• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Utah demands land surrendered from Fedgov by Dec 31

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
dphantom said:
not a lawyer so will defer to the lawyers who are filing the lawsuit. Whether they have a winnable case or not will be up to the courts to decide. More importantly, why do you care what the people of Utah choose to do? Or are you a Utahan who opposes your States actions?
Click to expand...

The land belongs to me as much as it does to anyone in Utah and I'd like to keep it, thank you.
 
dphantom said:
not a lawyer so will defer to the lawyers who are filing the lawsuit. Whether they have a winnable case or not will be up to the courts to decide. More importantly, why do you care what the people of Utah choose to do? Or are you a Utahan who opposes your States actions?
Click to expand...

As others have said, it's partly my land. Why does Utah get to steal land from the rest of us?
 
eskimospy said:
Article III of the Utah Constitution:


That means lands not given over to the state of Utah by the federal government when it was formed. Not only is the guy trying to take land that never belonged to Utah, he's attempting to violate Utah's constitution as well.

Lawsuit will be immediately thrown out as frivolous.
Click to expand...

There's actually a dovetail here with the case of Cliven Bundy. Bundy's essential argument for refusing to pay his grazing fees was that the "disclaimer" clause in the Nevada constitution (similar to what you've quoted here for Utah) wasn't valid, and BLM land in Nevada didn't actually belong to the federal government. Of course, Utah certainly seems to think the land isn't theirs, which kind of undermines Bundy's argument about Nevada.

But maybe Nevada can demand similar to Utah's. And once the feds release their holdings there, Nevada can make huge profits collecting all of the past-due grazing fees that Bundy says he doesn't pay because he's refused to sign a contract with the BLM, because it's not their land.

(Of course, I have a feeling that even if BLM land were transferred to Nevada, Bundy would still refuse to pay all of the past-due grazing fees; he would argue that he's never had a grazing contract with Nevada, either, so there's nothing to pay. In other words, if you trespass on someone's property and use their resources, you don't have to pay anything once you're caught, because you never signed a contract promising to pay.)
 
Jaskalas said:
Settle the land, and use State / local police to protect the settlers.
Click to expand...

Yeh, the govt of the people shouldn't have the same rights as private landowners.

There's a place I love to fish in the National Forest. Maybe I should just move in & claim it, tell the rotw to flake off.

Mah proppity! Mah Proppity!
 
Brainonska511 said:
Or it could be that Utah wants to be a freeloader and get free land from the people of the United States. Why don't they offer to buy it from us if they want it so bad?
Click to expand...

Out of curiosity, why did the Federal Gov give eastern and middle states vastly larger percentages of land within their states borders?
 
Darwin333 said:
Out of curiosity, why did the Federal Gov give eastern and middle states vastly larger percentages of land within their states borders?
Click to expand...
They didn't. In fact the eastern states received less land than the western states: two sections per township for the midwestern states vs four sections per township for the western states. These were the "school sections" and were to be used by the states to raise revenue to fund public education and other purposes. The vast majority of the public domain that left federal ownership did so under the various homestead acts, railroad laws, and the mining law and went directly to individuals or corporations and not to the states.

In general, the midwestern states sold off their school lands early on. The western states have slowly sold off school sections as development progressed and land values increased.
 
Last edited:
dphantom said:
no it does not
Click to expand...
Sure it does. As it belongs to you and to all Americans. Under the Constitution, Congress can choose to regulate or dispose of the public domain as it sees fit but until it does so, it belongs to all of us.

Also: Note that the State of Utah does not deny federal ownership of the public domain. Utah claims that the feds have an obligation to dispose of the land and that the feds have violated the Utah Enabling Act by retaining the public domain lands.
 
Last edited:
dphantom said:
no it is not
Click to expand...

So if the USAF parks a squadron of F-16s in Utah, does that mean Utah has more of a claim to those F-16s than any one else in the US? The federal government owns the land. The federal government is owned by all citizens of the US, therefore the land is community property of all US citizens, regardless of where it resides.
 
Zorba said:
The federal government owns the land. The federal government is owned by all citizens of the US, therefore the land is community property of all US citizens, regardless of where it resides.
Click to expand...

You believe you own and I own federal land?

So we should be able to enter any federal land any time we want?

You should try that sometimes and see what happens.
 
lozina said:
You believe you own and I own federal land?

So we should be able to enter any federal land any time we want?

You should try that sometimes and see what happens.
Click to expand...
You can enter any public domain land that has not been reserved or specifically closed (military reservations, Indian reservations, active mines, dams, Dept. of Energy reservations, national parks, etc.) at any time you would like. There's almost 440 millions acre of it between the Forest Service and BLM; knock yourself out.

If you choose to not accept that these are your lands then they are as good as gone to you. They are your lands, enjoy them.

Here in Arizona, state trust lands are closed to all access w/o a permit or hunting license. The State rarely enforces this statue but legally they are closed. Utah allows recreational use on its state trust lands. In Colorado they were closed to all public access w/o permit. Overall, the feds have a better history of keeping public lands public than do the states have with state lands.
 
Last edited:
IronWing said:
You can enter any public domain land that has not been reserved or specifically closed (military reservations, Indian reservations, active mines, dams, Dept. of Energy reservations, national parks, etc.) at any time you would like. There's almost 440 millions acre of it between the Forest Service and BLM; knock yourself out.

If you choose to not accept that these are your lands then they are as good as gone to you. They are your lands, enjoy them.
Click to expand...

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.
 
dphantom said:
no it does not
Click to expand...

Wrong it is.

This is my land too:

Zion_angels_landing_view.jpg


This is Zion National Park, this is one of the lands Utah wants to seize and sell for lumbering and private development. They want to destroy public land.
 
lozina said:
You believe you own and I own federal land?

So we should be able to enter any federal land any time we want?

You should try that sometimes and see what happens.
Click to expand...

Considering I've been all over federal land in at least 20 states including Utah, yes I really do think federal land is owned by all Americans, subject to some restrictions. Outside of National Parks almost all federal ground is free to enter, camp, fish, etc. National Parks charge to pay for the services provided to the visitors and to pay for protection of the park.

I hike about 1000 miles a year. I'd say about 75% of it is on Federal Land, 20% on city land, 4.8% on state land and 0.2% on private property. Basically anything longer than 5 miles is on federal land, private land is generally just a few hundred yards to get to the federal land. State trails of any length or significance generally dump off into federal land pretty quick to.

feralkid said:
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.
Click to expand...

Even in the limited national forest land in Oklahoma, there are a ton of trails, with easy access, free camping. Last year we had a pretty bad ice storm, a few month later I called the rangers and got a full trail report. The state parks pretty much have no trails and the ones they do have are barely maintained.

You can also get a permit to cut trees, hunt, etc on federal land. Doubt you could do that on Georgia-Pacific's "forest." Hell I was ready something the other day that everyone in Oklahoma could go harvest a Christmas tree for themselves for free.
 
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.
 
Oh yay! Yet another land grab disguised as states or individual rights. If the state of Utah wants the land, they should make an offer to buy it.
 
IronWing said:
You can enter any public domain land that has not been reserved or specifically closed (military reservations, Indian reservations, active mines, dams, Dept. of Energy reservations, national parks, etc.) at any time you would like. There's almost 440 millions acre of it between the Forest Service and BLM; knock yourself out.

If you choose to not accept that these are your lands then they are as good as gone to you. They are your lands, enjoy them.

Here in Arizona, state trust lands are closed to all access w/o a permit or hunting license. The State rarely enforces this statue but legally they are closed. Utah allows recreational use on its state trust lands. In Colorado they were closed to all public access w/o permit. Overall, the feds have a better history of keeping public lands public than do the states have with state lands.
Click to expand...

WTF - Why are you guys lying?

Various federal statutes prohibit trespasses upon federal lands, such as national parks[v], national forest lands[vi], Native American and public land[vii], and federally regulated facilities, such as nuclear power installations[viii]. - See more at: http://trespass.uslegal.com/criminal-liability/#sthash.qxIDctEl.dpuf
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top