Tax Dollars Going to Land Grab

[grizzly]

I just found out that Cache County, Utah (where I live) gave $10,000 to American Lands Council, the group working to take over public land.

The following Utah counties also gave to ALC... Beaver, Box Elder, Dagget, Duchesne, Garfield, Iron, Juab, Kane, Millard, Morgan, Piute, Rich, San Juan, Sanpete, Sevier, Tooele, Uintah, Utah, Washington, and Weber.

(Not in Utah? See if your county gave money to ALC at: http://www.hcn.org/articles/the-taxp...ontrol-demands)

I will let you know if I get a response, but I urge everybody to write their county councils and let them know you are a hunter and you want public land to remain public. The way to beat this may be at the local level.

------------------

Here is the letter I wrote to my County Executive...

Mr. Buttars, I wanted to quickly let you know how adamantly I oppose your donation of my tax dollars to fund this crusade. According to 2013 taxes, American Lands Council paid 50% of its income to Mr. Ivory and his wife, and after expenses about 10% was actually spent on lobbying. Thankfully they appear to be very poorly run and inefficient because the pursuit of this land grab, which was precarious even with a projected crude oil price of $120/bbl, is an idea that should be wholly rejected by any fair-minded individual (and has been rejected by just about every Western state, except Utah).

Conservation groups that have already come out against the land grab include Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Backcountry Hunters & Anglers, and Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership (I can provide you with the press releases if you would like). I doubt the Cache County Council wants to stand behind this land-grab position once the average local sportsman finds out the hunting groups they support are working against it.

Sportsmen's groups have done the math and figured out that this land grab cannot leave public land as-is. In the most basic sense... public land remaining status-quo must leave public revenue status-quo, which defeats the land-grabs stated purpose. Unless you are prepared to either sell or develop the land through mining, logging, grazing, drilling, etc., you are seeking nothing but a liability for the people you are supposed to represent... it would be impossible to increase revenue any other way. Hunting groups have one concern, wild places. A vote for the land-grab, is a vote against wild places.

One final thought, the idea of proposing your current tax increase, erstwhile giving tax dollars to groups seeking to close the public land of the people who paid those very taxes in the first place, seems a very dubious position to be in.

I think Theodore Roosevelt said it best, "Defenders of the short-sighted men who in their greed and selfishness will, if permitted, rob our country of half its charm by their reckless extermination of all useful and beautiful wild things sometimes seek to champion them by saying the 'the game belongs to the people'. So it does; and not merely to the people now alive, but to the unborn people. Our duty to the whole, including the unborn generations, bids us restrain an unprincipled present-day minority from wasting the heritage of these unborn generations."

 

[littlebighorn]

Well stated Grizz,
I am dumb founded that this is not a bigger issue on this forum. It seems many are more interested in calling each other names than to band together and fight for the future.
Check the post on the Utah forum about Rob Bishop's involvement. Hardly any response.

 

[hhunter23]

Grizz,
do you have buttars email? i too am a cache valley resident and i have sent emails to state senators, but i have yet to send anything to buttars. this pretty upset to find out my county helped fund these a** hats!

"Shoot Straight"

 

[257Tony]

>Well stated Grizz,
>I am dumb founded that this
>is not a bigger issue
>on this forum. It
>seems many are more interested
>in calling each other names
>than to band together and
>fight for the future.
>Check the post on the Utah
>forum about Rob Bishop's involvement.
> Hardly any response.

Hey, screw you!




;-)

 

[grizzly]

>Grizz,
>do you have buttars email? i
>too am a cache valley
>resident and i have sent
>emails to state senators, but
>i have yet to send
>anything to buttars. this pretty
>upset to find out my
>county helped fund these a**
>hats!
>
>"Shoot Straight"

hhunter23, there is a form to fill out at https://www.cachecounty.org/countycouncil/. I recommend emailing each member of the Council and get any hunting buddies of yours to do the same thing. A hundred emails from local sportsmen would probably go a long way.

Grizzly

 

[smitty]

Holy Hell. I was listening today to Randy Newbergs podcast and he was talking exclusively about this very topic.

Scary sh!t, and to see that my own county council is giving these a$$holes money?

WTF?!

I remember being in a meeting with the governor when this was first brought up and I can remember thinking, "hey that doesn't sound like a bad idea, take the land away from the Feds and give it to the state to manage", seemed resonable at the time.

That is until you get educated on what really is going on. This is 1000% BAD NEWS for everyone. It just scares me that not many people even know what is going on.

I emailed the council and posted on Facebook.

 

[piper]

LAST EDITED ON Nov-13-15 AT 01:36AM (MST)[p]Seems like the score of Jason Carter's buck is really what everyone is so concerned about. Kind of sad, but it's always this way.
I'm lucky to be as old as I am and to seen what I have, the future don't look so great on the western big game front, and it's our own fault.

 

[elkassassin]

>LAST EDITED ON Nov-13-15
>AT 01:36?AM (MST)
>
>Seems like the score of Jason
>Carter's buck is really what
>everyone is so concerned about.
>Kind of sad, but it's
>always this way.
> I'm lucky to be
>as old as I am
>and to seen what I
>have, the future don't
>look so great on the
>western big game front, and
>it's our own fault.


So piper?

Are you like dude with No Kids/Future Generation?

(((Only Think of Yourself Mentality!)))

I Don't know about anybody else?

Don't really Care if I Take another Big Game Animal in My Life or Not!

But I would like to see My Kids & Their Kids get a Chance at the same things in Life that We got to see/do!

If you Throw your Hands in the Air like that piper you're not Helping anything!

As Mad as I get at the USFS for not Enforcing Illegal Activity on Our Public Lands it's still better than turning it over to the States & letting them Sell it for nothing more than GREED & Taxation Purposes!







Go Ahead!

Make Me take it down!

 

[Castnshoot]

http://www.americanlandscouncil.org/our_mission

 

[hhunter23]

smitty, i was listening the the same podcast when i got fired up about the same thing. i emailed state senators than and then i saw this post and got even more pissed off!

Grizz, thanks for the link im sending emails out today and am going to encourage everyone i work with to do the same.

"Shoot Straight"

 

[Utah400Elk]

Their own map shows just how misleading they actually are. It looks like they would like to claim all of the tribal lands. Are they going to take them and sell them off as well? Am I wrong in looking at their maps. I know there are a few people who live near these reservations that might have a bit more info but I am pretty sure north eastern AZ is all Navajo land.

 

[bowhunt]

Great letter Grizz!

I need to figure out who to send that to in Utah County.

I agree with LB, this is a HUGE issue that needs our full attention.

 

[hhunter23]

i ended up sending emails to all the county council members and i have only heard from one of the members and all he said was he will review my concerns with his council members. thats it. so who knows, but at least i voiced my concern!

"Shoot Straight"

 

[grizzly]

hhunter23, check your pm

Grizzly

 

[grizzly]

The Herald Journal in Logan just wrote an article about the Cache County Council donating tax dollars to American Lands Council.

http://news.hjnews.com/allaccess/co...cle_ad16d28a-9d22-524f-b552-93adc7565e79.html

If any of you are willing to write a quick Letter to the Editor stating how, as a hunter, you value your public lands and want them to remain public... it would be much appreciated.

Our goal is to let every hunter know that BHA, RMEF, TRCP, etc, have all rejected this land grab, but that those same hunter's elected officials are using our tax dollars to lobby for the seizure of public land.

Grizzly

 

[stoney]

Grizzly,

Our elected officials have a fiduciary responsibility to all other public users of the public land. It is not just for hunting. All rural counties rely heavily on natural resource production from the public land. Sure hunting is a big part of it but not the only thing they look at.

The public lands agencies have to manage for grazing, mining, recreation, petroleum production, wood cutting and the other varied multiple uses of the public lands.

Your idea sounds like you want to "keep it wild" (i.e no resource production) and do away with all of the other consumptive uses on the federal managed lands.

Hunting has always been just a part of the land uses allowed on the public land. We all have come to love our hunting opportunities on the public lands.

It would seem you would like to see all of the public land turned into one big wilderness area with basically only hunting as the primary use. Don't forget that hunting is in the crosshairs of the radical environmentalist movement.

Your letter to Mr Butters would have one believe you are fine with the status quo that the public land agencies are managing with now, while much of the consumptive uses are going by the way side.

I am not for the states taking over and selling off the land. They could lease out the timber, grazing and mining at fair competitive rates and manage the public land in a sensible wise use management which is what the public land agencies used to do. They could do this and make money at the same time and do it much cheaper than the bloated federal agencies' money losing programs.

I make my living off of the public land and can see how hunting is in more danger the way the federal agencies are headed versus what state management could do to bring back the multiple use management of the public land.

 

[grizzly]

Stoney, it is obvious you are not familiar with Cache County at all. There is no mining (What do you want to mine?), no logging (There's not much demand for scrub juniper and sage brush), and no petroleum production (Where's the oil?). There is public recreation (ski resorts, ATV rentals, fishing, boating, hiking, hunting). There is Mt. Naomi Wilderness Area and Cache National Forest. The NF is already grazed heavily by sheep and cattle.

How do you anticipate the State government increases revenue on our little sliver of the world? More sheep? More cattle? I've never heard of another industry trying to come into Logan Canyon, and even if it did it would have to pass muster through the Army Corp of Engineers and Environmental Protection Agency. Those Federal oversight entities are not relegated to only having jurisdiction over public land. Even if the land is private, if a proposed project has adverse environmental effects it will be rejected nonetheless. So where is the industry going to come from?

ALC is already excepting Wilderness Areas, so that is a moot point and should be left out of the discussion. With the loss of revenue (by the State's own study on a land grab), how do you think they'll maintain roads and campgrounds in what is now the National Forest?

Who will fight fires and keep grazing fences in order? The State's study required the Fed's to keep fighting fires because one bad fire season could gut the entire State Public Land budget. Grazing is already near maximum capacity so that isn't an option either, especially long-term.

Should they raise grazing fees to increase revenue? The cattle guys will hate that.

So lets talk about the fiduciary duty of elected officials (in this case, Cache County Council). We could have an argument over which is a better value fiduciarily, increasing revenue or preserving land for future generations... but that is left up to the power of the people to decide, so we'll ignore that for now.

The financial benefit to the County only would be realized in one of two ways, 1) Sell the land for property tax revenue. 2) Develop the land through industry to increase income taxes.

Craig Butters stated, "The ultimate goal is that we could see those lands used to provide economic opportunities, particularly in raising funds for public education and public safety..."

In Utah, 56% of property tax revenue goes to local school districts. How could Cache County Council want the seizure of public lands to benefit public education unless they would gain an increase in property taxes? Public land pays no property tax. THE ONLY WAY IS BY SELLING THE LAND!

When the land is sold, how does that benefit anybody except the person who buys it? Except for the very few that get hired on to work the land, everybody else loses. Plus, the County would lose the income of Federal land in the form of 'Payments In Lieu of Taxes' (PILT is Federal money given to local governments as a reimbursement for having Federal land in its jurisdictions).

So not only do the Counties need to make up lost PILT money, but they must then increase revenue enough to cover all the overhead of owning/managing/maintaining the land. The math doesn't work. But then the County claims they'll actually increase revenue to benefit education. Again, this requires the selling of land since that is where the funding comes from.

This isn't only about hunting. This is about all outdoor recreation. Not only for those born today, but those born 100 years from now. Once this land is sold, it is gone forever.

Or we could ignore the benefits of public land and look at it strictly from a financial standpoint. It has been shown time and time again, by various studies and specialized groups, that this is not even a breakeven proposition. The State's response has been, "But we'll run it more efficiently." They haven't declared how, just say, "Trust us, it'll work out." That sounds eerily similar to Obamacare to me... everybody said it wouldn't work except the proponents. Doesn't the fiduciary duty of an elected official also demand they avoid situations that will lead to financial ruin in years to come?

PS. The largest single donor to ALC is Koch Foundation. Why do you think that is? Do you think it is philanthropic, or do you think that its because they want to buy up a bunch of the land when it hits the open market?

I can virtually guarantee you one thing, they aren't spending all this money so that the small town guy in Logan, Utah can open a diamond mine or logging company in Sardine Canyon and try to strike it rich and pay more taxes into the Public Education Fund.

This whole thing is a crock.

For those who are willing to write a Letter to the Editor, here is the link... https://news-dot-hjnews-dot-com.bloxcms.com/submissions/tips-news/submit_a_letter_to_the_editor/

Grizzly

 

[grizzly]

LAST EDITED ON Nov-30-15 AT 03:45PM (MST)[p]A few real-life numbers for those that think the land grab is a good idea...

*PILT funds Utah would lose annually - $29.7 Million (see above for explanation)

*Additional Annual Dollars required to maintain current spending levels - $432 Million (2012 numbers, which are most recently available)

*Dollars spent by Federal government last year fighting wildfires - $700 Million (this would now be additional state responsibility)

*Oil price required to meet current spending levels on Public Lands - $120/barrel (according to State-sanctioned study)

*Oil price today - $42/barrel (only 30% of amount required to maintain current spending levels according to State-sanctioned study)

*Oil production increase required to maintain current spending levels on Public Lands - 15% increase per year (according to State-sanctioned study)

*Oil rigs in USA in November 2014 - 1,572

*Oil rigs in USA in November 2015 - 555 (this is due to the low price of oil making many wells unprofitable)

*Dollars spent by Federal government defending environmental lawsuits - Untold Millions (all of which will now be paid by the State since nobody expects the lawsuits to stop)

*Projects that would be allowed after the land-grab since EPA doesn't have jurisdiction over State/Private property - 0 (All the regulations that County Commissioners give as a reason to seize the public land remain)

*United State Department of Interior budget - Same as 1999 (the Republicans are the ones that cut their budget, and then, 16 years later, complain about the poor management of Federal Lands)

Grizzly

 

[Rackster]

Stoney - Excellent post! I am glad to hear someone that has been doing their research on this.

Griz, Yes their are minerals to mine in Cache County and yes there is timber to harvest. Plenty of marketable timber up any of the canyons in Cache county. However that's not what the public lands initiative is after. It is primarily based around on oil & gas.

Also, who are you to say that any of the 5% of public lands that would be included in the bill would even be in Cache County. The lands they are looking at are those that have already had development started and are lands that are primarily desert - dirt, sage, and p/j. Some hunting opportunity may be lossed, but I would be willing to bet it would not affect the majority of hunters in Utah, including yours.

The real problem here is the environmentalists that oppose the public land agencies (BLM and Forest Service) at every turn and tie a large part of proposed multiple use activities (oil & gas)up in law suits. Those are the people to be angry at. Not Mike Lee. Not Rob Bishop, Not Cache County. Throw your frustration where it belongs. These legislators are trying to legislate their way around radical environmentalists. The BLM and the FS are hamstrung and fulfilling their mission of multiple use as the "Multiple Use Act" mandates has been seriously compromised by radical environmentalism.

 

[grizzly]

LAST EDITED ON Nov-30-15 AT 07:49PM (MST)[p]Rackster, Can you point to two denied private attempts to mine or log in Cache County that would've been approved under State or Private ownership? There is nowhere in Cache County that any logging company intends to set up shop and start cutting timber. We simply don't have the topography/climate for it. The trees aren't here in numbers to make it profitable and we don't have the size/species that are marketable.

Let's keep this in real world. Actual examples. No fluff. Just facts. Even if there were extractable minerals or logging to be had at a viable level, which there isn't, it would still be quashed under EPA or Army Corp of Engineers.

Your solution is no solution at all.

---------
You keep mentioning a 5% number. THERE IS NOT A CAP ON LAND THAT CAN BE SOLD! I have personally requested a cap on the amount of land that can be sold to Mike Noel, he would not agree. There is absolutely nothing to prevent the "disposal of excess property" as allowed under the actual verbiage of the law. Who are you to say what is "excess property"? When the point of the law is to increase revenue, the "excess property" must also be the most valuable to meet its own stated purpose.

There is no reason to believe that this land grab would prevent any environmentalist lawsuits. They would simply sue the State under Federal ESA and EPA laws. The transfer of lands does not absolve the State from Federal oversight, and may actually increase it, it just makes the State responsible to defend any lawsuits that come.

I will agree with your point that this law is mainly based on revenue from the oil industry (see: Koch Foundation's donations). This should be the worst thing for you to agree with me on, based on the actual numbers stated above. The people who wrote the law estimate they need $120/barrel to pay their bills plus a continuous 15% annual increase in production. In real world, they can only get $42/barrel today and the number of active oil rigs in the USA has dropped by 2/3 in the last year alone.

These are facts. Not up for debate or opinion. Even if you think the State can manage lands better, you have to admit they have no way to pay for it. Use their numbers and you see they can't pay for it.

One more point... Utah has already sold 3.8 million acres of land that was once State land. To put that into perspective, 1 out of every 3 acres of private land in Utah was once public, State-owned, land.

Utah has a history of selling its land and refuses to put in writing that it won't do it again. Utah paid $2,000,000 to do a study promoting its agenda, even using the data from that very study...

THE LAND GRAB CANNOT KEEP PUBLIC LANDS IN PUBLIC HANDS AND PAY FOR ITSELF!

I've proven it with real numbers, provided by the people who wrote the bill, beyond any sort of reasonable doubt.

Grizzly

 

[Rackster]

Griz, read the proposed bill. You will see there is a cap of 5%.

As for Cache County, I did not say there were proposals for timber harvest in Cache Countyy. I only said that Cache County has marketable timber. For you to indicate otherwise is showing your lack of understanding of the timber industry. The proposals do not come from a timber company. The proposal will come from the Forest Service. You see very few timber harvest proposals from the Forest Service, because of all the environmental garbage they have to jump through, not to mention the proliferation of appeals and law suits from the environmental organizations.

 

[Rackster]

Griz,

The 5% of public land that would be sold, would no longer be under State jurisdiction. Thus, they would be private entities not subject under the same federal regulation as federal lands are. The States are also not subject to the same laws as federal agencies. So for you to say there would be the same lawsuits,it just is not the case. For example Section 7 of ESA requires federal agencies to consult with F&WS on any federal action that may effect a T&E species. Private land owners do not have to consult with F&WS. Thus lawsuits brought against the Forest Service, regarding ESA do not apply to private land owners. And by the way the EPA is not an environmental group. It is a federal agency. It is environmental groups that throw the lawsuits. If your not sure what an environmemtal group is then look them up.

Also, for youn to imply that the States could not manage public land, because of $$, is a statement that is not very well thought out. There is an enormous amount of waste within the BLM and Forest Service. I am of the opinion that the States could manage the lands at a fraction of the cost and likely do a better job of it. And don't bring up fire fighting expenses. The waste that goes in fire fighting is jaw breaking. Not to mention that the primary factor in calling a fire controlled is the weather. In the end, it is the weather that finally puts a large fire out.

 

[grizzly]

I don't know how many times I need to tell you this. There is nothing in the verbiage of the law preventing the State from selling the land. Below is the actual law that went before Congress (sorry it is so long, but it seems to be the only way to get you to see the truth as the law says it, and not somebody's talking points that are written nowhere in the law).

Notice the State has the right to sell the land, but must return 95% of proceeds of that sale to the Federal government (this backs up my claims that they are not seeking revenue from the sell, but from ongoing tax revenue).

Notice the special commission that can decide, among other things, "easements", "rights of entry" and "special uses". They even reserve the right to change the definition of "public lands" as it is widely accepted today.

Bottom line, not only can they sell the land at their desire, but they can also keep it public and still close it off for public access (i.e. selling hunting/access rights to private clubs). The State could even make the claim that it is their fiduciary responsibility to do sell hunting rights to raise revenue as the law is intended. And nobody can stop it from happening, especially once the money runs out and the State is desperate for more.

Also, you failed to address the holes I pointed out in your argument about oil being the major contributor; but the declining oil industry proving even the State's projections to be fatally flawed and in no way viable in any long-term projection.

This law is not written to be friendly to the public, it is written to protect the interests of a chosen few. Now quit saying there is a 5% cap on land that could be sold. THERE IS NOT, and Mike Noel himself would not agree to put a cap in there in a discussion that ended with him saying to me, "Again lets talk. I need you on my side in this fight."

Well, he's not going to get it.



-------------------

63L-6-103.
Transfer of public lands.
(1) On or before December 31, 2014, the United States shall:
(a) extinguish title to public lands; and
(b) transfer title to public lands to the state.
(2) If the state transfers title to any public lands with respect to which the state receives title under Subsection (1)(b), the state shall:
(a) retain 5% of the net proceeds the state receives from the transfer of title; and
(b) pay 95% of the net proceeds the state receives from the transfer of title to the
United States.
(3) In accordance with Utah Constitution Article X, Section 5, the amounts the state retains in accordance with Subsection (2)(a) shall be deposited into the permanent State School Fund.

Section 4. Section 63L-6-104 is enacted to read:

Constitutional Defense Council study.
(1) During the 2012 interim, the Constitutional Defense Council created in Section
63C-4-101 shall prepare proposed legislation:
a) creating a public lands commission to
(i) administer the transfer of title of public lands to the state; and
(ii) address the management of public lands and the management of multiple uses of public lands, including addressing managing open space, access to public lands, local planning, and the sustainable yield of natural resources on public lands;
(b) to establish actions that shall be taken to secure, preserve, and protect the state's rights and benefits related to the United States' duty to have extinguished title to public lands, in the event that the United States does not meet the requirements of Title 63L, Chapter 6,
Transfer of Public Lands Act;
(c) making any necessary modifications to the definition of "public lands" in Section
63L-6-102, including any necessary modifications to a list provided in Subsections
63L-6-102(3)(e) through (h);
(d) making a determination of or a process for determining interests, rights, or uses related to:
(i) easements;
(ii) geothermal resources;
(iii) grazing;
(iv) mining;
(v) natural gas;
(vi) oil;
(vii) recreation;
(viii) rights of entry;
(ix) special uses;
(x) timber;
(xi) water; or
(xii) other natural resources or other resources;

-----------
Grizzly

 

[Rackster]

Griz,

I'm not sure where you got that. Looks like you only found part of the bill. The pathway to the actual bill is below. Look at Section 2, paragraph 18. Then look at Section 3 "Quantity Grants for Western States For education Improvement". look in paragraph "a". Actually read the whole Section. It is clearly stated that there will only be 5% of public lands granted to the States. Thus, only 5% of Public land can ever be sold.

Griz, you need to read the whole bill, not just part of it. the States are wanting 5% of the land granted to them in lieu of 5% of the proceeds.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr2852ih/pdf/BILLS-112hr2852ih.pdf

Sorry if it is not an actual link. But you can type the above pathway in your internet to get the bill. I can be educated on how to put a link in my post. however, I did copy a couple of these paragraphs below.

(18) The most efficient and cost effective remedy now available to the United States is to grant to the Western States 5 percent of the remaining Federal land located within each State, authorizing each State to select such land from the unappropriated public land within the boundaries of the State to satisfy the grant.

SEC. 3. QUANTITY GRANTS TO WESTERN STATES FOR EDU11
CATION IMPROVEMENT.
12 (a) QUANTITY LAND GRANTS.?Instead of receiving,
13 for the support of the common schools, 5 percent of the
14 proceeds of the sales of federally owned land lying within
15 the Western States which have not been sold by the United
16 States as of January 1, 2011, grants of land are hereby
17 made to the Western States. The amount of land granted
18 to each State shall be equal to 5 percent of the number
19 of acres of federally owned land within the State as of
20 January 1, 2011.
21 (b) SELECTION PROCESS.?
22 (1) IN GENERAL.?Each Western State shall
23 select from the unappropriated public lands within
24 the borders of the State in such manner as the legislature of the State may provide, land equal in acre-

 

[Rackster]

Below is the rest of the paragraph. I didn't get the whole paragraph on my copy and paste. The next paragraph talks about the selection process of those lands (5% of public lands). I am not posting that here. You can read for yourself

....acreage to 5 percent of the federally owned land in the State as of January 1, 2011.

Rob Bishop also talks about the 5% max of lands granted to the States in a legislative hearing regarding the bill. You can go to his website and view the video.

 

[grizzly]

Rackster, the information you posted is not the actual law, it is the blueprint for the law that was written to build support for the actual law. Like many other laws (Obamacare), what is written in campaign literature and spoken by politicians is not the actual verbiage that is voted upon, and hence not the law of the land.

The blueprint you posted is "The Action Plan for Public Lands and Education Act of 2011" dated September 7, 2011. It lists no Sponsors or Co-Sponsors and is not codified for legislative approval. This was merely the talking-points written before the actual law to build support among politicians and the public that wouldn't read the actual bill. (Think Nancy Pelosi's, "We don't have time to read the bill. We must sign the bill to see what is in it.")

You can read it the actual law at: http://le.utah.gov/~2012/bills/hbillenr/hb0148.htm

It begins with Sponsors and General Description. The actual law, known as "Enrolled Copy" begins directly under the term: "Be it enacted by the Legislature of the state of Utah:"

HB 148 was Introduced on 2/15/12; Passed the House 2/29/12; Passed the Senate 3/7/12; Signed by Governor Herbert 3/23/12. This verbiage is the law of the land and makes no mention of a cap on public land that can be sold. AGAIN, THERE IS NO 5% CAP!

I can see you were honestly confused, but please look at the actual law that was presented to, and approved by, the Legislature. You will see that everything I have stated is 100% factual... and terrifying for anybody that wants to protect public land.


Grizzly

 

[Rackster]

Ok Griz, whatever.

I think you need to look into it a little more to get all the information. I dont think you have all the facts straight. The 5% cap is part of the discussion of this bill whether you want to believe the facts or not.

There are other things that are being drafted with this bill that you obviously don't know about. Such as the expansion of Wilderness Areas, which I am not in favor of. This is being discussed with various counties in the State and is being considered to be part of this bill.

I am not in favor of this bill either, but for different reasons than you mention. Just think you ought to look into all the information. As I stated in your other thread, you also need to look into why Mike LEE voted in committee against the Sportsmans bill before you jump on his case, which sounds like you still havnt done.

Anyway, I am done on this subject. Again no hard feelings. I just think we disagree on a few points.

 

[BeDawg]

Pretty self explanatory. Wilderness, or privatization of our public lands. I will take hiking into wilderness over locked gates anytime. I am related to a Utah politician who is for the Utah take over. He has admitted to me that selling the land would definitely be on the table. That is the reason these Utah politics have just become too one sided in favor of the large landowners. Herbert, Chaffetz, Lee, Ivery, Bishop and many other county commissioners don't care about our public land being public. Bottom line. Making a buck is the only thing they are thinking about.

 

[smitty]

The ONLY way I would be for the land grab, would be if it was put into law the state could not sell the land ever.

But we all know that isn't going to happen.

Just another classic case of, "We don't know how to manage the money we have so we are going to sell stuff that isn't ours to get more money that we will then mis-manage and piss away, and then in the near future, we'll need to do something different. Cause we are the government and we are that freaking stupid"

That ladies and gentlemen is what this boils down to.

 

[2_Point]

When faced with the real facts Rackster says "whatever". Goodness, what a sad state of affairs that the people think they know but they really don't. Those who want the state to take over federal lands either are uninformed sheep or they will benefit from the sales of public lands. There are no two ways about it. My gut feeling after having talked with delegates and public officials is the state will sell at least 50% of the lands within 20 years. I'm sure we can all have fun recreating on the salt flats.

I'm all for public grazing, timber, hunting, fishing, riding, and am also fairly certain the enviro wackos won't stop suing for their way just because the state owns it. So they will just sell it. More CWMUs for everyone to try to draw.

 

[grizzly]

In response to the Herald Journal article (linked above), the local radio station on last nights talk program, KVNU's "For The People", covered the Cache County Council donation as well as the fallacy of the entire land-grab idea.

The quote on their facebook page teasing the story is, "County Exec Craig Buttars defends the county council pouring out $10,000 for membership in Rep. Ivory's ALC, a "plan" budget analysts deemed financially unsustainable..."

There was also a well-written Letter to the Editor in today's paper from a hunter rejecting the donation and the land-grab in general. I'm hoping to see more in coming days.

Hopefully this is the beginning of a movement that will educate the rest of us as to exactly what this land grab will accomplish... the unavoidable loss of public land.

Please contact your elected officials and let them know where you stand and that they are picking a fight not with an individual, but with a way of life. As I keep repeating... please write Letters to the Editor of your newspaper of choice. The point here is to keep the discussion in the public forum, and Letters to the Editor are a great way to do that. They also serve to let the mainstream media know it is an important subject and one worth covering.

Thanks to all those who have sent PMs voicing their support and especially thanks to those that have stood up for what they believe in and contributed to the effort by talking to their buddies and writing letters to elected officials and newspapers.

We still have a lot of work to do but I wanted to let you know what Randy Newberg said yesterday, "You, and others in Utah, have done a great job of raising awareness of what your politicians are up to. If you had told me a year ago that the passive media of Utah would take on this topic and raise the volume, I would have doubted it very much. Kudos to you and others. You are making a difference."

Let's keep it up guys. Preserving our hunting heritage may very well depend on it.

Grizzly

 

[Rackster]

Ok 2_Point,

I was done with the subject, but I just couldn't let that go. The link that Griz posted is another version of the bill. That version does not include all that will be in the bill. If you look at it, it is dated 2012. The facts are that there is more to the bill than what Griz says. The 5% cap is part of what is being discussed and considered as well as the expansion of wilderness areas. Those are the facts. The Counties are still negotiating and discussing as to what will be in the bill. I have attended several public meetings about his bill and have voiced my opinion about several items that are being considered. That is probably more than many on this forum can say. I wish you all the best in voicing your opinions on this subject whatever your opinions may be.

The "whatever" in my last post is just that "whatever". Griz, you, and others are going to believe what you want to believe and spending more time on this thread with him or you isn't going to make any difference. That is why I said I was done with this subject. So with that I say adios and wish you luck.

 

[grizzly]

Rackster, the link I posted IS THE LAW OF THE LAND. Any discussion about a cap would have to be to change the current law and I know of nothing filed to accomplish that.

Click "Status" on that page and you can see the date it was actually signed into law. This is the law as it currently is today. It is not up for debate. It's a legal fact.

It will remain law unless it is repealed. You can hope they'll eventually add a 5% cap, but it is not the law. There is no room for debate on this. It is an irrefutable fact.

Grizzly

 

[2_Point]

I wonder which 5% they would sell today. I doubt it will be the salt flats. And then when they need the funds, which 5% will they sell in 5 years and then which 5% more in 15 years.

5% of 31,000,000 acres is 1,559,000 acres which would be disposed of. Over a million and a half acres sold. 2,436 square miles. Gone. No more public use. Will they sell your favorite hunting area? Favorite place to recreate? Where you run your cattle? Where you cut your Christmas tree or firewood?

 

[Rackster]

LAST EDITED ON Dec-02-15 AT 01:05PM (MST)[p]Griz,

Well obviously I'm not done with this subject yet. I see what your saying and where we are differing. We are talking about two different bills.

Your bill is what the Governor of Utah signed, but it is NOT the Law of The Land. The bill I have been referring to is the federal bill. Unfortunately, Utah can sign whatever bills they want on transferring public land, but it is going to have to pass the federal house and senate and be signed by the President of the US to become the LAW of The Land.

The Utah bill you are referring to was signed in 2012 by Utah's Governor Herbert. If it is the law of the land, then wouldn't the BLM and Forest Service within the State of Utah be dissolved by now? The bill your referring to states that transferring public land to the State of Utah would have been done by December 31, 2014. That bill is NOT the law of the land. To be the Law of the Land it has to be signed by the President of the United States.

 

[Rackster]

Just one other point.

The federal bill has not been signed by the US President and has not even been voted on in the US House or the Senate. The bill is still being tweaked, changed, debated, etc. Final language is not in the bill. The 5% cap is being considered in that bill as well as the expansion of wilderness areas. The areas targeted for land transfer (the 5% cap) are areas that have already had development started and are in desert areas with dirt, some sage, and some p/j.

So Griz, I will state again, the bill you are referring to is NOT THE LAW OF THE LAND.

 

[grizzly]

LAST EDITED ON Dec-02-15 AT 02:00PM (MST)[p]>Griz,
>
>Well obviously I'm not done with
>this subject yet. I
>see what your saying and
>where we are differing.
>We are talking about two
>different bills.
>
>Your bill is what the Governor
>of Utah signed, but it
>is NOT the Law of
>The Land. The bill
>I have been referring to
>is the federal bill.
>Unfortunately, Utah can sign whatever
>bills they want on transferring
>public land, but it is
>going to have to pass
>the federal house and senate
>and be signed by the
>President of the US to
>become the LAW of The
>Land.
>
>The Utah bill you are referring
>to was signed in 2012
>by Utah's Governor Herbert.
>If it is the law
>of the land, then wouldn't
>the BLM and Forest Service
>within the State of Utah
>be dissolved by now?
>The bill your referring to
>states that transferring public land
>to the State of Utah
>would have been done by
>December 31, 2014. That
>bill is NOT the law
>of the land. To
>be the Law of the
>Land it has to be
>signed by the President of
>the United States.

Rackster, the Utah bill, HB 148, is still the law of the land. You are correct that the Federal Government did not transfer the land by the 12/31/14 deadline, but the Severability Clause of HB 148 states that if part of the a law were to not be allowed, the remainder of the law is still in effect.

What this means is that even though the 12/31/14 deadline passed without cooperation from the Feds, the remainder of the law is still valid. The failure of the Feds to comply by 12/31/14 does not nullify the remainder of the law. That is the entire point of the Severability Clause.

Regardless of what the Feds were to do, Utah Law has been passed and is in effect. Right now, without Federal cooperation, HB 148 is impotent and practically pointless, but it is still the law pertaining to Federal Lands transferred to the State.

You better hope and pray a Federal Law is not passed by the next Republican President because if it is, guess which law governs that land? HB 148.

Grizzly

 

[Rackster]

LAST EDITED ON Dec-02-15 AT 03:10PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Dec-02-15 AT 03:08?PM (MST)

Griz,

Currently public lands are under the jurisdiction of the federal government. HB148 is not the law of the land as far as public land transfer.

IF the federal law is passed, then the Federal Law will be the law of the land NOT HB148. That federal law is has the 5% cap proposed within it and much more language than that. The only part of HB148 that will become the Law of the Land (as far as public land transfer) will be the language that is in the Federal Law that is signed. Thus, if the 5% cap is still in that federal law, then the 5% cap will be the Law of The Land.

To assert that Republican President would sign a bill with language that is in HB148 just because he is a Republican is being na?ve. A Republican controlled Senate, House, and Executive branch will have an uphill battle getting a Public lands transfer bill through even with the 5% cap.

So, lets be clear...THER WILL BE NO SALE OF FEDERALLY OWNED PUBLIC LANDS until a federal law is signed that grants such a sell or a land transfer to the State. This includes any land that is BLM, Forest Service (National Forest), National Park, National Monument, Federally owned Wildlife Refuge etc.

 

[grizzly]

LAST EDITED ON Dec-02-15 AT 03:19PM (MST)[p]Rackster, I've proven that HB148 is the law of the land. No Federal Law has yet been passed that would supersede HB 148 under the Supremacy Clause. Until or unless that happens, HB 148 is the law. That is not up for debate.

You keep referring to a "discussion" about a 5% cap. But the fact of the matter is that there is not a cap in any law that has been voted upon, or is currently up for a vote in the Federal or Utah governments. Period.

This "discussion" you mention may or may not come to fruition. Neither you or I know what will happen with any proposed cap and to depend on something that isn't even in the law is foolish. What I am pointing out is the difference in the standing law and what you hope will eventually become law... which are two different things. I'm not interested in somebody's hopes or "discussions", just the facts as they are, since ultimately that is all that matters in the protection of public lands.

-------------

You then stated, "A Republican controlled Senate, House, and Executive branch will have an uphill battle getting a Public lands transfer bill through even with the 5% cap."

That is also a statement of very questionable accuracy. Now nobody can predict the future, but the best available evidence for the future is the recent past. So lets start there...

Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) proposed a non-binding resolution, which needs more legislation to become law, and it passed the US Senate 51-49. THAT IS CORRECT, THE US SENATE PASSED IT!

The day after the Senate vote, the US House passed a joint budget resolution that contained $50,000,000 to fund the sale/transfer of public lands to the states. This resolution passed the US House 226-197. THAT IS CORRECT, THE US HOUSE PASSED IT!

Now these are non-binding resolutions, but are considered test votes to see the general temperature of a land transfer law. The top 4 Republican Presidential candidates have all stated they support transferring Federal land to the States.

To say that there would be an uphill battle is not necessarily true. All signs point to the fact that if a Republican were President today, the transfer of Federal lands to the States would be done, or very close to it. An impartial observer would have to concur the prevalent sentiment amongst Republicans is one that supports the land transfer.

Here is one article from May 2015 on this information. You can find others with a quick search... http://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/oc/public-land-transfer-tale-two-votes-divestiture-movement


Grizzly

 

[NVBighorn]

LAST EDITED ON Dec-02-15 AT 03:51PM (MST)[p]Let me ask you Utah guys a question. Can you access and recreate on Utah State Trust lands any time you want?

edit: And is it free of charge?

[font color="blue"]I don't make the soup,I just stir it.[/font]

 

[grizzly]

LAST EDITED ON Dec-02-15 AT 04:20PM (MST)[p]NVBighorn, Congrats on your sheep! That is awesome!

According to 63L-6-102 of Utah Law:

"Public lands" means lands within the exterior boundaries of this state except:
(a) lands to which title is held by a person who is not a governmental entity;
(b) lands owned or held in trust by this state, a political subdivision of this state, or an
independent entity;
(c) lands reserved for use by the state system of public education as described in Utah Constitution Article X, Section 2, or a state institution of higher education listed in Section 53B-1-102 ;
(d) school and institutional trust lands as defined in Section 53C-1-103

Your question specifically stated "Utah State Trust lands"; the answer to that according to State Law is 'No'. Lands held in trust of the State are not considered Public Lands.

Public lands are free to access unless it is State Education Land (SITLA), held in a trust or political subdivision of the state, or reserved for use as education land, or sold to a private entity.

Being that the alleged point of the land transfer is to raise money for education, I don't think anybody can be confident that the land won't be classified as SITLA or reserved for education.

Also, the land transfer law allows a separate committee to change the definition of "public lands" as well as to write new rules pertaining to access, easements, and rights of use.

There is nothing to guarantee, and plenty to raise alarm, that loss of access is all but certain with this law as it sits today.

If loss of public access was not imminent, why write the law in this way? The language of the actual law is written in such that it contributes to closing public land... not the other way around. There is ZERO language meant to protect public access, and multiple ways the law is written to prevent it.

Grizzly

 

[2_Point]

NVB- the answer is NO. You can not access SITLA lands any time. Access is granted or restricted at will by SITLA. SITLA is paid hundreds of thousands of dollars each year by the state to allow hunting access. We could write a book on that mess, but it is all for the kids. The current puppets for the land transfer from the feds keep saying that too, it is all for the kids.

 

[Rackster]

LAST EDITED ON Dec-02-15 AT 07:09PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Dec-02-15 AT 07:06?PM (MST)

Griz,

You are unbelievable! Utah passing a law like that holds up to nothing. It will be a federal bill that will be the law of the land as far as federal land goes, not HB148.

There is a proposed federal bill, which is being revised and debated upon. The revisions do contain language on a 5% cap of land transfer to the States. I posted a reference to that bill earlier regardless of what you say about it. You are right that neither of us know what language will be in the final bill. I even doubt that such a bill will ever get through Congress, regardless of potential Republican control in both branches of government. Your debate should be about the proposed federal bill not HB148. HB148 has no bearing on federal land.

You keep harping on the HB148 to be the law the land. If so your land grab would have already happened. The law of what land? Certainly not federal land. I will conceed that it may be the law of State land, but not federal land. Im guessing that most people on this forum think of federal land when you say public land. Regardless of that, no law passed in Utah can take federal land no matter what law the State passes. No clause in a Utah law can change that.

Again, and I will use Caps since that is what you started using a few posts earlier...... There will be NO Federally Owned PUBLIC LANDS SOLD by the State until a federal bill is passed granting it. There will be no federal lands transferred to the State until a federal bill grants it. The Governor of Utah can sign whatever he wants, and you can believe whatever you want, but that's the bottom line.

Been nice chatin with ya'll, but this time fellas, its adios.

 

[NVBighorn]

Maybe I was incorrect when I asked specifically about "Trust Lands" but the answer is what I expected. No, you cannot access those lands without restrictions and without a fee. The fee that SITLA is paid is passed along to the hunters and fishermen no doubt. Look at New Mexico and Colorado right now. I will find two articles that point this out.

So from this it is relatively simple... things WILL change in the event of a transfer to states. It will no longer be public land. I personally love using public land. I just killed the ram of several lifetimes on public land. So the advocates of the transfer of lands to the states are lying when they say existing uses will continue.

No thanks Mr. Ivory. Go sell it somewhere else.

[font color="blue"]I don't make the soup,I just stir it.[/font]

 

[grizzly]

NVBighorn, I got your pm. Thx.

Grizzly

 

[hhunter23]

this will not only affect utah but will be the Western united states if ALC has its way. scary for the western US!

"Shoot Straight"

 

[hank4elk]

LAST EDITED ON Dec-03-15 AT 09:47AM (MST)[p]The land was never the states to begin with.Fact
One Congressional act does not supercede another but must act in conjuction with other Federal Acts.Fact.
Folks just make sh!t up these days or look at Wiki.

As poor as the Fed's are doing at their job that they are overpaid for, and never take in revenue anymore from anyone but middle and lower income folks and never a Corp.,they are immessurably better at taking care of OUR FEDERAL LANDS than ANY STATE.

UT would be some where below NY in how I would trust them rating.....NM the bottom.Next to AK & WY.

FED LANDS are multi use.

 

[elkfromabove]

Another unintended(?)consequence that hasn't been brought up, as far as I know, is that for all the claims that locals can manage the resources better than those "Easterners" (or whoever) is that the majority of the transferred land that's sold or leased will likely be sold or leased to companies or individuals who don't now (and maybe never will) live in Utah. In other words, even if they move here, the very people we are now so worried about will have even MORE opportunity to manage the land for their own profit and/or agenda. And our state Tourism Dept (or whatever it's called) will encourage it!

 

[grizzly]

The Outdoor Industry Association has studies on their website showing outdoor recreation in Utah contributes $12 Billion in Consumer Spending to the Utah Economy, is directly responsible for 122,000 jobs, $3.6 Billion in Wages & Salaries, and $856 Million in Local and State Tax Revenue.

These numbers far exceed any legitimate projections of economic benefit to the State from the land grab fraud.

These numbers have also not been disputed by the State of Utah; in fact they are held up as examples as to why Utah taxpayers need to continue to work in conjunction with the Outdoor Retailers Expo in SLC every year.

Utah's tourism is inextricably tied to outdoor recreation.

Grizzly

 

[grizzly]

Herald Journal Editorial - 12/3/15

----------------------

OUR VIEW

Let's talk a bit about the Cache County Council?s decision to financially support the American Lands Council, an organization that is spearheading the fight to have federal property turned over to states.

The County Council has reportedly made payments totaling $10,000 to maintain a ?silver membership? in the organization led by Utah Rep. Ken Ivory, R-West Jordan. When contacted by The Herald Journal for an article in Sunday?s newspaper, County Executive Craig Buttars defended the expenditure, saying the county supports ?the organization?s stance against the federal government's overreach.?

Obviously, Buttars didn't mean everyone in the county supports the cause, just the county?s elected leaders, but that's among concerns raised by a number of local residents after learning of the situation. Since when, they are asking, has county government spoken for the whole community on a divisive national issue of this kind? And since when has there been any expectation that local tax dollars be devoted to causes outside the purview of the government entity collecting those taxes?

Since never.

Forget for a minute the issue at hand ? control of public lands. And let's even overlook the controversy surrounding Rep. Ivory?s $95,000 salary for running the nonprofit American Lands Council. It doesn't matter what the issue or organization is. Local government simply shouldn't be spending taxpayers? dollars on any advocacy organization, be it the ALC, the NRA, NOW, Green Peace, PITA, you name it.

So here?s a simple solution for any local political leaders wanting to support any such organizations. Reach into your own pockets. That way you won't have to face any more criticism of this kind, and you should sleep a little better to boot.

----------------------

Grizzly

 

[NVBighorn]

From American Lands Councils FAQ page
http://www.americanlandscouncil.org/faqs

Q: What is going to be done about existing rights?

A: All valid existing rights including grazing, mining, timber, water, recreational access, and others will continue to be recognized.



Q: Don?t these lands belong to all of us?

A: No, public lands rightfully belong to the citizens of the state in which those lands reside, just as lands in eastern states belong to the citizens of those states. Ownership by any specific state will not reduce enjoyment of the lands by anyone. Just as Americans all feel welcome to enjoy the beauty of the color in the Northeast in the fall, and the beaches of Florida in the winter, Americans will feel as welcome as ever, if not more so, to enjoy the experience of Utah's snow, color country, and plentiful wildlife through protection and use of the resources by the best managers ? those closest to the lands.

Q: Will I be able to hunt, fish, 4-wheel, hike, bike, etc.?

A: Yes. As responsible stewards, states in the West will manage the public lands to enhance and improve access and recreational opportunities.


On the first question the key word here is "permitted". That word actually has dual meanings. By the Webster definition it would mean "allowed". Under public land law it could be construed to mean a permit that has been adjudicated by law, like a mine or grazing permit or power plant. Recreation, hunting, fishing, etc. are not "permitted" under that definition.

On the second question I would think non-residents of these states should get alarmed by this statement. And we are all non-residents in at least 49 states.

On the third question if you look at the above discussion about SITLA and read the two articles below you would see that the real answer is you might be able to IF you PAY a FEE.

http://www.gunnisontimes.com/news/access-state-trust-lands-sought

http://www.ruidosonews.com/story/ne...e-grants-hunting-easement-1-million/76118920/




[font color="blue"]I don't make the soup,I just stir it.[/font]

 

[NVBighorn]

LAST EDITED ON Dec-03-15 AT 05:06PM (MST)[p]http://www.protectourpublicland.org/news-collection/2015/7/28/7-differences-between-state-lands-and-public-lands


http://www.idahostatesman.com/news/local/article41569227.html


[font color="blue"]I don't make the soup,I just stir it.[/font]