Leupold BX-4 Rangefinding Binoculars

Outdoor Retailer Show Leaving Utah

It seems from his comments, that Gov Herbert thinks he is speaking for Utah. MK, as a Utah resident and apparently tuned in to recent news, what is your opinion and position on the Utah movement to transfer federal public lands to the State of Utah?
 
Hopefully theywill learn a lesson through this...$45 million in lost revenue is no drop in the bucket
 
Last edited:
Straight Arrow--

The move to state ownership is something I am personally against. The land belongs to all Americans and with state ownership, there's no guarantee lands will stay accessible for all.

An economic report finished in 2015 made arguments that the state could afford to manage and finance the land takeover by collecting 100% of the royalty currently split between the Feds and state. The problem is the price assumptions that were made to fund state management. They are high for both current oil and natural gas prices, and there is no back up if those royalties don't cover costs--even if more wells are added.

This said, rural Utah has a point about economic development. There are 12 "red rock" counties (my count) that are clearly rural and have not shared in the bounty that Utah has reaped economically in the past 35 or so years and especially in the past five to seven. Rural counties median age goes up, population goes down, school funding deteriorates with reduced tax base, and we as a state have done a terrible job of finding gainful and diverse employment for these areas. I love the $12 billion tourism brings to our state, and that money is unequally distributed. We exist in two states--urban and rural. One wealthy, one not. Our state has to do a better job of economic development for these areas--and tourism is not the simple nor singular answer. Transferring all the land to the state won't grow these rural economies. There has to be multiple solutions.
 
Last edited:
I'm glad to see this because the republicans who keep pushing their PLT agenda understand nothing but $$$. That's a lot of money they just lost for the state.
 
mkmatheson said:
Straight Arrow--

The move to state ownership is something I am personally against. The land belongs to all Americans and with state ownership, there's no guarantee lands will stay accessible for all.

An economic report finished in 2015 made arguments that the state could afford to manage and finance the land takeover by collecting 100% of the royalty currently split between the Feds and state. The problem is the price assumptions that were made to fund state management. They are high for both current oil and natural gas prices, and there is no back up if those royalties don't cover costs--even if more wells are added.

This said, rural Utah has a point about economic development. There are 12 "red rock" counties (my count) that are clearly rural and have not shared in the bounty that Utah has reaped economically in the past 35 or so years and especially in the past five to seven. Rural counties median age goes up, population goes down, school funding deteriorates with reduced tax base, and we as a state have done a terrible job of finding gainful and diverse employment for these areas. I love the $12 billion tourism brings to our state, and that money is unequally distributed. We exist in two states--urban and rural. One wealthy, one not. Our state has to do a better job of economic development for these areas--and tourism is not the simple nor singular answer. Transferring all the land to the state won't grow these rural economies. There has to be multiple solutions.
Click to expand...

Very well stated.
 
mkmatheson said:
Straight Arrow--

This said, rural Utah has a point about economic development. There are 12 "red rock" counties (my count) that are clearly rural and have not shared in the bounty that Utah has reaped economically in the past 35 or so years and especially in the past five to seven. Rural counties median age goes up, population goes down, school funding deteriorates with reduced tax base, and we as a state have done a terrible job of finding gainful and diverse employment for these areas. I love the $12 billion tourism brings to our state, and that money is unequally distributed. We exist in two states--urban and rural. One wealthy, one not. Our state has to do a better job of economic development for these areas--and tourism is not the simple nor singular answer. Transferring all the land to the state won't grow these rural economies. There has to be multiple solutions.
Click to expand...

I agree, and that's, like, every state. It's not like rural delta AR is killing it. I mean, a few large landowners are doing well growing row crops but everyone else is poor. The tax base has dried up and schools are having a hard time. Sounds familiar right?

There's no panacea. Mechanisation has taken a lot of jobs and tech will take more. I don't know what the answer is but politicians are trying to convince us they can fix it. PLT is the panacea of choice in the west.
 
mkmatheson, I do appreciate your view and can agree. To support your contention I offer the following regarding the economics of PLT.

FALLACY: EXPLOITATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES WILL PROVIDE NECESSARY REVENUE TO MANAGE STATE PUBLIC LANDS.
The Utah University system completed a fiscal analysis of financial impacts of the transfer of federal public lands to the State of Utah. The conclusion was that after the initial huge financial burden on Utah’s revenues, eventually natural resource exploitation, particularly extraction of fossil fuels, could potentially provide adequate revenues, but estimated with some uncertainty, based on the then relatively high fossil fuel prices. The paramount priority would be on fossil fuel extraction, with multiple use becoming almost negligible. Current fossil fuel prices would significantly reduce that revenue to a management deficit. Even with best case scenario, long-term fiscal sustainment is not possible.
 
Straight Arrow said:
mkmatheson, I do appreciate your view and can agree. To support your contention I offer the following regarding the economics of PLT.

FALLACY: EXPLOITATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES WILL PROVIDE NECESSARY REVENUE TO MANAGE STATE PUBLIC LANDS.
The Utah University system completed a fiscal analysis of financial impacts of the transfer of federal public lands to the State of Utah. The conclusion was that after the initial huge financial burden on Utah’s revenues, eventually natural resource exploitation, particularly extraction of fossil fuels, could potentially provide adequate revenues, but estimated with some uncertainty, based on the then relatively high fossil fuel prices. The paramount priority would be on fossil fuel extraction, with multiple use becoming almost negligible. Current fossil fuel prices would significantly reduce that revenue to a management deficit. Even with best case scenario, long-term fiscal sustainment is not possible.
Click to expand...

Ive heard about this analysis and would like to check it out. It was done by USU correct? Do you know where I can find a link to it or get a copy?
 
It appears Utah lost far more than they thought. Apparently the Outdoor industry had a letter of intent to expand the twice a year show to 5 times a year. The interbike show was also considering to move to Utah which would have brought an impact of $22 million a year itself. All that Utah delegation had to do was back off on Bears Ears and the transfer. Apparently that meeting didn't go well and they were essentially told to take a hike in a bad way. Right after that meeting they tore up the letter of intent and decided they would depart from Utah. Utah just gave up about half a billion dollars over their ridiculous and stupid interest in remaining in the drill only economy and turning away from a diversification of economy. One things for sure, whatever state gets this show is gonna be greatly appreciative of it. Go ahead Utahns, keep voting for these same crooks not listening to you and screwing you.

http://www.sltrib.com/home/4955606-...by-drill-rhetoric-philosophy-costs-all?page=2
 
Thanks for update, Oneye. Utah now up to a $1B loss in the next six years from one group.

I think the absurdity of losing this convention is the fact that rattling swords in this case is tilting at windmills. That is, trying to transfer lands to state ownership is not, repeat, not a panacea for the growth of rural Utah. Or other rural places as noted above.

A billion dollar loss.

Below is the link to open the massive report. It's on the right side of the opening page. It's about 750 pages and was very well done.

http://archive.unews.utah.edu/news_...of-transferring-federal-public-land-to-state/
 
Last edited:
Thank you very much for saying so. I consider myself lucky to have had him in my life growing up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

O
Utah CD2 special election (Chris Stewart’s district)
Replies
2
Views
461
Aperventure
A
perma
Swarovski NL Pure - a glasser’s dream
Replies
14
Views
1K
noharleyyet
noharleyyet
RyGuy
This is a good place
Replies
0
Views
334
RyGuy
RyGuy
Ben Lamb
Stoking the fire
4 5 6
Replies
101
Views
3K
NEWHunter
NEWHunter
Visiting Hunter
Il show you mine. Even if you dont show me yours.
Replies
0
Views
309
Visiting Hunter
Visiting Hunter
Gastro Gnome - Eat Better Wherever

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
111,093
Messages
1,946,554
Members
35,021
Latest member
Higbee

Share this page

Back
Top