Utah Trip I: A Trip Report

[jbeegoode]

Heading up into Utah, a piece of Arizona near Lake Powell, Zion and Bryce.

http://thefreerangenaturist.org/2016/01/26/utah-trip-i-a-trip-report/
Jbee

[nudewalker]

Spiritual place indeed. And could out do any cathedral ever built. It is a shame that the water level in Lake Powell has fallen so low, perhaps a weather phenomena will add enough rain/snow fall to begin a refilling. Excited to see and read the rest of this Jbee and DF.

[nuduke]

Dang worrying this CA drought.  Any change in the weather likely?
John

[jbeegoode]

The Colorado River water comes from Colorado Rockies mostly and CA drinks it up, mostly wasteful food crops and green lawns. Colorado is getting more snow, but not the record levels of the eighties.

The weather is weird every year since 1989. In Tucson, for example, two or three evenings of freeze per year has happened several times this winter. I didn't sign on for this cold weather!...BUT, it is not another extreme drought. Anyway, Lake Powell is alright...for now.

California just doesn't know how to conserve water...yet.
Jbee

[nuduke]

Yes, Jbee

When we were touring through CA in 2014 (so long ago!) one of the few negative things I experienced in CA and USA generally was the profligate waste and excessive consumption.  For instance there were bowls of cut fruit everywhere in hotels and restaurants we visited, beautiful 1st class fruit that had been grown with irrigation and adding energy consuming chemicals to the soil.  Much of it got left over and presumably chucked out.  Grass was plump and green everywhere presumably having been irrigated constantly.

As we journeyed, there was much talk and demonstration (mostly by the state of the lakes & reservoirs) of the drought.  I remember being extremely disturbed by the apparent lack of concern by everyone from govt to public about it.  The state was seemingly under voluntary water saving measures at that time which seemed mainly to involve everyone ignoring actually doing something about it.  There seems to have been little done on the pubic front except building a giant desalinator at San Diego.  Hope was for a decent snowfall last winter which people seemed to think was logical as a result of statistics alone i.e. a run of poor winter snowfalls must end sometime as it has in previous drought years.  That didn't arrive - it was below average again.  Have the snows this winter reversed a proportion of the drought?

John

[Greenbare Woods]

Politics is going on in Utah.  Two years ago the State of Utah demanded that the US federal government turn over all federal land within its state.  The claim is made that the federal government has no constitutional authority to own land without approval of the State Legislature.  Utah demanded turnover by December 31, 2015.  The Obama regime ignored their demand.

At the end of January 2016, the Governor of Utah has said that he will seize all government land in the State of Utah "within 3 weeks."   It's not clear what may come of that but it is likely to get interesting at National Parks, National Forests, and other BLM lands now claimed by the State of Utah. 

[jbeegoode]

Fueled by the corrupted influence of mining and oil interests. It is a beautiful place, there are hotsprings where they would destroy the landscape. Corporate exploitation that would take these national treasures. There has been quite a bit of information dissemination by the corporate think tanks attempting to create a grass roots movement. For instance, family ranchers with ligitament complaints and needs are being exploited by the huge corporate system which, hide behind them, as if they are the same kind of entity. The factory systems drive the price down for what the family people produce, squeezing them and then grazing fees get blamed as the sole problem, by those that exploit them.

I was impressed by the wonderment of nature there, and the free ranging potential. I'm a naturist, animistic in philisphy and my spirituality gives me a sense akin to a tree-hugger. I quite naturally find myself on the federal side of things, as they are a system not as easily corrupted and exploited as state management. I see the same corruption in my state legislature.

Bob, I've seen your website. There is some very impressive information there. I'm curious, where did you gather that up?
Jbee/ trying to keep as apolitical as I can.

[nuduke]

So, without access to Bobs blog to help me... let me get straight...
States like Utah own some of their land but some is owned by the federal govt?  Yes?
Does this apply to all states and are the federal lands the wild and natural places?
Utah state government wants to repossess the federal land because there is the possibility of it profiting from the sale of some or all of that to commercial interests who will exploit mineral and oil reserves possibly and ruin the natural landscape?
This is likely not to be popular with the state population, if they are even consulted, yes?
How can a state make such unilateral demands ? Is there a legal process for such huge transfers of land?
Who decides about the Utilitarian benefit i.e. greatest good for greatest number?

If I understand right the uk has a stark warning: In uk there is a process called compulsory purchase which does the same sort of thing. This process was designed originally so that land for public projects such as roads and railways could be acquired by cities and regional or central government and  built for the public benefit without decades of delay squabbling over the value of bits of privately owned land.  Very high minded... originally. Unfortunately nowadays, the system is often used by large developers in whose power the acquiring authorities are mere puppets to acquire land and property at knock-down prices where businesses, public and private owners are fleeced with inadequate compensation for the loss of their property but where there is no choice as the acquiring authorities are, in law, able to seize and exploit the property whether the owner or tenant agrees or not.  What often ensues is a legal war of attrition to agree the owners' compensation, further lessening their recompense and, guess what, lining the pockets of nobody but the lawyers. 

In the case of massive public projects in the public good, improving essential infrastructure  this is often justifiable. In the case of commercial/private developers looking to make not a fast buck but nevertheless massive long term profits, disenfranchising the current owners from that possibility and employing underhand methods to devalue that property, it is often questionable if not downright scandalous.  Of course this method isn't always exploitative.  A depressed, dilapidated area might be developed such that greater wealth, comfort, employment and aesthetic value all result.  Businesses thrive, people find positive places to work or live, rents collected and the public purse of the acquiring authorities benefit from increased taxes and reduced costs. 

In the case of areas of unspoiled natural beauty there can often be huge financial profit but huge devastation of what has stood and existed for millennia and do not really represent our birthright to do with what we will.  There is controversy raging at present about the commencement of huge fracking operations that will destroy swathes of the finest natural lands in Britain.  But, like the hoodoos and the rocks of the desert, the Sonoran saguaros or the giant sequoias of Yosemite (I find myself unintentionally exemplifying only beauties of the southwest!), the natural lands are their own property which existed, evolved and eroded long before and away from times and places over which mere men have had sway, relatively recently, and should not be molested by mortal hand.

Much of Utah's landscape is precious and unique, let us hope the world does not lose it as a resut of the grubby short term profiteering of a few globalized moguls.

I wonder what our opinion might be if a mogul decided to buy a swathe of natural Utah, close it to the public but turn it into an exclusively naturist area for anyone, where nudity was compulsory?

John

[milfmog]

I wonder what our opinion might be if a mogul decided to buy a swathe of natural Utah, close it to the public but turn it into an exclusively naturist area for anyone, where nudity was compulsory?

Be interesting to find out, John. Are you feeling rich?   

Have fun,


Ian.

PS Be careful feeling Rich, he has a mean temper 

[Greenbare Woods]

So, without access to Bobs blog to help me... let me get straight...
States like Utah own some of their land but some is owned by the federal govt?  Yes?
Does this apply to all states and are the federal lands the wild and natural places?
John

Some of history here John.   The US Government exists as a Federation of States.   Before it was formed there was an agreement among the original states that they would all equally control the land withing their borders and that any new states would be equal with the original states.  The Federation was limited by its Constitution in owning or controlling land within states to military bases, navy dockyards, magazines, and other necessary offices and only with permission of the State Legislature.  The Federation government may also own and control its capital and territories which are not part of a state. 

That agreement went along fine as more States were added to the west, until they got to the Rocky Mountains.  When States were created and added west of the Rocky Mountains the Federal government (illegally) retained control of vast areas of land within the states and has still refused to relinquish control.  That makes western States into UNequal partners, they cannot raise taxes on their land to pay for schools and similar expenses because the Federation claims exemption from taxation. And the Federation is now forcing land owners to sell more of the land to it without permission from State Legislatures. 

Utah is demanding that the Federation comply with its agreement and Constitution by turning over and relinquishing lands that were once Territories but are now part of a State.

Other western states are watching but some are very interested.

[jbeegoode]

There are some very bright legal minds that have come to the conclusion that Bob presents.

There is the other side, the other opinion that the Federal government overrides states. It has merit as well.

There is often considerable cooperation among affected parties to mitigate and compromise in the brass tacks of settling these issues.

Teddy Roosevelt was part a grand national park conservation movement. There is much debate going back and forth. For various reasons the Fed dominates most of the time. The Federal government administers these lands at many levels.  National monuments, parks, recreation, or BLM lands which is land that gets used up and destroyed frequently, leasing it. These lands belong to the people, represented by the government.

 Here in Arizona, the state's constitution requires that state held lands be sold for the highest and best use, then the money goes to schools. Some see that as preservation, some see that as unscrupulous realestate deals, but the money goes to building schools mostly. Then like a shell game, the state cuts back on school funding and places the former school money into other expenses, like tax deductions for wealthy corporate contributors, taking an equal amount to the new money coming from land use and sales out of the fund. The money generally goes to building schools by large crony contractors, but there is then less funding to run the schools in these nice new buildings. Personally, I'll take the Fed (just my opinion from how I see it). They have a much better track record when it comes to land use. I never see the Arizona state government protect wonderment, when a dollar and a contributor are involved. People don't pay attention to state government as they do the Fed, so there is much crony corruption.

In Utah the Governor was focusing on an area that had oil to exploit. His motivation has to do with corporate interests. That area would be devastated, particularly underground and the water. The governor of Utah is just a shill it has been said. Oil boom, jobs and economic magic is claimed. That is always claimed. A few years and the land is useless. The profit goes to a multinational.

Here, there is a mining company after copper in an incredible area, the scar would be seen for miles and miles from all over Tucson. On a given day, around 80% of the people around here are against it. The state legislature shoves it down our throats, overriding the overwhelming will of the people. The company packs forest service inquiries and collection of people's statement with shills to make claims and support the mining interest, claiming that they need jobs. Then you see them all get back on the buses that the mining corporation hired for them and they are taken to the resort hotel that the mining corporation paid for, for their stay. The mines have their own newspapers, lobbyist at the state level, contributions, etc. and the money ends up going out of the country in the end. America gets exploited by a foreign entity. Nah, I wouldn't trust my national heritage, my free range habitat to a nest of rats like any of the state governments.
Jbee

[jbeegoode]

Utah Trips #2 and #3 are up at TheFreerangeNaturist.org, with some other goodies from a diary.

[nuduke]

Gosh so this is a big deal.  Utah is testing the very constitutional and historical foundations of the USA!  Being west of the Rockies it is disenfranchised from managing its affairs because the Federal Govt owns much of it? It would like to take control and be able to increase accessible tax revenue for things like better schooling. Yes?
You make the difference very clear Bob and JBee (if I've got it right!).

Does the differential state/federal ownership apply to all those western states.  How does California feel about it?

I googled a couple of news articles - Where can I read more?

John

[jbeegoode]

It is claimed that it would increase tax revenue for things like schools. All it does is allow private companies, many if not most, from out of state, to exploit these wonderful places, use it up, make a quick buck, and leave a mess. I was denied access to state and Federal lands because of a destructive mining operation in the Superstition Mtns. Everyone has to look at an ugly unnatural pile of mine tailings and poisoned water here in Tucson, where natural wonder formerly existed. An out of state mining company is trying to destroy the southern Santa Rita Mountains and the town of Patagonia that lives on tourist dollars and health retreats. These are places that I have done trip reports on in the past at TSNS and am reposting at TFRN. Every trip report doesn't mention the most common destruction of corporate overgrazing on public lands. In all cases a few make a lot of money, the few workers get a short term job and the public gets robbed. Sacred native American sites get destroyed, which are sacred for a reason, and that is about us all. I'm talking Arizona first hand. I'm being cut off from access to the Guillero Mountains by a rancher, who thinks that he has the right to effectively make the whole mountain range his private empire, by gating a road with a lock. In my own backyard the county's Tortolita Park had planned access and thousands of acres removed for a few millionaires to have it exclusively instead, using money to influence state government, and attorneys to defend their actions against a few homeowners, and is not equal justice in any form. Millions of dollars against local poeple. That lawsuit cost $35,000 and would have doubled at least. Money buys influence to strong arm, stealing the people's natural heritage. On a state level, it is plain dishonest and all pretense of democratic process is gone. The only protections are the coordination of the Fed engineers about integrated waterways, environmental protections, and a system that makes it more expensive and difficult to bribe the Fed, which is disappearing with each passing year. I'll bet that not one of the more than 80 trip reports that I have posted have not been influenced by corporate state's greed. When we established the Town of Tortolita with 96% of the voters signing a petition to incorporate, the state attorney general sued to destroy our town on the behest of an out of state land developer, Evergreen. Our state is not that different than others. The system doesn't work, elections are bought, lobbying money is rampant, media has been consolidated to a point of censure akin to the Soviet Union's Pravda. Most people are too busy trying to make a living and don't even know who their state representatives are. The Fed is a monster, but nothing compared to state government. We would have no place to roam freely, especially nude, if states controlled the public lands. Whenever there is a state economci crunch, the first thing closed in cutbacks are parks, those lands and the rest stops on the interstate. All corporate tax giveaways remain intact. That alone should show the priorities and the ownership of the government.

The Fed isn't lily white. There is overreach. The same influences run it, but it is more on the stage of scrutiny.

As my example of or Town of Tortolita should explain, I am big on local democratic control, like the movement that Bob supports. I just know that it doesn't work on a state level, when big money influence walks into the picture. There is corrupted information and astro truf organization that are becoming more and more common, tearing down my ability to be free range as nature intended, that is naked, in an intact natural environment.

How does Calif. feel about it? Depends on the issue, who you talk to, etc. California tend to do this, but also, extends overreach at the same time. The governor of Utah is a shill and part of a greater corporate movement to influence these issues. His thing is all for the oil companies. There are state  constitutional issues, preexisting. It depends on the state. The Federal Gov. over rides generally, but it gets very complicated by attorneys and 200 years of law and interpretations and on and on.

The Fed does control huge amounts of the more remote west. The people are supposed to own it and control it, state or federal lands, not just a few wealthy influences.