Written by Greta Hyland
Let’s explore this idea of government overreach over public lands that has become such a cash cow for Utah politicians. First, it is a ruse to gain political clout, and the constituents who buy it are being duped; but the dividends pay so well that the politicians won’t let it go anytime soon. Second, this Sagebrush crusade is unconstitutional. Utah politicians do not have the facts, the law or the constitution on their side.
They claim that the government has no right to own land. According to the constitution, it does. It is in the Property Clause, which judges have stated is “without limit.” That means Congress has unlimited power to own and use public land as they see fit.
They claim that under the equal footing doctrine, they should be given the land back. Yet, the equal footing doctrine (and enabling act in the state constitution) means the states would have equal constitutional footing with other states, not equal economic footing, which is what the states are bitterly complaining about: Money.
They claim the government hasn’t given any land back, but it has, and lots of it. Right now, Utah has 3.3 million acres of land in trust from the government that they can use for development. In fact, when Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument was designated, the land the federal government gave Utah in exchange was some of the most profitable land (oil, gas and coal potential) the state owns. So profitable, in fact, that Governor Herbert has allocated the first $1 million earned from this land each year to go into a legal fund to sue that same government. Does that seem unethical to you, or is it just me?
Furthermore, the legislative council has stated that what Utah is doing is unconstitutional, and the state has virtually no chance at winning.
So while we all may be able to laugh off Bundy, he represents the prevailing mentality held by politicians in Utah. Why are they doing this? Maybe for money. The State Institutional Trust Lands Administration actually runs like a business, and charges market value prices.
For example, the going rate for grazing on state land is between $16 and $20. If Bundy was grazing on state land, he would pay up to 16 times what he pays on federal lands. SITLA, aside from making money, does exactly what the BLM does.
So while politicians are carefully supporting social deviants like Bundy and Lyman in their rally against the government, what are they going to do when Utah citizens cease to recognize their authority? What will they do when regular citizens follow their leaders and start breaking laws they don’t like? Will Utah leaders accept responsibility for setting the stage for such lawlessness? I suppose it depends where you fall politically, as we saw with environmentalist Tim DeChristopher that the penalties for upsetting an oil and gas auction are stiff.
But why didn’t they rally behind him? The reason is that they don’t want to have to consider environmental science, concerns or ethics, and they sure as hell don’t want to deal with tree-hugging environmentalists who think they are above the law. Double standard? You bet, but it’s a mentality steeped in history.
When the Federal Land Policy and Management Act was passed in 1976, along with a host of other environmental laws, it ended federal disposal of land and left all remaining land in federal ownership.
Funny enough, the beginning of the end was the Taylor Grazing Act, instituted by Congress at the behest of western ranchers. But what happened in the 1970s is that a whole new segment of the population started to have interest in the land too. Suddenly, rural people, along with local and state politicians, had to consider the rights and interests of others. In other words, they had to share, and they didn’t like it.
Ranchers and their representatives sought to stifle the effects of the 1970s federal legislation increasing environmental restrictions on, and competition for, the use of the public lands, and are still doing it to this day. That’s what it boils down to. In 1955, pundit Bernard DeVoto summed it up as “home rule,” which means basically that they want federal help without federal regulation.
Utah sure doesn’t want to lose its federal protections or funding, but it doesn’t want to be held to any rules or laws either. It’s commonly said as, “I want my cake and I want to eat it too.” If this mentality were played out in an individual, you would find them repugnant. And it is repugnant.
What Lyman wants to do is the equivalent of scribbling all over a masterpiece without being held accountable for ruining a piece of art. Like Bundy and a host of other renegades before him, he thinks that his wishes supersede everyone else’s, that his desire to ride an OHV through a canyon closed to OHV use is more important than anything or anyone else. It is an arrogant, elitist and selfish mentality that is rampant in this state.
Hell, it’s rampant in Washington County, as the biggest government overreach cheerleader, Sen. Mike Lee, has let go of his natural resource advisor, Victor Iverson, to come and run for the county commission. Is this who we want handling our lands and working with the BLM? Not just no, but hell no!
It’s time to call this behavior out for what it is: Illegal buffoonery.What’s worse, it puts BLM employees on the front line of local vigilantism. These people should be arrested and charged to the fullest extent of the law.
Furthermore, if Utah politicians are going to continue supporting a mentality that does not recognize the federal government, perhaps the government should withhold federal dollars until they do. Utah, it appears, needs the same reality check that Bundy does.
RELATED STORIES
