Utah Wildlife Forum banner
1 - 20 of 56 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,950 Posts
It all sounded intriguing until I came to this.

From the linked article.

"The bill also would transfer nearly 100,000 acres to the Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration."


Ugh. So 100,000 acres would go from being public land to being, as we have discussed ad nauseum here, technically non public land. That's a lot of acreage too. Sounds like a backdoor land grab to me. It also reinforces my longtime assertion that lands won by the state from the Feds will either largely become SITLA land or be dealt with, using SITLA as a model. In either case, public access is the loser.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,933 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
That’s the trade off, right? Again, I need to study this in more detail. Where are these 100k acres? Where exactly is the wilderness designation, and what impacts does that have on access. Yes, I know wilderness designation does not close things, but in practicality, it does for some people.

Lots of questions to be asked still on my end, but this is the model if you want to do this. Not how we’ve seen before.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,140 Posts
Sounds like a "land grab!" Isn't that ironic...and, no, I don't think this is how it is supposed to be done! The model should never include taking land from the public and then, down the line, selling it to the highest bidder. That, should NEVER be the process!
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
8,260 Posts
I for one think we should just make the entire state a monument and be done with it.

Good grief.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,140 Posts
I for one think we should just make the entire state a monument and be done with it.

Good grief.
That would be better than giving up our public lands...that is a lose for sure! At least if the whole state were a monument, we could still recreate on the land!

The argument all along has been that we don't want to lose public land. Why should that change? Like I said, it is so ironic that the republicans fought the designations under the guise that it was a land grab and what do they do? Go out and design a bill that specifically grabs land...

...the other thing that worries me is that amount of off-road vehicle use is allowed. Is the land wilderness or not?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,553 Posts
Ugh. So 100,000 acres would go from being public land to being, as we have discussed ad nauseum here, technically non public land. That's a lot of acreage too. Sounds like a backdoor land grab to me.
Just more pristine land for Lyman Family Farms and Jo Hunt to gobble up, then fence out the public.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,975 Posts
The 100,000 acres were almost a side-note. What acreage and where? This is an interesting way to exclude the public access on public lands by making it- a park/monument, wilderness, or giving it to a private entity. (And SITLA is a private entity in every way except for the money which goes to a public slush fund)

..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,950 Posts
Two additional comments on this.

1. This legislation would certainly seem to refute the assertion by Utah politicians that land won from the Feds would remain public. (again reminding the reader that SITLA lands are not technically public and could/will be subject to being sold.)

2.
Where are these 100k acres?
Does it matter? These lands may not have 4 point bucks behind every juniper, but they could provide recreation for ATVers, fossil collectors, hikers, campers, and especially be on access to more important recreation areas. Ask San Juan county and Lyman family farms about that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,039 Posts
One really only need to know who's behind the legislation to know it's intent. "Utah politicians" says it all. They should have left BE and GS alone.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,933 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
Sounds like a "land grab!" Isn't that ironic...and, no, I don't think this is how it is supposed to be done! The model should never include taking land from the public and then, down the line, selling it to the highest bidder. That, should NEVER be the process!
C'mon man! The "land grab" is not the process, it's the result. Sometimes I seriously wonder how people come up with this stuff. You're smarter than this, w2u.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,933 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
2.

Does it matter? These lands may not have 4 point bucks behind every juniper, but they could provide recreation for ATVers, fossil collectors, hikers, campers, and especially be on access to more important recreation areas. Ask San Juan county and Lyman family farms about that.
Yes, it very much does matter. Because in any of these discussions, there are really no absolutes. The details matter. Or at least they should.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,950 Posts
Yes, it very much does matter. Because in any of these discussions, there are really no absolutes. The details matter. Or at least they should.
In one perspective, I will agree with this point. I strongly suspect that the 100,000 acres are the real reason for this proposed legislation. The Pols figure if they boldly feature agreeing to some wilderness designations and "accept" a new National Monument (something that it sounds like they actually want) that the 100, 000 acre transfer (grab-O,-) can be hidden in the details. The net result seems to be protections that could very well happen anyway with the next liberal administration and the state sneakily nabs 100,000 acres.

In regards to am I in favor of adding a new monument and some wilderness protection in exchange for 100,000 acres, the answer to me is no and it doesn't matter where the targeted lost land is.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,140 Posts
So, explain to me again what the process was? Because, frankly, I don't see how this process was any more open or transparent (has the public been involved? Have you heard of this prior to these news stories?) than what Clinton or Obama did. But, you might persuade me...

...isn't the process will give you some quasi-wilderness if we can have 100,000 acres?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,933 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
You really don’t understand the difference between a process and a result? Or are you just being difficult? I guess I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that you are just having a minor brain fart and not being a butt head.

I’m not even referring to open or transparent either. These things should go through Congress. Hence, the process, not the result.

Still not sure if I support the result. There are way too many unknowns, such as the question I asked before about where are the 100k acres, etc. When I know all the actual details, I can make an educated decision. But if others want to simply pick sides before they even know, that seems to be how things work these days, so be my guest. I’ll prefer to become educated on the details and use the cranium God blessed me with, though. I may very well end up not liking it, but I’m not going to assume I will when I don’t know.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,039 Posts
You really don't understand the difference between a process and a result? Or are you just being difficult? I guess I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you are just having a minor brain fart and not being a butt head.

I'm not even referring to open or transparent either. These things should go through Congress. Hence, the process, not the result.

Still not sure if I support the result. There are way too many unknowns, such as the question I asked before about where are the 100k acres, etc. When I know all the actual details, I can make an educated decision. But if others want to simply pick sides before they even know, that seems to be how things work these days, so be my guest. I'll prefer to become educated on the details and use the cranium God blessed me with, though. I may very well end up not liking it, but I'm not going to assume I will when I don't know.
It's not about picking sides, V, it's about 100K acres of now public land going to SITLA as part of the bargain. In fact, as the OP, I'm surprised you apparently missed that detail.;-) The process is that our Republican congressional representatives have introduced legislation to transfer public land to a private entity. The result would be a land grab. I think that's enough detail. Nice try soft pedaling, though, your attempts at obfuscation are your typical approach. It appears you use your cranium mostly to keep your ears apart.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
8,260 Posts
That would be better than giving up our public lands...that is a lose for sure! At least if the whole state were a monument, we could still recreate on the land!

The argument all along has been that we don't want to lose public land. Why should that change? Like I said, it is so ironic that the republicans fought the designations under the guise that it was a land grab and what do they do? Go out and design a bill that specifically grabs land...

...the other thing that worries me is that amount of off-road vehicle use is allowed. Is the land wilderness or not?
Do as I say, not as I do right?

Hypocrisy knows no bounds in politics.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,446 Posts
It's not about picking sides, V, it's about 100K acres of now public land going to SITLA as part of the bargain. In fact, as the OP, I'm surprised you apparently missed that detail.;-) The process is that our Republican congressional representatives have introduced legislation to transfer public land to a private entity. The result would be a land grab. I think that's enough detail. Nice try soft pedaling, though, your attempts at obfuscation are your typical approach. It appears you use your cranium mostly to keep your ears apart.
Case in point to Vanilla's post...
 
1 - 20 of 56 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top