This has been a good discussion guys. I want to respond to Wildman's argument that there is no risk that the State of Utah will sell off our public lands and, therefore, this argument is merely a red herring being used to scare people away from supporting the transfer.
We are not just worried about the State if Utah selling off our public lands, which the State has already stated would occur some at least some of the property. We are also concerned about the State of Utah increasing mining, drilling, logging, and development in order to "maximize the production" of the property. As a taxpayer, that all sounds fine and dandy if we are looking to create jobs, lower taxes and grow our economy. As a sportsman, however, I enjoy having millions of acres of public land with little to no development. Those are the places where I want to hunt, fish, camp, hike and get away.
Moreover, the concern that the State would like to sell or transfer most or all of the property is a valid and legitimate concern. Take a minute and review the some the materials on the American Lands Council website. It is very clear that the State's goal is not to have the State of Utah control millions of acres of public land. Rather, the goal is to transfer the majority of those lands into private ownership so that they can generate tax revenue and otherwise develop the property. What evidence is there of this? I already included some of this in Post 55 in the following thread:
http://www.monstermuleys.info/dcforum/DCForumID5/22618.html#55 but I will repost it here for convenience.
First, look at the state's own report on the issue.
http://publiclands.utah.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/1. Land Transfer Analysis Final Report.pdf You will notice that the State does not spend a great deal of time addressing hunting and fishing. However, they do plainly state that on P. 286 that "there is a chance a cost-benefit analysis can be performed to determine the best use of the public land. This could include reallocating hunting and fishing areas for alternative uses including oil and gas production, commercial development, or other types of recreation." Those are their words, not mine. I don't want to see a "cost-benefit analysis" performed by the State to determine the highest economic use for my favorite hunting area.
Second, look at the arguments raised by Ken Ivory, the American Lands Council and other supporting transfer. They are based upon an argument that the Federal Government had a "duty to dispose" of all public lands in the West.
http://www.americanlandscouncil.org/byu_law_review_fed_govt_s_duty_to_dispose_of_public Whether you agree or disagree with this legal argument, the point is that these folks are suggesting that the Federal Government should have disposed of or sold off all of these lands. In other words, the root of the legal argument is not that the lands should have been given to the states. Rather, it is that the Federal Government breached its obligation to sell off or otherwise transfer all of our public lands, which would mean that our public lands would be privately owned today. After doing my own research, I personally do not agree with the "duty to dispose" argument. However, to the extent that there was such an agreement, thank goodness the Federal Government did not sell off our public lands in Utah.
Third, the folks supporting transfer like to point to the Eastern states as the model of how it should be. Take a look back east. The Eastern states do not own, control or maintain large swaths of public lands. Rather, what you see back East is the vast majority of the lands were sold to private landowners who own and control those lands. Most of those lands are posted as "private property" and are not open to the public. In other words, if a sportsman wants to hunt back east then he needs to join a club, pay a trespass fee or get permission from a private landowner. That sounds great to Easterners but I personally love the fact that we have millions of acres of public lands in Utah that are open to the public. I don't always agree with the rules and guidelines imposed by the feds but I put a huge premium on public access.
Fourth, I mentioned before that I am a conservative and I generally vote republican. However, I believe that our state Republican lawmakers have chosen the wrong side on this issue. They are focused primarily on growing the economy, increasing tax revenue and opening up our public lands to development. If you have any questions about how our state leaders view this issue then take a minute and watch this short clip of Governor Herbert talking about the possibility of "privatizing" and selling off some of our public lands.
Once again, those are his words - not mine.
Finally, Lumpy posted this on another thread I happen to agree with him (surprise, surprise). The State of Utah is not focused exclusively on the monies generated from selling off public lands. That is why they have adopted the same language in their bill that is included in the Utah Enabling Act, which gives 95% of any monies generated from selling the properties to the federal government and 5% to the state for education. See lines 19-24 of the H.B. 148 -
http://le.utah.gov/~2012/bills/hbillint/hb0148.htm The goal is to transfer the majority of the lands into private hands regardless of how that occurs (feds selling, feds giving away, states selling, states giving away, etc.). The real target for the State of Utah is the tax revenues generated from the lands once they are privately owned, not necessarily the monies generated from selling the properties. And by doing so, the state can also open up some prime real estate to some of our most powerful and politically connected developers, oil companies, mining companies, etc. Once again, think about the "duty to dispose" argument that the State is pushing and the Eastern model that they keep pointing to as the way it should be out West. Also, consider the fact that this is the same legislature and governor who shut down the public's stream access back in 2010. Whose interest was the state protecting there? Sportsmen and the general public? Or large wealthy landowners and political donors?
As a taxpayer this scheme sounds somewhat appealing on the surface. Who doesn't want to grow the economy, create jobs, and push back against unreasonable federal regulations? However, as a hunter, fisherman, hiker, camper, sportsman and someone who enjoys spending time in the outdoors with my family, this sounds like a recipe for disaster. I believe that the 31+ million acres of federal public lands in Utah is one of the state's greatest assets and should be protected and maintained. I support the notion of compromise and multiple use but I am not willing to roll the dice on State of Utah and risk losing access to our public lands.
I don't have all of the answers to this issue but I encourage each us use to research the issues and get involved. If we don't, we may later regret watching this unfold from the sidelines.
-Hawkeye-
