UTAH FILES SUIT AGAINST FED’S TO GAIN CONTROL OF LAND

[TGK]

The state of Utah is suing the Federal Government to take control of 18.5 milllion acres of public (primarily BLM) land. This represents half of the federal land holdings in Utah. The comments below are from Ride Apart link, a site that is primarily focused on motorcycles and riding. 2nd link is from AP.

Utah Wants to Seize Public Land You Use to Camp and Ride, Likely to Sell to Big Oil

Utah lawsuit seeks state control over vast areas of federal land

Utah’s Republican leaders launched a legal challenge aimed at wresting control from the U.S. government over much of the federal lands that dominate the state.

apnews.com

From the link;

"There's a long history of states attempting to seize control of public lands going back to the time when public lands first were enshrined. But few do so with such wanton disregard to the people's right to public land as Utah. Between the countless BS development projects the state has tried to push through the legislature and onto the public, to land seizures and sell-offs, and more. This all occurs in the background while the state touts its awesome public lands so everyone comes and visits."

"Utah probably has the most two-faced relationship with its public lands out of all the Western states."

"The latest is a lawsuit aimed straight at the United States Supreme Court, where it's suing the federal government—specifically the Bureau of Land Management—for control of over 18.5 million acres of federally protected public land. It's the latest in a long string of attempts by the state to enact control over its borders, which doesn't sound all too unreasonable until you look at the history of how it used this before and then immediately sold those lands off to oil and gas companies, developers, and other extractive industries to the detriment of the public. Public to private in all about ten seconds flat."

"This case has the potential of essentially dismantling the entirety of BLM-protected land, as it targets the category of "unappropriated" public land. According to Utah's lawsuit, that means it serves no purpose. Except, we're talking about the federal government and its bureaucracy. No purpose doesn't mean it's not used. The feds just haven't gotten around to properly classifying it yet, which could take hundreds of years given the paperwork involved and how Congress can't seem to get their **** in order.”

 

[Casa Escarlata Robles Too]

What don't they get about PUBLIC LANDS?
The acreage was put aside for our use hence public land.
End of soapbox.
Frank

 

[goinoregon]

hmmmm. well the courts are getting people in place that actually support this type of thing. never dreamed we would have to worry about it here in the usa.

 

[TGK]

This brings to mind current Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch (among others) whose mother was Anne Burford, head of the EPA under Reagan from ’81 - 83. She ultimately stepped down following accusation of withholding EPA superfund toxic waste $$ to aid a California politican’s campaign. Neil, who was 15 at the time, resented the fact that she stepped down, as she didn’t do anything wrong. No doubt we don’t need to guess how he’d vote on this lawsuit if it ever reaches SCOTUS. Oddly enough, her Burford married name was a result of marrying Colorado rancher and head of the BLM Robert F. Burford in 1983.

From Wikipedia;
"Gorsuch based her administration of the EPA on the New Federalism approach of downsizing federal agencies by delegating their functions and services to the individual states.[5] She believed that the EPA was over-regulating business and that the agency was too large and not cost-effective. During her 22 months as agency head, she cut the budget of the EPA by 22%, reduced the number of cases filed against polluters, relaxed Clean Air Act regulations, and facilitated the spraying of restricted-use pesticides. She cut the total number of agency employees, and hired staff from the industries they were supposed to be regulating.[3]Environmentalists contended that her policies were designed to placate polluters, and accused her of trying to dismantle the agency.[1] It was reported in 1982 that the EPA was disregarding management of toxic landfills, citing costs.[6]

She was a precursor to the Wise Use Movement that sprang up in the late 80’s - 90’s in the western states to return public lands to the states. It’s generational and a deeply rooted ideology that, unfortunately, is closer than ever to being realized depending on the outcome of upcoming elections. Dovetails nicely with Project 2025 and the long held goal of eliminating the EPA, among other federal agencies.

 

[kmacafee]

On a recent trip thru Utah, I saw a few billboards that said (I'm paraphrasing here) - "Shouldn't Utah be in charge of its own land" - or something to that effect.

 

[JHanson]

This is a terrifying suit.If it's successful, the current Arizona legislature would be all over it. If it's successful, the permanent fate of any piece of public land could be decided by a single state administration, however anti-conservation they might be.

 

[Smokecreek1]

SOS-as a retired BLM employee I had to go through this crap-the Sagebrush Rebellion and its variations on a yearly if not more basis for allot of years. I remember being told by our Washington HQ at one time that we should allow ourselves to be arrested when the state of Nevada said they were going to arrest BLM employees who tried to enforce the law of the US-the WO only retracted it when our Law Enforcement refused to go along. The law as written has withstood the challenges of time until now! For years here we have told you to attend those BLM/USFS public land management meetings because if you don't add your two cents, there are those who will try and take them away from you-they are your lands-they don't belong to those few special user groups. Without your input on how those lands are managed-despite the laws-could be in the left up to a few voices. That said, the only way you can really determine their future was then and is now, is to vote!

As TGK says, this challenge, however, has the potential to be very dangerous because of how the political climate today and makeup of the Supreme Court has changed so much in the last few years and it scares me! I know we are not supposed to talk politically here but maybe we should sort of talk round the edges this time because so much is at stake! Things that we usually don't talk about here because we are "apolitical" such as Precedence, of how laws are made and enforced, and about who gets to vote and how they do it are being challenged by a small and very powerful group of very powerful people who could care less about what you or me think about our Public Lands (even worse whether there WILL even be any Public Lands). I'm speaking here of public land issues, although it is obvious these comments could be used to support or not support other issues. And as has been mentioned before-- our only hope to keep our public lands, public is to vote on who will keep those lands public, not on what some political party tells you what to do. Well I'm starting to ramble again sorry-Vote!

Smoke