What's new
By:
Filters

Got an E-mail from BRC: Utah Claiming FLPMA Unconstitutional…

FleshEater

FleshEater

Ordinary Average Guy
Joined
May 21, 2020
Member Number
832
Messages
3,634
Loc
Pennsylvania
Anybody else read their last email (if you’re a member and signed up for news)? Cliffs are that Utah is fighting the federal government and the case is going right to the supreme court.

I don’t know what to think about this as there’s no clear end game from Utah’s perspective, whether it would remain public and state controlled or become private. But it could permanently change the west as we know it.

 
Yep

Could be a ground swell issue.
Or it gets swept under the rug...
 
That's not good. Utah wants to force the feds to give up all federal land? How? Do they auction it off? Does it go to the states? Do they give it away?

I any case, it fucks anyone who uses or lives adjacent to public lands as it could suddenly become private property. It opens all BLM land to development.
 
BDK said:
That's not good. Utah wants to force the feds to give up all federal land? How? Do they auction it off? Does it go to the states? Do they give it away?

I any case, it fucks anyone who uses or lives adjacent to public lands as it could suddenly become private property. It opens all BLM land to development.
Click to expand...
Sounds like a direct response to the massive "monument" grabs.

Bummer to start with just blm land, that leaves a whole lot under fed control, guess I'm curious who/what owns the rest.

It'd be nice if the state could manage it in a reasonable way. They wouldn't auction it, they'd retain it
 
What right does the state government have to that land over the federal government? Should it all be private land?

This seems like it could end up way worse for people who enjoy the use of public lands.
 
What I would find interesting… For nothing but my own amusement… if the federal government has to give the land back to the state, and the state then sells the land to the Mormon (LDS) church.

And I don’t know why I would find that amusing, but for some reason I would.
 
Your scenario might be amusing, but any Supreme Court decision relating to public lands will not only apply to Utah. My adoptive state of Arizona is almost 50% federal land, including most of the mountain range my property abuts on 2.5 sides. That would really suck for me and everyone else who builds abutting BLM land because of all the open space.

What about grazing rights? If there is a change in ownership of most public lands, doesn't that basically kill the western ranchers who have been here since before there were states?

A neighbor who ranches in the canyon to the south owns all the springs on the east side of the entire mountain range. His family has been ranching here for well over 100 years. Would he be forced to purchase all the land he uses for grazing? Maybe the feds just deed it all to him, then he goes broke the first time property taxes are due?

Utah is being very short sighted filing this case.
 
BDK said:
Your scenario might be amusing, but any Supreme Court decision relating to public lands will not only apply to Utah. My adoptive state of Arizona is almost 50% federal land, including most of the mountain range my property abuts on 2.5 sides. That would really suck for me and everyone else who builds abutting BLM land because of all the open space.

What about grazing rights? If there is a change in ownership of most public lands, doesn't that basically kill the western ranchers who have been here since before there were states?

A neighbor who ranches in the canyon to the south owns all the springs on the east side of the entire mountain range. His family has been ranching here for well over 100 years. Would he be forced to purchase all the land he uses for grazing? Maybe the feds just deed it all to him, then he goes broke the first time property taxes are due?

Utah is being very short sighted filing this case.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry if it negatively effects someone who is benefiting from land they don’t own.

But I go back to “On what legitimate grounds does the federal government have rights to the land?

I mean it runs counter to the whole principle of having states”
 
Most of that land was purchased by the federal government from other countries. It's primary use is for the citizens of the government. I think that would establish ownership.
 
I very much enjoy the public lands of the west for off roading. Even if the majority of it isn’t hard, it gives us a way to take in hundreds of miles of views in a week or two.

Coming from a state with majority state owned public land, I can tell you that unless you like hiking, it sucks. The reason we don’t have more motorized outdoor areas is simply “erosion” and they use this constantly and always have, always will.
 
BDK said:
What right does the state government have to that land over the federal government? Should it all be private land?

This seems like it could end up way worse for people who enjoy the use of public lands.
Click to expand...
Or people will get the state to have state lands that are decent.

Why does use need to change because fed vs state? It'd be up to the state.
 
Provience said:
Or people will get the state to have state lands that are decent.

Why does use need to change because fed vs state? It'd be up to the state.
Click to expand...

It would be up to the state. No matter who has it we risk losing access to it. Lobbyists and deep pockets pretty much dictate everything.

Voting in decent reps is about the only hope on a state by state basis.
 
grumpy356 said:
I love how people’s view of socialism so swiftly changes when they get some benefit. Even if the benefit is nothing more than a hobby area.
Click to expand...

Government is almost never better…but when it comes to large spans of land being dedicated for public use, it’s better than the alternative. Could end up like Texas, or any state in the east with more privately owned land than anything public. Or highly restricted.

Either way, this could be the end of some public land access down the line.
 
grumpy356 said:
On what legitimate grounds does the federal government have rights to the land?

I mean it runs counter to the whole principle of having states.
Click to expand...
Well the Fed either bought it as part of a purchase agreement with another nation or conquered it with military force. Then sold or granted parcels that then developed into enough population to form states. So what jurisdiction do the states have over land that was never sold?
 
Eh, uh . . . . . I don think the State of California should be managing anything. Oil leases on Fed land and ya have to think this a little way past the hell yeah.
 
I guess you gotta live in Utah to understand this. People who have lived here their whole lives see the fed grab getting worse every year. Now the blm is in the process of reevaluating all or most roads . They want to close huge sections of off-road dirt roads. They are hostile to cattle grazing on fed land. And if you haven’t paid attention. They are in the process…piece by piece, making more monuments, etc. that lock up tens of thousands of acres. Places you aren’t going to see unless you backpack in. The state has no intention of selling off land. They just want control to put the people who live here to have a say. Not some democrat from California or an Eastern state that hasn’t even been here, let alone tried to make a living in a small rural Utah town. We have relatives that live in marysvail and junction. Look em up on a map. Their kids all have to move away because they can’t make a living there. There is a big mining company drilling exploratory holes between those two towns. Wife’s 93 year old uncle worked in a hard rock mine where they are drilling. The assays are pretty much filled with rich ore. We were there for their town celebration on the 24th of July. The guy in charge of the drilling has become great friends with the family and is employing many of their kids. He said just to get the permits and be able to begin mining it will take fifteen to twenty years. Read government red tape. The state would like to use some of the resources we have to benefit our people. All federal land brings in no revenue. The state just wants to be able to generate some income from the resources we have. Don’t read that as rape the land tear it all up.

Okay, flame away.:flipoff2:
 
rockdog57 said:
I guess you gotta live in Utah to understand this. People who have lived here their whole lives see the fed grab getting worse every year. Now the blm is in the process of reevaluating all or most roads . They want to close huge sections of off-road dirt roads. They are hostile to cattle grazing on fed land. And if you haven’t paid attention. They are in the process…piece by piece, making more monuments, etc. that lock up tens of thousands of acres. Places you aren’t going to see unless you backpack in. The state has no intention of selling off land. They just want control to put the people who live here to have a say. Not some democrat from California or an Eastern state that hasn’t even been here, let alone tried to make a living in a small rural Utah town. We have relatives that live in marysvail and junction. Look em up on a map. Their kids all have to move away because they can’t make a living there. There is a big mining company drilling exploratory holes between those two towns. Wife’s 93 year old uncle worked in a hard rock mine where they are drilling. The assays are pretty much filled with rich ore. We were there for their town celebration on the 24th of July. The guy in charge of the drilling has become great friends with the family and is employing many of their kids. He said just to get the permits and be able to begin mining it will take fifteen to twenty years. Read government red tape. The state would like to use some of the resources we have to benefit our people. All federal land brings in no revenue. The state just wants to be able to generate some income from the resources we have. Don’t read that as rape the land tear it all up.

Okay, flame away.:flipoff2:
Click to expand...

We all know about the massive closure that BLM just did. So you’re definitely on point. Guess it would just be less worrisome if Utah state defined a clear path moving forward with their intentions concerning the land.
 
Splib said:
Eh, uh . . . . . I don think the State of California should be managing anything. Oil leases on Fed land and ya have to think this a little way past the hell yeah.
Click to expand...

State of CA manages a bunch of land. Let's see just how fucked up CA could be if they actually could do with the rest.

Just maybe state politics would be more relevant to more people
 
FleshEater said:
We all know about the massive closure that BLM just did. So you’re definitely on point. Guess it would just be less worrisome if Utah state defined a clear path moving forward with their intentions concerning the land.
Click to expand...
The feds are already mismanaged the land due to wild political swings the past 20 years....how could the state be any worse :confused:
 
BDK said:
That's not good. Utah wants to force the feds to give up all federal land? How? Do they auction it off? Does it go to the states? Do they give it away?

I any case, it fucks anyone who uses or lives adjacent to public lands as it could suddenly become private property. It opens all BLM land to development.
Click to expand...

I understand that people enjoy national parks and BLM land, but to me the idea of the federal government being an all-powerful mega-state is incompatible with every single principle this republic was based on.

The feds should only control DC.
 
State,fed,doesn't matter. They have both proven to be completely corrupted with every decision they make favoring lobbyists and not the citizens that own the land.
Gotta cut the head off the snake if you want to fix the problem.
 
Provience said:
The feds are proving that.

Like I said earlier, this is 100% a response to federal expansion of closures
Click to expand...

Totally understand. But my fear is that the state won’t be any better.

Look at it like this. Where do the majority of western states’s votes, o voter influence, come from? Cities. So concerning Utah, Salt Lake residents will sway the vote, and if not with voting power then money. Special interest investors will corrupt the state just like the fed.

But my biggest concern is still the vote. Utah has 75 reps. If they start sneaking these public land changes into unimportant elections will the residents outside of SLC get out and vote? Will they know about it?

What about Wyoming? Cheyenne and Jackson will sway their reps ideas of what’s best for the state.

How about Colorado? It’s filled with yuppie Californians.

No matter how I see it, we’re going to be fighting just as hard to keep public land public, no matter who it’s against.
 
FleshEater said:
Totally understand. But my fear is that the state won’t be any better.
Click to expand...
Even if the state isn't better it's much easier to influence them to not do bad shit than to not do bad shit than it is to exert the same pressure on the feds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Back Refresh