Utah’s participation in the proper management of its lands and resources is very limited today, because nearly two-thirds of our state’s land is controlled by the federal government, which has imposed its agenda on western states and dictates local land management. Slowly but surely, the national government has lost its ability to effectively manage the West in a way that assures access and balanced management; let alone the sustainability of western communities. Simply put, as our national government becomes more cumbersome and increasingly gridlocked in bureaucracy, it can no longer properly care for the vast spaces, resources, and unique ecosystems in the West.
Utah has a strong conservation ethic and heritage, and cares deeply about its mountain, forest, and desert landscapes. Utahns intuitively know the value of these natural lands and resources. That’s why virtually all Utahns agree that our State’s world-class recreational and scenic attractions, and rich energy, mineral and other natural resources require cooperative, proactive management, for the benefit of all interests. That’s also why the majority of its citizens recognize that Utah should be the rightful administrator and the political entity best suited to manage its public lands. A balanced approach to public lands management in Utah, which protects our beautiful lands and encourages vibrant outdoor recreation and responsible energy development, is the best approach for all interests.
Federal control and management of public lands probably worked reasonably well, back when Western areas of our young nation lacked leadership and a sense of community. More recently in Utah and other Western States, however, growing numbers of residents have come to understand that they can do better by working together in their own communities, economies and ecosystems, than as part of a centralized, national government structure. Re-thinking public land management in Utah will allow the state to maintain vibrant, healthy landscapes, and find the best management practices to enhance or restore areas that have suffered under a process-heavy federal bureaucracy.
We believe the effort launched earlier this year in Utah represents a balanced approach. Our approach is based on the conviction that development and environmental stewardship are synergistic and not mutually exclusive. Governor Herbert signed HB148, the Public Lands Transfer Act, in an earnest and timely effort to generate cooperative, constructive dialogue with the federal government about gaining more say in how Utah’s public lands are managed.
Utah’s public lands effort is based on a commitment to facilitating a balanced, federal-state win-win situation. Despite the media myths to the contrary, there is no multi-million-dollar lawsuit to take over all federal lands in Utah. Rather, Utah is investing the time, resources and effort required by the scope of such a Legislative decision surrounding State control of public lands within its borders. These lands were originally intended, but never transferred to Utah or any other western state, by founding and subsequent leaders in our federal government.
The emerging efforts by western states for greater self-determination and responsibility for the lands within their borders represent an important paradigm shift in public land management. As westerners continue to move away from a top-down, Washington-led land management regime, it is important that the new models of public land management are based on a local, collaborative-based approach. I believe Utah is leading the way with a balanced approach that recognizes some key lands should remain under federal control while giving the state authority over lands more suitably managed at the local level.



Utah does not control 43% of the state. If you combine all state and private land, you come out somewhere closer to 30%. There's this thing called Google. Learn it. Live it. Love it.
Peter Cooke supports the effort to realign lands in Utah. If you don't believe me. Ask him. He merely disagrees on tactics. And just because he is misinformed about the 5% argument, doesn't mean he's wrong on the broader point, which is that Utah is at a disadvantage due to the massive amounts of federal land within the state.
And to the ringleader: Lt. Gov. Bell writes that "there is no multi-million-dollar lawsuit to take over all federal lands in Utah" probably because there is no multi-million dollar lawsuit to take over all federal lands. He wrote that because it is true. Yes, there are RS2477 lawsuits, but they are completely separate and distinct from the so-called "Herbert land grab." They are not an attempt to "take over all federal lands in Utah," but rather, a surgical attempt to retain ownership of roads that legally belong to counties. There is a big difference. If you're looking for someone who is trying to blur lines and confuse people, look no further than SUWA.
Maybe you didn't get the chance to read the essay, but what the state is proposing is to rebalance the amount of federal control and allow for greater state responsibility over some lands within the state's boundaries.
The state, fortunately, recognizes that some lands can and should stay in federal control, but that doesn't mean that all lands should.
If you actually learn about the Governor's proposal instead of attacking strawmen from the late 1970's, you might realize that the state is going about this in a pretty balanced fashion.
Secondly, Utah has 43% of the land inside of its boundaries to do what it wants with. The win-win would be to make these lands world-class properties. Are Utah's state parks models for the rest of the world?
I'm a US taxpayer and I want US taxpayer lands managed for the benefit of all of us, not just for the benefit of those who happen to be fortunate enough to live nearby.
They're our lands and we should all be involved in enjoying them, taking care of them, and participating in management decisions.
Candidate for Utah Governor Peter Cooke said in a radio interview that Utah would only be able to benefit from 5% of the revenues from the land, and that there would be around $2 billion in costs involved in assuming control. In addition, i am in no way convinced that the Utah legislature has any ability whatsoever to manage these lands in a responsible manner so that they remain pristine for the enjoyment and benefit of future generations. There is not enough long-term thinking involved in Utah politics today.
And the cost of these lawsuits? Surely they will be in the "multi-millions" of dollars, as San Juan County and the state of Utah have already spent more than a million dollars losing their battle to disrupt the ability of the National Park Service to manage off road vehicle use in Salt Creek in Canyonlands National Park. The Herbert administration is willing to argue their intention of opening up these federal lands to off-road vehicle use in front of a judge in federal court; the question is, why do they feel the need to obfuscate that same intention in the court of public opinion?
Mathew Gross
Media Director
Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance