It can be reasonably stated — and anyone would be hard-pressed to disagree — that on Sept. 12, 2001, there were no Republicans or Democrats in the United States. In the wake of the worst attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor, the only people you could find in this country were Americans, united in our grief and our resolve to defend not only our country but every single person in it.
While from a historical perspective that unity was somewhat short-lived, it was poignant and something to be remembered. Sometimes, as Americans, we need to set aside lesser differences and keep our eye on the ball together. Our enemies do.
Fifteen years later, America has a new common enemy. But uniting us on that front will be much more difficult than in the wake of an attack, because it is being meticulously carried out by measured and calculated individuals who wish to keep us divided on the matter for the purpose of their success.
There are some individuals who guise themselves as Constitutionalists. But they are in fact proverbial wolves in sheep’s clothing who, if successful in their plans to transfer federally managed lands to individual states’ control, will set into motion an irreversible devastation on our country.
First, it is important to clear something up. While the terminology in the public lands battle varies from “take back” the lands to “transfer control” of the lands, neither has any legal ground whatsoever. The Constitution does not state that the government is under any compunction to comply with these demands, and the legislators and lobbyists who propose so know it.
In fact, as a condition for entering the union, ten states have disclaimed all legal rights and titles to unappropriated public lands. And at least two of the ten, Nevada and Utah, have it in their state constitutions. The other states are Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Oregon, Washington, and Wyoming.
So why, for instance, is Utah mounting a taxpayer-funded $14 million lawsuit to transfer control of the land? Is it because it, like the embroiled and possibly justifiably angry ranchers, needs someone to fight the big government bad guys and “defend freedom?”
Sincere and heartfelt empathy for that iconic group of Americans who are in the twilight years of their relevance notwithstanding … ranchers, you are being used. Used to ratchet up the emotion and embolden a cause that, if successful, will leave you even worse off than you are now.
Want to know how that might be true? Just look at what western states have historically done with the “trust lands” awarded to them by the federal government in exchange for relinquishing claims to public property. The lands are by and large utilized for extraction industries, logging, mining, and real estate development.
To be clear, that is what the trust land is for. But there is no indication that the legislators who wish to push this land war are telling ranchers — or any of us, for that matter — that their mandate is to maximize profit. The only way to do that is to sell to the highest bidders, and ranchers simply won’t be at that auction. None of us will.
Ken Ivory, the former executive director of the Americans Lands Council and Republican member of the Utah House of Representatives, recently left his post at the ALC to take his public-lands message to an even larger national audience with the South Carolina-based group Federalism in Action. It’s a group, mind you, that is affiliated with extreme right-winged agendas and organizations funded by the Koch brothers.
The bills and litigation the likes of what Ivory pushes literally have not a chance of succeeding in federal court, but perhaps that is not their intent. Remember that “keep your eye on the ball” thing? Their intent is to rally support in Congress where a majority vote for a proposal — like the one from Sen. Mike Lee that would have, in essence, gutted the Antiquities Act — could aptly be a huge victory for their greedy plan.
Are you following here? The state of Utah is waging a frivolous $14 million lawsuit that it knows it has no chance of winning in the name of something it touts as in the best interest of the public when, in fact, the real agenda is to rally support from its misinformed constituency. It’s called a successful loss, and this is because $14 million is a small price to pay to keep a Republican majority in Utah, one that will be led blindly into the trap of taking over the land, only to see it sold off to extraction companies that will yield trillions for themselves and their bought-and-paid-for politicians.
Who most wants control of these lands? Commodities exploiters.
And if they succeed, the use of these lands that are guaranteed and protected for all Americans will be available to less of them and at a prohibitively higher cost to them than it has ever been under federal management.
The people waging this land war have their eye on the ball for sure. They’re hoping we don’t.
Think about it.
See you out there.
You’ve nailed it, Dallas!
Perception is reality and Ivory and his ilk are hoping we perceive “taking back our land” to be in our best interest. It’s not. I was born on the east coast but grew up in Nevada where I was free to spend my youth roaming the vast areas of federal land seldom broken by a fence. Federal lands already belong to us meaning there’s nothing to take back. We will all be the poorer should ALC and Federalism in Action have their way.
A major concern is that if Utah gains control of Federal lands public access to those lands will wither away as they are sold or leased. I trust the Feds very little and the pols in SLC even less. I wonder if Ivory and fellow travelers really believe we will get the lands back? They may be content in making money selling snake oil. What’s the old saw that if you can’t sell the steak then sell the sizzle?
You have failed to address our citizens’ very real concerns. Citizens have no voice in the federal government — there is no accountability — these federal government officials are not elected by the people and, therefore, proceed in the interests of their lobbyists and special interest groups and themselves with impunity.
Nice piece. You should also go find the IREHR report about Ivory and ALC getting cozy with racist anti-Native American groups.
If the Feds could manage the land for the good of the whole rather than the few (I.e. Environmentalists) I think this matter would be less of an issue. As it is people on your side of the fence forget what these cattle ranchers are doing. First they do not own the land they own a lease on the grass and forage that grows. Second they do not and cannot keep you off of the land. (Hence the please close gates signs you see when your driving around on the range). Third the cattle they graze are the breeding stock that keeps the cows coming that you all enjoy when you buy a steak or a burger. Fourth without open range our price of beef would sky rocket as all these ranchers would have to corral all these cows and feed them purchased hay. (Where this to happen the price of everything we eat would go up as hay would be so valuable farmers would stop growing other crops to grow hay). Fifth the environmentalist want to rally for free range chickens cage free eggs and the like but won’t support the ranchers who attempt to do so.
This fight is less about cattle and more about our freedom. My right to enjoy the land that you do but in the ways I find enjoyable. A ranchers right to make a living in a way that has been done for years.
Don’t be fooled by the rally from either political side every politician has something to gain from the fight they side on.
The good of the whole? Poll after poll shows that the vast majority of Americans want our public lands kept and protected for all. The minority here are the welfare ranchers, who produce less than 5% of the beef you speak about, and do it only with massive subsidies from the rest of America’s citizens. Unaccountable government? Often, but not to the cattle industry – they get their goverent support in spades and whine about having to comply with minimal protections. They are renters who just can’t stand that their landlord asks that they not trash the place.
Well said D The BLM has closed so many trails and roads that we are NOT free to travel on public lands. They do not take care of the lands as they tout they do.
The ranchers bring water to the range which not only waters their cattle but wildlife also. The Feds tell you they are fighting for the people to keep public lands but in reality they are closing it off to the public. The FEDS are the environmentalist and most of your new young Fish and Game, BLM, Forestry, agents or officers are environmentalist and many come from back east and have no clue how things are here in the west. They have the attitude that we are not capable of being stewards of our own lands, that only they can.
Please provide a legitimate source or link for your ridiculous claim that the price of beef would skyrocket without open range. Edward Abbey painted a much different picture of cowboys and their Federally subsidized “welfare ranches” in a speech he gave more than thirty years ago. http://www.angelfire.com/mi/smilinks/environment.html
When will you anti-government people realize that the internet and social media make it really easy to prove when you people are distorting the facts. Lying and cheating are too easy to prove now.
Actually the do not lease the grass. Just like water rights or mineral rights, grass rights were sold to ranchers as a result of the Taylor Grazing Act. The OWN the actual grazing rights forage. The “lease payments” (as repeatedly pointed out by this group) began as management fees for the government to help manage.
If you really believe the federal government was never required to return lands to the state, then explain why there is so little federally controlled lands in the eastern states? Explain why, until TR was president, there was not a single acre east of the Mississippi River falling outside the uses listed under Article I, Section 8, clause 17 (Which are the ONLY uses for which the federal government may control land within a state, and must not only be PURCHASED, but also APPROVED by the legislature in which the land lies.)
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42346.pdf
Fantastic article! And right on Greg ! Both nailed it in my opinion.
Oh geeze . . You must be from California or back East. Great read if you want a great laugh. . . I live on the Grand Staircase National Monument here in Southern Utah and I can’t even cut wood from a dead tree to heat my house???? I have to drive an hour away to get wood when it’s rotting away 50 yards from my back porch.
All you have to do is go to the monument office in Escalante and get a permit to cut firewood on the mtn. 20 mins. away……no sympathy here. We do it every year……really satisfying way not to spend $140. a cord to keep our house warm.
@Hunt
You don’t live on the GSENM but in a adjacent town. As a inholder since day one it is a small price to pay to go up to Boulder mountain for wood.
Robert W
Dallas, Thanks for writing this piece. The idea that these folks call themselves Constitutionalists drives me absolutely crazy. There should be some sort of reckoning for those pushing these untruths about the US Constitution from Glenn Beck, KrisAnne Hall and the Koch brothers to Zeldon Nelson who sells those Cleon Skousen annotated Constitutions and the Ken Ivory crowd. And whether or not the end game here is to bully Congress into ceding these lands or force them to greatly reduce federal environmental regulations it all boils down to the extractive industries wanting to steal or ruin lands owned and paid for by all of us. Of the extractive bunch the ranchers portray the most sympathetic characters because of America’s romantic image of the cowboy and this idea that ranchers are promulgating that their children should be cowboys too, but the Taylor Grazing Act was promulgated because the ranchers were ruining public land and it was adjusted by the Federal Lands Policy and Management Act in 1976 to continue that control and carve some much needed space for the rest of us on federal public lands. A full third of the public range is over-grazed even though we have doubled the amount of lands available to leases but that is not surprising when you have ranchers such as Cliven Bundy with 14 children who blame the federal government because their children cannot be public lands ranchers too–my sense is the true blame lives somewhat south of that big silver belt buckle.
Very thoughtful article which deserves better answers than some posted. There is a misperception that removing grazing stock from public lands will suddenly turn them into pristine gardens of Eden…never happen in this ecosystem. There are numerous examples of properly grazed areas having more beneficial biomass and less noxious weeds and decadent grasses than ungrazed areas. Responsible stock producers understand cyclic changes in plant materials and if they over utilize grazing areas they hurt themselves as well. Environmental stewardship awards have been given to ranchers in excess of 30 years. A developer or an extractor with a bulldozer can do more damage in one day than all the cows since the beginning of time. Less than 10% (actually can vary) may come from subject grazing areas but when our ecosystem is overlayed with other regions and ecosystems, the intermountain produced cattle play a vital niche role in providing a consistent flow of uniform product and not upsetting the price structure. These so called “welfare ranchers” have costs many times their grazing fees associated with using public lands. Every dollar generated by beef production creates $5-7 in other economic activity (primarily employment, tax base, local support services) which benefit schools, infrastructure, and general fund. Take away livestock production and you you will be faced with replacing grazing fees along with millions of value added dollars to communities. And, at the same time, you will have done nothing to improve the resources. States will never wrest control of BLM lands from federal government and, at some level, stock producers will always access these lands…its a matter of basic bioeconomics. Instead of wasting our money on frivolous no win law suits, we do need to form genuine coalitions of stakeholders. But, that will never happen until the sophomoric name calling and finger pointing ceases.
Thank you for an objective and balanced comment.
I’m so sick of the reactionary “us vs them” mentality and language, which seems to dominate current politics and media. My grandfather was a rancher all his life; my mother, an environmentalist and political activist. Sure they argued on some details, but no-one knew, or cared for the lands, like Grandpa; and Mama was the first person to defend much of what he did and what he stood for. Indeed, on most issues they agreed, even worked together for some projects — when they did argue, they tried to understand and respect each other’s opinions and lifestyles.
You know what? That’s what the real world is about. Life is not a black and white, multiple-choice test with only 1 correct answer. We live in a world full of colors, hues and values, which evolves and changes before our eyes. The solutions of yesterday are not always the best path forward, but often powerful choices are found in a review of history.
Our ability to explore options, talk, adapt and collaborate, are some of our greatest strengths. Frankly, it it the times when we step out of our comfort zones, which yield our best opportunities for growth.
Pag,
I would like to speak to you about your grandfather and mother. Civil discourse has all but faded from the lexicon of American debate, having been reduced to in comprehensive sound bites and reality show feuds on matters of real consequence to all of us. It sounds like your family had an understanding of how to actively and constructively engage one another and likely others around them as well. You can email me at dallashyland@gmail.com if you like.
Dallas Hyland
Senior Writer/Columnist/Photo Editor
Southern Utah Independent
Great article tells it like it is! Majority of the commenters get it. As for the minority; the whining WF ranchers, get a grip and have some pride. If you can’t feed your stinking cattle don’t expect me to do it. I don’t eat beef, it’s full of antibiotics and growth hormones and GMO grain. As for the claim that ranchers provide water for wildlife?? I have seen it with my own eyes how they fenced off water from the wild horses, who have a helluva lot more right to it then the domestic livestock.
I live surrounded by a grazing allotment. The cattle have overgrazed the grasses so now ‘predator, noxious’ weeds have taken their place. BLM & the US Forest lean toward the ranchers but it is the environmentalists who fight for a sustainable forest and wild lands.
Thank You. This is one of the most comprehensive, inclusive pieces that I have read about this issue. Unfortunately as taxpayers we are funding both sides of this argument. It would be great if this article could reach a much larger audience and people could put their party leanings and self interests on the back burner long enough to get this. Thank you for sharing.
Correction: The article misstates that only Nevada and Utah relinquished any claim to public lands at the time of statehood. In fact, all western states included this Constitutional disclaimer language, “forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within the boundaries thereof.”