Utah demands land surrendered from Fedgov by Dec 31

[bshole]

WTF - Why are you guys lying?

Good christ, you ACTUALLY believe that federal lands are closed off to citizens? Federal Parks kick mother fucking ass and are the absolute JEWEL of America. Why do you want to ruin the one unmitigated successful thing the federal government does?

 

[IronWing]

WTF - Why are you guys lying?

Trespass has many meanings. In the context of a national forest a trespass would be building a road, a house, digging a mine, commercial logging in a national forest without authorization or going into an area of a national forest specifically closed to public access for some purpose. Simply going onto national forest lands is not a trespass unless the area is closed for a specific purpose. The Forest Service has traditionally been extremely reluctant to close areas of the forests and when it does so, the closures are usually of very short duration. The most common reason is a forest fire is burning in an area. The last significant wide scale closures I can recall were during the 2002 fire season when the Forest Service closed all the forests in Arizona as all available firefighters were engaged in fighting fires and the Forest Service simply could not handle any additional fires. That year the BLM followed suit and closed the BLM public lands in Arizona as well. As soon as the rains came, the lands were re-opened.

Long term closures are used around facilities such as active mines and radio towers to prevent accidents and theft and around Forest Service housing to provide privacy to residents.

 

[hal2kilo]

National Forest land is particularly accessible in states like Arizona due to the abundance of mining/lumber roads and the mild climate allows for pretty easy travel upon them.

You can camp for free and the Feds will even give you a map.

Quite a nice feeling being camped on the edge of the North Rim of the Grand Canyon with a fire ring and an already cleared tent pad.

Right round the corner from me is one of the entrances to state school land which uses the proceeds from logging to pay for school funding (doesn't come close to making a dent in the budget but I digress).

Miles of trails all over the Green and Gold Mountains (large hills by western states standards). You now have to pay to park at the parking lots (yearly state pass for all parks $30). It's free if you walk in. Otherwise, it's available to all, and adds to everyones quality of life.

 

[Subyman]

Protecting? Like allowing fracking in National Forests?
http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/u...cle_77293bc8-153f-5153-977f-7181d4125934.html

YES, if the government didn't regulate the land then it wouldn't even be there right now. They are a much better steward of the land than a private corporation would have been. Getting a fracking permit through the government is a barrier that corporations have to go through when applying to do that on federal land. There must be a survey and feasibility study as well as an environmental impact study. Very expensive for the company. If the company could just buy all that land then its much easier to do it on their private property. There are huge protections and barriers for protected land.

Your post is completely pointless.

 

[Jaskalas]

With Federal ownership, could a President like Bush decide to exploit the land and develop it against the wishes of the State?

 

[Subyman]

With Federal ownership, could a President like Bush decide to exploit the land and develop it against the wishes of the State?

They'd have to get congress and the EPA on board.

 

[fskimospy]

With Federal ownership, could a President like Bush decide to exploit the land and develop it against the wishes of the State?

The federal government has the exclusive right to utilize land it owns in whatever way it chooses. If the federal government is acting within its powers on the land the state has no say in the matter whatsoever.

 

[IronWing]

With Federal ownership, could a President like Bush decide to exploit the land and develop it against the wishes of the State?

Under the Constitution, a President would have to go through Congress to significantly alter the way federal lands are managed.

Article IV, Section 3
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

 

[feralkid]

Good christ, you ACTUALLY believe that federal lands are closed off to citizens? Federal Parks kick mother fucking ass and are the absolute JEWEL of America. Why do you want to ruin the one unmitigated successful thing the federal government does?

I'm starting to think he lives in a basement; never allowed to explore the world around him.

 

[zinfamous]

And the fact that the Federal government got the land before those states ever existed. The United States didn't bequeath all its land holdings in the west to the states we carved out of the territories.

this.

 

[zinfamous]

Out of curiosity, why did the Federal Gov give eastern and middle states vastly larger percentages of land within their states borders?

Because those states existed long before there was ever a federal government?

:hmm:

 

[Zorba]

Because those states existed long before there was ever a federal government?

:hmm:

Another point: How many truly great national parks are there east of the Rockies? How about West of Rockies.

Its not that they were no great places in the Eastern US, it is that they were all destroyed by development, this is what states like Utah would like to do with all of this great federal land.

 

[Darwin333]

Damn, California barely owns any of it's land. I gotta agree with the right wing lunatics though, the states should get control over their territory, not the federal govt. This should include provisions to keep protecting certain parks and wetlands that need it when the land is handed over but regardless, state rights should trump the fed in instances like this.

When I first saw the title to this thread I jumped to the same conclusion as you. After reading the thread, I'm not sure. Nothing wrong with a state asking or even suing to get some or all of the Federal lands within its borders. I am still very curious about how the Feds decided to split up what it owned and gave states, like Louisiana was purchased by the feds in the Louisiana Purchase yet the Feds only kept 5.1% of the land versus keeping/owning well over 50% of other states land. Hell, Nevada barely owns any of its land (not that I'd have argued over a bunch of barren desert, a lot of which is now irradiated).

 

[Darwin333]

Because those states existed long before there was ever a federal government?

:hmm:

Louisiana, purchased by the Feds in that little thing called the Louisiana Purchase, owns almost 95% of the land within its borders. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the Federal Government existed at the time of that the Federal Government made that purchase and subsequent splitting up of said purchase into individual states.

:hmm:

 

[lozina]

Trespass has many meanings. In the context of a national forest a trespass would be building a road, a house, digging a mine, commercial logging in a national forest without authorization or going into an area of a national forest specifically closed to public access for some purpose. Simply going onto national forest lands is not a trespass unless the area is closed for a specific purpose. The Forest Service has traditionally been extremely reluctant to close areas of the forests and when it does so, the closures are usually of very short duration. The most common reason is a forest fire is burning in an area. The last significant wide scale closures I can recall were during the 2002 fire season when the Forest Service closed all the forests in Arizona as all available firefighters were engaged in fighting fires and the Forest Service simply could not handle any additional fires. That year the BLM followed suit and closed the BLM public lands in Arizona as well. As soon as the rains came, the lands were re-opened.

Long term closures are used around facilities such as active mines and radio towers to prevent accidents and theft and around Forest Service housing to provide privacy to residents.

Sounds like a wonderful debate to have with the federal officer should he happen to catch you.

Sounds like you trespass on the land and are lucky that they either never see you or they just happen to not care enforcing the trespassing rule.

But if they really wanted to they can hassle you.

 

[lozina]

Another point: How many truly great national parks are there east of the Rockies? How about West of Rockies.

Its not that they were no great places in the Eastern US, it is that they were all destroyed by development, this is what states like Utah would like to do with all of this great federal land.

And who are you to tell the people who live in Utah what they do with the land in their own backyard?

The people in the East who did exploit their lands also happen to be the most prosperous because of that. They enjoy a higher standard of living when there was no one telling them what they can or cannot do with the land around them.

It mostly boils down to a state vs federal issue, where I guess if you love big government you want federal rights to supersede state rights. The rest of it is just control freaks who want to dictate to others how to live their lives.

 

[Darwin333]

The federal government has the exclusive right to utilize land it owns in whatever way it chooses. If the federal government is acting within its powers on the land the state has no say in the matter whatsoever.

States can, and have often, hindered the Feds from activities on Federal land. From tying them up in court to quite literally refusing the use of State owned land to access the Federally owned land.

But for the most part, you are right. The Feds have been screwing Louisiana out of profit sharing on offshore drilling, which has significantly increased the erosion of the barrier islands that used to protect Louisiana from hurricanes while refusing to properly fund any sort of coastal restoration. If the state of Louisiana got the same profit sharing deals that other states, like Utah, got they wouldn't need a dime of Federal money.

Louisiana isn't completely faultless though. Good ole Louisiana politics back in the 40s or 50s played a huge role but I don't see why they should continue getting screwed because of some crap from over 50 years ago.

 

[Darwin333]

And who are you to tell the people who live in Utah what they do with the land in their own backyard?

The people in the East who did exploit their lands also happen to be the most prosperous because of that. They enjoy a higher standard of living when there was no one telling them what they can or cannot do with the land around them.

It mostly boils down to a state vs federal issue, where I guess if you love big government you want federal rights to supersede state rights. The rest of it is just control freaks who want to dictate to others how to live their lives.

How does the State of Utah have "rights" to land it doesn't own? I can't do a damn thing with the land beyond my backyard because my neighbor owns it, should I have rights to it?

 

[bshole]

It mostly boils down to a state vs federal issue, where I guess if you love big government you want federal rights to supersede state rights. The rest of it is just control freaks who want to dictate to others how to live their lives.

No it does not. It comes down to protecting irreplaceable natural wonders from economic predation and ruination from people looking to make a fast buck.

 

[IronWing]

Sounds like a wonderful debate to have with the federal officer should he happen to catch you.

Sounds like you trespass on the land and are lucky that they either never see you or they just happen to not care enforcing the trespassing rule.

But if they really wanted to they can hassle you.

No, you are wrong. The lands are generally open and you are wrong. Get out of the city sometime and learn that you are wrong. You're in New York so here's a national forest in New York:

http://www.fs.usda.gov/fingerlakes

And what does the Forest Service have to say about this forest, on the front webpage?

Whether you are a hiker,cross country skier, camper, fishing or hunting enthusiast, snowmobiler, horseback rider, mountain biker, or wildlife watcher, the Finger Lakes National Forest will amaze you with its scenic beauty

Enjoy.

 

[lozina]

How does the State of Utah have "rights" to land it doesn't own? I can't do a damn thing with the land beyond my backyard because my neighbor owns it, should I have rights to it?

The "ownership" is basically what this whole legal challenge by Utah is all about, and to be settled by the courts.

 

[IronWing]

It mostly boils down to a state vs federal issue, where I guess if you love big government you want federal rights to supersede state rights. The rest of it is just control freaks who want to dictate to others how to live their lives.

The feds invite people to come out and enjoy their (the public's) public lands. Why do you so badly want to feel oppressed?

 

[lozina]

No it does not. It comes down to protecting irreplaceable natural wonders from economic predation and ruination from people looking to make a fast buck.

How far would you take your stance?

Do you also dictate to Brazil what it should do with it's rain forests?

What about let's say years from now we are exploring space and we find a planet where there are the equivalent of stone-aged men. Should we interfere to prevent them from advancing because by doing so they will start "predating" on their natural environment?

edit: you do realize its thanks to someone somewhere sometime who exploited the land to make a fast buck which allowed you to sit in a comfortable modern home sitting there debating stuff on the Internet, dont you?

 

[IronWing]

The "ownership" is basically what this whole legal challenge by Utah is all about, and to be settled by the courts.

No, it isn't. Read the analysis I linked above. The State of Utah fully recognizes federal ownership of the public lands. The State believes that it has a right to compel the feds to sell the lands to private buyers and wants to wrest legal control of the lands from the feds in order to expedite a sell off of the lands with 95% of the proceeds being returned to the feds.

 

[bshole]

How far would you take your stance?

My stance is that the federal government had done a god damn impeccable job of protecting our national jewels so far, it should continue to do so for the next millennia. With regards to other countries and their national treasures, that it their business not ours.

I understand that you want to pillage the natural wonders of America to the benefit of a few billionaires, I just don't support that in any shape or form. America had this debate with the same profiteers in the early 20th century and America won. Go back and read your history. We would have a pillaged wasteland in the west if the federal government had not intervened.