Western lawmakers gather in Utah to talk federal land takeover

[7962]

Source: Salt Lake Tribune

It’s time for Western states to take control of federal lands within their borders, lawmakers and county commissioners from Western states said at Utah’s Capitol on Friday.
>>>
"It’s simply time," said Rep. Ken Ivory, R-West Jordan, who organized the Legislative Summit on the Transfer for Public Lands along with Montana state Sen. Jennifer Fielder. "The urgency is now."

Utah House Speaker Becky Lockhart, R-Provo, was flanked by a dozen participants, including her counterparts from Idaho and Montana, during a press conference after the daylong closed-door summit. U.S. Sen. Mike Lee addressed the group over lunch, Ivory said. New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Wyoming, Oregon and Washington also were represented.

The summit was in the works before this month’s tense standoff between Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and the Bureau of Land Management over cattle grazing, Lockhart said.

Read more: http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/57836973-90/utah-lands-lawmakers-federal.html.csp

[Historic NY]

1. They want the land to develop not preserve...

timber, oil fields, mining, sell off to the highest bidder. The Federal Government acquire the lands long before these parcel became states by war, treaty or device. The states, then territories wavied their rights to any and all claims to the lands.

[Loudly]

3. A kind of reverse eminent domain in the making?

[former9thward]

9. You have written an alternative history.

The states never waived their rights "to any and all claims." The federal government does not have these lands to preserve. The federal government sells or leases them off to the highest bidder to timber, oil and mining interests.

[Historic NY]

10. Well Nevada wasn't a state when the land was bought..

In 1848 after the Mexican-American War the United States bought most of Nevada for $15 million dollars from Mexico. Nevada was't admitted to statehood until Oct 1864.

Nevada Constitution

Third. that the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare, that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States; and that lands belonging to citizens of the United States, residing without the said state, shall never be taxed higher than the land belonging to the residents thereof; and that no taxes shall be imposed by said state on lands or property therein belonging to, or which may hereafter be purchased by, the United States, unless otherwise provided by the congress of the United States.

http://www.onlinenevada.org/articles/nevada-statehood

http://www.leg.state.nv.us/const/nvconst.html


How did Nevada differ in the Amount of Lands Acquired from the Federal Public Lands?

Upon admission states were given two sections of public land in each township for schools. Nevada, however, did not want those scattered "desert" lands. Instead Nevada petitioned Congress to trade those sections for 1 million acres of land anywhere in the state. Congress ultimately granted Nevada a choice of any 2 million acres of unappropriated lands. Nevada selected 2 million acres of the best land (near or with water) and promptly sold all of it to private uses. (Source Sierra Club)


And yes the Federal Goverment (US) (us) does sells some and lease the land as they own it.

[maggies farm]

29. I support returning ALL federal lands to Native Americans while bound to federal environmental laws

"The states never waived their rights "to any and all claims.""

Nor did traditional Native Americans, the beaten and subverted did.

"The federal government does not have these lands to preserve."

True, in part because they have often been pushed and maneuvered by grazing, logging, mining interests

"The federal government sells or leases them off to the highest bidder to timber, oil and mining interests."

Very true. The industrialized west will drive the planet into the ground. That is all of us and not just the government.

The land managers; USFS and BLM now contend with Multiple Use which is extraction (grazing, logging, mining), recreation amenities, and environment. Historically and still today the first priority is exploitation the last priority is environment - primarily the clean water and air act and endangered species.

I support returning ALL federal lands to Native Americans while bound to federal environmental laws (or better).

There is the good, bad, and ugly in this mostly the little man logger or grazer and the big fat cat such is huge open pit mines and extreme logging in the Pacific Northwest as examples.

[happyslug]

42. This was resolved in the Article of Confederation of 1780

Yes, 1780, we were still fighting the British, but it had already been decided by ALL the states then existing, that any lands NOT within those States were be FEDERAL LAND. Every state gave up ALL lands not in the State borders to the Federal Government. It was also agreed that if any state, excluding "Canada" (By which they meant modern Quebec) was admitted, the land NOT yet sold would remain federal owned land.

That was the law from 1780, reaffirmed in the Northwest Ordinance of 1785 and remains the law to this day.

In simple terms, until the Federal Government either sold the land, or gave the land to the State it was located in, it remained Federal Land. This was confirmed in the Homestead act of 1864.

Thus, since no one homesteaded this land under the Homestead act (it was a very dry area of the US, unlike the Great Plains and east), nor made any mining claim under the General Mining Act of 1872, or otherwised purchased the land, it remains Federal Land.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Mining_Act_of_1872

Thus the states NEVER had any RIGHT to this land to waive. It was Federal land BEFORE the US Consitution was passed, and remain so.

[former9thward]

46. The Articles of Confederation does not apply to the West.

The U.S. had no jurisdiction over that area of the world. The federal government has done nothing with this land except lease it or sell it to highest bidder special interests. The land was stolen from the Natives anyway. Are you good with that?

[happyslug]

48. we are talking legal theory

And since the Articles of Confederation, all lands not in the original 13 States (and Texas), excluding land the US agreed to accept as owned by people living in those area (for example Spanish land grants) the land belongs to the Federal Government.

As to Native American claims those were view as superior till the land was gone. Once those rights were gone, then all the land became federal land the States had no rights 3 to those lands. The States only had rights when the land was sold. Since these lands were never sold the states have no rights over the land except those rights the Federal Government have given the state. In this case nothing.

Remember even in the original 13 States a person's interest in real property is derived from the state not the Native Americans who were on the land first. If the state never had the land, the state can not give any rights to the land to anyone. A State can not give what it does not own.

That is the basis of anyone's right to any property. If you own your home it is because the state sold you or someone in the chain of title that land. Outside the original 13 states (and Texas) it was the Federal Government who had first title. The Federal Government was the agent of all of the states and thus it was the Federal Government who had the right to sell all lands outside of the original 13 States (and Texas). Such a sale would have viewed as a sale by whatever state the land was in.

The problem out west was no one purchased the land, thus remains Federal land to this date. For that reason the states have no say over how these lands are to be used. The land is under the sole control of the Federal Government.

[Anansi1171]

53. Fine. Have it your way. Bundy, the Kochs and the resource extractors should be taxed to the Hilt!

It is commonwealth.

Theirs by right because their ancestors lived close by, so there for the taking and their unfettered profit?

Not really. Not in 2014 with 6 billion and rising. Sea levels rising.

[alfredo]

54. How many forest fires would it take to bankrupt a state. How much will it cost the

states to reimburse the federal government for improvements (roads, bridges, dams, campgrounds, visitor centers, trails)?

The Grand Canyon would be very expensive for Arizona.

[former9thward]

55. The federal government makes a huge profit off the Grand Canyon.

AZ would be happy to take it over. Thanks for the suggestion. I guess you didn't know about the fees to visit and the money they make off of hotel and retail leases.

[alfredo]

59. But the Grand Canyon is only one of the many national sites, and one of the profitable ones.

There's a lot of costs associated with upkeep and law enforcement. Will they be willing to pay those costs.

[former9thward]

60. I don't know.

But it will never happen because the federal government would not let a profit center go. Other national sites actually have very little upkeep or law enforcement. At least in AZ. They are just there.

[snappyturtle]

32. Then enter SNPLMA of 1998 or Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act

http://www.doi.gov/oig/reports/upload/2003-I-0065.pdf

Caution: This DOI report was written in 2003, five years after the enactment of SNPLMA. Since then it has garnered mega bucks for the State of Nevada. In response to those here who think we all benefit from the operations of the BLM, this proves that's not always the case. We do, as taxpayers, help fund the DOI hence the BLM in supporting its operating expenses. However, the revenue the BLM generates, under this act, goes to a priviledged few. Currently there is a proposed bill, Tule Springs bill, which is tabled and admonished by Sen. Reid. The amendment referred to in the copy below would direct profits from the land auctions go into the U.S. Treasury rather than staying in the state..


http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/gop-leader-say-nevada-s-tule-springs-bill-has-merit-also-technical-issues

Nevadans said they feared the amendment, which likely would have passed the Republican-controlled committee, would chip away at the state’s lucrative conservation law, the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act.

The 1998 law directs profits from federal land auctions in the valley to be spent on schools, parks, Lake Tahoe preservation and recreation projects in the state. Over the years the sale of more than 15,000 acres has generated more than $3 billion.

But Resources Committee leaders said keeping land receipts within the state now amounts to a violation of the 2010 House ban on earmarks. Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, chairman of the public lands subcommittee, said Wednesday the Horsford bill could be killed on a “point of order” if it reached the House floor as written. More likely, GOP leaders wouldn’t bring it to the floor at all, he said.

Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., said he would withdraw support for the bill, effectively killing it, rather than allow it to pass with language that he said would “gut” the land management act.

ON page 3 of the pdf DOI link SNPLMA:

The attached report presents the results of our review of the Bureau of Land
Management’s (BLM) implementation of the Southern Nevada Public Land Management
Act (SNPLMA). SNPLMA was enacted in 1998 to allow BLM to dispose of public land
in southern Nevada through public auction and to use the receipts for education and
environmental purposes and capital improvements in the State of Nevada. Our objective
was to review certain operational aspects of the SNPLMA Project Office since its
inception, including its management of the land sale program; its efforts to monitor and
preserve BLM’s interest in land transferred to Clark County, Nevada; and its
administration of receipts and disbursements from the special U.S. Treasury account
authorized by SNPLMA.

--------------------------

My point: what's the difference whether public lands are state or federally controlled (managed)? It seems those with the big bucks will win out in either case.

[Fred Sanders]

2. Do they also want an armed militia to take the lands...these fools are playing into the Bundy fool.

And wow, a dozen participants....more impressive than just a handful meeting behind closed doors....big deal only to the wing nuts.

[BlueCaliDem]

4. Correction! Rightwing Fascists emboldened by corporate $$s talk treason and fascism to replace

our democracy and to steal land from American taxpayers in order to benefit the privileged and their corporations. These aren't "lawmakers". These are lawBREAKERS. No wonder people in Utah are staunchly Republican - with propaganda wrapped in a news-package, people naturally believe that tripe like lambs to slaughter.

[CanonRay]

7. +1000

Look closely and I bet you find the Koch bastards behind this "movement"

[Tanuki]

27. Yep, the John Birch Society, co-founded by the Koch's daddy, is all over it

http://www.jbs.org/home/war-on-the-west-why-more-bundy-standoffs-are-coming

[blm]

8. exactly - NWO Republican governors want to hand the lands over to corporate elite

and score themselves some big paydays soon after.

[hobbit709]

5. Want to bet most of them are Kochsuckers?

[ForgoTheConsequence]

17. Chill with the homophobic play on words.

I get what you're trying to say but cock sucker is offensive.

[JJChambers]

21. It's just as mysoginist as homophobic ...

A jury voted 6-1 to keep it.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

22. Maybe I'm thin skinned?

IDK. Maybe I just don't get what is acceptable and what is not.

[JJChambers]

23. Homophobic or mysoginistic insults are not acceptable no matter what. You were right.

[maggies farm]

33. hetero/ homo

Fellatio is not limited to gay/bi males. Many transgender along with heterosexual women enjoy fellatio. Obviously the Koch brothers are outwardly male but we have no idea what body parts is within the underwear or what orientation is in the mind. Cock sucker is not offensive to me. The application might be.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

34. It has traditionally been used as a homophobic or sexist insult.....

used to question someones masculinity or degrade their femininity. I'm glad you're not offended by it, some of us are.

[awoke_in_2003]

49. Let us say that your mother

enjoyed sucking cock. Would you not be offended if I called her a cocksucker?

[maggies farm]

61. Context

I might not be offended at all. It all depends on context and intent. Words should not be banned.

[LanternWaste]

62. No one is calling for a banning of a word. Merely a strong consequence

"Words should not be banned..."

No one is calling for a banning of a word. Merely a strong consequence to the flippant use words more often than not perceived to be grossly unfair far too many minority demographics...

[jwirr]

6. Notice these are all rethugs. This is their new issue to win the western states. Beware.

[Sunlei]

11. That land (and the resources) belongs to ALL Americans. Some are renewable resources, some are not.

I want my Federal Gov. to manage all our public lands!

[packman]

12. Corruption is easier

they more you localize anything, the more corruption you'll have. Take it away from federal hands and turn it over to states so they can do what they want with it is nothing more than making it easier to manipulate land deals. Daresay, the group is drolling to get the counties to get control of the land. Then the local government units.

Hell of a lot easier to get a part of the pie when the pie is cut up into smaller pieces.

[Zorra]

13. These fascists would sell the land to the highest and allow the buyers to destroy it at will. nt

[paleotn]

14. Politicized science....

...is simply science they don't agree with, for the sake of their corporate masters and millionaire, freeloading ranchers. Last time I remember a state trying to grab federal land was Ft. Sumter. Didn't work out to well.

[leftyladyfrommo]

15. There are probably a whole lot of Bundys out there in cattle country.

Utah and the Mormons never wanted to be a part of the US. They went out there so they could live their own way without interference from the federal government. They wanted to live their religion the way they wanted to.
These just feel like that land is theirs. They and their families have been running cattle out there for generations.

It's bound to get ugly.

[TxVietVet]

19. The Mormons wanted their own country or whatever with a leader "mighty and strong".

The US government had to move troops into UTAH to keep things civil. Remember the Mountain Meadows Massacre.

The Mormons say that the land is there because they wanted it and they still think that way. They only believe in a Federal Government that agrees with them.

The BLM manages the US citizens' land. It belongs to all of us. I don't care when some Mormon got there and said it was his. It isn't.
I'd tell them the Native Americans have first choice on the land and the Mormon church pays triple what it's worth.

[Strelnikov_]

25. This has been going on for decades

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagebrush_rebellion

Like a range fire, flares, smolders, flares, smoulders . . .

Usually things start to die down when it becomes clear (again) how much the rural areas of the west depend on the Federal Government.

And, this is really no different than right-wingers everywhere. They want the piece of government that helps them expanded, but all the parts they don't want eliminated.

[zeemike]

16. And that is what this Bundy shit is all about.

The PTB want all the land, and this is the method they use to get it.
Once the states have it they can buy it at fire sale prices by greasing the right palms.

[DallasNE]

18. The Secessionists Are Coming Out Of The Woodwork

Would this Utah lawmaker take over Bryce Canyon, Zion, Capitol Reef and Arches National Parks and open them up to mining and drilling operators. Would the next step be secession? Do they know what they are asking for. I don't see how. They seem to have lost their senses.

[TxVietVet]

20. Lots of Western ranchers USE OUR LAND.

They assume that it's theirs for a few reasons.
1: If they didn't put cattle on the land, it was spoil I guess or just return to nature.
2: They assume since they do use it, it's theirs. I never figured out that part except that it's just basic greed.
3: The ones who whine the most about those lands belong to a religious cult that's has been wanting that land for over 100 years. Tough sh!t, it's ours. ALL OF THE US citizens' property.
4: If given half a chance they would sell out rights to mining companies and rape the land changing the landscape and causing the extermination of many species of plants and animal.

They basically want to get their greedy hands on it and extract whatever they can from the land and not share any of the proceeds to the US government.

Screw 'em.

[Strelnikov_]

24. Sounds great

But here's the deal.

They have to take all of it, not just pick and choose.

Not just that BLM acreage outside of Aspen and Park City . . . the Red Desert of Wyoming, the Missouri Breaks, the Great Basin.

And, no grants from the Federal Government to manage all this land. The cost is to be borne by the individual State's and those that use it, like Bundy.

[Strelnikov_]

26. Oh, yea, forgot . . . huntin' and fishin'

I'm sure access to all those public lands will remain essentially cost-free!!

[Wellstone ruled]

28. I'am glad manny DUers took the time

to really look at the cultural manifestations that are and have been accruing here in the South West. Looking at photos from the SLC so called News Media,appears to be a TeaBillie who's who of Utah and Mormon Polico's. It's election time in the Colonies and they tend to go for the dramatic. This reverse land grab crap is one of the Rethug planks in there party platform and of course anything that will keep non Mormon and LGBT folks away. Before you all go hissy,yes I have no time for these hate filled people. Ten years was enough and way to long a time tolerating the two faced culture of that region. No more,done and it's nice to look inside the Zion Curtain and say OMG,we really screwed up and never again.

[7962]

41. "the zion curtain"?

[defacto7]

56. In the context of the subject of Mormonism.

Zion is what they call everything that is Mormon territory central and Utah is Zion central. Utah and the Mormon controlled areas of the South West would be well suited for the phrase.

[7962]

58. Thanks. Never heard of it before

[Democracyinkind]

30. Screw them!

[lostincalifornia]

31. Excuse me? This is not a debate, and what they are talking about is sedition. Actually, they are

effectively saying that state law supersedes Federal Law, and that is unConstitutional, we had a civil war about it.

No surprise this is coming from that twerp Mike Lee.

If these ignoramuses believe they have a case let them take it to the Supreme Court. Even with the court the way it is, I believe that the majority would vote against this insanity.

[Paladin]

35. Coincidental timing with the Bundy incident? Bullshit. (nt)

[sulphurdunn]

36. I see Stars and Bars

in all of this. These people are traitors. This time around it will be important to see all of them hang.

[Sienna86]

37. ...then it gets sold to the Kochs for oil and fracking

Yeah, right.

[blkmusclmachine]

38. I'm interested in seeing what the WH's "bi-partisan, pragmatic compromise" will be; it does tend to

give everything away to the GOP (and get precious little--or nothing--in return). Maybe the WH can throw in Keystone while it's negotiating (against itself). Or maybe all we'll get is the usual FLUFF--a sternly worded little speech, followed up by nothing but inaction!

[SoapBox]

39. wow...they really do hate America.

Hopefully I'll be long dead when America turns into the Middle East or Eastern Europe.

[freshwest]

44. And I regret becoming a parent. This won't end well. nt

[defacto7]

57. I hear you.

The future doesn't look like the world I wanted my children to face.

[duhneece]

40. Our county has embraced the rw concept of individual property rights

These folks are fighting for cattle ranchers (among others) to 'take back' the land they leased from BLM or the US Forest Service for cattle grazing...sorta like someone who rents a house for a long time and decides that it should be their house.

Our Mission

The PARAGON Foundation provides for education, research and the exchange of ideas in an effort to promote and support Constitutional principles, individual freedoms, private property rights and the continuation of rural customs and culture - all with the intent of celebrating and continuing our Founding Fathers' vision for America.

http://www.paragonfoundation.org/pf-aboutus.html

[JDPriestly]

43. Here is why the land should remain federal property.

The population of California is over 37,253,956.

http://worldpopulationreview.com/states/california-population/

Add up the populations of all the states that attended this meeting: Wyoming, Utah, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Oregon, Washington and Montana. Combined their populations do not equal that of California. It is important that we have federal lands that belong to tall the people and not just those who live in less populated states.

[cyclezealot]

45. Another reason.

Look at who the proponents of this land grab would be. I don't trust them. They are fast buck artists and would crap in their own well, if the payoff was big enough.

[Paladin]

47. +1.

[snappyturtle]

52. I've replied about this before....the BLM and Nevada have jointly robbed the

rest of the U.S. from profits made from the sale of BLM lands largely granted to be sold under the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act (1998). Talk about fast buck artists....right now S.258 is languishing in committee and the Tule Springs bill is effectively tabled to protect this cozy relationship.

[father founding]

50. BS

Of course they will want the federal government to pay for the maintenance of the land.

[JohnnyRingo]

51. Next we'll see Exxon "take over" Yellowstone as their own land.

Maybe it'll be The Tongrass Reserve, the national park set aside by Jimmy Carter, or the The Black Hills area around Mt Rushmore for strip mining.

That is, after all, the ultimate goal of these Western Republicans when they speak of "wresting control" of public lands from the bureaucrats. That land does not belong to the "government", it belongs to we the people, and that's the only thing that keeps corporations from exploiting it. This rancher deal is to set a precedent over who can use our land as they wish for free, and now we all know corporations are just people too.

I wouldn't be surprised if Mike Lee suggests federal ammo subsidies for the beleaguered and patriotic ranchers so they can hold off the rogue government insurgents.

I see right through their motive though.