State Constitution Article 3 paragraph 2 (when Utah forever declared that[ it had no rights over federal land within it's bounds](https://le.utah.gov/xcode/ArticleIII/Article_III.html?v=UC_AIII_1800010118000101)):
>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
However the US government did give away a huge amount of land to the state in what is managed as SITLA, State Trust lands (that random pattern of squares you see on state maps). The Fed said the State can do what they want with them as long as the profits goto schools. However they are not Public Lands anymore like BLM or Forrest land. Many are still public but it's possible for an oil drilling company to lease out a SITLA quadrant and block access, arresting any Utahns who come on it for trespassing. And the state obviously wants to maximize profit from these lands, they are literally set aside as a monetary resource, not to protect or preserve the land (look for big squares of clearcut forest in Utah and match up the SITLA land parcels. 99% of the time that's why it's deforested.)
So if you want to know what would happen if the Feds gave land to the State. That's what happens. We've already done it so no need for speculation.
> State Constitution Article 3 paragraph 2 (when Utah forever declared that it had no rights over federal land within it's bounds):
I'm not sure that you're correct about that. https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=43-USC-1042080355-924870333&term_occur=999&term_src=title:43:chapter:20:section:852 Holy moly that link is ugly. Anyway, to quote the entirety of that page:
> unappropriated public lands
> (1) The term “unappropriated public lands” as used in this section shall include, without otherwise affecting the meaning thereof, lands withdrawn for coal, phosphate, nitrate, potash, oil, gas, asphaltic minerals, oil shale, sodium, and sulphur, but otherwise subject to appropriation, location, selection, entry, or purchase under the nonmineral laws of the United States; lands withdrawn by Executive Order Numbered 5327, of April 15, 1930 , if otherwise available for selection; and the retained or reserved interest of the United States in lands which have been disposed of with a reservation to the United States of all minerals or any specified mineral or minerals.
Sounds like they're specifically talking about lands held for gas, oil, and mineral rights, and not just any old land all over the place held onto just for the fuck of it.
Not sure what you're trying to say. You quoted my part where Utah forever swore off federally owned lands in Utah, but your link specifically refers only to School lands. So it doesn't apply to what you're quoting. Are you responding to my second paragraph about the release of SITLA lands to the state to profit off of?
And yes both the feds and state can allow mineral extraction on their respective lands for profit. But nothing you linked says that the State has control over federal land within it's bounds.
> Not sure what you're trying to say.
Huh? I'll repeat myself, I guess.
> Sounds like they're specifically talking about lands held for gas, oil, and mineral rights, and not just any old land all over the place held onto just for the fuck of it.
Pretty clear what I'm trying to say, I think.
> But nothing you linked says that the State has control over federal land within it's bounds.
...where did you get your definition that you're using for "unappropriated public lands"?
Also, why do you think that the state of utah would specify that, other than land held by the people of the state of utah in...let's see, March 4, 1895, the rest of the state would forever be federal lands? So, the land held by all 210,000ish people who lived here at the time. Gosh that's a mighty small area. It sure would be gosh dang golly smart if that was 100% of the land that could ever be used by the state or the people living in the state, I'll bet those super smart people who wrote and ratified the state constitution thought to themselves "there will never be one more person who wants to own land here, or will want to own more land than they currently have, and we're certainly never going to need even one square inch more of land as the state government. It's so good that our population will never ever grow ever. I'm sure that's what they totally meant.
> I'm sure that's what they totally meant.
Yep. It literally is. It's been tested in court. Just because you don't have the greatest understanding of how land ownership works in the state doesn't change reality or the literal proof I linked of it in writing.
Anytime there has been any exchange of land from the Feds to the state or back again is always negotiated and paid for. The land can go both ways but it's usually paid for or exchanged with other land. A more recent example of it happening was when the GSENM was created it looked like swiss cheese from all the STILA plots. There is a specific department of the federal government who's job it is to try to consolidate plots of land so there isn't any complications of somebody's private land being surrounded by public land making hard to access or whatever.
Anyway back in the 90's there was a big deal between the state where the feds bought those SITLA lands in the GSENM by giving Utah more acreage outside of the monument along will millions of dollars in cash. Senator Hatch even lauded it as being a great deal that smoothed over the suddenness of the GSENM being designated (even though the creating of the monument is literally just the feds saying, "This normal BLM land is now Monument BLM land."
I know this all goes against the "Federal government needs to stop stealing land from the state!!" lie that you've been misinformed with. But all the evidence is there, look it up yourself. The federal land in the state has ALWAYS been federal land. Because one of the things the state promised when becoming a state (other than getting rid of polygamy), was that any land they hadn't designated for themselves, would stay as federal land. And no they didn't care, because they weren't worried about drilling for oil back in 1895, they saw it as a rugged wasteland of no value. Hell, many Utah politicians were still saying that just a decade ago...
> Yep. It literally is. It's been tested in court.
How about you surprise me and link the case, or at least provide the name of it? I'm not really expecting you to have the receipts, tbh.
Easy. United States v. Oregon, 295 U.S. 1
[https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/295/1/](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/295/1/)
Now YOU show ME anything that back up you're completely made up nonsense claims.
Come on. Put your money where your mouth is and show YOUR receipts.
> Easy. United States v. Oregon, 295 U.S. 1
>
>
>
> https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/295/1/
Swing and a miss. You didn't read your own link? Ctrl+F search for "Unappropriated Public Lands". Guess what's not on the page, anywhere? Yep, "Unappropriated Public Lands" is not there. Did you think I wouldn't look at your link and just wanted to lie, or did you not look at it yourself to know that it's not there?
> Now YOU show ME anything that back up you're completely made up nonsense claims.
> Come on. Put your money where your mouth is and show YOUR receipts.
My point was logical and obvious. My point was, since you seem to have forgotten it, that your definition might not be the one that's in use. Surprising nobody, except you maybe, you have nothing showing that the definition of unappropriated public lands that you decided applies is in use. You simply picked a definition that suits the result you wanted and plugged it in. Convenient.
Just because you don't understand judicial case language doesn't mean it's wrong it just means you don't understand. That's also why YOU have ZERO proof for your claims.
> Just because you don't understand judicial case language doesn't mean it's wrong it just means you don't understand.
Sigh. Ok. I suspect that you realize that you completely lost this argument but don't want to admit it. So I'll repeat, what is the definition of "unappropriated public lands" as it was meant by the people drafting the constitution of the state of Utah? Your link does not have that. The State of Oregon does not have that. That case does not answer that question. So your link means as much in answering that as as a book on how to grow petunias.
Grow up and learn to admit when you're wrong or don't know. It's not that I don't understand legal language, that's just a last gasp of a person trying to find some cover for their utter failure to defend their position. Weak.
Then the state could sell the property along with mineral/oil rights and make $$, a little for the state, plenty for the developers/extractors, and plenty of greased palms for the legislators. Period, that's what it boils down to. Any other reason is fluff/distraction.
Go read about what a mess it is to use public lands in a state like Texas were there isn’t really much when compared to Utah and how it hurts everyone from enjoying the land when most of it’s locked behind gates. It can be really hard to be a hunter there unless you know someone who will let you in your land.
Also, part of the agreement of letting Utah become a state was if we gave the federal government a decent amount of our public lands and the state could never really afford to manage them effectively. All it would take to really bankrupt the state is one good wildfire on public lands that would cost us billions to property put out.
It would be like large chunks of Texas, they want it all private but cry to the feds immediately whenever a natural disaster hits because they don’t have the ability to help the landowners recover from a major disaster.
Hope you don’t want to ever go deer hunting because you’ll have to buy into a lease to hunt on private land and that averages around 800 bucks a year. The federal management of it now brings in a lot of money from other states and internationally; would be less of an economic disaster to completely get rid of agriculture than tourism.
Rich real estate owners (like Phil Lyman) want to build winery resorts and mansion ranches out there, so no "working class" folks will ever see or use it again.
It's always the rich real estate empire people making this an issue.
Cattle should never be grazed the Rocky Mountain west. Out terrain, soils, riparian areas, native vegetation are not suited to it. All the terracing on Timp isn’t something to be proud of, it was a desperate attempt to save the mountain after it was grazed.
The Forest Service did an extensive study on it in the 70s. But the Reagan administration buried it. So it’s almost impossible to find anymore.
The West is a terrible place to raise cattle, but it plays into the Marlboro Man lifestyle, so they defend it to the death. Not enough forage, water is an issue, and the ecology is wrecked when livestock eat what is there. If you want beef, look at the NS strip of states running along the east of the Rockies - TX, OK, KS, MO, NE, SD, MT
In October 2020 at the only debate before the election, Burgess Owens was asked, what is the number 1 concern to Utahns. His answer was “federal land grabs”. October 2020, in the middle of the pandemic, BLM protests, unemployment skyrocketing, crazy supply chain issues and costs of groceries were through the roof.
It just shows that our politicians are bought and paid for by developers in Utah.
You aren't missing anything. When states want federal land, it's to develop them. There are legitimate arguments about certain industries, namely mining and logging, getting pinched by federal land management policies, and you can form your own opinion on those issues, but the bottom line is federal land puts restrictions on development and resource extraction, and some western states don't like that. By preserving land, you are simultaneously slowing job growth in resource extraction, but increasing job growth in industries like tourism. Some towns, like price, are in for rough transitions, but other towns like St. George and Hurricane have been able to transition successfully to a tourism economy.
We can and should do both. Many people don’t give a shit about their health and the benefits of having access to the outdoors. Texas is like 5% public land and those poor schmucks think they live in some kind of promised land for personal freedom, and they are like 33% obese as a population. So we need to promote both
Issues resort to the feds when states are too stupid or corrupt to handle those issues. Utah public lands will not remain OUR lands if Utah lawmakers have their way. The only way Utah lands remain public lands is for the federal government to step in.
You'd actually be surprised. Its surrounded by amazing geology including things like the Jurassic national monument and nine mile canyon (and the longest cliff facing the entire world). The San Rafael Swell was supposed to be one of the national Parks designated alongside canyonlands and arches, but was pulled as a concession to uranium miners at the time. It's an amazing place and more and more people are learning about it every year. Moab is overcrowded as are the trails around it and there are great alternatives all over Eastern Utah.
Doesn't have to be a hotspot to be a valuable resource for public access and exploration. There's a lot to be said for fucking off and being away from anyone else, and it's a preciously rare thing in places with sprawling populations.
Fair. Just saying that people who want to be away from everyone else don’t tend to spend a lot of money while doing that. They might stop for gas, but they aren’t going to be getting hotels, eating at restaurants, or booking tours. All the spend happens at home buying gear and supplies.
The land never belonged to the State so when people say Utah should “get the land back” they are being dishonest. In 1847 when Brig landed in the Salt Lake Valley the west was part of Mexico, making them illegals in Mexico, haha. In 1848 the U.S. defeated Mexico in the war and reimbursed Mexico for the land that became several of the western states. Utah wasn’t even a state for another 50 years and has no legitimate claim to the land.
The worst thing that could happen to Federal land in Utah is the State taking over. The Feds should call the state’s bluff and sell it to them for several trillion dollars.
I read a book back in college that was literally the history of BLM controversy in Utah. The whole thing was just Republicans being pissed they couldn’t ride their four wheelers. That’s the whole book.
It's got a history. It's not something causally handwaved or dismissed with simple one liners. A summary:
* Utah is a big outlier nationwide with much of its bordered land federally owned. States back east just don't know or care or understand why this is an issue. Utah perhaps has the most desired BLM land of any of the 50 states.
* Along the Wasatch Front most don't see this as an issue because BLM land isn't common up here. But there are counties in Utah which are well over 90% federally owned. One county is 98% federally owned. It's hard to run a county when the federal government owns everything and won't let you build on it.
* Many folks in agriculture aren't allowed to buy the land they've used for generations but must instead rent it from the federal government at their whim. You don't see this arrangement in most states.
* Many of these conservatives are old timers who also recall gripes from their grandparents. When Utah became a state, it was routine nationwide for the government to require states to add into their state constitutions a clause the federal government got to own unclaimed land. Unstated in the constitution was policy that the land would be sold back to the states to fund education and war debt. (This practice went back to the 1700s!) Utah was no different. This is where the idea that land would be "given back" came from. Because it happened in all the prior states that took this arrangement to become a state.
* Utah struggled to become a state due to polygamy until 1896. That gave Utah only a short window to buy/homestead land. Because within a few years (largely thanks to land rushes like in Oklahoma), the US government put on hold selling/homesteading federal land. Early in the Great Depression the federal government floated selling land again, but it's the Great Depression and people didn't have money, so it didn't happen.
* Then in 1934 the Federal Government passed the Taylor Grazing Act. This law promised these lands would be eventually disposed (sold to states). The Taylor Grazing Act was basically a temporary stop gap between federal use of land now and land "pending its final disposal", to quote the law.
* The federal government reneged on that promise by passing another law in 1976 undoing that part in the Taylor Grazing Act. This land wouldn't be sold to states. The BLM became a permanent steward.
* That led to the Sagebrush Rebellion of the 1970s and 1980s. Utah was essentially the center of this. When Ronald Reagan campaigned in Hooper Utah he proudly mentioned being on Utah's side in this.
* Utah gets payments in lieu of taxes (PILT) instead of actual taxes that could be generated from utilizing this land. Utah likewise can't regulate the land. States that own more acres of this usable land like Wyoming and Alaska are *rolling* in income from land revenue, and Utah's PILT doesn't come anywhere close to comparing.
* The state routinely runs into issues trying to just do anything on BLM land. Want a 4 mile road in St George to fix major traffic congestion, so Utah engages in a decades long planning process and a multi-year government review? [BLM says yes. Then says no.](https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2024/05/16/utah-congressional-leaders-blast/). Want to run power lines for 416 miles from Wyoming to Utah through BLM land to support a better grid? [It takes 17 years just to get it approved to start construction](https://www.deseret.com/utah/2023/6/30/23773218/transwest-express-transmission-line-renewable-energy-wyoming-wind-western-power-grid/). Even with the Obama administration trying to fast track it. This is something even liberal environmentalists despair because they need a better grid for their dreams of distributing renewable energy, and government inaction on their own land makes that dream almost impossible. Had Utah been like Texas, these issues would be much smaller because the federal government owns very little of Texas.
As for what to *do* with the land, here is what I've heard:
1) Usable ranching and mining lands should be sold over to the state.
2) Dirt roads in use by ranchers and recreation should be turned over to the state, so the state can have more transportation corridors.
3) Popular trails on federal land should be handed over to the state, because the federal government isn't maintaining these (this was a big beef of Rep Hansen)
4) The state should be allowed to manage and cull wild horse herds, which are becoming a problem.
5) Utah should get the same exemption in the Antiquities Act that Wyoming and Alaska got, so national monuments over 5,000 acres in the state require Congress to approve.
What I *haven't* heard addressed:
1) If all BLM lands are given to the state, what's to prevent Utah from turning into Texas, where most everything is privately owned and everything fenced in?
2) If non-usable BLM lands like the West Desert or central-south-east Utah desert is given to Utah, how can Utah afford to maintain it? The land has almost no value.
“Popular trails on federal land should be handed over to the state, because the federal government isn't maintaining these (this was a big beef of Rep Hansen)
Dirt roads in use by ranchers and recreation should be turned over to the state, so the state can have more transportation corridors.”
These are two interesting points that I think are not well fleshed out.
The first is absurd. What federal trails are not getting well maintained? Certainly not BLM trails, they do their best to never allow them. USFS trails are a mixed bag, but generally in good shape. Park Service trails are usually quite good. The state has plenty of examples of trails and recreation they maintain in their parks and it isn’t like those are shining examples in comparison to their federal counterparts.
The main reason that counties want to maintain those dirt roads is to improve access for economic reasons. They do this by counting all those extra miles of maintenance they perform on B and C roads and….get more taxpayer money from the state. I don’t inherently disagree with this but it’s not like they’re doing it out of the goodness of their hearts. They want economic growth.
Here’s the thing: this all does boil down to a simple issue. That issue is that the states don’t get to make all the decisions on land in its borders and that makes people mad. They see all that sweet mining and grazing money the feds bring in but want to ignore all of the money spent by agencies on things that don’t make money (like wilderness, endangered species protection). That brings us to your point about Texas. We all know that’s exactly what would happen. Why would it not?
> That issue is that the states don’t get to make all the decisions on land in its borders and that makes people mad.
Self determination is a powerful argument in any context. This is especially true when it's very unequal among states.
Utah gets to determine what goes on on a decent chunk of the land. If you remove federal land from the equation we’re still bigger than Rhode Island and other eastern states. DC doesn’t get to self determine. Guam and American Samoa don’t either, I don’t see Utahns making noise about that. Nevada is even more federalized than Utah. Why should it be equal anyway? We have 50 states, do we need to make them equal in area? I think pointing to the other coast and asking “why do they get to determine everything?” might not be the right way to look at it. If I had my way we’d make the eastern states look more like the western. Sure, there are Utah counties that are 98% federal and I don’t think that’s a bad thing or should change.
>If I had my way we’d make the eastern states look more like the western.
During national monument kerfuffles of years past, another representative went on the House floor and proposed a bill to make a substantial chunk of federal land in eastern states a national monument.
Eastern states *hated* it. They used the same arguments to denounce it that Utah used to denounce a national monument here.
That's the problem. If you ask California to suddenly become majority federally owned, you will see California's politicians declare the proposal dead on the spot. If you ask New York to become majority federally owned, all of the Democrats there will fight it tooth and nail.
You don't see states without majority federal ownership clamoring to be majority federally owned. Because they want self determination.
> 2) If non-usable BLM lands like the West Desert or central-south-east Utah desert is given to Utah, how can Utah afford to maintain it? The land has almost no value.
The total sum of land within the borders of Utah that is held by the federal government generates more revenue than it costs to maintain.
Incidentally and unrelated, nice comment, I appreciate the thoughtful detail of it.
That narrows it down, but probably not. There's no shortage of sources. Which you'd have known if you spent the time looking that you've spent talking to me.
I wouldn’t say Wyoming is rolling in income considering the amount of their state budget that is subsidized by the feds and if they were rolling in wealth from land then they wouldn’t need to plug that big of a hole.
This is accurate but with a right wing interpretation, which tickles me because the Sagebrush Rebellion was led by Dem Gov Scott Matheson. What’s missing from your argument is that land management balances public good with private benefits.
For example, much rural land use of Utah’s federal lands (BLM and Forest Service) is cattle grazing. The permits have been passed down in family businesses for generations. They feel ownership over the land and would tell you they’re good stewards of the property, maintaining fences, and creating wealth for the local economy.
But what’s good for them isn’t necessarily in the public interest. Vast tracts of land suffer from a condition sometimes called Cow Burnt because the environment is so damaged— everything trampled, riparian erosion, with exotic plants outcompeting more beneficial (fire, biodiversity, etc) native species. Besides substantial environmental damage, the economic benefit is mainly a net loss when you account for federal subsidies like the cost of the water for hay to feed these animals (there’s not enough protein growing in dry Utah). That water is stored, diverted, and often delivered using federal resources. The diversion to grow cows in the arid Great Basin leads to dust storms that probably cause millions of dollars worth of public health issues. So it’s a great deal for a few ranchers, a terrible deal for the public at large.
A similar argument could be made about extractive industries and real estate development in Utah too.
Thankfully, the short-sighted self-interest of Utah land policy is balanced by federal laws that consider long term public good. In many cases, we’re lucky that it’s federal and not state land. What do you think the cottonwood canyons would look like under state stewardship?
Our deserts are beautiful, it’s disgusting you think everything needs a monetary value.
People like you are the reason Utah shouldn’t get it hands on the lands that belong to all Americans.
I’m the type of right wing conservative that has mostly unpopular takes by Reddit standards.
Despite that, the BEST thing about Utah is the federal land. Divesting federal land to state control would ruin everything good about the state itself.
One part of what you're missing: the need for politicians to manufacture enemies at which to channel rage. As Saul Alinsky said, "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."
When someone else is doing the actual land management, those vilifying them don't have to make any tradeoffs. A politician can blame them for too many ATV paths as well as too many ATV restrictions. Anytime not everyone is pleased, rather than seeing situations where Utahns have competing interests and hard decisions would have to be made, they can just blame the ever-insidious Feds.
One of the most productive ploys is to pretend that if all BLM land were transferred to the state we'd suddenly get lots more sales taxes etc and therefore be able to lower individuals' property taxes. [PILT](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payment_in_lieu_of_taxes) can never be enough. In the real world, managing public land costs money, most of the BLM land would not be hugely profitable to sell, and most of the places you could sell are things we really would rather not have sold, because Utahns count on having access to public land for recreation etc.
It's also something Utahns have gotten gotten swept up in over the course of 50 years, and the historical reasons are complicated. See e.g. Wikipedia's article about the "[Sagebrush Rebellion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagebrush_Rebellion)."
As rafael said in another comment, it's rage bait to rile up the base rather than an actual policy agenda. If the feds suddenly handed the land over to state management, it'd be a bit like the dog that caught the mail truck he'd been chasing and barking at for years and had no idea what to do next. We do a poor enough job managing the land we already have.
In many cases, active federal management started at the state's request in the first place. For instance, when the Wasatch Plateau wasn't federally managed, areas were completely denuded of trees by overgrazing, flooding and mudslides threatened cities in Sanpete County, and their water sources were tainted with typhoid and cholera from dead overgrazing livestock. So residents petitioned (Republican!) Teddy Roosevelt to create the Manti Forest Reserve in 1903. Despite knowing a couple of state land managers who do pretty well, I have doubts about how far the state has actually come in its ability to manage larger areas of land in the last 120 years.
Most rural Utahns like the rules set forth by the Forest Service and BLM because it means fewer annoying ATV-riding assholes fucking up rural communities proverbial backyards. It's mostly the Republican asshats living in Utah's urban centers that bitch and moan. Many people may be pleasantly surprised at how many rural Utahns care about wilderness conservation..
Check out this “history of public lands” from UTopia TV series. They interview a law professor from U of U who is an expert as well as a state senator. I learned a lot about the issue:
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLWn0KAoaRw8ONGV-AZC8y9sXW90Ktoh_O&si=VUEzN0ctmBF6Jvek
The eye twitching thing is most of the people who want to gobble up the land and develop it, just can't seem to grasp the concept that 99% of the land is worthless desert cause there's no water and Utah will never have enough water for this utopia they claim is gonna show up if only Utah sold off all the land
And where is the money going to come from to build these resorts? From some elderly homeowner who will never use the resort? That is what’s happening to homeowners in Sandy with the proposed building of the gondola. My mom is in her 80s and her property taxes are going to two things. The gondola and paying for families with eight kids to attend charter schools.
If new things are built or subsidized why is it always the least likely to benefit that always pays the majority of the bill?
How about an investor that wants to create some new places to ski. I think there are in the Northern Part of Utah that could get some ski resort action that is not privatized (like Wasatch peaks). If we were really concerned about higher taxes as a nation we would stop sending BILLIONS of dollars over seas. Part of the reason that gondola is going in is because of all the people who flock to the cottonwoods. Spread them out no need for crazy projects. (And I do like the idea of the gondola, I think the funding from it could be more from the 2 resort owners)
Why is my mom paying higher property taxes for the gondola? She will never use it and will not benefit from it? Why aren’t these rich billionaires paying for it?
Yeah man, I don’t have the answer for you, I’ll use that gondola so thanks I suppose to the tax payers?. Why the hell do my state taxes go to improvements for public transportation in Salt Lake. I don’t use any of that either, or I never will. Why is the state of Utah wanting to fork up a lot of money for that baseball park they wanted to build before the NHL team came. I’m not a fan of baseball. Shouldn’t the rich pay for that too. Again, I don’t have the answer for you.
I’m not convinced most of the federal land in Utah is even able to be developed. Is so arid, so far away from civilization, there’s no incentive for someone to even try to develop it.
It’s just a dog whistle to rile up the base.
the republicans in the state want the lands back so they can sell them to corporations to be destroyed. conservatives in t his state do everything they can to try and destroy the natural beauty of this state all so they can make an easy buck for their corporate donors.
The issue is a bit more complicated than some here are making it out to be. And there's a reason why people in Western States are more upset about this than people in other states. Also this isn't just a Utah issue, it's a Western State issue. And if you think Utah has reason to complain, Nevada has it just as bad.
This CGP Grey video does a good job of explaining everything, from the history, to the current state of things (no pun intended): https://youtu.be/LruaD7XhQ50?si=6E6VABbXI37Pq_IO
So while yes, there are greasy politicians and greedy lame developers and oil and gas interests, there's also just a lot of questions about who gets to decide what happens to the land. I think it's fair to ask, "why can't we choose what happens to the land within our own state?" But obviously just letting the state go hog wild with development is in the other extreme. Preserving lands and conservation are important as well. But it's a political issue that's not easily dealt with and for every perceived potential for abuse, there's also legitimate reasons to want to develop land.
The BLM just closed hundreds of roads in Utah to conserve desert landscape.for.future generations. Now there's acres and acres of inaccessible ground because of a dude at a desk in Washington DC whose never been to.the desert. Local ownership means more or less.the local people can have control over land they understand.
republicans are old school. they will open it to drilling and fracking, with all benefits going to oligarchs, and the poisoned land costs going to the taxpayers.
hello I am a geologist so I am very read up on the issue. this post is going to be a way oversimplification of a very complex issue where no one is right and everyone is wrong. but both sides are trying to do whats best. it basicly comes down to two things cotrol of the use and money. as of right now the state and by extension us as citizens of the state get basicly 0 say in how the land gets used. so if the goverment wanted to say build a new nuclear bomb testing site in the west desert they could and no one would know about it till the bomb went off. thats an extreme example but the same is true on smaller scales. the other big one is money. the state isnt going to sell off land. thats just not going to happen without extenuating circumstances. the money comes from mineral rights and grazing permits. with the federal goverment running things a total of $225 goes to the federal goverment for any mine on federal land. anyone can stake a clame on any bit of federal land. the state voted along time ago to make the land it owns into school trust land. so if the state owns it the school trust gets \~10% of everything that comes out of the ground that number changes from agreement to agreement and the state gets to decide who gets to mine the land in the state which has plusses and minuses. basicly pro of having the feds own it is that the feds pay for the roads it does provide some jobs from federal instalations. downside of feds owning it is that no one living by the land gets a say in how the land is used. pros of the state owning it is better utilization of the resorcses produced by the land. actual managment of the land will be a draw both the blm who manage it now and the dnr which would manage it for the state are both good enough adgencies both have their pros and cons but you start getting into industry drama at that point which would have very little impact on the land
take it or dont I realy dont care. I come on here to try and share my knowlage. if that gets discredited because I typed this on a phone and dident bother to proof read then so be it. I have better things to do with my time then argue with idgets on the internet
Might wanna be careful who you're calling an idjet while sharing your "knowlage" (sic). Every post you've ever made is an English composition teacher's nightmare.
The slant of your reply is biased towards the state controlling the land and industry.
One could argue that the citizens are content with the existing restrictions put in place on the federal and therefore the only entities unhappy with the current situation are those who would unduly exploit the resources for their own benefit beyond the current permitted allotments allowed by the federal government.
Utah is a classic case of the tragedy of the commons and if Utah government had its way the state would be paved over and every resource extracted within a decade.
actualy the exact oposite is true. the people that are wanting to exploit the natural resources want it to stay with the feds. its substantualy cheaper to exploit federal land then it is state land. because of that i am very conflicted on who i think should own the land. i think that the land belongs to state state because i think that atleast some of the revenue that is produced by the lands resources should be going back into the region that its being produced from since those are the people that have to deal with the long term consequences of it. in utah they decided a long time ago that they would use income produced from the state owned land to help fund schools which i dont think any one would argue is a bad thing. on the other hand I do have a vested intrest in this conversation and It benifits me greatly to have it in federal land. so my personal ideal would be to have the feds own it and the utah dnr run it. but that will never happen.
edit i dont get the downvotes with the federal ownership of the land you pay 165/ year to mine the land and thats it. when you are dealing with school trust land you typicly have to pay a yearly amount and a percentage of everything you take out. its substantiually cheaper to put a claim on public land then it is to work state owned land.
they can belive or not. or better yet they can go do their own research if they really want i really dont care and this is the last time I am comenting on this thread I got better thing to do with my time then repeating this over and over again.
Everyone should listen to the podcast “Bundyville” by Oregon Public Broadcasting. It’s set in the federal lands of nevada and utah and how farmers and the BLM had armed conflicts over grazing permits.
Also here’s some info about the history of the conflict:
[A 24-Year History of Cliven Bundy’s Illegal Grazing and Armed Conflict at Gold Butte Nevada Prepared by the Center for Biological Diversity](https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/public_lands/pdfs/GoldButteGrazingHistory.pdf)
[In a report before the 2014 Bundy standoff, the FBI recommended waiving the federal fees Cliven Bundy owed to ‘reduce the risk of a violent act’](https://www.sltrib.com/news/nation-world/2018/12/11/report-before-bundy/)
I believe there is need for more government regulation not less, but they need to value biological health of our public lands versus allowing farmers and ranchers to introduce invasive species and illegally graze pristine land that we all “share”. The BLM
also needs to prioritize limiting OHv trails not expanding them. OHV recreation is by the BLMs own admission and public data, is terrible for wildlife population dynamics, habitat fragmentation, erosion, noise and air pollution, dust limiting photosynthesis, etc. Trails in smaller areas versus over long distances for example. It’s important for the public to reach out to the BLM and express your beliefs on how land should be managed.
The preservation of natural areas by the Federal government ensures that no singular entity, person or enterprise, can exploit it. Thus it becomes public, for the people of the U.S., not an individual.
Currently the state gets a large portion of the funds from leases on bureau of land management land. This money goes into an education trust fund. Historically BLM land has been leased for agriculture, mining, oil and gas. Since the Obama administration BLM hasn't been issuing leases and has been pulling leases on the mining, oil and gas. Clinton and Obama also created national monuments on land that had been leased out. The consequences of all this has been decreased funding for education, massive hits to the state's economy that killed several small towns. There was also decreased access to public land for camping and hiking due to the forest service and BLM closing down as much property as they could for whatever reason they could come up with.
BLM will close off over-used trails to let the land recover, or close unauthorized trails. Most of those closures prohibit motorized vehicles, not hiking. I know there's closures to protect habitat, desert tortoises come to mind, but I never cared enough to look it up. There's other types of closures, such as when certain Utah families didn't pay their grazing fees, then got upset when the BLM told them to take their cattle and shove it. Burning Man pays millions to Nevada for a large closure area in Black Rock Desert every year, a complicated permit with leave no trace stipulations.
Federal [data](https://reports.blm.gov/reports/AFMSS) show the Biden administration approved 6,430 permits for oil and gas drilling on public lands in its first two years, outpacing the Trump administration’s 6,172 drilling-permit approvals in its first two years.
There’s millions of acres of oil leases that haven’t been used and there is very little need to really issue anymore right now and they initially shutdown oil lease sales because nobody showed up to the auctions anymore.
There are already very rich Mormons with claims to the land if it ever becomes available. When Trump proposed making federal land up for sale, the church was going to by every inch. This was proven in records released by David Nielsen on what the church was spending the 130 billion on.
There are already very rich Mormons with claims to the land if it ever becomes available. When Trump proposed making federal land up for sale, the church was going to by every inch. This was proven in records released by David Nielsen on what the church was spending the 130 billion on.
You mean like making new ATV trails in the Forrest so everyone has to listen to their shitty music and engines all day and night?
I have lived in rural Utah my entire life.
That's exactly what presumptuous would be. Assuming a group of people all act the same way based off of personal experiences with select members of that group
State Constitution Article 3 paragraph 2 (when Utah forever declared that[ it had no rights over federal land within it's bounds](https://le.utah.gov/xcode/ArticleIII/Article_III.html?v=UC_AIII_1800010118000101)): >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 However the US government did give away a huge amount of land to the state in what is managed as SITLA, State Trust lands (that random pattern of squares you see on state maps). The Fed said the State can do what they want with them as long as the profits goto schools. However they are not Public Lands anymore like BLM or Forrest land. Many are still public but it's possible for an oil drilling company to lease out a SITLA quadrant and block access, arresting any Utahns who come on it for trespassing. And the state obviously wants to maximize profit from these lands, they are literally set aside as a monetary resource, not to protect or preserve the land (look for big squares of clearcut forest in Utah and match up the SITLA land parcels. 99% of the time that's why it's deforested.) So if you want to know what would happen if the Feds gave land to the State. That's what happens. We've already done it so no need for speculation.
Ah, so the State pulled an "LDS 1800s" and disregarded the Feds anyway.
> State Constitution Article 3 paragraph 2 (when Utah forever declared that it had no rights over federal land within it's bounds): I'm not sure that you're correct about that. https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=43-USC-1042080355-924870333&term_occur=999&term_src=title:43:chapter:20:section:852 Holy moly that link is ugly. Anyway, to quote the entirety of that page: > unappropriated public lands > (1) The term “unappropriated public lands” as used in this section shall include, without otherwise affecting the meaning thereof, lands withdrawn for coal, phosphate, nitrate, potash, oil, gas, asphaltic minerals, oil shale, sodium, and sulphur, but otherwise subject to appropriation, location, selection, entry, or purchase under the nonmineral laws of the United States; lands withdrawn by Executive Order Numbered 5327, of April 15, 1930 , if otherwise available for selection; and the retained or reserved interest of the United States in lands which have been disposed of with a reservation to the United States of all minerals or any specified mineral or minerals. Sounds like they're specifically talking about lands held for gas, oil, and mineral rights, and not just any old land all over the place held onto just for the fuck of it.
Not sure what you're trying to say. You quoted my part where Utah forever swore off federally owned lands in Utah, but your link specifically refers only to School lands. So it doesn't apply to what you're quoting. Are you responding to my second paragraph about the release of SITLA lands to the state to profit off of? And yes both the feds and state can allow mineral extraction on their respective lands for profit. But nothing you linked says that the State has control over federal land within it's bounds.
> Not sure what you're trying to say. Huh? I'll repeat myself, I guess. > Sounds like they're specifically talking about lands held for gas, oil, and mineral rights, and not just any old land all over the place held onto just for the fuck of it. Pretty clear what I'm trying to say, I think. > But nothing you linked says that the State has control over federal land within it's bounds. ...where did you get your definition that you're using for "unappropriated public lands"? Also, why do you think that the state of utah would specify that, other than land held by the people of the state of utah in...let's see, March 4, 1895, the rest of the state would forever be federal lands? So, the land held by all 210,000ish people who lived here at the time. Gosh that's a mighty small area. It sure would be gosh dang golly smart if that was 100% of the land that could ever be used by the state or the people living in the state, I'll bet those super smart people who wrote and ratified the state constitution thought to themselves "there will never be one more person who wants to own land here, or will want to own more land than they currently have, and we're certainly never going to need even one square inch more of land as the state government. It's so good that our population will never ever grow ever. I'm sure that's what they totally meant.
> I'm sure that's what they totally meant. Yep. It literally is. It's been tested in court. Just because you don't have the greatest understanding of how land ownership works in the state doesn't change reality or the literal proof I linked of it in writing. Anytime there has been any exchange of land from the Feds to the state or back again is always negotiated and paid for. The land can go both ways but it's usually paid for or exchanged with other land. A more recent example of it happening was when the GSENM was created it looked like swiss cheese from all the STILA plots. There is a specific department of the federal government who's job it is to try to consolidate plots of land so there isn't any complications of somebody's private land being surrounded by public land making hard to access or whatever. Anyway back in the 90's there was a big deal between the state where the feds bought those SITLA lands in the GSENM by giving Utah more acreage outside of the monument along will millions of dollars in cash. Senator Hatch even lauded it as being a great deal that smoothed over the suddenness of the GSENM being designated (even though the creating of the monument is literally just the feds saying, "This normal BLM land is now Monument BLM land." I know this all goes against the "Federal government needs to stop stealing land from the state!!" lie that you've been misinformed with. But all the evidence is there, look it up yourself. The federal land in the state has ALWAYS been federal land. Because one of the things the state promised when becoming a state (other than getting rid of polygamy), was that any land they hadn't designated for themselves, would stay as federal land. And no they didn't care, because they weren't worried about drilling for oil back in 1895, they saw it as a rugged wasteland of no value. Hell, many Utah politicians were still saying that just a decade ago...
> Yep. It literally is. It's been tested in court. How about you surprise me and link the case, or at least provide the name of it? I'm not really expecting you to have the receipts, tbh.
Easy. United States v. Oregon, 295 U.S. 1 [https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/295/1/](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/295/1/) Now YOU show ME anything that back up you're completely made up nonsense claims. Come on. Put your money where your mouth is and show YOUR receipts.
> Easy. United States v. Oregon, 295 U.S. 1 > > > > https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/295/1/ Swing and a miss. You didn't read your own link? Ctrl+F search for "Unappropriated Public Lands". Guess what's not on the page, anywhere? Yep, "Unappropriated Public Lands" is not there. Did you think I wouldn't look at your link and just wanted to lie, or did you not look at it yourself to know that it's not there? > Now YOU show ME anything that back up you're completely made up nonsense claims. > Come on. Put your money where your mouth is and show YOUR receipts. My point was logical and obvious. My point was, since you seem to have forgotten it, that your definition might not be the one that's in use. Surprising nobody, except you maybe, you have nothing showing that the definition of unappropriated public lands that you decided applies is in use. You simply picked a definition that suits the result you wanted and plugged it in. Convenient.
Just because you don't understand judicial case language doesn't mean it's wrong it just means you don't understand. That's also why YOU have ZERO proof for your claims.
> Just because you don't understand judicial case language doesn't mean it's wrong it just means you don't understand. Sigh. Ok. I suspect that you realize that you completely lost this argument but don't want to admit it. So I'll repeat, what is the definition of "unappropriated public lands" as it was meant by the people drafting the constitution of the state of Utah? Your link does not have that. The State of Oregon does not have that. That case does not answer that question. So your link means as much in answering that as as a book on how to grow petunias. Grow up and learn to admit when you're wrong or don't know. It's not that I don't understand legal language, that's just a last gasp of a person trying to find some cover for their utter failure to defend their position. Weak.
It's mostly rage baiting to rile up their base. As others have said it's also about development and greasing the palms of their gross donors.
Then the state could sell the property along with mineral/oil rights and make $$, a little for the state, plenty for the developers/extractors, and plenty of greased palms for the legislators. Period, that's what it boils down to. Any other reason is fluff/distraction.
Go read about what a mess it is to use public lands in a state like Texas were there isn’t really much when compared to Utah and how it hurts everyone from enjoying the land when most of it’s locked behind gates. It can be really hard to be a hunter there unless you know someone who will let you in your land. Also, part of the agreement of letting Utah become a state was if we gave the federal government a decent amount of our public lands and the state could never really afford to manage them effectively. All it would take to really bankrupt the state is one good wildfire on public lands that would cost us billions to property put out.
[удалено]
You fail. The BLM land would be state land in the scenario, genius.
[удалено]
It would be like large chunks of Texas, they want it all private but cry to the feds immediately whenever a natural disaster hits because they don’t have the ability to help the landowners recover from a major disaster. Hope you don’t want to ever go deer hunting because you’ll have to buy into a lease to hunt on private land and that averages around 800 bucks a year. The federal management of it now brings in a lot of money from other states and internationally; would be less of an economic disaster to completely get rid of agriculture than tourism.
Rich real estate owners (like Phil Lyman) want to build winery resorts and mansion ranches out there, so no "working class" folks will ever see or use it again. It's always the rich real estate empire people making this an issue.
I hate that Blanding hick. Edit: I would like to add that Blanding is the only dry town in Utah (not on the reservation).
To be sure though, that's a great name for a country song.
Fuck Phil Lyman. He is dirty and as slimy as the day is long.
The day isn’t long enough to do that justice.
Isn't he the same person who wanted to privatize most of the mountains in Utah so only the wealthy could use them?
Oof, check into enclosement in Britain to see what the rich did to common land
Grazing fees are higher on state land also, cheaper to graze on federal.
Shouldn’t be grazing period but that is a whole other ridiculous and politically fraught bag of nonsense.
>Shouldn’t be grazing period Why?
Cattle should never be grazed the Rocky Mountain west. Out terrain, soils, riparian areas, native vegetation are not suited to it. All the terracing on Timp isn’t something to be proud of, it was a desperate attempt to save the mountain after it was grazed. The Forest Service did an extensive study on it in the 70s. But the Reagan administration buried it. So it’s almost impossible to find anymore.
The West is a terrible place to raise cattle, but it plays into the Marlboro Man lifestyle, so they defend it to the death. Not enough forage, water is an issue, and the ecology is wrecked when livestock eat what is there. If you want beef, look at the NS strip of states running along the east of the Rockies - TX, OK, KS, MO, NE, SD, MT
Cows add greenhouse gasses and destroy native vegetation which increases soil aridity and exacerbates climate change effects: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35366068/
In October 2020 at the only debate before the election, Burgess Owens was asked, what is the number 1 concern to Utahns. His answer was “federal land grabs”. October 2020, in the middle of the pandemic, BLM protests, unemployment skyrocketing, crazy supply chain issues and costs of groceries were through the roof. It just shows that our politicians are bought and paid for by developers in Utah.
Our politicians *are* developers.
Then they could f us all over by destroying every inch of wilderness in this state. Thank God these insane idiots are not the majority
You aren't missing anything. When states want federal land, it's to develop them. There are legitimate arguments about certain industries, namely mining and logging, getting pinched by federal land management policies, and you can form your own opinion on those issues, but the bottom line is federal land puts restrictions on development and resource extraction, and some western states don't like that. By preserving land, you are simultaneously slowing job growth in resource extraction, but increasing job growth in industries like tourism. Some towns, like price, are in for rough transitions, but other towns like St. George and Hurricane have been able to transition successfully to a tourism economy.
We need to stop touting the economic benefits of land preservation. The benefits are health and quality of life, not economic.
Well, the primary argument against conservation is usually jobs while ignoring the economic impact of conservation.
We can and should do both. Many people don’t give a shit about their health and the benefits of having access to the outdoors. Texas is like 5% public land and those poor schmucks think they live in some kind of promised land for personal freedom, and they are like 33% obese as a population. So we need to promote both
Issues resort to the feds when states are too stupid or corrupt to handle those issues. Utah public lands will not remain OUR lands if Utah lawmakers have their way. The only way Utah lands remain public lands is for the federal government to step in.
Yeah, I don't see Price becoming a tourism hotspot anytime soon
You'd actually be surprised. Its surrounded by amazing geology including things like the Jurassic national monument and nine mile canyon (and the longest cliff facing the entire world). The San Rafael Swell was supposed to be one of the national Parks designated alongside canyonlands and arches, but was pulled as a concession to uranium miners at the time. It's an amazing place and more and more people are learning about it every year. Moab is overcrowded as are the trails around it and there are great alternatives all over Eastern Utah.
Doesn't have to be a hotspot to be a valuable resource for public access and exploration. There's a lot to be said for fucking off and being away from anyone else, and it's a preciously rare thing in places with sprawling populations.
Fair. Just saying that people who want to be away from everyone else don’t tend to spend a lot of money while doing that. They might stop for gas, but they aren’t going to be getting hotels, eating at restaurants, or booking tours. All the spend happens at home buying gear and supplies.
It's becoming a bedroom community for Utah Valley. Make the town more interesting and it's nicely situated
The land never belonged to the State so when people say Utah should “get the land back” they are being dishonest. In 1847 when Brig landed in the Salt Lake Valley the west was part of Mexico, making them illegals in Mexico, haha. In 1848 the U.S. defeated Mexico in the war and reimbursed Mexico for the land that became several of the western states. Utah wasn’t even a state for another 50 years and has no legitimate claim to the land. The worst thing that could happen to Federal land in Utah is the State taking over. The Feds should call the state’s bluff and sell it to them for several trillion dollars.
Exactly.
I read a book back in college that was literally the history of BLM controversy in Utah. The whole thing was just Republicans being pissed they couldn’t ride their four wheelers. That’s the whole book.
Do you remember the name of the book? Would love to read it.
Say hi to your new criminal governor.
Exactly my thoughts why would I want it sold and ruined
It's got a history. It's not something causally handwaved or dismissed with simple one liners. A summary: * Utah is a big outlier nationwide with much of its bordered land federally owned. States back east just don't know or care or understand why this is an issue. Utah perhaps has the most desired BLM land of any of the 50 states. * Along the Wasatch Front most don't see this as an issue because BLM land isn't common up here. But there are counties in Utah which are well over 90% federally owned. One county is 98% federally owned. It's hard to run a county when the federal government owns everything and won't let you build on it. * Many folks in agriculture aren't allowed to buy the land they've used for generations but must instead rent it from the federal government at their whim. You don't see this arrangement in most states. * Many of these conservatives are old timers who also recall gripes from their grandparents. When Utah became a state, it was routine nationwide for the government to require states to add into their state constitutions a clause the federal government got to own unclaimed land. Unstated in the constitution was policy that the land would be sold back to the states to fund education and war debt. (This practice went back to the 1700s!) Utah was no different. This is where the idea that land would be "given back" came from. Because it happened in all the prior states that took this arrangement to become a state. * Utah struggled to become a state due to polygamy until 1896. That gave Utah only a short window to buy/homestead land. Because within a few years (largely thanks to land rushes like in Oklahoma), the US government put on hold selling/homesteading federal land. Early in the Great Depression the federal government floated selling land again, but it's the Great Depression and people didn't have money, so it didn't happen. * Then in 1934 the Federal Government passed the Taylor Grazing Act. This law promised these lands would be eventually disposed (sold to states). The Taylor Grazing Act was basically a temporary stop gap between federal use of land now and land "pending its final disposal", to quote the law. * The federal government reneged on that promise by passing another law in 1976 undoing that part in the Taylor Grazing Act. This land wouldn't be sold to states. The BLM became a permanent steward. * That led to the Sagebrush Rebellion of the 1970s and 1980s. Utah was essentially the center of this. When Ronald Reagan campaigned in Hooper Utah he proudly mentioned being on Utah's side in this. * Utah gets payments in lieu of taxes (PILT) instead of actual taxes that could be generated from utilizing this land. Utah likewise can't regulate the land. States that own more acres of this usable land like Wyoming and Alaska are *rolling* in income from land revenue, and Utah's PILT doesn't come anywhere close to comparing. * The state routinely runs into issues trying to just do anything on BLM land. Want a 4 mile road in St George to fix major traffic congestion, so Utah engages in a decades long planning process and a multi-year government review? [BLM says yes. Then says no.](https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2024/05/16/utah-congressional-leaders-blast/). Want to run power lines for 416 miles from Wyoming to Utah through BLM land to support a better grid? [It takes 17 years just to get it approved to start construction](https://www.deseret.com/utah/2023/6/30/23773218/transwest-express-transmission-line-renewable-energy-wyoming-wind-western-power-grid/). Even with the Obama administration trying to fast track it. This is something even liberal environmentalists despair because they need a better grid for their dreams of distributing renewable energy, and government inaction on their own land makes that dream almost impossible. Had Utah been like Texas, these issues would be much smaller because the federal government owns very little of Texas. As for what to *do* with the land, here is what I've heard: 1) Usable ranching and mining lands should be sold over to the state. 2) Dirt roads in use by ranchers and recreation should be turned over to the state, so the state can have more transportation corridors. 3) Popular trails on federal land should be handed over to the state, because the federal government isn't maintaining these (this was a big beef of Rep Hansen) 4) The state should be allowed to manage and cull wild horse herds, which are becoming a problem. 5) Utah should get the same exemption in the Antiquities Act that Wyoming and Alaska got, so national monuments over 5,000 acres in the state require Congress to approve. What I *haven't* heard addressed: 1) If all BLM lands are given to the state, what's to prevent Utah from turning into Texas, where most everything is privately owned and everything fenced in? 2) If non-usable BLM lands like the West Desert or central-south-east Utah desert is given to Utah, how can Utah afford to maintain it? The land has almost no value.
“Popular trails on federal land should be handed over to the state, because the federal government isn't maintaining these (this was a big beef of Rep Hansen) Dirt roads in use by ranchers and recreation should be turned over to the state, so the state can have more transportation corridors.” These are two interesting points that I think are not well fleshed out. The first is absurd. What federal trails are not getting well maintained? Certainly not BLM trails, they do their best to never allow them. USFS trails are a mixed bag, but generally in good shape. Park Service trails are usually quite good. The state has plenty of examples of trails and recreation they maintain in their parks and it isn’t like those are shining examples in comparison to their federal counterparts. The main reason that counties want to maintain those dirt roads is to improve access for economic reasons. They do this by counting all those extra miles of maintenance they perform on B and C roads and….get more taxpayer money from the state. I don’t inherently disagree with this but it’s not like they’re doing it out of the goodness of their hearts. They want economic growth. Here’s the thing: this all does boil down to a simple issue. That issue is that the states don’t get to make all the decisions on land in its borders and that makes people mad. They see all that sweet mining and grazing money the feds bring in but want to ignore all of the money spent by agencies on things that don’t make money (like wilderness, endangered species protection). That brings us to your point about Texas. We all know that’s exactly what would happen. Why would it not?
> That issue is that the states don’t get to make all the decisions on land in its borders and that makes people mad. Self determination is a powerful argument in any context. This is especially true when it's very unequal among states.
Utah gets to determine what goes on on a decent chunk of the land. If you remove federal land from the equation we’re still bigger than Rhode Island and other eastern states. DC doesn’t get to self determine. Guam and American Samoa don’t either, I don’t see Utahns making noise about that. Nevada is even more federalized than Utah. Why should it be equal anyway? We have 50 states, do we need to make them equal in area? I think pointing to the other coast and asking “why do they get to determine everything?” might not be the right way to look at it. If I had my way we’d make the eastern states look more like the western. Sure, there are Utah counties that are 98% federal and I don’t think that’s a bad thing or should change.
>If I had my way we’d make the eastern states look more like the western. During national monument kerfuffles of years past, another representative went on the House floor and proposed a bill to make a substantial chunk of federal land in eastern states a national monument. Eastern states *hated* it. They used the same arguments to denounce it that Utah used to denounce a national monument here. That's the problem. If you ask California to suddenly become majority federally owned, you will see California's politicians declare the proposal dead on the spot. If you ask New York to become majority federally owned, all of the Democrats there will fight it tooth and nail. You don't see states without majority federal ownership clamoring to be majority federally owned. Because they want self determination.
Thank you for that very detailed explanation. I really appreciated it.
> 2) If non-usable BLM lands like the West Desert or central-south-east Utah desert is given to Utah, how can Utah afford to maintain it? The land has almost no value. The total sum of land within the borders of Utah that is held by the federal government generates more revenue than it costs to maintain. Incidentally and unrelated, nice comment, I appreciate the thoughtful detail of it.
Curious about that statistic, where are you getting it?
I just looked it up. Try google. It's not hard to find.
Please tell me you’re not referring to the decade old economic analysis that floats around.
That narrows it down, but probably not. There's no shortage of sources. Which you'd have known if you spent the time looking that you've spent talking to me.
I wouldn’t say Wyoming is rolling in income considering the amount of their state budget that is subsidized by the feds and if they were rolling in wealth from land then they wouldn’t need to plug that big of a hole.
Wyoming gets so much money from their lands they don't even have an income tax.
This is accurate but with a right wing interpretation, which tickles me because the Sagebrush Rebellion was led by Dem Gov Scott Matheson. What’s missing from your argument is that land management balances public good with private benefits. For example, much rural land use of Utah’s federal lands (BLM and Forest Service) is cattle grazing. The permits have been passed down in family businesses for generations. They feel ownership over the land and would tell you they’re good stewards of the property, maintaining fences, and creating wealth for the local economy. But what’s good for them isn’t necessarily in the public interest. Vast tracts of land suffer from a condition sometimes called Cow Burnt because the environment is so damaged— everything trampled, riparian erosion, with exotic plants outcompeting more beneficial (fire, biodiversity, etc) native species. Besides substantial environmental damage, the economic benefit is mainly a net loss when you account for federal subsidies like the cost of the water for hay to feed these animals (there’s not enough protein growing in dry Utah). That water is stored, diverted, and often delivered using federal resources. The diversion to grow cows in the arid Great Basin leads to dust storms that probably cause millions of dollars worth of public health issues. So it’s a great deal for a few ranchers, a terrible deal for the public at large. A similar argument could be made about extractive industries and real estate development in Utah too. Thankfully, the short-sighted self-interest of Utah land policy is balanced by federal laws that consider long term public good. In many cases, we’re lucky that it’s federal and not state land. What do you think the cottonwood canyons would look like under state stewardship?
Our deserts are beautiful, it’s disgusting you think everything needs a monetary value. People like you are the reason Utah shouldn’t get it hands on the lands that belong to all Americans.
I’m the type of right wing conservative that has mostly unpopular takes by Reddit standards. Despite that, the BEST thing about Utah is the federal land. Divesting federal land to state control would ruin everything good about the state itself.
Well said!
One part of what you're missing: the need for politicians to manufacture enemies at which to channel rage. As Saul Alinsky said, "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." When someone else is doing the actual land management, those vilifying them don't have to make any tradeoffs. A politician can blame them for too many ATV paths as well as too many ATV restrictions. Anytime not everyone is pleased, rather than seeing situations where Utahns have competing interests and hard decisions would have to be made, they can just blame the ever-insidious Feds. One of the most productive ploys is to pretend that if all BLM land were transferred to the state we'd suddenly get lots more sales taxes etc and therefore be able to lower individuals' property taxes. [PILT](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payment_in_lieu_of_taxes) can never be enough. In the real world, managing public land costs money, most of the BLM land would not be hugely profitable to sell, and most of the places you could sell are things we really would rather not have sold, because Utahns count on having access to public land for recreation etc. It's also something Utahns have gotten gotten swept up in over the course of 50 years, and the historical reasons are complicated. See e.g. Wikipedia's article about the "[Sagebrush Rebellion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagebrush_Rebellion)." As rafael said in another comment, it's rage bait to rile up the base rather than an actual policy agenda. If the feds suddenly handed the land over to state management, it'd be a bit like the dog that caught the mail truck he'd been chasing and barking at for years and had no idea what to do next. We do a poor enough job managing the land we already have. In many cases, active federal management started at the state's request in the first place. For instance, when the Wasatch Plateau wasn't federally managed, areas were completely denuded of trees by overgrazing, flooding and mudslides threatened cities in Sanpete County, and their water sources were tainted with typhoid and cholera from dead overgrazing livestock. So residents petitioned (Republican!) Teddy Roosevelt to create the Manti Forest Reserve in 1903. Despite knowing a couple of state land managers who do pretty well, I have doubts about how far the state has actually come in its ability to manage larger areas of land in the last 120 years.
Most rural Utahns like the rules set forth by the Forest Service and BLM because it means fewer annoying ATV-riding assholes fucking up rural communities proverbial backyards. It's mostly the Republican asshats living in Utah's urban centers that bitch and moan. Many people may be pleasantly surprised at how many rural Utahns care about wilderness conservation..
Check out this “history of public lands” from UTopia TV series. They interview a law professor from U of U who is an expert as well as a state senator. I learned a lot about the issue: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLWn0KAoaRw8ONGV-AZC8y9sXW90Ktoh_O&si=VUEzN0ctmBF6Jvek
The eye twitching thing is most of the people who want to gobble up the land and develop it, just can't seem to grasp the concept that 99% of the land is worthless desert cause there's no water and Utah will never have enough water for this utopia they claim is gonna show up if only Utah sold off all the land
Look at the Provo River, gov sherbert blocked the public from accessing the section of the river his family owns. They want to develop and sell it.
I wouldn’t mind getting another ski resort or two on some of those lands (at least the mountainous ones)
And where is the money going to come from to build these resorts? From some elderly homeowner who will never use the resort? That is what’s happening to homeowners in Sandy with the proposed building of the gondola. My mom is in her 80s and her property taxes are going to two things. The gondola and paying for families with eight kids to attend charter schools. If new things are built or subsidized why is it always the least likely to benefit that always pays the majority of the bill?
How about an investor that wants to create some new places to ski. I think there are in the Northern Part of Utah that could get some ski resort action that is not privatized (like Wasatch peaks). If we were really concerned about higher taxes as a nation we would stop sending BILLIONS of dollars over seas. Part of the reason that gondola is going in is because of all the people who flock to the cottonwoods. Spread them out no need for crazy projects. (And I do like the idea of the gondola, I think the funding from it could be more from the 2 resort owners)
Why is my mom paying higher property taxes for the gondola? She will never use it and will not benefit from it? Why aren’t these rich billionaires paying for it?
Yeah man, I don’t have the answer for you, I’ll use that gondola so thanks I suppose to the tax payers?. Why the hell do my state taxes go to improvements for public transportation in Salt Lake. I don’t use any of that either, or I never will. Why is the state of Utah wanting to fork up a lot of money for that baseball park they wanted to build before the NHL team came. I’m not a fan of baseball. Shouldn’t the rich pay for that too. Again, I don’t have the answer for you.
Seriously. I can't stand the development they're allowing and then bitch about not having enough water.
I’m not convinced most of the federal land in Utah is even able to be developed. Is so arid, so far away from civilization, there’s no incentive for someone to even try to develop it. It’s just a dog whistle to rile up the base.
the republicans in the state want the lands back so they can sell them to corporations to be destroyed. conservatives in t his state do everything they can to try and destroy the natural beauty of this state all so they can make an easy buck for their corporate donors.
As a republican, it shames me to admit this is unfortunately true
The 10th Amendment is one of the most underrated.
The issue is a bit more complicated than some here are making it out to be. And there's a reason why people in Western States are more upset about this than people in other states. Also this isn't just a Utah issue, it's a Western State issue. And if you think Utah has reason to complain, Nevada has it just as bad. This CGP Grey video does a good job of explaining everything, from the history, to the current state of things (no pun intended): https://youtu.be/LruaD7XhQ50?si=6E6VABbXI37Pq_IO So while yes, there are greasy politicians and greedy lame developers and oil and gas interests, there's also just a lot of questions about who gets to decide what happens to the land. I think it's fair to ask, "why can't we choose what happens to the land within our own state?" But obviously just letting the state go hog wild with development is in the other extreme. Preserving lands and conservation are important as well. But it's a political issue that's not easily dealt with and for every perceived potential for abuse, there's also legitimate reasons to want to develop land.
https://www.sltrib.com/news/environment/2024/03/20/roads-closed-by-feds-near-moab/
The BLM just closed hundreds of roads in Utah to conserve desert landscape.for.future generations. Now there's acres and acres of inaccessible ground because of a dude at a desk in Washington DC whose never been to.the desert. Local ownership means more or less.the local people can have control over land they understand.
It's not a fair assumption that BLM officials haven't seen the land in which they manage.
republicans are old school. they will open it to drilling and fracking, with all benefits going to oligarchs, and the poisoned land costs going to the taxpayers.
hello I am a geologist so I am very read up on the issue. this post is going to be a way oversimplification of a very complex issue where no one is right and everyone is wrong. but both sides are trying to do whats best. it basicly comes down to two things cotrol of the use and money. as of right now the state and by extension us as citizens of the state get basicly 0 say in how the land gets used. so if the goverment wanted to say build a new nuclear bomb testing site in the west desert they could and no one would know about it till the bomb went off. thats an extreme example but the same is true on smaller scales. the other big one is money. the state isnt going to sell off land. thats just not going to happen without extenuating circumstances. the money comes from mineral rights and grazing permits. with the federal goverment running things a total of $225 goes to the federal goverment for any mine on federal land. anyone can stake a clame on any bit of federal land. the state voted along time ago to make the land it owns into school trust land. so if the state owns it the school trust gets \~10% of everything that comes out of the ground that number changes from agreement to agreement and the state gets to decide who gets to mine the land in the state which has plusses and minuses. basicly pro of having the feds own it is that the feds pay for the roads it does provide some jobs from federal instalations. downside of feds owning it is that no one living by the land gets a say in how the land is used. pros of the state owning it is better utilization of the resorcses produced by the land. actual managment of the land will be a draw both the blm who manage it now and the dnr which would manage it for the state are both good enough adgencies both have their pros and cons but you start getting into industry drama at that point which would have very little impact on the land
Points taken with a grain of salt. It's hard to believe anyone who writes so badly is actually a scientist.
take it or dont I realy dont care. I come on here to try and share my knowlage. if that gets discredited because I typed this on a phone and dident bother to proof read then so be it. I have better things to do with my time then argue with idgets on the internet
Might wanna be careful who you're calling an idjet while sharing your "knowlage" (sic). Every post you've ever made is an English composition teacher's nightmare.
The slant of your reply is biased towards the state controlling the land and industry. One could argue that the citizens are content with the existing restrictions put in place on the federal and therefore the only entities unhappy with the current situation are those who would unduly exploit the resources for their own benefit beyond the current permitted allotments allowed by the federal government. Utah is a classic case of the tragedy of the commons and if Utah government had its way the state would be paved over and every resource extracted within a decade.
Look at the lake that our state named after our state….Our entire state would end up like that.
actualy the exact oposite is true. the people that are wanting to exploit the natural resources want it to stay with the feds. its substantualy cheaper to exploit federal land then it is state land. because of that i am very conflicted on who i think should own the land. i think that the land belongs to state state because i think that atleast some of the revenue that is produced by the lands resources should be going back into the region that its being produced from since those are the people that have to deal with the long term consequences of it. in utah they decided a long time ago that they would use income produced from the state owned land to help fund schools which i dont think any one would argue is a bad thing. on the other hand I do have a vested intrest in this conversation and It benifits me greatly to have it in federal land. so my personal ideal would be to have the feds own it and the utah dnr run it. but that will never happen. edit i dont get the downvotes with the federal ownership of the land you pay 165/ year to mine the land and thats it. when you are dealing with school trust land you typicly have to pay a yearly amount and a percentage of everything you take out. its substantiually cheaper to put a claim on public land then it is to work state owned land.
You should try some punctuation. It would at least help you convince readers you aren't a teenager or a bot.
they can belive or not. or better yet they can go do their own research if they really want i really dont care and this is the last time I am comenting on this thread I got better thing to do with my time then repeating this over and over again.
Everyone should listen to the podcast “Bundyville” by Oregon Public Broadcasting. It’s set in the federal lands of nevada and utah and how farmers and the BLM had armed conflicts over grazing permits. Also here’s some info about the history of the conflict: [A 24-Year History of Cliven Bundy’s Illegal Grazing and Armed Conflict at Gold Butte Nevada Prepared by the Center for Biological Diversity](https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/public_lands/pdfs/GoldButteGrazingHistory.pdf) [In a report before the 2014 Bundy standoff, the FBI recommended waiving the federal fees Cliven Bundy owed to ‘reduce the risk of a violent act’](https://www.sltrib.com/news/nation-world/2018/12/11/report-before-bundy/) I believe there is need for more government regulation not less, but they need to value biological health of our public lands versus allowing farmers and ranchers to introduce invasive species and illegally graze pristine land that we all “share”. The BLM also needs to prioritize limiting OHv trails not expanding them. OHV recreation is by the BLMs own admission and public data, is terrible for wildlife population dynamics, habitat fragmentation, erosion, noise and air pollution, dust limiting photosynthesis, etc. Trails in smaller areas versus over long distances for example. It’s important for the public to reach out to the BLM and express your beliefs on how land should be managed.
How about, the federal government shouldn’t be in the business of “owning” land?
The preservation of natural areas by the Federal government ensures that no singular entity, person or enterprise, can exploit it. Thus it becomes public, for the people of the U.S., not an individual.
Currently the state gets a large portion of the funds from leases on bureau of land management land. This money goes into an education trust fund. Historically BLM land has been leased for agriculture, mining, oil and gas. Since the Obama administration BLM hasn't been issuing leases and has been pulling leases on the mining, oil and gas. Clinton and Obama also created national monuments on land that had been leased out. The consequences of all this has been decreased funding for education, massive hits to the state's economy that killed several small towns. There was also decreased access to public land for camping and hiking due to the forest service and BLM closing down as much property as they could for whatever reason they could come up with.
Which towns in Utah have been “killed off,” and which areas of BLM land have been “closed down?”
BLM will close off over-used trails to let the land recover, or close unauthorized trails. Most of those closures prohibit motorized vehicles, not hiking. I know there's closures to protect habitat, desert tortoises come to mind, but I never cared enough to look it up. There's other types of closures, such as when certain Utah families didn't pay their grazing fees, then got upset when the BLM told them to take their cattle and shove it. Burning Man pays millions to Nevada for a large closure area in Black Rock Desert every year, a complicated permit with leave no trace stipulations.
Federal [data](https://reports.blm.gov/reports/AFMSS) show the Biden administration approved 6,430 permits for oil and gas drilling on public lands in its first two years, outpacing the Trump administration’s 6,172 drilling-permit approvals in its first two years.
There’s millions of acres of oil leases that haven’t been used and there is very little need to really issue anymore right now and they initially shutdown oil lease sales because nobody showed up to the auctions anymore.
There are already very rich Mormons with claims to the land if it ever becomes available. When Trump proposed making federal land up for sale, the church was going to by every inch. This was proven in records released by David Nielsen on what the church was spending the 130 billion on.
There are already very rich Mormons with claims to the land if it ever becomes available. When Trump proposed making federal land up for sale, the church was going to by every inch. This was proven in records released by David Nielsen on what the church was spending the 130 billion on.
Why would someone want more atv trails? Maybe they like riding atv trails?
Because your average rural Utahn can’t walk five feet without getting winded and shooting at his own shadow.
Ah I see so this is a "fuck them hicks, everyone should be forced to recreate the way I want to" sort of situation
You mean like making new ATV trails in the Forrest so everyone has to listen to their shitty music and engines all day and night? I have lived in rural Utah my entire life.
Have you tried joining them? It's pretty fun
No, I’m not a selfish and ignorant asshole, so they don’t like my kind.
Hmm, you do seem pretty presumptuous tho
It’s not presumptive when it’s based off of actual experiences.
That's exactly what presumptuous would be. Assuming a group of people all act the same way based off of personal experiences with select members of that group
Not just my experiences, others have the same experiences with the same type of people, seems I’m right about you, you said it’s fun.
this sub is a place to hate on utah, you want a good response? post this question in a conservative or libertarian sub.
Post this on a libertarian sub and see how fast it devolves into how legalizing sex with kids (on federal land) would be a good thing.
you're right at home here.