Utah Wildlife Forum banner

1 - 20 of 55 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,756 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Here is a link:

http://westernpriorities.org/2015/0...ch-could-result-in-them-losing-millions-more/

The 4th paragraph from the bottom their is a hyperlink that says "click here" it will download and open a document in Excel and show the counties and the amounts donated to the ALC. If your county donated I would sure be writing the representatives of that county ASAP. We have to stand up on this issue and not allow those that represent us to throw our money away and then screw us over. And I'm sad to say Utah is leaps and bounds ahead of stupidity in other states with this idea.
 
  • Like
Reactions: swampfox

·
Registered
Joined
·
96 Posts
I'm constantly embarrassed by the politics in this state. It seems almost all politicians are snakes, but we seem to have a particularly vile breed. Ignoring common sense and the will of your constituents for personal financial gain (see: corruption) doesn't even register as something newsworthy around here. Its common practice.
 

·
West side Utah Lake
Joined
·
3,905 Posts
I call horse hockey. The report on this page says that Utah will need to generate $432 million if it takes over the property to maintain levels. Hello people the report says the federal government paid Utah $29.7 million last year. $432 million is only about 14.55 times the amount of the annual payment to Utah from the feds right now. So why does Utah need to generate $432 million? Sounds like common core math to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 7MM RELOADED

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,756 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 · (Edited)
I call horse hockey. The report on this page says that Utah will need to generate $432 million if it takes over the property to maintain levels. Hello people the report says the federal government paid Utah $29.7 million last year. $432 million is only about 14.55 times the amount of the annual payment to Utah from the feds right now. So why does Utah need to generate $432 million? Sounds like common core math to me.
These lands would have to be managed. Wildfires would have to be dealt with. Adminstrative costs would be huge. To do all of this you would need hundreds more of employees that would cost a lot of money. If you believe lawsuit groups are going to stop litigating you're up in the night, that will cost a lot to . Along with losing the PILT money the state would have to absorb all of those costs and need to get the $432 million to keep revenue at current levels. The forest service spent $700 million on wildfire fighting this year alone. Yes, land management is an expensive business and if anything these counties should be hoping the current system is never changed because they are all benefiting greatly from PILT.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
95 Posts
Pretty sure that the $432 million is not only the PILT funds for the counties that currently get paid by the feds but also the monies to manage the rest of the federal lands in the state. IMHO the state can't find it's ar$$ with both hands, I most definitely don't want them trying to manage our public lands.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,856 Posts
I call horse hockey. The report on this page says that Utah will need to generate $432 million if it takes over the property to maintain levels. Hello people the report says the federal government paid Utah $29.7 million last year. $432 million is only about 14.55 times the amount of the annual payment to Utah from the feds right now. So why does Utah need to generate $432 million? Sounds like common core math to me.
Sounds like some one can't do common core math(I have yet to have a problem doing it, same with my kids)

Uncle Sam spent ~$8 per acre in 2012, or a total of $247 million to manage the people of the United States of America's land that is held in trust in Utah. About how many acres does Uncle Sam hold in trust for ALL the citizens of the United states of America(sp) here in Utah?

If you look at the most optimistic numbers produced by a Utah study that says that Utah can swing this financially, there is one big deal breaker. It assumes that Utah can manage these monstrous numbers based on oil and gas revenue, so long as oil and gas do not go down in price. Well guess what......oil and gas has plummeted, so that $432 million probably looks a lot more like twice that in todays dollars.

Other studies? Take a look at every other Western state that looked at the economics of transfer, they all said it was not possible. And the Utah study that says it is, is based on skyrocketing oil prices that have since plunged. And most were conducted prior to one of the largest Western wildfire seasons on record, as has already been mentioned.

So not only does the state want to take our land, they want our gas prices to be twice what they are now.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,856 Posts
More common core math: The United States of America(sp), with a very large tax base, acting as trustee over federal lands to the American(sp) people, charges public land ranchers ~$1.69 an AUM to run stock on federal property. States with much smaller populations and tax bases charge ~$10 per AUM, while private property owners(smaller number of vested owners with no tax base) with the highest profit to acre ratio demand and get ~$20 per AUM. So if AUM prices go up as the number of vested owners goes down, what will happen to the $1.69 federal AUM price if a state were to attain control of federal properties within it's borders?
 
  • Like
Reactions: #1DEER 1-I

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,128 Posts
Heres what Utah Does.( I mean I Love the State Been here 71 years.) Raise GAS TAX>> Bingo theres ONE. Raise Property Tax>> Seems like every year. Why do people not PANIC an Extra 15.00 year for the next 30 years Bingo do the Math> Sue the Tabaco industry for millions and millions. Put it into a rainy day fund. . where did it go? not to smokers with illness..We need an independent audit., the entire state something smells very very bad.,
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,756 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 · (Edited)
Also some interesting information. The two biggest donar counties in Utah that donated $25,000 each to ALC have a commissioner from both counties that sit on the board of the ALC. One is the VP the other the chair elect. Seems like a real conflict of interest to me.

Alan Gardner is a Washington county commissioner, and Doug Heaton is a commissioner in Kane county. It amazes me how corrupt all this BS is. These men should be ashamed wasting $50,000 of taxpayers money. Here is the link:

http://www.americanlandscouncil.org/our_team

Then I saw this:
http://kutv.com/news/local/washington-county-search-and-rescue-out-of-money

Maybe if their commissioners hadn't wasted $25,000 earlier they would have money for a productive program.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,856 Posts
And how much does Ken Ivory pay himself as president of ALC?

A guess, this is like doing BGF payroll math......
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,756 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 · (Edited)
And how much does Ken Ivory pay himself as president of ALC?

A guess, this is like doing BGF payroll math......
Don't forget Ken Ivorys wife is on the payroll too. Between him and his wife I believe around 50% were retained for wages and a total of only about 10% of money raised with ALC was used for their cause. I can't remember where I saw that figure but it's close.

The best I could find quickly was 2013: ALC raised $203,000, Ken Ivory alone that year pulled $95,000 as a salary. Maybe I should start a non-profit, apparently Utah representatives are so incompetent they will hand out tax dollars to about any corrupt organization. Total salaries for that year were $146,300.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,968 Posts
Im not sure why the UWN is the only place I hear such angst about this stuff.

I know you guys hate the question. But I can't help but wonder what the church thinks about the land swap.

They're just standing back praying Ken Ivory fails? Or do they support him? I can't imagine they could care less.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,968 Posts
Who is funding Western Priorities?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,856 Posts
Im not sure why the UWN is the only place I hear such angst about this stuff.

I know you guys hate the question. But I can't help but wonder what the church thinks about the land swap.

They're just standing back praying Ken Ivory fails? Or do they support him? I can't imagine they could care less.
The UWN must be the only conservation minded place you go.

The church is irrelevant, that is a complete tangent.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,856 Posts
Who is funding Western Priorities?
Center for Western Priorities is incubated under New Venture Fund. Their president is this guy:

http://www.arabellaadvisors.com/about-us/our-people/staff-directory/eric-kessler/

He happens to be involved with some ventures, one in particular that I have some serious issues with. That said, he is not soliciting tax dollars like Ivory, it is almost entirely philanthropic.

You are probably getting at some "green" money, anti hunting BS, but considering that he is a member of a group that operates a 10,000 acre CWMU here in Utah, I think you would be hard pressed to make the claim.

Washington DC ties and money? Yes Our tax dollars? no.

Do you want their 990s?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kwalk3

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,756 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,992 Posts
Who is funding Western Priorities?
I'm assuming you're trying to instill fear into the hearts of all the conservative sportsmen here that would be appalled to find out that it is those dang liberals supporting this particular conservation org in part?

While I may differ politically in many ways from some of those who fund the Center for Western Priorities, I'm also willing to compartmentalize my politics and look at things issue by issue. If the Center for Western Priorities and it's donors are for public land and public access, I'll stand with them on this one.

That doesn't mean I support turning in guns, or many other non-outdoor-related(and thus not mentioned here:cry:) issues.

Implying that because you agree with an organization on 1 issue makes you somehow complicit in other differing or flawed political viewpoints is nonsensical.

Similarly, implying that because you agree with many tenets of a party's platform means you have to toe the party line on every issue is irrational as well.

Of course I probably just derived way too much from what you will say was just a simple honest question. If so, my apologies.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,756 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
1 - 20 of 55 Posts
Top