Upcoming SUWA Rally, maybe we should rally against their rally

[cruiseroutfit]

Excellent question. The biggest question is: "why is the Fed at the table?" Answer: because the Fed decided the Constitution is irrelevant and decided that they owned the land. The bigger issue is all the citizens who have no problem with that.

Except for the part where Utah gave the land to the fed as a condition of statehood. Convenient to forget about that

From Article III, Section 2 of the Utah Constitution: "The people inhabiting this State do affirm and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within the boundaries hereof, and to all lands lying within said limits owned or held by any Indian or Indian tribes, and that until the title thereto shall have been extinguished by the United States, the same shall be and remain subject to the disposition of the United States, and said Indian lands shall remain under the absolute jurisdiction and control of the Congress of the United States.".

The fed at the table argument is dry, perhaps a new tactic is in order? Perhaps one with a chance at doing something? The very people that proposed the fed land return acknowledged it would be nothing more than a publicity stunt. Time is too precious to waste with a publicity stunt.

 

[Cody]

I think you have convinced her not to speak. Might I suggest a strategy for the anti rally rally. Rather than turning it into a pro-drilling rally why not make it a anti drilling rally with no hidden agendas. The email you sent me was well thought out with reason and evidence. Much better than your opponents who basicly just called you immature extremists. I would hate to see the results of the anti rally be that they drill the swell.

Agreed, that would be an unfortunate result. I also think it doesn't solve anything to engage the extremists in their own element. Like Kurt mentioned, their are areas that deserve wilderness designation if the process is gone about properly, and there are places where it's pretty reasonable to further resource extraction....but Eagle Canyon certainly isn't one of them. I don't know that the oil companies give a damn about the scenic or historic quality of the area, they just care about their bottom line and they would drill under delicate arch if the opportunity presented itself. If SUWA wasn't so concerned about furthering their own private agenda, they might find a useful ally in the toothless, overweight, uneducated access advocates in the battle against resource extraction.

Also, it wasn't necessarily my intent to convince her not to speak, but rather to understand that under the surface there certainly is an ulterior motive and it is clearly defined in that secondary statement. It might be good if she could present on behalf of someone who doesn't want to see the place turned into an oil field, but also doesn't want to see it closed off from us. I think the majority of people would have a similar attitude, but those are the people that aren't typically heard from because their opinion isn't sent out to every newspaper in press release ever damn week.

 

[Houndoc]

True balance is the key. I think many of us here see true 'multiple use' for public lands, but also recognize that not all areas are fit for all uses.

Some areas absolutely should be wilderness. I enjoy hiking, backing backing and horse back riding in some of our current wilderness areas. But as was stated, follow the legal requirements. It is wrong when a road is closed in a 'wilderness study area' since my understanding is that if there is a road, it does not meet standards for wilderness designation. SUWA is one of the greatest threats in this way, as they push to close off areas with historic motorized access.

Some areas should have motorized access, but still be protected from oil, gas and mining. The historical, recreation, wildlife and scenic values of the areas deserve protection from development.

Other areas should be carefully developed for extraction industry. There are plenty of areas around Utah and the nation that fit this category so that we can work towards less dependence on foreign oil (with the economic and political issues involved) without spreading into the other two categories mentioned above.

As for the rally, so long as speeches are not vented by the organizers ahead of time, it would be fantastic to sneak in a couple of voices who defend the second area- motorized access but protected from development.

 

[jinxspot]

very well put Houndoc.... Is it weird to anyone else that "we" the off-road/outdoorsy community believe the two groups can co-exist, but the wilderness groups believe that this is not possible at all. That frustrates me to no end!!! Then the fact that mass mailings and public rallies are held to sway people to believe their farce facts (yes an oxymoron) with misguided alternate agendas... maybe these people are actually politicians and don't know it.

In my eyes, & let’s say with all governmental statues aside... all people WILL have to "live" on this earth including UT when all is said and done… so why not compromise with everyone, I learned at a young age (in the sandbox) that you must get along with everyone… what happened to the people that believe different and that their agendas rule the right to whether you can access public land or not.

Another thing that I ponder on rainy days... So who the heck regulated the right to build all these huge cement cities we all live in today???? Could America have expanded and prospered to where we are now with those types of pompous and narrow minded agendas of the wilderness groups? Maybe we were better off weaving baskets, picking berries and rubbing sticks together…

 

[JL Rockies]

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.”

This is the only kind of property that the federal government is empowered to own in a state. The federal government cannot own forest lands. Why? Because no such power has ever been delegated to it and the Tenth Amendment prohibits the federal government from assuming any power which has not been delegated to it by the Constitution: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” This is the first constitutional fact of life preventing federal public land ownership within a state.

The Constitution is also clear about the manor territories are admitted to the Union... regardless of and "deal" cut by politicians.

 

[JL Rockies]

Also, I call BS when people talk about their concerns about the environmental impact of drilling. If you own a car and like cheap gas, you love drilling, you just don't want it in your backyard. You don't give an eff about Saudi Arabia, Venezuela and wherever genocide is going on in Africa this week.
BTW, raping the holy land in Saudi Arabia of its resources was reason #1 Bin Laden hated us. If we don't take advantage of our own resources, the US will always be on the verge of war since the oil we depend upon comes from places that are populated with people who are at war with us.

 

[scoutabout]

Maybe we should just post copies of the constitution on all this fake "federal land" and call it good? There's paper and then there's reality, sometimes unfortunate reality. But to return management of these lands to the states is laughable at best.

And to other points, environmentalists are people who've already built a house. Robert Redford is a real pro-wilderness guy. Well expect up the canyon he commercialized and destroyed. It was ok for him to destroy wilderness, but now no one else should.

 

[Stephen]

Maybe we should just post copies of the constitution on all this fake "federal land" and call it good? There's paper and then there's reality, sometimes unfortunate reality. But to return management of these lands to the states is laughable at best.

It's always good for a chuckle when people wave around the Constitution and say, "Its not in here, it's not in here! That means it's not real!" and then ignore 225 years worth of laws that have been deemed Constitutionally sound. This would include the Bill of Rights, which is not in the Constitution in case anyone forgot.

I've always been taught that the Constitution is the foundation on which we build a nation. Personally, I don't want to live in a bare foundation with no walls, windows or roof. But thats just me. Others may be perfectly content living in a cold, dank unfinished basement clinging desperately to a two century old piece of paper.

 

[Houndoc]

Reality is that whether or not the Constitution allows public lands such as forest service and BLM is really besides the point. Established precedent of centuries, will not be over turned by the Supreme Court especially when harm is hard to prove.

Even if it was turned over to state control, do we really think all management issues are going to magically disappear? If anything they will greatly worsen as there will be more of a push to privatize what is now public land, which will be the worst-case scenario for access (think Lions Back on a much larger scale.)

 

[JL Rockies]

Reality is that whether or not the Constitution allows public lands such as forest service and BLM is really besides the point. Established precedent of centuries, will not be over turned by the Supreme Court especially when harm is hard to prove.

Even if it was turned over to state control, do we really think all management issues are going to magically disappear? If anything they will greatly worsen as there will be more of a push to privatize what is now public land, which will be the worst-case scenario for access (think Lions Back on a much larger scale.)

A judge does not take an oath to uphold previous judges rulings though. When we're ok with the Fed being unconstitutional on certain issues, we can't complain when they're unconstitutional on others.... bottom line. Like gun control; why do we find it acceptable congress was even discussing it? The Bill of Rights is there to constrain the Fed not for them to discuss its boundaries.

I happen to be a fan of the last version of Battlestar Galactica. If you're not familiar with the show, the Cylons in this version look like humans... the rub is not all Cylons know they're Cylons until they are triggered. It's like Terminator meets Manchurian Candidate. It has occurred to me that it's exactly like progressivism which is so insidious that entire generations don't know that they're infected. I for one am happy I didn't go to public schools where so much if these ideals are engrained.

The Constitution is either the supreme law if the land as it was written or its the "living and breathing document" that they taught you in public school.

 

[Kevin B.]

Well, it is a living document. The Founders knew that things would change as time went on, and intended for the Consitution to be flexible. They even put a method in place for changing it. They're called Amendments, and it's damned hard to get an Amendment put through for a reason. My heartburn is when the Constitution is "interpreted" to mean something different than what it says, instead of Amended, the way it's supposed to be.

 

[Stephen]

Like gun control; why do we find it acceptable congress was even discussing it? The Bill of Rights is there to constrain the Fed not for them to discuss its boundaries.

Just want to point out that no where in the Constitution is your right to bear arms protected. Thats in the Second Amendment to the Constitution, which is one of those documents that was created after the Constitution was deemed to be lacking in some respects. By your logic in the land use argument that you make this amendment, and all others, are null and void because they are not part of the Constitution as it was originally written by the founders.

I have no idea why there is even a question that the Constitution is a living document or not. The fact that it is is the basis of how our government functions. If the Constitution were the "supreme law if the land as it was written" then I highly doubt that the US would be the world superpower that it is today. If we did adhere to a rigid interpretation, then we would be stuck in the late 18th century while the rest of the world moved on without us. Mongolia looks beautiful, but I really have no desire to live there, you know? The fact that we can adapt and change the way that our government functions is the reason that we have been so successful. If you believe otherwise then you lack a rudimentary understanding of American history.

 

[JL Rockies]

 

[cruiseroutfit]

Fun pics... we could make some about the many, many, many State parks here in Utah and around the US that have closed on and off due to lack of budgets. The reality is 95% of federal land in Utah is still open to recreation. I don't blame them for locking the doors behind them, do you leave your car unlocked after showing off your expensive stereo system? Some likely shouldn't be closed and doing so is simply posturing to make the impact real for citizens but some can't run themselves and a couple of Florida tourists get stranded in the middle of Capitol Reef and sue because there wasn't someone at the ticket booth telling them the roads are dirt.

The state of Utah has already made it very clear that they can't afford to manage public lands for pure public use and they will sell and lease them at will. Think of what our state run SITLA is doing in the Book Cliffs, even the governor can't tell a state agency to leave land to the public and you think Federal lands will just transfer into public lands and it will all become the next 5 Mile Pass with trails in every direction? Hardly... Kennecott will own SE Utah, Chevron will own NE Utah, Deseret Livestock will own Northern Utah and the ski resorts will own the Wasatch Front. And they will gate, fence and patrol every square inch of it. Utah will claim an 'economic' victory, those working in the industries will cheer 'hooray' and the back-country users will lose far more ground in just a few years than we have in the previous 20. I fear privatization of public lands FAR more than I fear Wilderness, WSA's, etc.

 

[JL Rockies]

Seems like the state is actually better than the new weaponized NPS.

Kurt, do me a favor and go enjoy one of the closed national parks your state has opened this weekend. Tell 'em J Rock sent ya.

 

[cruiseroutfit]

Seems like the state is actually better than the new weaponized NPS.

Kurt, do me a favor and go enjoy one of the closed national parks your state has opened this weekend. Tell 'em J Rock sent ya.

I spend about as much time in National Parks as you do on the trails... ie about a day per year

That would be an exageration, I've not been in a paid National Park in 3-4 years. Tin can campers, tourists and pavement... not my idea of a vacation. Btdt. Perfect place for tourist from places like California or Florida

I'm happy to hear Utah is running the parks in the shutdown... keeps the bus loads out of my neck of the woods

 

[scoutabout]

The state of Utah has already made it very clear that they can't afford to manage public lands for pure public use and they will sell and lease them at will. Think of what our state run SITLA is doing in the Book Cliffs, even the governor can't tell a state agency to leave land to the public and you think Federal lands will just transfer into public lands and it will all become the next 5 Mile Pass with trails in every direction? Hardly... Kennecott will own SE Utah, Chevron will own NE Utah, Deseret Livestock will own Northern Utah and the ski resorts will own the Wasatch Front. And they will gate, fence and patrol every square inch of it. Utah will claim an 'economic' victory, those working in the industries will cheer 'hooray' and the back-country users will lose far more ground in just a few years than we have in the previous 20. I fear privatization of public lands FAR more than I fear Wilderness, WSA's, etc.

Excellently said. This should be the obvious response to every "Take Back Utah", "Utah should manage it's own public land", or "Why do the Feds manage our land?" thread.

 

[jackjoh]

Excellently said. This should be the obvious response to every "Take Back Utah", "Utah should manage it's own public land", or "Why do the Feds manage our land?" thread.

You have just told me that fighting to keep public lands public is a lost cause and I have wasted 46 years or that portion of it that I spent trying to keep roads open. Your motto is "Use it while you can" and let our grandchildren fend for themselves.
I would rather deal with people I vote for within my state instead of the Washington bureaucracy.

Again J L is right. There is a big difference between ignoring the laws by judicial and political interpretation and changing them per the constitution.

 

[jackjoh]

Well, it is a living document. The Founders knew that things would change as time went on, and intended for the Consitution to be flexible. They even put a method in place for changing it. They're called Amendments, and it's damned hard to get an Amendment put through for a reason. My heartburn is when the Constitution is "interpreted" to mean something different than what it says, instead of Amended, the way it's supposed to be.

X2

 

[cruiseroutfit]

You have just told me that fighting to keep public lands public is a lost cause and I have wasted 46 years or that portion of it that I spent trying to keep roads open. Your motto is "Use it while you can" and let our grandchildren fend for themselves.
I would rather deal with people I vote for within my state instead of the Washington bureaucracy.

As would I, and when our elected officials have a plan for how they would manage said public lands on the infinitesimal chance they are returned... it may very well be the best thing for the State of Utah. We just don't know as all they have done is asked, not proposed any form of management beyond their clear instruction that things will be sold/leased to fund the continued management. Who pays for fires which can cost hundreds of millions on BLM land annually? Who designates what is sold versus what is leased? Is this going to be another SITLA like group that doesn't answer much to the public (read about the recent Book Cliffs leasing) because "it is in the best interest" of the real estate value. This same state agency has already closed extremely popular lands to OHV use not because they are currently leased or sold but rather the "continued use of motorized vehicles is detracting from their future real estate value". Yes, your reading this right. A Utah state government agency has sold and closed very critical portions of land (Strike Ravine, Lower Helldorado, Dump Bump, Rouble Trouble on Hells Revenge, Proving Ground trails just in Moab alone) due to their dis-interest in the motorized community. I'm 100% aware that these lands fund schools and that is their #1 priority but will this same type of agency be tasked with managing any returned lands? I fully realize that lands sold to mining, oil, gas, development, ranching and private hunting industries will result in an economic increase but closed and privatized land does nothing for my economic benefit and social lifestyle.

Again J L is right. There is a big difference between ignoring the laws by judicial and political interpretation and changing them per the constitution.

Do educate us here Jack, cite some laws. The Utah Constitution is very clear that all non-preiviously allocated lands were now solely the property and management issue of the Federal government, no ambiguity there. While we can cite plenty of reasons why it should be returned from economic gain to better management, that is neither law nor constitution. The supremacy of their standing trumps any emotional and or economic reasons that it should be returned. Our own lawmakers illustrated that this was more of a publicity stunt as an actual proposition, hence why they seemingly are not wasting any time to develop a management plan. We already have a cash strapped State Parks system that has limited hours, closed facilities and had to beg for budget to stay open. Where will the money come from?