We Are Fighting the “Big Boys” For Our Land

What do you do when the “big boys” won’t give you your “stuff”? Do you cave, or fight?
That’s the issue with Utah’s lands and House Bill 148, the “Transfer of Public Lands Act”. The feds have our property and we want it. In 2012, the Utah legislature served notice that on Jan. 1, it intended to take title to, and management of, 31.2 million acres of Utah land that the feds claim—lands presently managed mostly by the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service. We aren’t asking for national parks, congressionally designated wilderness areas, military installations or Indian reservations. When we receive these lands we will make them public, unlike the federal government who is shutting us out.
January 1 has come and gone, and the feds still hold title to the land. The federal government claims 66 percent of Utah, despite its promise to give us our land at statehood, as was done to most other states. We are crying “foul”.
Those who oppose Utah’s move say managing these lands will break our piggy bank. A detailed study by three universities, Utah, Weber State and Utah State, disagrees. This task force considered best to worst case scenarios. It found that the increased revenue to the state from taxes and fees on oil, gas and coal production will cover the state’s land management costs in all but the worst case scenario. In addition, a profit of $100 million to $1 billion yearly will result. If the worst happens, and gas and oil prices do fluctuate, state profits from a renewed timber industry, minerals extraction and grazing, will cover any temporary shortfall.
Opponents say the effort is unreasonable; that we cannot succeed. Why? Other states have done it. In the 1930s, Illinois, Missouri, and several other states united to wrest their commandeered lands from the feds, and Hawaii got federal lands back in 1959. Canada is now returning lands to its provinces, having realized that local control is more economical and effective. Utah has help; eight other states in the same boat have joined us to demand federal fairness. This includes Nevada, 84.5 percent federally owned, where earlier this year Cliven Bundy focused attention on the issue. There is strength in numbers.
Naysayers claim the transition will be too hard. Nonsense; we are equal to the task. We must be wise, but great rewards await success. Ingenuity is our common ethic.
The most odious objection lectures that the federal government rightfully owns public lands and Utah is in a selfish land grab. Unless they are simply uninformed, these advocates believe the federal government is our master and we are its minions, awaiting crumbs of subsistence. In America, “We, the People” are the masters, not the serfs; the land is not the federal government’s, it is ours. The Constitution says states are equal: “The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states”. (Art IV) It also states the federal government can own state lands only with the consent of the state (Art I, sec 8), and Utah did not agree to give up two-thirds of itself. Eastern and mid-western states own most of their land: Connecticut owns 99.6 percent and Nebraska owns 98.3 percent, for instance. Two hundred years of national policy validates Utah’s claim to her lands. There’s been a land grab, all right, but it’s on the other end of the rope pull. Wikipedia preaches falsehood, as well: “The majority of public lands in the United States are held in trust for the American people by the federal government.” That’s warm and fuzzy, unless it’s your property the feds absconded with.
Federal agencies are lousy land managers. They keep people off the land, though commercial and recreational activities thin trees and underbrush and keep the land vigorous. Isolated lands are unhealthy fire hazards every summer. Forest fires are expensive; they destroy wildlife and pollute water supplies. Well-managed lands burn less and cost less to maintain. The state has set wise goals for the land it will manage: create public access and keep the land healthy and productive. Land is for people to use and historically people have used it wisely and well, despite those who grab at exceptions and fear-monger to the contrary.
The federal behemoth won’t willingly comply and we will have to insist, but the gain is worthy of the effort. The possibilities are exciting! When enterprising people have access to land, history proves that wonderful things happen. Freedom and ingenuity are a dynamic duo for prosperity.
Local people best manage local lands. According to the American Lands Council, the tip of the spear in this endeavor, “Control over land is one of the most fundamental rights of the states.” In 2013, the Supreme Court, with Chief Justice John Roberts as voice, made that point, as it reinforced and reiterated a Supreme Court decision from 1911: “…our nation ‘was and is a union of states, equal in power…the constitutional equality of the states is essential to the harmonious operation of the scheme upon which the Republic was organized.’” We deserve to be treated equally with our sister states on this as on any other matter.
January 1 has come and gone and "our federal partner has by inaction shown that it has not intended to work with us in good faith," says Utah State Representative Ken Ivory, who spearheads the movement. Now comes the hard part where we insist. Ivory says our path leads through “education, negotiations, legislation and litigation”. Foes will bewail the costs and predict failure. Your voice is needed. Visit www.americanlandscouncil.org and sign their petition. Get involved, make yourself heard.
WASHINGTON, January 1 (Sputnik) – The December 31 deadline for the US federal government to transfer millions of acres of public land to the State of Utah has come and passed, but the leader of the movement supporting the transfer told the Sputnik news agency he vows to continue pushing for state's rights.
told Sputnik. "So from this point forward we will continue to secure our same rights that were granted to all states east of Colorado through ," he added.
At issue is 35 million acres, or about two-thirds of Utah's land, that is controlled by the federal government under agreement when Utah became a state.
Ivory, who is also the president of the American Lands Council that advocates for the return of public lands to Western states, has led the campaign in Utah, sponsoring the Transfer of Public Lands Act that passed the Utah state legislature requiring the federal government to transfer the land to Utah by December 31, 2014.
Ivory and those advocating for the return of public lands argue the language granting Western states statehood is word for word the same as many other states east of Colorado, where much of the federal public lands were given back to the states.
"Why are you treating us unequally?" Ivory and the public land movement ask of the federal government.

Pamela's new Ebook, "Promises of the Constitution:"    Go to:

http://smile.amazon.com/Promises-Constitution-Yesterday-Today-Tomorrow-ebook/dp/B00LEWCS4E/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1410824095&sr=1-1&keywords=promises+of+the+constitution 

Nevada’s Cattle: The Rest of the Story

I was in a meeting last night with Sheriff Richard Mack and heard the rest of the story on the Cliven Bundy matter in Nevada. The Bundys are the last of 53 ranchers that lived and ranched that area with their cattle—the others have all been driven off by the federal government. The stsory was difficult to hear.

Sheriff Mack was 20 minutes away from ground zero, stopped still in freeway traffic that was at a halt because of the incident. As he fretted, he received a call from a 15 year veteran of the sheriff’s office at the Bundy scene, who told him: “They are going to kill us. Tell my wife I love her.”

Sheriff Mack jumped the traffic line and took to the shoulder of the road behind emergency vehicles, including an ambulance, headed to the scene. When he arrived, the BLM (Bureau of Land Management) officers had left, without the incident having erupted. He relates the story as it was told to him.

The men and women with the Bundys were unarmed. The BLM and its SWAT team, with weapons, trained marksmen and military vehicles, had erected two corrals at the scene: one for the cattle, and one for humans—anyone who wanted to speak out in the expected conflict. A sign marked the second corral: “First amendment speech area”, and anyone who spoke without being put in the corral first would be arrested.

Note that this is a gross violation of constitutional rights—to deny a citizen the right to speak, under any circumstances. To herd that individual into a corral before some government official gives him permission to speak and threatens arrest if he speaks outside the corral is unbelievable. We are human beings, not cattle! No citizen of the United States should be treated that way!

 

The situation was unimaginably tense. Sheriff Mack later asked a reporter present at the scene if he really believed the BLM would fire on them. His reply:” We had no doubt.” At what was surely the last moment, a reporter called out, “You will be on film and remembered forever for shooting these innocent people!”

Nevada sheriff’s deputy Tom Roberts then stepped between BLM troops and the unarmed civilians and said to the federal officers: ”You are better than this.” The deputy then turned to Bundy and said, “What do you want us to do?” Bundy asked the federal officers to take 10 steps back, to cool the situation down. Roberts turned to the SWAT team and said, “It’s time for you to leave.” They did.

A lot of things jump out to the reader of this story. First, why does the BLM need a SWAT team and protective vehicles? Only to go to war with America’s citizens, and only if wrenching their rightful property from them.

Second, how many other people has this happened to? Stories rage across the country from other states, where the BLM has turned militant and is committing felonies against Americans over their private property.

Third, note the power of one man. One journalist had the sense and wits to show the federal troops the infamy that waited them. One other man, Deputy Tom Roberts, had the courage to intervene. Without either man, we might have Nevada and possibly the entire West might now be engaged in a war with federal troops.

Make no mistake: the federal government is in the wrong here. Cliven Bundy refused to pay federal land use fees because those fees were illegal. He paid the state costs—those were constitutional. Bundy took a stand against tyranny, just as did the Tea Party patriots more than two hundred and fifty years ago. He has set a pattern for us: peaceful but determined resistance to federal larceny.

Last, what a travesty! Our federal government has turned to stealing property, treating Americans like animals, and threatening to murder innocent citizens to get their land. What has America come to?!

Nevada’s Cattle and the Federal Government

Get it Right: Nevada’s cattle and the federal government

5

Cliven Bundy’s Nevada cattle are part of a crisis that unites western lands, the county sheriff and a governor’s power to nullify federal abuse.
These three issues have grown into a standoff with national implications.
At issue is the question, who owns the land — the federal government, or the people who form the government?

If the federal government owns America, Bundy is an obstinate, stubborn trespasser. If the people own America, they have the right to use it. No federal bureaucracy should own 84 percent of Nevada, or any other state.
America’s Northwest Ordinance of 1787 set the policy that all states entering the Union came in under the same terms. Land within a newly admitted state would be sold to those who then became its residents. Minimal federal lands for postal roads, arsenals and such were purchased from each state.
The vast majority of a state’s land would be privately owned under state administration.
Eastern states were admitted under this policy. It was ignored for western states, the poor stepsisters of the American Union. The federal government refused to sell western lands, and held vast portions of it, which were rich with natural resources. This was unethical and illegal. The federal government now unlawfully owns 35 percent of the United States, mostly in the West.
Though this illegality occurred well over a century ago, time has not rendered it less illegal. Impervious to its misconduct, the federal bully now runs states and individuals off the land it dishonestly withheld from them.

Cliven Bundy knows this history. For two decades he has grazed cattle on “federal” lands that should be state owned. He has refused to pay what he terms illegal federal grazing fees.
The issue has become explosive.
Another problem ricochets through this incendiary conflict: that of environmentalists and the endangered desert tortoise.
Bundy’s grazing areas are near, but not on, the desert tortoise’s designated natural habitat. In a process known as “sue and settle,” attorney Judson Phillips of the Tea Party Nation explains that environmental groups work quietly with the Environmental Protection Agency to take control of state lands.
They bring a lawsuit, and the EPA mounts a tame defense.
When the environmentalists win, the EPA is justified to launch new regulations that effectively strip the land from state jurisdiction.
These are the “tricks of the trade” to escalate federal authority.
Cliven Bundy and his cattle inhabit both issues — land ownership and EPA excess.
There comes a time when those who uphold the law must stand against those who trespass it. The stand against illegal federal ownership of state lands should have been waged and won more than 100 years ago.
After Ronald Reagan’s election in the early 1980s, the Sagebrush Rebellion lit the West to demand that the feds back off.
Those driving the “rebellion” could better have demanded that the feds move off.
Cliven Bundy may have decided to do just that — move the feds off. There is a western movement building under Rep. Ken Ivory (R-West Jordan) and the Utah-based American Lands Council to give misappropriated lands to their rightful state owners.
If Bundy works peacefully and within the law, he could earn public support.
 Will Bundy have the support and authority of his governor and county sheriff to protect him against the federal bully? Clark County sheriff Doug Gillespie can protect him. Governor Brian Sandoval can stand with him and begin the process to nullify unconstitutional federal authority. Will either accept the challenge?
It is a major step to stand against the federal government. That action would not be easy, swift, cheap, placid, or simple. It is, however, necessary.
The only way to stop a bully is to push back, and stick with it. Without that, the bullying continues and results in more confiscations of state authority and lands.
Someone has to start the ball rolling and stand against unfairness. Cliven Bundy may be that person.
Western states need not be Cinderella step-sisters; they have the rights to their territories, just as do eastern states. Bundy deserves the support of his governor, county sheriff, and Utah, as well.