In taking three years to craft their blueprint for how public lands should be managed across a large portion of Utah, U.S. Reps. Rob Bishop and Jason Chaffetz have produced a smoke-and-mirrors view of conservation, one that uses the right language but disguises their true goals in obfuscation and fine print.
But then, the two Republicans from Utah hinted, during a public unveiling of the plan last week, at their true motivations. Rep. Bishop, who chairs the House Natural Resources Committee that will surely pass through the bill on a strict party-line vote, admitted that he was "never a fan of creating more wilderness in the first place," while Rep. Chaffetz mentioned his love for off-road vehicles.
Thus it can be understood why the 41 proposed wilderness areas touted in the 65-page "discussion draft" would be open to state agencies using aircraft and "mechanized equipment" in managing wildlife and fisheries, and that the continued use of "fences, line cabins, water wells and pipelines, stock tanks and ponds" would be OK.
So, apparently, it would be alright for the state to use aircraft to shoot predators in a bid to bolster populations of prey for human hunters, as does Alaska's Department of Fish and Game. The difference, of course, is that this legislation would allow the practice to be used over wilderness areas, not only on lands adjacent to them.
Too, the politicians wrote that these wilderness areas, if officially designated, would not be off-limits for the construction "of new improvements or replacement of deteriorated facilities," nor the "use of motorized equipment for emergency purposes such as rescuing sick animals or the placement of feed in emergency situations is permissible."
Motorized access to these proposed wilderness areas would be permissable under certain, open-ended, restrictions:
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to limit motorized access and road maintenance by local municipalities and other water right holders for those maintenance activities necessary to guarantee the continued viability of water resource facilities that currently exist or which may be necessary in the future to prevent the degradation of the water supply in wilderness areas...
In other words, Reps. Bishop and Chaffetz would rewrite The Wilderness Act, which interprets official wilderness as “an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain."
They also would block future wilderness designation in the state by "releasing" other Bureau of Land Management acreage that had been placed under study for official wilderness designation.
Utah politicians long have been at the forefront of efforts to force the federal government to cede public lands back to the state, and while that effort is continuing, Reps. Bishop and Chaffetz aim to help move it along by turning over tens of thousands of acres of federal lands to the state through their legislation.
The measure would require the BLM, "without consideration," to transfer nearly 10,000 acres of land it manages to the state of Utah for addition to Goblin Valley State Park. Another land transfer from the BLM to the state would help create the Price Canyon State Forest, the first state forest in Utah. Another 21 land conveyances from the federal government to the state of Utah, without any consideration in return, also are called for by the legislation. Those range from just 1 acre at the resort town of Park City to 15,379 acres at the Dugout Ranch northwest of Monticello to Utah State University.
It shouldn't go unnoticed that this legislation came but a week after the release of a poll of 2,800 people across Wyoming, Colorado, Nevada, Utah, New Mexico, Arizona, and Montana that concluded that Westerners value conservation and see economic returns from national parks, national forests, and national monuments in their states, and don't believe it's in their best interests to have federal lands transferred to the states.
"The (Public Lands Initiative) furthers the land grab agenda by giving away federal lands. As drafted, the PLI grants thousands of miles of rights-of-way to the state and counties to convert cow trails, footpaths, and seldom-used dirt tracks into highways," states the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance in denouncing the Bishop-Chaffetz plan. "The PLI then allows the counties and the states to seek, through litigation, additional right-of-way claims in the wilderness areas it designates. The PLI includes a land exchange where the state gives up land with low market values in exchange for more land with a higher market value—yes, you read that right, the state would make out like a bandit. The PLI also gives away tens of thousands of acres of federal land to the state and counties for all kinds of pet projects."
And the loopholes and giveaways continue throughout the legislation:
* The creation of National Conservation Areas under the legislation does not guarantee water rights for those NCAs, and grazing could continue, and possibly increase, in these areas under the bill's provisions.
* No doubt with an eye toward Utah's energy sector, which has generated high ozone levels in some areas of the state, most notably in the Uinta Basin of eastern Utah, the proposed wilderness areas (including those proposed for Arches and Canyonlands national parks and Dinosaur National Monument) would not be designated as Class 1 airsheds, as nearly 160 other wilderness areas across the country are, to protect the viewsheds. "As currently drafted, the PLI would actually weaken airshed protections for nearly all of Arches and Canyonlands national park," notes SUWA officials
* The measure tosses out an oil and gas leasing reform plan adopted by the BLM in 2010.
This legislation is the new face of the Sagebrush Rebellion of the 1970s and '80s, a political maneuver with a bottomline: handcuff the federal government from properly managing its domain if the land can't be transferred to the states.
While Utah Gov. Gary Herbert praised the bill as the "fourth largest conservation bill in history," that's a misnomer. It's a bait-and-switch to take protections for land, water and wildlife long provided by The Wilderness Act and Environmental Protection Agency down a notch or two. It would give away federal lands owned by all Americans. It would deny outright potential wilderness designations without having a fair public hearing before the owners of those lands -- the American public. For Rep. Rob Bishop, who long has accused presidents of wielding the Antiquities Act without involving the public, these measures smack of hypocrisy.
Across the nation just 5 percent of the landscape is protected as official wilderness, according to Wilderness.net, and 2.7 percent of that total is in Alaska. This legislation, along with watering down the meaning of "wilderness designation,'" would toss away thousands of acres of spectacular landscapes that should be preserved for future generations to marvel at, fuel energy development regardless of associated emissions, and hamstring federal agencies in managing the federal domain for all.
Is this true "conservation"?
Manifest Destiny long ago swept across the West, to the extreme in many places. What is needed is a truer interpretation, and determination, for conservation, a resolve that protects and preserves our waning wilderness quality lands, which better stewards our national parks. This bill falls short on all points.
Story Categories:
A copy of National Parks Traveler's financial statements may be obtained by sending a stamped, self-addressed envelope to: National Parks Traveler, P.O. Box 980452, Park City, Utah 84098. National Parks Traveler was formed in the state of Utah for the purpose of informing and educating about national parks and protected areas.
Residents of the following states may obtain a copy of our financial and additional information as stated below:
- Florida: A COPY OF THE OFFICIAL REGISTRATION AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION FOR NATIONAL PARKS TRAVELER, (REGISTRATION NO. CH 51659), MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE DIVISION OF CONSUMER SERVICES BY CALLING 800-435-7352 OR VISITING THEIR WEBSITE. REGISTRATION DOES NOT IMPLY ENDORSEMENT, APPROVAL, OR RECOMMENDATION BY THE STATE.
- Georgia: A full and fair description of the programs and financial statement summary of National Parks Traveler is available upon request at the office and phone number indicated above.
- Maryland: Documents and information submitted under the Maryland Solicitations Act are also available, for the cost of postage and copies, from the Secretary of State, State House, Annapolis, MD 21401 (410-974-5534).
- North Carolina: Financial information about this organization and a copy of its license are available from the State Solicitation Licensing Branch at 888-830-4989 or 919-807-2214. The license is not an endorsement by the State.
- Pennsylvania: The official registration and financial information of National Parks Traveler may be obtained from the Pennsylvania Department of State by calling 800-732-0999. Registration does not imply endorsement.
- Virginia: Financial statements are available from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 102 Governor Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.
- Washington: National Parks Traveler is registered with Washington State’s Charities Program as required by law and additional information is available by calling 800-332-4483 or visiting www.sos.wa.gov/charities, or on file at Charities Division, Office of the Secretary of State, State of Washington, Olympia, WA 98504.
INN Member
The easiest way to explore RV-friendly National Park campgrounds.
Here’s the definitive guide to National Park System campgrounds where RVers can park their rigs.
Our app is packed with RVing- specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 national parks.
You’ll also find stories about RVing in the parks, tips helpful if you’ve just recently become an RVer, and useful planning suggestions.
Comments
Kurt, I have a small issue:
"Utah politicians long have been at the forefront of efforts to force the federal government to cede public lands back to the state..."
Use of the word "back" implies that the state owned the public lands at some earlier point and the federal government took it.
Otherwise, great write up!
Dittos dahkota, I share the one concern, but a big thanks to Traveler for this article. It is right on.
I'll add my support for these two comments as well. I was just getting ready to remark on the use of "back," too, which stuck out like a sore thumb. :-)
Somewhat tough crowd this morning. Anyone willing to volunteer for proof-reading or writing articles?
Actually "back" is quite appropriate since these lands for the most part were ceded to the Feds when the states became states.
Though the draft Utah PLI bill has numerous shortcomings (as noted by many in the conservation community), I still believe it's worth engaging the sponsors of this bill to try to improve the weaknesses before throwing in the towel. The fact that possibly the most conservative delegation in the nation would propose as much wilderness and other protections (even wild and scenic river) is somewhat surprising (even in light of threatened national monument designations). It would be politically easier (at least in Utah) to simply keep spouting the 'take back the land' rhetoric and resisting any 'compromise' federal protective designations. These days any hint of compromise can often be a political death knell (remember Senator Bob Bennett). So give Bishop, Chaffetz, and Herbert credit for avoiding the typical extreme rhetoric on this initiative. My hope is that the bill is improved in important ways and that the idea of collaboration becomes a viable conservative alternative to the "Rebellion' approach. Also it's good to recognize that historically the majority of successful western wilderness bills signed into law had home state Republican sponsorship...so it's necessary to engage and can be successful.
Kurt fell into a trap set by Bishop, Chafetz and our legislators. They constantly holler about "taking federal lands back," and many of us in Utah fall prey to that phrase because we hear it so often.
Whether or not it is permitted without an amendment of the Utah State Constitution is questionable because ARTICLE III of the Constitution contains this:
[Right to public domain disclaimed. Taxation of lands. Exemptions.] Second:--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 to all lands lying within said limits owned or held by any Indian or Indian tribes, 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, and said Indian lands shall remain under the absolute jurisdiction and control of the Congress of the United States. The lands belonging to citizens of the United States, residing without this State shall never be taxed at a higher rate than the lands belonging to residents of this State; nor shall taxes be imposed by this State on lands or property herein, belonging to or which may hereafter be purchased by the United States or reserved for its use; but nothing in this ordinance shall preclude this state from taxing, as other lands are taxed, any lands owned or held by any Indian who has severed his tribal relations, and has obtained from the United States or from any person, by patent or other grant, a title thereto, save and except such lands as have been or may be granted to any Indian or Indians under any act of Congress, containing a provision exempting the lands thus granted from taxation, which last mentioned lands shall be exempt from taxation so long, and to such extent, as is or may be provided in the act of Congress granting the same.
For the umpteenth time, Utah's legislature has appropriated a few million taxpayer dollars to pursue a lawsuit that will try to overturn that. Taxpayer dollars, by the way, from taxpayers who have repeatedly shown that a majority of us do NOT agree with the idea.
No trap, Lee. Just too many balls up in the air...
Lee, you must have taken law classes with Alfred. That phrase references the "unappropriated lands" existing at the time of the formation of the state. There is nothing that would prohibit lands being giving to the state as they would then be appropriated.
@bsmith - Ahh a voice of sanity recognizing the value of discussion and compromise. Only in the world of the absolute conservationists could such a massive protection of public lands be deemed evil.
There is also a huge blank page at the end of the bill that is very alarming.
TITLE XIII - Long Term Land-Use Certainty Is literally that -- blank!
Bishop alluded to it very briefly while speaking with a reporter after the presentation. That section, he said, is open so it may be filled with a ban on any future Presidential use of the Antiquities Act to unilaterally declare a national monument in any of the seven counties covered by this bill. Chafetz, while speaking with Rod Decker of Channel 2 also said we need to remember the bill is not in final form and may be amended "as needed." (That comment didn't make it to air. I was, however, standing next to Chafetz as Decker conducted his interview.)
Bishop also stated that it's imperative to get this through Congress quickly because there may be changes after the upcoming election.
EC, "massive protection of public lands"?
As I noted in the editorial, just 2.3 percent of the Lower 48, aka coterminous U.S., is official wilderness. The "absolutists" lost out a long time ago. We're fighting over table scraps now.
EC, "massive protection of public lands"?
Yes, the bill under discussion covers a massive area of public lands in Utah. In fact a massive area (35%) of all lands in Utah. And re: 2.3%, tell me any other use by a single owner that covers 2.3% of the lower 48?
Single owner? Last I heard the U.S. population was nearing 319 million.
Last I heard the U.S. population was nearing 319 million.
Ha Ha. And 318.99 million of them have no say in how it is run. If they "owned it", they could sell it. If they "owned" it, they could do what they want with it. They pay for it but they don't "own" anything.
EC, you just can't make history up--but you try. You're right that the original states, under the Confederation, relinquished their land claims to the central government--which then became the U.S. government. But never were the public lands under state ownership after that. The "appropriated" public lands refers to homesteaders, railroads, and the like. Once those lands had passed from federal ownership to private ownership, yes, Uncle Sam no longer owned them. But the states had never owned them, except for those lands designated each state by Congress. Alaska did the best on that--obtaining upwards of 100 million acres out of 375 million, as it were.
So yes, Congress could get generous and give up the public lands. Then what? Would that make everyone in the West "happy?" Of course not. Because the "West" has been playing it out of both sides of its mouth ever since the Pilgrims landed on Plymouth Rock. When the Indians attacked, the West wanted help from the settlments. When the Indian attacks were over, the West wanted to be let alone. When there is money involved, the West wants the federal Grand Teton (look it up) every bit as much as the selfish East. We all want government off our backs until the flood hits, or there is a dam to be built, or a military base to be "located," etc., etc., etc. Then we welcome the feds with open arms. Oh, goodie! Someone else is paying for it! I can play the victim today and be John Wayne tomorrow.
Remember. The Marlboro Man died of cancer (he really did). These states rights advocates don't have a clue about what it takes to run a country, either. Without the federal government--irrigation districts, soil conservation, agricultural experimentation, forestry, animal husbandry, flood control, railroad development, interstate highways, power generation and transport, etc., etc., etc.,--the West would dry up and blow away.
Nature never meant it to be settled. Read John Wesley Powell. Utah? A grand experiment in America's one true native religion, but again, it wouldn't exist without the rest of us. How did Brigham Young make it? He insisted on building his share of the Union Pacific Railroad. What would Mr. Bishop be without the federal government? Just another tumbleweed on the wind.
I love you rugged individualists. I really do. You make America colorful; you keep reminding us why America works and other countries don't. They let their ideology get in the way of reality. We don't. We know that we have to be the United States of America, not the divided states of America. We need our public domain for one and all. When the time is right, history will bring Mr. Bishop up short. But right now, he continues to be a barrel of laughs. I can only hope that enough schools are still teaching American history as much as Mr. Bishop is praying that they aren't.
Alfred Runte, thank you for an excellent post. I appreciate Kurt's efforts and your comments. Speaking of compromises, it has been interesting to watch the Republican Party elected representatives in Congress the last 8 years. I do not think there is much hope in making the compromises necessary to the Bishop Bill with the mindset of the current Congress.
You finally got someting right, ec. Yup, 99% of us have very little or no say in our government because we are not among the top 1% who can afford massive political contributions to purchase the services of our "representatives."
Today was the opening day of the Utah State Legislature's 2016 session. It started with the National Anthem, Pledge of Allegiance, prayer, and then House Speaker Greg Hughes stood up and launched into a tirade against the Federal government. Tomorrow, no doubt, they'll be looking for ways they can get more Federal money to subsidize some of their schemes. (Utah is one of the top recipient states when it come to infusions of Federal dollars.)
Thank goodness they are limited to no more than 45 days in session. It's not hard to imagine the harm they would do if they met longer than that.
And Alfred, your comment above was great!
Talk about making up history. Utah was not an original state. It owned the land AFTER the US Federal Government was formed and before it became a state. It ceded (something you can do only if you don't own) the unappropriated lands when it became a state.
Hardly, they would prosper and multiply.
And I will ask you for the upteenth time. Show me were any representative changed his stance based on political contributions by someone in the top 1%. Just another baseless accusation (totally off topic) from which I am sure you will run as usual.
The message is right (for you) the fact that it is inaccurate apparently doesn't matter. No surprise.
ec--Your hubris never ceases to amaze me. How you determinne what is accurate or inaccurate seems to have nothing to do with facts, but with your conservative life view. No surpeise.
Kurt, it could be simply changed:
"Utah politicians long have been at the forefront of efforts to force the federal government to cede public lands to the state..."
Just remove the word "back."
It doesn't? Is it a fact or not that Utah was not an original state? Is it fact or not that the Federal government was formed long before Utah became a state? Is it fact or not that the Territory of Utah owned the land before becoming a state? Is if fact or not that Utah ceded the unappropriated land when it became a state? Those are the facts, no hubris involved.
It could be but there is no need, it is accurate as it stands.
Asleep again in class, I see EC. As a formality, every territory, on achieving statehood, was required to concede that it did not own (and never had) the public domain reserved to the American people at large. The one state that escaped this requirement was Texas--which entered the Union as a republic and not a territory. Texas fought for its own independence in 1836. Watch the movie with Billy Bob Thornton and Dennis Quaid. Now THAT is a movie I would assign in class.
Even Texas, however, recognized the advantages of statehood--until, of course, the Civil War. Why did Texas join the Confederacy? They wanted to keep slavery, yes, but they also wanted the first transcontinental railroad built along a Southern route. In short, they wanted the commerce the federal government would ensure--as it has been ensuring that commerce these past 240 years.
All Representative Bishop wants is another freebie at the expense of the collective taxpayers. What do we get out it? Nothing. But he makes it sound as if we are selfish. The American people, in Congress assembled, gladly parted with 1.4 billion acres for homesteading, railroad land grants, and the like. They wanted to keep 600 million for themselves--for the future of their country. Part with that and what is our future? Well, the good Congressman is showing you that. Some people will never be satisfied until they own the last stick of everything, or, as John Muir put it, "The last tree on earth will have a lawyer and a logger standing underneath it."
I am all for the responsible development of our public lands. Likely private entities have a good many ideas of how to accomplish that without parting with the lands themselves. When I did the national forests centennial (1891-1991), that was indeed our theme. You may disagree with how the Forest Service manages the land, but you cannot disagree with the wonder of all of us owning it. That book, by the way, is called PUBLIC LANDS, PUBLIC HERITAGE: THE NATIONAL FOREST IDEA.
Like the national park idea, our public lands rest on the wonder of public ownership. When they are leased, the people still get a royalty. Why should we be forced to part with our royalties just because someone wants it all for free?
In Burns, Oregon, even the most conservative residents are getting tired of those "patriots" prancing around the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. Why? Because tourist season is around the corner, and Burns now depends on tourists. My in-laws grew up in Burns, where the Hines Lumber Company, promising to cut on a 75-year cycle, stepped up the cut instead. My in-laws were forced to move. It wasn't the guv'mint that cost Burns those jobs; it was the company. And now these so-called patriots want to cost Burns what little economy it has left.
I only wish Theodore Roosevelt were still in the White House. He would know what to do. So would Donald Trump. If you want to cross a New Yorker, watch out. We were the original Revolution--the real one. And yes, we teach American history the right way--that this is still a country and not a free-for-all. The public lands stay where they are.
Alfred Runte, again a another thank you, and thanks for writing/commenting for the Traveler. I understand you may have another book coming out on Yosemite, please keep us posted.
This argument has devolved into pure silliness. Especially because there seem to be some serious problems with reading comprehension and vocabulary. At no time did Dr. Runte say or even imply that Utah was one of the "original states." It was not and it's Constitution acknowledges that fact. May I also suggest that before one may make baseless claims about interpretations of history or the word "cede," one should actually understand the history and the word's definition. Lands that had not been "appropriated" prior to statehood were then declared "unappropriated." The state of Utah never owned them. When the first settlers arrived the land was owned by Mexico. When it became a territory of the United States, all the land belonged to the United States because the state did not exist. Upon attaining statehood, any unclaimed lands reverted to federal stewardship and ownership. In fact, at the time, the new State acknowledged that it could not provide stewardship of those lands and that is why they agreed to leave them in federal hands. That fact is reflected in the State Constitution.
Using incorrect understanding of the written word and then claiming to defend "facts" is nonsensical. If it is done deliberately, it's even worse.
Let's quit playing silly word games and get back to the issue at hand. There's a close analogy here to the "crisis" at the Oregon game refuge. If the media would go away and ignore those clowns, they'd pack up and be gone in a very short time. That could also happen here.
I acknowledge that I'm not a historian and so I invite Dr. Runte or anyone else who is qualified to do so to correct any mistatements I might make. But I know that a person qualified to do so will also explain to me why I may have been wrong. Others could learn a lot by adopting the same attitude.
(and never had)
Please show me where they conceded that.
For Lee - if they didn't own the land as a Territory why was it necessary to put a clause in the Constitution that they where then disclaiming ownership?
A Territory is under the direct governance of the Federal government, not itself, so it can't "own" land. The governor is appointed by the President of the United States, not elected by the residents. When a Territory becomes a State, it becomes a totally different type of entity. Thus the disclaimer clause - it's there for insurance that the State will not make future claim to the lands that the Federal government retained, for whatever purpose or reason, under the Property Clause of the U.S. Constitution. And it's not just the State constitution, but also the legislation creating the State that contains that language.
Thank you Mike.
Dittos Mike, thank you.
You seem to be ignoring the period when there was a sovereign state PRIOR to Utah becoming a Terrritory
If an entity doesn't own the land and according to Alfred has conceded to that fact, there would be no need for such a clause. Obviously the people at the time of the formation of the state weren't as confident as you.
But I will concede this, whether it is "back" or not is irrelevant to this bill. This is an increase in protection for a massive amount of land.
"You seem to be ignoring the period when there was a sovereign state PRIOR to Utah becoming a Terrritory"
------------
Huh?
Utah was never a "Sovereign State." Never before becoming a territory nor after. Utah was part of Mexico and under their control beginning in 1821. Before that, there were native tribes and some europeans. But no one claimed the territory as a sovereign state or otherwise. In the late 1840s the Mormon settlers arrived. Mexico gave/ceded the territory to the US government in 1848. It was still not a sovereign state. The settlers of Utah petitioned the US Government for territory status. They did not claim they were a sovereign state. The settlers wanted to name it Deseret. The government determined the amount of territory, named it Utah, and created a territory in 1850.
I'm not sure what book you are reading, but I would sure like to know. It would make for an interesting history lesson. Please share...
Prior to the establishment of Utah Territory, in the absence of other authority, the provisional government of Deseret became the de facto government of the Great Basin. Three sessions of the General Assembly, abicameral state legislature, were held. In 1850, the legislature appointed judges and established a criminal code. Taxes were established on property and liquor, and gambling was outlawed. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was incorporated and a militia, based on the Nauvoo Legion, was formed.
The legislature initially formed six counties, which covered only inhabited valleys. These "valley counties" initially encompassed only a small portion of the area of Deseret and were expanded as settlement grew.[4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Deseret
And . . . . ?
Perhaps it's a good idea to read the entire article from the Wikipedia Textbook of United States History before clipping and posting only a portion of it.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Public+Lands
The idea that battles over "appropriated" and "unappropriated" lands is somehow only a western phenomenon is incorrect. Take a look at pages 421 et al from a text on history of Virginia. It appears that they were arguing over public lands well into the 1800's.
https://books.google.com/books?id=fXcRAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA421&lpg=PA421&dq=def...
Now the question still remains. Is the Bishop/Chafetz bottle of snakeoil good for the people of the United States or not?
Oh, now I get it, EC. You're a 19th century Mormon. Whatever you do is "legal" outside the government of the United States. Yes, the Mormons, fleeing persecution, established "order" on Salt Lake. So did the gold miners in California, for that matter. But such "order" was never recognized by the federal government, especially the "incorporation" of the Mormon Church as the official church of Deseret, to say nothing of polygyny. Mind you, there are times when I think that polygyny is a great idea, but that, too, Mormon men were forced to forfeit before the federal government would grant Utah statehood.
As I used to remind my students, the frontier was a very tough place. But never so tough that people lost sight of the advantages of U.S. citizenship. Most pioneers couldn't wait to advance to territorial status, allowing them a delegate in Congress to plead their case. They then couldn't wait for statehood, allowing them two senators and at least one vote in the House. Why was that so important? Because the federal government had all of the money for public works. The territories didn't have the tax base--or the early states. But the collective power of the federal government did.
When people in the West say they "did it all," history lets out a hoot. Did what? Occupy the land, yes, and break it with a plow. Clear the trees where necessary; fight the Indians. It was hard and dangerous work, to be sure. But the larger purpose was to achieve exactly what the settler had left behind, only ths time hopefully to come out on top of the process of acquiring better lands and riches. In the end, that required enormous assistance--military protection, forts, roads, the telegraph, the railroad, and all of the rest of the internal improvements we take for granted. So when Utah says it deserves our public lands, I remind Utah of the facts. We made you as much as you made yourselves. Don't get snippy with us. This civilization is not only about your rights. We have a few rights, too, among them the right to enjoy Utah's beauty--our national beauty--free of private ownership. Conversely, the people of Utah have the same right in every other state that is blessed with public lands.
It does indeed come down to beauty, since the best resources are already gone. The pioneers got them years ago--and the railroads, and the miners, and the corporations, and all the rest. Do you think that people in the nineteenth century were so stupid they did not homestead the best lands first? And the corporations? Dummy entry was all about getting the best lands. Uncle Sam got all the rest.
Relax, Utah, and enjoy the ride. You are part of the USA, and my gosh, I can now even buy a drink at Zion Lodge! However, they still tell me I have to order food within an hour or be in violation of the liquor code. That's okay. Daisy Hobbs and her crew do a wonderful job. Yes, isn't it great to have public lands?
From today's online issue of Salt Lake Tribune:
http://www.sltrib.com/news/3473580-155/utah-could-win-public-lands-lawsuit
Some lawyers are going to rake in a few million tax dollars as a gift from Utah's Republican Socialist Party.
Just remember, that whatever your position may be on this issue, there's an old and accurate saying: "Ask two lawyers a question and you'll get three opinions."
Time will tell . . . . .
The battle continues on Utah's Capitol Hill.
From this morning's Deseret News:
http://www.deseretnews.com/user/comments/865646445/14-million-price-tag-...
The argument is a major stretch, I wouldn't waster my dollars on it. But I sure would like to learn more about this Republican Socialist Party. Could you provide a link to their website, Lee?
This cartoon from today's Salt Lake Tribune pretty well sums it up:
http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/3477371-155/bagley-cartoon-taking-the-rube...
This from an article in the Tribune:
"Boise • The BLM allotments Western ranchers use are not really public land, but rather grazing reserves to which ranchers hold a "property right" that the federal government has no authority to infringe.
That's the lesson being taught Saturday at a property rights forum in Idaho organized by Utah activists sympathetic to the militants who have occupied an Oregon wildlife refuge for most of January."
Thank you Lee, a very sad sad of affairs.
Pure fantasy - if in fact that is what is being taught.
I hope that Traveler and other similar publications will help get this information to our fellow Americans who live in eastern states. My family members back there -- say they had never heard of any of this stuff. It would be interesting to hear from some eastern Traveler readers. What do you guys think? These are your lands, too.
Attending one of these meetings is a VERY interesting experience. Many of the participants are packing weaponry of all kinds and the rhetoric is beyond belief.
Lee, very troubling, here in California it has yet to come that. It is not that I oppose people speaking their piece, presenting their views, but the hostility and weapons permitted at these meetings, if that is the case, is very alarming. As a former Army Training officer preparing troops for Vietnam and a commissioned NPS Ranger for 34 years, I have no problem with responsible gun ownership. However this open carry, no holds bared approach is heading us all for real trouble in my view.
For anyone still interested, an op-ed from this morning's Salt Lake Tribune:
http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/3468472-155/op-ed-public-lands-initiative-...
Crazy. These politico's from utah are delusional, and to think that any land can be designated wilderness with cattle grazing in a FREAKING DESERT is just pure stupidity. Lee, I've lived in both the west and east, and when I lived in the deserts of the great basin, it baffled my mind that cows were given such a free range and that the political environments of places like Utah, Wyoming, Idaho and Montana were basically ran by the cattle cartels to whre you couldn't say much against this system, because it was so embedded. Idaho's political system in general is laughable, just like Utah's. But when bills like this pop up, it does irk me that they want to erode the envrionment for non-native species like Cattle. Bison didn't even exist in southeastern Utah, but here's the cluelessness of mankind thinking that they are going to sustain an industry that is destroying the landscape and eventually will make it unsuitable for centuries. Half of Utah is already a wasteland thanks to cattle. When Utah has a drought that lasts more than a few years, what's the first thing you see? Dried out cow carcasses all over the landscape. In all my years that i've lived in the East, i've never seen anything remotely like that, and there are about 3x more cattle in the east than in the west where moisture is a lot more abundant.. It's absolute stupidity, but what's to be expected when basically the society was formed by renegade outcasts that had to settle the most inhospitable region of this country, because they had nowhere else to go. And honestly, what else is a person to do in those areas? There's not enough water to create factories, and vast industries, so I guess that's the best most of them can do. Seems like the only way to make a living in southern Utah is either through cattle ranch, drilling for Uranium, or fixing mountain bikes.
While I consider southern Utah one of the most beautiful and scenic areas in the country, the influence from the Salt Lake cult is too much of a constant threat.
Best way to change it, is to skip beef on the dinner plate.
I like beef, and grass fed is much healthier for you than corn fed. Having a steak tonight.
Pages