Community > Advocacy, Agencies, Access

No More Federal Land?

(1/12) > >>

nwmein199:
I have listened to several podcasts recently talk about Utah suing the federal government saying its unconstitutional for the federal government to own any lands besides DC and military installations. The lawsuit only calls for BLM land but the lawsuit says its intended "to address whether the federal government can simply hold unappropriated lands within a State indefinitely". The implications from this are insanely huge. National parks, national monuments, national forests, BLM, any/all federally owned land, all moved moved out from possession of the federal government. These lands may not just be handed over to the the states, they could go to the highest bidder. The wildfires paid for by the federal government each year would bankrupt most states in a single fire season.

There have been 12 states that have signed an amicus briefed siding with the state of Utah: Idaho, Alaska, Wyoming, Arizona, Iowa, Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, & Texas.

States that currently ban target shooting on public lands: California, Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico. Those 4 states currently have 130,000,000 acres of federal land. If this were to go through, you would lose to ability to target shoot on over 130,000,000 acres of public land. You would loose access to camping on 23,500,000 acres in Colorado if this were to go through. You would loose access to camping on 30,000,000 acres in Wyoming.

https://senate.utah.gov/utah-files-landmark-lawsuit-challenging-federal-control-over-most-blm-land/
https://www.themeateater.com/listen/meateater/ep-638-tktktktktk-bradbrooks-davewillms great discussion about this lawsuit with a lawyer
https://www.backcountryhunters.org/hunters_cannot_dismiss_the_magnitude_of_utah_s_public_lands_lawsuit
https://www.hcn.org/articles/why-utah-is-suing-the-u-s-for-control-of-public-land/
The Elk Talk Podcast episode #137: Access to Elk, Complications Abound (2nd half of the podcast explains this lawsuit well)

Naches Sportsman:
It’s going to be an interesting 4 years no matter who a person voted for. At least there’s still checks and balances in the judicial branch.

Federal Lands is a hot topic same with federal land manangement activities around fire. Expect more acres to burn if some of the republican elected officials get their way.

baldopepper:
Have to remember, by mandate, all.state lands must be managed for maximum profit to the state.  I can promise you that in Utah, despite what their govoner says, that would mean privatization of these lands. Either thru sales or leases.  A form of this land grab has been circulating in Utah for many years.  Big land owners in the state are frustrated that they can't grab even more and keep the general public off it. Utahs current govoner seems very willing to help them do it.

CarbonHunter:
This has been an area of contention for as long as land has been deeded. Even if this lawsuit was to succeed it would trigger a massive amount of other lawsuits blocking the ruling on other grounds.

Just imagine how many people could file a claim against a state that took ownership of the land and blocked them from doing what they historically did on the land that was owned by them, the tax payer.

boneaddict:
I believe Trumps mindset was to offload a bunch of it.   He is the one that gave the Bison range back to the Tribe.    I wonder what his son has to say about it as an outdoorsman, but his view isnt likely the same as a common man.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page