Oh good!Yet another way our brilliant legislature has found to waste
taxpayer dollars!Why not let Ken Ivory waste his own money to study
Becky Lockhart, Ken Ivory, Mike Noel, Rob Bishop, and the Utah GOP have shown
that they cannot be trusted to manage some of the most scenic treasures on the
planet. Property rights are such a key issue for the Utah GOP, yet its most
"conservative" voices are unwilling to recognize federal property
rights. Tea partiers needs to join the 21st century and acknowledge that
management of federal lands should comply with the environmental policy that has
been acted by Congress and signed by a long list of U.S. presidents. The
"tyranny" and abuse at the state and local level is far greater than any
so-named "overreach" by federal officials who are constitutionally
authorized to manage and protect BLM, Forest Service, and National Park lands.
Need we look any further than the condition of the state parks and the national
parks to determine which are better managed? The state parks are poorly
maintained and do little to protect any biodiversity or environmental integrity.
Republicans used to stand for something more than "we can do whatever we
want" or "we have decided its ours, so we will take it."
The Feds should hand Utah the bill they paid to fight forest fires in Utah for
the last five years. Once the State reimburses that cost the two sides can
discuss the purchase of federals lands, based on the value. It would be in the
billions I would suppose.
They have spent more than half a million dollars in this fitful dream. I would
like to see a complete audit of where this money was spent. Mr Dougal, Can we
follow the money?
It will be interesting to see if those who refuse to recognize the authority of
the federal government over these lands likes it anymore when Utah takes over.
This is a another waste of time and taxpayer dollars. Why? Because it is
initiated by our state legislature.
So what if they find that it is actually more expensive for Utah to manage the
lands then what Utah can afford. The Federal government gets money from the
entire country to manage lands so it would seem that they would spend more money
in Utah because we have more Federal Land that most other states. If Utah had to
make up the difference, would the legislature be willing to increase taxes to
pay for it or would they increase fees for all those out of state visitors who
then may decide it's not worth it because of the cost to come to Utah. Just
some hypothetical questions about the costs of Federalism.
They can study all they want but this will never happen. For the life of me I
can't understand why they do this time and time again. They are the first
ones to complain about the overreaching federal government and they're also
the first ones to have their hand stuck out asking for money for roads. And the
feds laugh all the way to the bank.
We need to look at this from a "win-win" point of view...I believe that
you can maintain the beauty and status and access to the public of the
"federal lands," without stealing them from the states. The states make
recommendations on use and plans to maintain the status quo or cleanup and
safety requirements, where necessary, and the environmentalists have input on
these issues to develop regulations, with a firm date for implementation...no
delays. A combined federal and state commission in each state holds hearings
and the states and private industry bear the costs of plan implementation, and
you move forward.The federal government makes no money off the
results, except under applicable tax laws, which are the same for all states.
Grazing fees and the like go to the individual states. All monies derived that
come to the federal government from taxes, go into a real trust fund for
maintaining the environment and policing of the lands (public permits, fees,
etc.) in the interest of the general public. Everyone wins.
John Locke said: "We need to look at this from a "win-win" point of
view""without stealing them from the states."A
quick check of history will show how the "state" would handle or hand
off the clean-up (Still cleaning up uranium ore piled up next to the Colorado
River) and hand off land to their developer buddies or just enrich themselves,
they don't even try and hide it, well (Swallow). No I don't think
it's worth taking the chance because once it's gone...they aren't
making any more, like the water access they gave away a few years ago.Stealing is what would happen if the state got their hands on it, The feds
actually protect these lands for all Americans to whom they belong, proximity is
not possession. Recently the "locals" have been showing what
would happen if, local interests took over. They acted like "Rebels without
a clue" defending a thief with entitlement envy, con them into defending his
bad behavior. Then went for yet another "protest ride" by riding their
toys over ancient sites or in delicate eco systems, like real men do.
Well said "Happy Valley Heretic". I don't know why the governor
and legislature insist on wasting taxpayers' money on this silly issue.
These lands were part of an agreement the State of Utah made in order to secure
statehood. Part of the agreement was to not to try to take control of these
lands. Like "Instereo" said, the federal government maintains these
lands with tax money collected from the rest of the country. Because Utah has so
much federal land we get way more value for our tax dollars. The Feds maintain
the land and Utah gets the huge windfall from the tourism dollars these lands
bring in. Utah could never afford to maintain these lands and would have to
sell a lot of it off to private interest and that would not be good. Again,
please quit wasting out tax dollars on this. Former Senator Bob Bennett wrote a
good informative article in the Deseret News on this. Do a search for "Bob
Bennett" on deseretnews.com. Scroll down the columns to "Bob Bennett:
Utah unlikely to 'take back' federal lands" I would include the
link but they don't allow it on this post.
These lands belong to all Americans, not just to the people of Utah! Why would
the federal government transfer these lands over to the state? They have an
obligation to all Americans, who have been paying for the maintenance of these
lands. Why would they give up the natural resources to the state when they can
profit from it themselves? What a waste of time and money!
state constitutions have much in common with each other. A line fro
Nevada's reads that something like "all public lands are under the
jurisdiction of the US federal government UNTIL they are disposed of to the
state", meaning the individual states are to take over control of all public
lands. The federal govt simply hasn't been quick about this. The same
problem faced former frontier states like Illinois and Arkansas, which
eventually had to sue to get the Feds to relinquish control. Government is
about control, and power is not given away easily. The Feds had jurisdiction
while the territories were NOT YET states. Once they became states, it is
important for them to take control, for several reasons. One reason is that all
states are equal, yet we have this very unequal system of the Feds running most
of the western states while almost absent from the eastern states.