Former Senator Jake Garn had it correctly when he admonished Senator Dodd of
Connecticut that he would be willing to match him acre for acre in wilderness
areas. If they wanted 50K acres in Utah then Dodd should find 50K acres in
Connecticut. It is all to easy for Senators of other states to propose
wilderness and monuments for states that have no impact on their constituents.
Hatch is exactly right when he states they make these proposals to satisfy the
demands of their liberal campaign donors. I think we should make all of
Hollywood and much of Silicon Valley national monuments and tell the people
there to find another place to reside. (TIC)
Nice try, Hatch, but ultra-liberals don't have the intellectual depth to
understand Utah past the woefully inadequate label of a state filled with ultra
conservatives they can poke in the eye.
Dear Senator Hatch,Federal land. Belongs to all Americans - not just Utah.
They are are not suggesting "taking" land from Utah. Federal land -
belongs to all Americans.
Hatch has worked very hard to make sure that "nutritional supplements"
have never been studied to see if they are good for you, bad for you, or
don't do anything at all. He has earned the money their lobbyists have
Me thinks Hatch is doing the same thing he is accusing the "liberal
senators" of. That being trying to raise money from the capitalist cronies
in the oil business. If Senator Hatch would look at the Utah polls as well as
the National polls he'd see that the majority of Amercians want their
public land protected from the very people they'd sell them off too.
The problem Mr Hatch is that decisions like protecting land isn't made by
the people of Utah, it is made by politicians who are getting a lot of money for
their campaigns from companies, many of which are not Utah companies, to keep
land available for mining and oil and gas. If it came down to a vote
by Utahans, and the question was "Do you think land surrounding Canyonlands
NP should be federally protected? I think that vote comes back as a yes.My advice to Utah politicians is if you think this is going to happen,
come up with a compromise fast, take some action, because when it comes to
invoking the antiquities act the President doesn't need you.
In the late 1970s, a friend name Penny supported Sherman Lloyd for the
Republican senatorial nomination while I supported Hatch. As the years have
passed and I see what Sen. Hatch has accomplished during his decades in office,
one thing has become clear: Penny was right.
I have no problem with preserving the land for future generations. It's our
gift to America, and Gods gift to us.
The problem is when the government declares these as "monuments" we LOSE
all access to it. So those of you who say "what's the big deal?"
Big deal is that this is our State, we should have a say in what happens to it
and he's dead on by saying what does a Senator from another state know
about us. I would guess if you wanted the same in another state you would get
the same response.
Hatch: "[W]e understand our lands a lot better than they'll ever
understand them." Translation: We know how to exploit the federal lands in
Utah better than those gol-durned Easterners."In that one
sentence, Hatch exposes the fatal flaw in his argument. It's not "our
lands," meaning Utahns' lands. He can't seem to comprehend the
fact that federal lands belong to all Americans.I hope Pres. Obama
has a commission study and hear all the competing viewpoints, then exerts his
authority under the Antiquities Act to designate a new Greater Canyonlands
National Monument, citing all the reasons why. At least then Hatch and his
cronies can't complain that they were hit by a Pearl Harbor-like "sneak
Re MurrayGuy: When you say we lose all access to land that becomes a monument
what exactly do you mean? You do realize that if this national monument goes
through it will mean that every person in the United States of America can
legally walk on just about every inch of land in that monument literally any
time they want right?So by lose all access do you mean that we lose
access to exploit the land for mining? And who is the "we" in your
statement? You can't possibly be referring to regular Americans or even
foreign tourists? Does your "we" refer to only oil, gas and coal? Do you realize that "we" as in every person in the world, have
access to visit and explore National Monuments any time we want?
Before we trash Hatch here we should remember that the High Uintas Wilderness,
Vermillion Cliffs, Paria Canyon, and the 800,000 acres of wilderness in the
state are all the result of legislation cosponsored by Senator Hatch. I think
that painting him as some kind of rabid anti- environmental type is inaccurate.
If I remember correctly he also co- sponsored the attempt to designate Westwater
and Cataract Canyons as wild and scenic rivers and also fought to keep the Atlas
Mill Tailings pile from being capped on site. My experience with him in Grand
County is that when it comes to Grand County he puts a higher premium on what
the citizens of Grand County want than what the citizens of Salt Lake County
want to have happen in Grand County and that he realizes that while public lands
"belong to all Americans" how those public lands are managed effects the
people who are local to those lands a lot more than they effect Salt Lake County
citizens or, especially, citizens of another state. I think this view is as it
Utah has such beautiful federal lands.By rights, at least half the
state should be a national monument.
Byronbca: Do you not remember the national parks shutdown about a year ago.
MurrayGuy has a legitimate concern about people not being able to have access to
this land at the whim of the president on whether or not the park is open.
Taking more land from Utah doesn't seem right. A similar thing in happening
in Idaho with some folks wanting to create the Boulder-White Clouds national
monument. Why the need to create these monuments? Who does it help and who will
it hurt in the long run? JMH makes a good point. Those so anxious to take land
from Utah, are they just as willing to give up land in their own states to match
land taken from Utah and other states out west? If not, why?
I don't understand why people think this is a proposal for taking Utah
land. This is already federal land. There is no taking of any land owned by
the State or private individual. What is proposed is a change in designation of
already existing federal land. Yes, it will entail additional restrictions on
usage, but if the land meets the criteria, it should be so designated.
Hopefully they will go through a fair process to reach that conclusion.
Preserving federal land with outstanding recreational features benefits
everyone, including those in Utah!
Hey ? -"Those so anxious to take land from Utah . . ."Federal land in Utah is Federal Land.Nobody wants to take
OUR land from Utah. We can't take what's already ours.It's ALREADY our land.It doesn't belong to Utah.Get used to it. Face the facts.
A story and interview about federal lands and monuments, and then Mitt Romney is
thrown in there?What?!
To answer the question posed by ?Because Utah is beautiful and
Connecticut not so much...So let them tear down the trees and pave
themselves a parking lot...
ODannyBoy,Right...It seems you believe the Federal
Government perfectly represents the American people.It seems you believe
the Federal Government would never stick it's nose where it ought not.I don't believe either.And if you still aren't
convinced, then fine. I'll agree to the government taking land south of my
home if you agree to them testing nuclear weapons north of yours.Locals clearly shouldn't get a say in anything. After all- the land
belongs to all Americans.
When all is said and done, more will be said than done. That being said, what
will the aging senator do to support his rhetoric?
So much to be said about this kind if issue. Federal Government vs. States
Rights. The thing I hope for is that if Obama does do this, (and why
wouldn't he as mean spirited as he is, he would love to punish states that
don't support him or his fellow Democrats and their liberal causes), then I
hope the next Republican President can/will change the policy, and turn back the
land to Utah, or any other state where this kind of BIG GOVERNMENT meddling is
going on. Take a look at how much land in Utah, and all the Western States is
ALREADY owned by the Federal Government. They don't need any more.
Keep Utah's land out of Federal hands, Sen. Hatch! I can't tell if
Danny Boy is being facetious or not but we surely don't want to give the
Feds any more reasons to usurp our State's rights/lands and share/give them
to others. We can share far less expensively than can the Federal Government, in
JMH's comment is right on. I remember in effect what Dodd said in reply,in
effect; 'Well we need that land for economic development.' So the
"line" isn't in the same place for Eastern liberals as for Western
conservatives. Also, those who say that the Federal Government is preserving
this land for us are not telling the truth. The fact is that the ultra
environmentalist community wants to restrict a great many recreational
activities which Utah's people enjoy, and which they despise. The Southern
Utah Wilderness Alliance has made this known for a long time. I was told by an
official on their website and comment page that if I can't backpack in 30
miles I don't belong there. It's this 'all or nothing'
attitude, which former Congressman Bill Orton decried, and for which he was
"thrown over" by the environmentalist community that most Westerners
Senator Hatch and his contributors own Utah.
We all know the agenda of Utah dinosaurs like Hatch,Bishop,Herbert,et
al....drill baby drill!Fortunately they are dinosaurs and doomed to extinction
Hey SilverCloud -"we surely don't want to give the Feds any
more reasons to usurp our State's rights/lands and share/give them to
others."The state of UTAH has NO right to federal lands.We the people of the United States own that land, and we don't want
Utah to despoil and pillage our land.. . . Got it yet?
I wonder if, in all his decades in the Senate, if Hatch ever was involved in an
issue that was of particular interest to people in other states. I'm not
so sure he has clean hands. This is more about appeasing certain local
interests. And, as correctly pointed out by others, this land does not belong
to Utah, nor to the mining companies and other business interests that want to
cheaply exploit this land, so the Federal government, acting for the interests
of the whole of the nation, can and should do as it deems best. Getting input
from various interests is good, but the decision is not Utah's to make.
It seems American voters decided to keep the Republicans' Mitt off our
country.We the people of the United States own the land in question.
The State of Utah does not.
When the government shut down recently all the national parks went with it.
Visitors were turned away. I think what he's saying is let the state run
this land. We don't what's happening in Washington to effect the use
of public land. If Utah runs it, it has a lot better chance of always being
Actually, almost ALL of the land in the proposed monument area is ALREADY
"managed" by the federal government. Along with the other vast federal
land management holdings in Utah and throughout the West.Anyone who
believes that this means the land really belongs to the people of the US is
hopelessly naive. Not so far past was the time when the federal government
closed the gates of the parks and put up barricades to prevent public access.
People were not even permitted to so much as LOOK at the closed off lands while
passing by on public highways.
What's wrong with protecting beautiful lands in Utah? Don't oil
companies have enough ugly land in Texas to exploit?
To GaryO and all others that think that the Fed Gvt. has a right to all of the
land in the west, read the Constitution.
The core Democrat senators would take all land everywhere for the federal
government when they can get away with it. Hatch has supported liberal causes
all his life and must be held responsible for the problems this has caused. I
doubt that any of the Democrats involved have ever seen any of the land they
want to steal. Their goal is to punish Utah for electing Republicans. The
theft of land by the Clinton administration was the start of this trend. The
only surprise is that Obama and his henchmen have waited so long.
Utah is a afforded rights as a sovereign state. If it were not so, all lands in
the US would be Federal Lands. In your reasoning, exactly what percentage of a
state should be subject to usurpation as Federal lands? Utah has an excellent
track record of managing its lands. Why in the world, would you sanction its
stewardship to Federal policy rather than state policy?
Dear Liberal Politicians: Do you really want to protect the lands in our
country? Then how about doing something meaningful to curtail the massive
invasion of our homeland across our southern border?
According to the Constitution, the only "Federal Lands" in Utah are the
"forts, magazines, and land upon which federal building are standing. The
Federal Government only "owns" the District of Columbia, which is not to
be larger than ten miles square.Anyone who can read can that in
Article 1, Section 8.As far as I have read, there is NO AMENDMENT to
the Constitution that entitles the federal level of government to own land
within a State. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, without an
amendment changing Article 1, Section 8, that clause is the Supreme Law
regarding federal ownership of lands. The President MUST abide by the
Constitution or be removed from office.
So according to Mike all National parks, monuments, forests etc.should be for
sale to the highest donor.Weren't you trying to use the
constitution to silence free speech from Al gore the other day?So I'm
not sure you really have a good grip on what the constitution protects and
Mike Richards:Speaking of constitutions, do you accept the Utah
Constitution as binding on the State of Utah? If so, then why are you ignoring
Article III, which provides in pertinent part:"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
. . . and that until the title thereto shall have been extinguished by the
United States, the same shall be and remain subject to the disposition of the
United States. . . ."
I think there was a time when 'Federal Land' belonged to all of us,
but more and more, this seems not to be the case. The Federal Government has
become quite adept at declaring possession of land, resources and places
regulations on all of it so that the average citizen or states in general have
no further say or access to the land in question.
@Mike RichardsThe Property Clause, Article IV, § 3, Clause 2,
gives Congress authority overthe lands, territories, or other property of
the United States. This was upheld by the Supreme Court as recently as 1976 in
Kleppe vs New Mexico.The Heritage Foundation legal experts disagree
with you. The Congressional Research Service disagrees with you. The Supreme
Court disagrees with you. Politifact website calls your claims a 'pants on
fire' lie and provides extensive citations in support of their statement.
@?SLC, UT" Do you not remember the national parks shutdown
about a year ago. MurrayGuy has a legitimate concern about people not being able
to have access to this land at the whim of the president on whether or not the
park is open."It wasn't the president who shut down the
national parks. It was congress, by blocking funding and the budget. And it
wasn't a "whim", either. It was part of a calculated strategy by
the right wing to harm the president by bringing the country to its knees. To
try and attribute the actions of the GOP to the president is downright
Nice try, Hatch, but ultra-conservatives don't have the intellectual depth
to understand Utah past the woefully short-sighted greed of ultra conservatives
who worship money and simply cannot grasp the concept of beauty or other values
that don't translate directly into dollars.
"The problem is when the government declares these as "monuments" we
LOSE all access to it."Absolutely FALSE!
Most of you pro lock-up the land folks are missing the point. My guess is that
most of you haven't ever been in the area in question and driven some of
the dirt roads.1.2 million acres is very excessive and nothing but a
land grab for political purposes.A smaller designation after
consultations with Congress, Utah, the people who live down in that area, and
energy developers would be appropriate. Or maybe just expand the borders of
Canyonlands to what makes sense.Also, there is a lot of school trust
land parcels that would be locked up in the current proposal by these out of
touch senators. That would negatively impact school funding in our state. The
big land grab by Clinton caused problems that still haven't been solved.
There have been parcel trades but Utah school children have suffered because
some of the traded parcels were not as valuable as the ones locked up.
Dear Utahans,Why did you vote for this guy?Thanks, -New to the area.
@ Jim Cobabe, uh, the federal government is the people of the entire country.
It represents the interests of all of us, in all 50 states.
The Federal govt land in Utah amounts to 2/3 or 66.5% of the land. Only Nevada
has a higher per cent of Federal land. I hate to see senators making money on
us, but I like some land to be set aside.
You know a public official has been in office too long when everything that
comes out of their mouth that goes into print looks like a sound byte.
Either we have a Constitution that limits government or we have a government
that limits the Constitution. We can't have it both ways. Our
history has proven that we can't trust ANY government to do the right thing
without limits placed on it by the people. One of those limits is to restrict
the Federal Government from owning ANY land or controlling ANY land except as
authorized in Article 1, Section 8. That is the Supreme Law. NO legislation
that violates the Supreme Law is valid. ANY part of the Constitution can be
amended if 66% of Congress agrees that an amendment is necessary AND if 75% of
the States ratify that amendment. Until that is done, the Constitution, as
written, not as you wish that it had been written, is the Supreme Law of the
Land. The Federal Government cannot own or operate
"Monuments", "Federal Parks", or "Federal Land". We are citizens of the State in which we reside. No person who does not
have a deed to land within Utah or is not a citizen of Utah has any right to
dictate usage of the land inside Utah.
""It all comes down to money. It's a good way to raise money from
the environmental community. They should keep their mitts off Utah," he
said. "They shouldn't be interfering with our state."I
would say there are multiple parties from both sides trying to leverage this as
a money raising opportunity. The truth is the land is federal, but has a local
impact. I think the feds could do better in partnering with the states to make
sure what ever is done happens in a way that both sides benefit. It takes a
bit more work... but in the end, you can create jobs and a sustainable future
for future generations, and preserve the irreplaceable assets this nation has.
I don't recognize my country anymore, this is just one issue among
hundreds. It's sad at the number of people willing to surrender power and
control to the federal government.
GaryO (and anyone else who doesn't seem to know this)... the "federal
lands" in Utah should no long belong to the federal government. They were
given to the government as part of the deal to become a state. They were to be
disposed of and the state to receive 5% in the deal to put toward public
education. That has never happened. Once again, the federal government
overstepped and no one has done anything about it.My suggestion is
you read the enabling act of 1894.
Since the main criterion for selecting sites for national monuments now is the
potential they have for fossil-fuel development, I half-expect the entire state
of North Dakota to be made a national monument in the next five years.
... So tired of Sen. Hatch throwing thee word "Liberal" around like
it's a bad. I'm a lifelong "Liberal," proud of it. & in my
book, thee Jesus of Nazareth I know was a-VERY-Progressive Liberal!!!
I would much rather have these lands managed by the federal government than some
I live on the Navajo Reservation. What most people don't realize or
understand is that the proposed area to be shut down, would close it to where
the Navajo people would not be able to go get some of the herbs and plants
needed for Ceremonies. It is the only place we can go to get them for some of
our Ceremonies and Sacred prayers. A lot of our Elders are not in good enough
health to walk the distance needed to harvest some of the plants. Doing this
Greater Canyon-lands Monument will be denying the Navajo People there Religious
freedom, Hasn't the white man taken enough from us??? Why do you want
Don't see what the problem is here. It's a good deal preserving
Federal land that's already there. Is Hatch so hateful of Obama that he
has to say these senseless things? He's not the same senator he was when
first elected decades ago. Wonder why people keep electing him? He speaks for
the 1 percenters now instead of you the people of the state and country.
Fair enough,Eliyahu. Congress is to blame, too,. The president isn't off
the hook, though. He is just as much responsible for what is going on.
May I suggest the Liberal Senators put National Monuments in their own worthless
@DannyBoy:"Federal land. Belongs to all Americans - not just Utah.
They are are not suggesting "taking" land from Utah. Federal land -
belongs to all Americans."That is right. But what the rest of
Americans doing to mitigate the financial struggles by people in southern Utah
living in counties where 98% of the land is owned by an absentee landlord?
Source: NY TimesStates With the Most Land Owned by the Federal
GovernmentThe top states with the greatest percentage of federally owned
land are all the Western states, including Alaska and Hawaii.Nevada84.5%Alaska69.1%Utah57.5%Oregon53.1%Idaho50.2%Arizona48.1%California45.3%Wyoming42.3%New Mexico41.8%Colorado36.6%Washington30.3%Montana29.9%Hawaii19.4%
This actually shocked me. How does the federal government own almost 60 percent
of a state?
As long as there are neo-cons such as Hatch which continue to come across as
true intellectuals the Democrats are guaranteed to win another Presidential
election in 2016. Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin was mentioned as a
Republican candidate. Absolutely hysterical. Let's elect a man as President
with no college degree! Can't wait to hear the spin regarding this fact.
@Hank Jr...Hey Hank. Liberal worthless States such as New York, New Jersey and
the entire East Coast, All of New England, California, Colorado, Washington and
Oregon. Obviously that was a.m. talk radio rhetoric or last night's talking
point on Faux News. Take a trip outside The Planet Utah bubble my friend.
It's quite liberating to think for yourself!