DeerMadness
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 5,417
Trump is working on allowing drilling there. Is that's good thing ?
Bears Ears
- Thread starter DeerMadness
- Start date
2lumpy
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 7,991
Multiple Use Management allows drilling, mining, logging, hiking, fishing, atv us, camping, grazing, hunting, boating, prospecting, shooting, under controlled conditions. So it's certainly possible.
I personally prefer the MUC concept over Parks and Monuments. But....... we all see the land from a different perspective. The Native Americans used it differently than the trappers, the trappers different than the miners, the miners different than the livestockmen, the livestockmen different than the farmers, the farmers different than the hunters, the hunters different than the back packers, the back packers different than the anti-human access and the anti-access different from whoever wants control of it next.
These change in control efforts are and have always gone on, from before the time of the Sioux vs the Cree and the Blackfoot vs the Crow or who ever vs who ever, historically. Who ever has had the most power, has the use of the land. As much as I prefer to keep it Multiple Use, if the concept looses it's power base, it's gone to the back packers control, for now. If the power stays with those that support Multiple Use, it will stay Multiple Use, for the time being. And..... to answer your question Joe, I believe, which is best, or which is right or wrong for hunters, fisherman, makes no different, it's all about who has the power to control it. Hunters and fishermen represent very little power. Don Peay has been up Senator Hatch butt over it for 20 years. Hatch has been up Trump butt for 5 months. You can blow off Don if you like but I know where this "heavy" pressure on Hatch came from and it was not from our Governor, although the Gov may support it, as the present time.
I know this, the leasers/grazers in Utah have the mistaken belief that if they can get the government to transfer the land to the States, they can sue the States for the land they've been leasing for decades. They believe their families were cheated out of it over the a century ago, and they believe the State will be easier to win a law suit against that the power of the Federal Government. They are living in Oz but you can't convenience them of they aren't going to get it, if the State gets it. The worst thing that can happen to the leasers/grazers would be for the land to get transferred to the States, because when it goes on the auction block they'll loose to companies and individuals that have a thousand times more money than they've ever had. Most, not all, public land grazers, couldn't buy a new pick-up, if it were not for a high interest loan, from local banker, to already owes most of their assets. I'm not trying to be derogatory to public land grazers but it is what it is, when it comes who will win and who will loose, if the public land transfer happens. Those that are leasing it now will be gone and out of business quicker than a lightning strike on the open prairie.
My opinion of course, anyone else's is as good or better than mine.
DC
I personally prefer the MUC concept over Parks and Monuments. But....... we all see the land from a different perspective. The Native Americans used it differently than the trappers, the trappers different than the miners, the miners different than the livestockmen, the livestockmen different than the farmers, the farmers different than the hunters, the hunters different than the back packers, the back packers different than the anti-human access and the anti-access different from whoever wants control of it next.
These change in control efforts are and have always gone on, from before the time of the Sioux vs the Cree and the Blackfoot vs the Crow or who ever vs who ever, historically. Who ever has had the most power, has the use of the land. As much as I prefer to keep it Multiple Use, if the concept looses it's power base, it's gone to the back packers control, for now. If the power stays with those that support Multiple Use, it will stay Multiple Use, for the time being. And..... to answer your question Joe, I believe, which is best, or which is right or wrong for hunters, fisherman, makes no different, it's all about who has the power to control it. Hunters and fishermen represent very little power. Don Peay has been up Senator Hatch butt over it for 20 years. Hatch has been up Trump butt for 5 months. You can blow off Don if you like but I know where this "heavy" pressure on Hatch came from and it was not from our Governor, although the Gov may support it, as the present time.
I know this, the leasers/grazers in Utah have the mistaken belief that if they can get the government to transfer the land to the States, they can sue the States for the land they've been leasing for decades. They believe their families were cheated out of it over the a century ago, and they believe the State will be easier to win a law suit against that the power of the Federal Government. They are living in Oz but you can't convenience them of they aren't going to get it, if the State gets it. The worst thing that can happen to the leasers/grazers would be for the land to get transferred to the States, because when it goes on the auction block they'll loose to companies and individuals that have a thousand times more money than they've ever had. Most, not all, public land grazers, couldn't buy a new pick-up, if it were not for a high interest loan, from local banker, to already owes most of their assets. I'm not trying to be derogatory to public land grazers but it is what it is, when it comes who will win and who will loose, if the public land transfer happens. Those that are leasing it now will be gone and out of business quicker than a lightning strike on the open prairie.
My opinion of course, anyone else's is as good or better than mine.
DC
Forthewall
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 3,327
Well said 2lumpy
Homer
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 14,212
>
>How so? you think
>Utah will do a better
>job of protecting it on
>their own? Say
>yes, then we'll have something
>stupid said.
>
>
> Leave it up to them
>and the next time I
>go there I'll see drill
>rigs and Property LDS signs
>on it.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
remaining NF and BLM multiple use land does not make it Utah State Land.
>How so? you think
>Utah will do a better
>job of protecting it on
>their own? Say
>yes, then we'll have something
>stupid said.
>
>
> Leave it up to them
>and the next time I
>go there I'll see drill
>rigs and Property LDS signs
>on it.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
remaining NF and BLM multiple use land does not make it Utah State Land.
eelgrass
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 31,432
"I guess you haven't been watching what Utah is trying to do with federal land"
How is that working out for them?
Allowing multiple use on Bears Ears is the right thing to do for the Country and the hunters. They could stop hunting/shooting in a National Monument over night with a signature from some wacko Secretary of the Interior. More likely to happen there than regular Federal land.
How is that working out for them?
Allowing multiple use on Bears Ears is the right thing to do for the Country and the hunters. They could stop hunting/shooting in a National Monument over night with a signature from some wacko Secretary of the Interior. More likely to happen there than regular Federal land.
NeMont
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 12,632
What is funny is that the Utah congressional delegation was so opposed to working with anyone that they didn't bother to sit at the table.
At the urging of the Nevada delegation The Gold Butte Monument Proclamation in Nevada included the following language:
Quote:
Nothing in this proclamation shall be deemed to enlarge or diminish the jurisdiction of the State of Nevada, including its jurisdiction and authority with respect to fish and wildlife management, including hunting and fishing.
Yet the Utah delegation walked away from the Bears Ear Proclamation without a care in the world about hunting or fishing. Now explain why that it is and how Utah could manage the Federal Public lands better?
Nemont
At the urging of the Nevada delegation The Gold Butte Monument Proclamation in Nevada included the following language:
Quote:
Nothing in this proclamation shall be deemed to enlarge or diminish the jurisdiction of the State of Nevada, including its jurisdiction and authority with respect to fish and wildlife management, including hunting and fishing.
Yet the Utah delegation walked away from the Bears Ear Proclamation without a care in the world about hunting or fishing. Now explain why that it is and how Utah could manage the Federal Public lands better?
Nemont
LAST EDITED ON Apr-27-17 AT 02:55PM (MST)[p]
>What is funny is that the
>Utah congressional delegation was so
>opposed to working with anyone
>that they didn't bother to
>sit at the table.
>
>At the urging of the Nevada
>delegation The Gold Butte Monument
>Proclamation in Nevada included the
>following language:
>
>Quote:
>
>Nothing in this proclamation shall be
>deemed to enlarge or diminish
>the jurisdiction of the State
>of Nevada, including its jurisdiction
>and authority with respect to
>fish and wildlife management, including
>hunting and fishing.
>
>
>Yet the Utah delegation walked away
>from the Bears Ear Proclamation
>without a care in the
>world about hunting or fishing.
> Now explain why that
>it is and how Utah
>could manage the Federal Public
>lands better?
>
>Nemont
Thought I plowed this ground for ya? Just keep goin in circles. Looks like pretty standard verbiage as I pointed out before.
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.go...on-establishment-bears-ears-national-monument
"Nothing in this proclamation shall be deemed to enlarge or diminish the jurisdiction of the State of Utah, including its jurisdiction and authority with respect to fish and wildlife management."
Hunting and fishing is a management tool, including it is redundant.
>What is funny is that the
>Utah congressional delegation was so
>opposed to working with anyone
>that they didn't bother to
>sit at the table.
>
>At the urging of the Nevada
>delegation The Gold Butte Monument
>Proclamation in Nevada included the
>following language:
>
>Quote:
>
>Nothing in this proclamation shall be
>deemed to enlarge or diminish
>the jurisdiction of the State
>of Nevada, including its jurisdiction
>and authority with respect to
>fish and wildlife management, including
>hunting and fishing.
>
>
>Yet the Utah delegation walked away
>from the Bears Ear Proclamation
>without a care in the
>world about hunting or fishing.
> Now explain why that
>it is and how Utah
>could manage the Federal Public
>lands better?
>
>Nemont
Thought I plowed this ground for ya? Just keep goin in circles. Looks like pretty standard verbiage as I pointed out before.
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.go...on-establishment-bears-ears-national-monument
"Nothing in this proclamation shall be deemed to enlarge or diminish the jurisdiction of the State of Utah, including its jurisdiction and authority with respect to fish and wildlife management."
Hunting and fishing is a management tool, including it is redundant.
NeMont
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 12,632
Can you find the specific wording in the Bears Ear proclamation that clarifies Hunting and Fishing? It is specifically spelled out in the Gold Butte Proclamation. Why do you suppose that is?
If it was standard verbiage it would state the words, "hunting and fishing" in the Bears Ear proclamation. Fish and Wildlife manage can not include hunting. The Nevada Delegation at least cares about hunters, Utah's cares not a whit about hunters, it cares about getting more lands into private hands.
Nemont
If it was standard verbiage it would state the words, "hunting and fishing" in the Bears Ear proclamation. Fish and Wildlife manage can not include hunting. The Nevada Delegation at least cares about hunters, Utah's cares not a whit about hunters, it cares about getting more lands into private hands.
Nemont
NeMont
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 12,632
Maybe the words "including hunting and fishing" were important enough to add so there could be no question as to what the allowed uses of the monument would be. "Management" doesn't have to include hunting. The Nevadans were proactive in addressing what they wanted, the Utah haters of public land don't care much about hunting.
Nemont
Nemont
