Are Public Lands at risk?

mountainhick wrote: Bingo, plus would the states even have the resources to manage what they end up with? The obvious way to make that happen would be by selling off large portions of it, then get whatever they could on an ongoing basis from taxes, plus exploitation of the resources, whether fees for extracting minerals, charging for recreation, grazing or whatever. More restricted access would obviously be part of these changes. I also agree with you Alec about the underlying premise of federal lands being preserved and used for the benefit of all Americans.

As was mentioned int a previous post, the only way for the states to turn a profit is to sell off this land, thus it won't be protected any more and we will lose access. Remember, Utah is home to the largest pit min in the country, and I have no doubt that there would me more if they had the chance.

mountainhick wrote: To me, climbing in the outdoors on public lands is personal freedom. I oppose any legislation that deliberately or inadvertently contributes to taking that away. You bet I signed the petition.

Yes!!!! There is no better way of giving up our freedoms than to give away our open lands. Selling these lands, which is inevitable under state control, would lead to the exclusion of us being able to use it.

le.utah.gov/~2012/bills/hbi…

Utah is not trying to take control of any National Parks, other areas administered by the NPS, or Wilderness Areas. Just wanted to clear that fact up. 63L-6-102(3) lines 77-145.

Keatan wrote:http://le.utah.gov/~2012/bills/hbillenr/hb0148.htm Utah is not trying to take control of any National Parks, other areas administered by the NPS, or Wilderness Areas. Just wanted to clear that fact up. 63L-6-102(3) lines 77-145.

Maybe . . .
With a change in administration this could all change. Given the lack of scrutiny at the state level we may not know about policy changes initiated by state governments until it is too late.

Rob T wrote: Just the rest of the goods in the state. Keep in mind that Indian Creek, Castle valley, the San Rafael swell, and Maple are all outside park boundaries. Castleton was purchased a while back, but is still ringed by public lands(a favorite trick around here is to buy up all the surrounding lands to create defacto private parks in high end developments. See Kinesava access in Zion).

I wasn't saying it's a good thing. I just wanted to clear up some confusion higher in the thread. And I know too well about limiting access to public lands through private, it happens just about every where in the west.

Something that is probably worth noting is that federal land management agencies make payments to local municipalities in lieu of taxes, to offset not paying property taxes.

As an avid hunter and outdoor recreationist I believe the effort to transfer federal lands to the states are misguided for these reasons:

1. federal land is owned by all taxpayers across the nation, not just the residents of the state they are located in.
2. The argument that the feds are mismanaging their lands is largely baseless, and instances where management could be improved stem largely from the fact that their budgets have been cut below sustainable funding levels.
3. Some state lands in my area (SW MT) are not open to recreation because they are leased for activities not compatible with recreation. I cant think of an instance where I have not been able to access BLM or FS lands for these types of reasons.
4. Many of the federal employees responsible for on the ground management decisions on these lands live in local communities and are probably more connected to these lands than most other people in their state.

Beyond this it seems like energy and resource extraction companies, and proponents of private lands rights are the primary supporters of this type of legislation. Why would they support this if they were not hoping to gain something out of it?

I am privileged to live in an area with great access to a large amount of public land, the last thing I want is my state to end up dominated by private and restricted access lands (Texas).

Nathan D Johnson wrote: Anyone that supports the Senate is against democracy.

thankfully we don't live in a straight democracy. Straight democracy = mob rule. You need to go back to Civics class...

PRRose wrote: Of course the two senators per state rule was intentional. Now, in what way is that relevant?

It's relevant because you brought it up earlier.

A few years back there was a land swap between the BLM and the State of Utah. The land swap was promoted in part by an "environmental protection" group whose stated mission was to protect the red rock wilderness of Southern Utah from oil, gas, mining, off-roading and real estate development. However, at the time, the Grand Canyon Trust website stated that the swap allowed the land that Utah acquired from the BLM to be leased for oil and gas development. And the swap also freed up the BLM to lease its newly acquired land for oil and gas. Prior to the swap, these lands couldn't be touched by Utah or BLM for these purposes.

Of course, we all need the oil, and the State of Utah used the lease revenue to fund education, so it's not all bad. But the fact that a land swap with a publicly stated purpose ended up having an entirely different purpose was dishonest.

So, be careful what side you take because what you see is not always what you get.

Greg Petliski wrote: Isnt that the formula? To me, its all related, and indicative of where the Republican party stands on major issues. Anti-public lands, anti-gay, anti-black, anti-poor, anti-women.. hm, just what are they FOR anyway? Besides, this is MP. Theres an active thread that started about Advil and is now about guerilla warfare and gun rights.

Does this merit the dunce of the thread award? There is no republican party. Or a democratic party. There is the governing party, and their actions are almost always steeped in secrecy, and hidden legislation. It irks me to no end when I hear someone hate on one party, while completely absolving the other.

Are you serious Greg? Their hands are deep in each others pockets, and we are the sheep who blindly follow. Nefarious legislation? Absolutely. Whose to blame? It should be apparent. I truly hope none of this comes to pass....

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Do you think the peoples' interest is the "friend"?

Ari Kantola wrote:The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Do you think the peoples' interest is the "friend"?

I dunno, does the peoples interest make money and buy politicians? (;

Jim Turner wrote:A few years back there was a land swap between the BLM and the State of Utah. .

It's pretty sad how chewed up the West has gotten by private assholes in the last 10 year due to land swaps. Land swaps are a fucking rip off to the public, and a boon for the owners. I have never seen one that benefits the public.

Unless, you love cow shit in your drinking water fellas, pretty good huh??????

Nathan D Johnson wrote: Anyone that supports the Senate is against democracy.

not to mention the constitution.

There is no guarantee of future protection for any of our public lands, no matter which level of government owns them. Those who make money from extraction would log and mine every last National Park if they could, and they will never stop trying. They can now spend freely on political campaigns and have a virtually unlimited amount of money to spend. Their money will continue to reach a lot of politicians. I bet you there is more than one sitting congressman who would vote to sell off our National Parks tomorrow.

While I do not trust the agenda of these states, I believe they are being singled out here. The federal government has a long history of handing over resources to private entities as well. For example, take a look at a map of Joshua Tree National Park, and you will see a big notch in the southeastern park boundary. That notch was created when a mining baron successfully lobbied the feds to set up an operation there (which was part of a National Monument at the time). The list goes on and on.

We cannot sit back and trust our politicians to do the right thing. Public apathy is arguably the biggest risk to our public lands.

Some of my favorite places in Colorado are State Parks and Jefferson and Boulder County open space.

Who introduced this legislation and why?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_…

"On the Senate floor, however, Murkowski was unambiguous about why she believed the amendment was necessary: It is too difficult to drill, mine and otherwise develop energy on federal land."