talking about. I've also lived in Utah for over 30 years and do know exactly what's going on. Its not like I switched careers to take on these issues or anything. Oh wait that's exactly what I did.

 

[Stephen]

Stephen,

Yes, they are the Federal Government and not the Central Government; you should look up the difference.

Yeah... specialized in Soviet history while I was getting that degree from my public school. I think I know the difference...

Article One, Section 8, Clause 17, offers the only provision in the Federal Constitution for federal ownership of land. It provides for the creation of Washington, D.C. as the seat of the federal government and allows the federal government to purchase lands in a state with “...the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings.”

Once progressivism starts the infiltration of government in the 1900's we get the Antiquities Act which allows the executive branch to restrict access to federal land (which is federal land because they say so) by executive order. There is not a check or a balance so it's indeed government by fiat. I acknowledge that statism has become wildly popular these days but it's still anti-American.

The Treaty of Paris (1783) which ended the Revolutionary War granted the newly formed government of the United States of America sovereignty over the disputed territory in British North America. This land was now owned and governed by the rules and laws of the United States. The Land Ordinance of 1785 then established how the US government would sell this land in order to generate revenue off of it. That leads to the General Land Office, which has essentially the same functions established in the Land Ordinance. And lets not forget the Louisiana Purchase of 1803, where the US bought all the land of French North America. And subsequent treaties and agreements that fleshed out the rest of the Continental US.

I could go on about all the laws that have been adopted regarding Federal land governance. But we'll stop here as I think my point is made. The Constitution of the United States of America is not the only law of the land. It is the basis on which we construct our government and the laws that allow it to govern. If we only used the Constitution, we would be operating off of 226 year old laws that had never been updated for the changes in the world. It would have made the US a very, very stagnate place.

As for the Antiquities Act, it is a very controversial law because yes, the President can essentially designate any piece of land as restricted. But it was passed by a Congress, which was comprised by officials elected by our fore bearers. It wasn't a power grab. There are checks and balances to it. Congress can overturn a designation via a 3/4th majority and there have been reductions to it's powers over the years. It is not government by fiat.

So you can write your letters to BHO, and maybe that will turn his gaze upon the state the supported him the least in the last election and it will be up to him and him alone what should happen to the land that the Constitution says belongs to you and me.... they wrote a song about it even.

You act as though the President is a dictator that can do whatever he so pleases. I'm not a fan of the current administration and voted against this President twice. But there are checks and balances in place, and the people can overturn laws. There are binders full of overturned laws small and large (18th amendment, anyone?).

I find it interesting that a willingness to adhere to the Constitution is rhetoric and you my dissagree with me, but you are absolutely wrong.

The United States is a country made up of a myriad of laws and rules sets that have evolved and changed over time. The Constitution is not a static document that we must rigidly adhere too. Not even those who wrote it believed that, as they help amend it's contents. You use the Constitution as rhetoric because you are not looking at the laws that it helped spawn subsequently. You belittle those who are willing to look beyond the confines of that one set of documents and look at the bigger picture of our countries legal history. I do disagree with your point of view, but I am not wrong for doing so. Nor are you for believing your point of view. That is what make the United States of America great. We have room for disagreement and debate. Once there becomes a ridged definition for what is right and wrong without room for that debate over time, that is where you get the government by fiat you so fear.

 

[Stephen]

These other guys are mamby pamby talkers that do not want to get involved in actual action which I know is not true but that is the way it comes across.

I like you, Jack, but excuse me? I won't even include myself, but people like Kurt Williams and Curt Hall have done more for multiple use in the state of Utah than probably the rest of the 4-wheeling community combined.

 

[cruiseroutfit]

Constitutional government is more important to me than my recreation and even if we still have access, there is still a big problem.

Constitutional government is not more important than my recreation, personally and economically. So your defacto willing to give up land if it means having what you define as a Constitutional Government.

 

[cruiseroutfit]

Joseph, you are 100% correct. These other guys are mamby pamby talkers that do not want to get involved in actual action which I know is not true but that is the way it comes across...

Really Jack, really? You can dress up your comment with a lovely qualifier statement on the tail end but I consider that a spit in my face. My track record of action is well documented here in Utah and I'm not going to waste my mamby-pamby (wtf does that even mean) time even defending it. Its no wonder the OHV agenda is working out so well...

 

[jackjoh]

Yeah you are right I got a little carried away. The word is namby pamby and is usually used to describe politicians that are not committed. I would never spit in your face because you have done too much for the off road community and you would probably be able to beat the tar out of me. I will however let anyone know that I am displeased with their stated position on things that matter. My frustration is that you are not active with U4WDA and the constitution is the only thing that keeps us from anarchy or king/dictator. I believe the constitution is the only thing that keeps this country free so that we can enjoy the off road experience. Consider any country on earth that has the freedoms that we have and I have never found one.

 

[jackjoh]

Bump

 

[JL Rockies]

Utah delegation trying to fix the problem... baby steps. Introduced by Jason Caffetz and has bipartisan support.

H.R. 250 Antiquities Repeal Act

The Antiquities Repeal Act would amend the Antiquities Act of 1906 by requiring Congressional approval of any national monument designated by the president.