grizzly
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 5,591
Hikers & Hunters Together
- Thread starter grizzly
- Start date
grizzly
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 5,591
LAST EDITED ON Feb-12-17 AT 01:48AM (MST)[p]>hikers will cut hunters throat....first opportunity
--------
And the special interests that contribute 92% of all funds to Utah Legislators (vs only 3% from actual constituents) are trying to protect hunters?
Wise up and realize who your friends are on this one. Herbert is meeting Sunday with the hiking industry to see what Republicans need to do to assure them public lands will be safe.
The hunting industry in Utah (ie SFW) is strangely silent. In fact, SFW is the only hunters/anglers group to not oppose the land grab.
The Nevada Wildlife Commission voted unanimously to oppose the land grab, while our Wildlife Board (which is heavily represented by SFW's former Board Members) sits on their hands.
If we leave it up to Utah Republicans and SFW, they'll just keep taking the money and public land will be lost forever. If you don't believe me, check the sourced links from the article and read the opinions of RMEF, MDF, B&C, P&Y, BHA, TRCP that have all studied the land grab and come to the conclusion that it's bad for hunting.
Only in Utah can SFW and the Wildlife Board (the two most powerful "hunting" groups here) remain silent and get away with it. It's an embarrassment.
Some will naively play party lines. I'll reach across the aisle to do what's right and protect hunting for the next generation.
We were given public lands in a trust. I don't intend to be the generation that loses public lands for my kids.
Grizzly
--------
And the special interests that contribute 92% of all funds to Utah Legislators (vs only 3% from actual constituents) are trying to protect hunters?
Wise up and realize who your friends are on this one. Herbert is meeting Sunday with the hiking industry to see what Republicans need to do to assure them public lands will be safe.
The hunting industry in Utah (ie SFW) is strangely silent. In fact, SFW is the only hunters/anglers group to not oppose the land grab.
The Nevada Wildlife Commission voted unanimously to oppose the land grab, while our Wildlife Board (which is heavily represented by SFW's former Board Members) sits on their hands.
If we leave it up to Utah Republicans and SFW, they'll just keep taking the money and public land will be lost forever. If you don't believe me, check the sourced links from the article and read the opinions of RMEF, MDF, B&C, P&Y, BHA, TRCP that have all studied the land grab and come to the conclusion that it's bad for hunting.
Only in Utah can SFW and the Wildlife Board (the two most powerful "hunting" groups here) remain silent and get away with it. It's an embarrassment.
Some will naively play party lines. I'll reach across the aisle to do what's right and protect hunting for the next generation.
We were given public lands in a trust. I don't intend to be the generation that loses public lands for my kids.
Grizzly
YBO
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 3,185
Grizz, what makes you think that SFW /Wildlife Board are not working behind the scenes trying to protect our Federal lands? Just because they are not publicity hounds like other favorite groups of yours doesn't mean they are sitting on their azz. Maybe you know something you can share?
Hawkeye
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 3,014
YBO-
Working behind the scenes to protect our public lands? That's hilarious. This issue has been brewing for several years and SFW has sat on it's hands while every other major conservation group has come out against the land grab. SFW has not been working to protect our lands. They have been wringing their hands and debating how to not alienate sportsmen (their supposed constituents) and at the same time not piss off the Utah legislature (their sugar daddies). Stop straddling the fence and pick a side.
-Hawkeye-
Working behind the scenes to protect our public lands? That's hilarious. This issue has been brewing for several years and SFW has sat on it's hands while every other major conservation group has come out against the land grab. SFW has not been working to protect our lands. They have been wringing their hands and debating how to not alienate sportsmen (their supposed constituents) and at the same time not piss off the Utah legislature (their sugar daddies). Stop straddling the fence and pick a side.
-Hawkeye-
LAST EDITED ON Feb-12-17 AT 09:06AM (MST)[p]This just came out on 2/9 on the SFW website and their wording mentions "sale", but the front office must be feeling some heat:
Sportsmen for Fish & Wildlife (SFW) is opposed to the sale of any public land. SFW believes there is room for improved correlation and joint efforts between state and federal agencies in the management of public land but that the sale of these public lands is not in the best interests of wildlife, sportsmen or local communities. SFW believes that the public lands of the Western U.S. are the lifeblood of our way of life, and that public access and the multiple use of these lands must be maintained. Our way of life depends on these lands remaining open and accessible. Our public lands are the very center of our outdoor and hunting heritage. SFW believes that without our public lands, we would have little hope for a future of hunting and wildlife conservation. SFW is committed to fight to keep public lands open with abundant wildlife for all to enjoy.
Additionally, SFW restates it long-standing support for land management that:
?remains open to public access
?protects wild and remote places, and the wildlife that depend on it
?works toward producing abundant big game, upland game and aquatic species
?provides for state fish and game agencies to manage all wildlife within state borders, including big game, upland game, fisheries and predators
?ensures opportunities for habitat restoration, ?Healthy Land Initiative? opportunities and watershed enhancement and protection
SFW?s Mission Statement ? The mission of SFW is to promote the protection and enhancement of wildlife habitat, assist in providing quality wildlife management programs, educating the public about the role hunters play in wildlife conservation, and perpetuating the family tradition of hunting and fishing.
Sportsmen for Fish & Wildlife (SFW) is opposed to the sale of any public land. SFW believes there is room for improved correlation and joint efforts between state and federal agencies in the management of public land but that the sale of these public lands is not in the best interests of wildlife, sportsmen or local communities. SFW believes that the public lands of the Western U.S. are the lifeblood of our way of life, and that public access and the multiple use of these lands must be maintained. Our way of life depends on these lands remaining open and accessible. Our public lands are the very center of our outdoor and hunting heritage. SFW believes that without our public lands, we would have little hope for a future of hunting and wildlife conservation. SFW is committed to fight to keep public lands open with abundant wildlife for all to enjoy.
Additionally, SFW restates it long-standing support for land management that:
?remains open to public access
?protects wild and remote places, and the wildlife that depend on it
?works toward producing abundant big game, upland game and aquatic species
?provides for state fish and game agencies to manage all wildlife within state borders, including big game, upland game, fisheries and predators
?ensures opportunities for habitat restoration, ?Healthy Land Initiative? opportunities and watershed enhancement and protection
SFW?s Mission Statement ? The mission of SFW is to promote the protection and enhancement of wildlife habitat, assist in providing quality wildlife management programs, educating the public about the role hunters play in wildlife conservation, and perpetuating the family tradition of hunting and fishing.
grizzly
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 5,591
SFW working behind the scenes to protect public lands is laughable.
When it comes to wolves, moose, or grouse we get email blasts telling us to contact our legislator. At Proclamation time, SFW floods RAC and Wildlife Board meetings. For other topics, SFW schedules a rally at the Capitol. Their entire existence is based on being seen influencing legislators.
It took SFW four years of heavy land-grab talk to even issue this Press Release and in it they don't even have the balls to oppose the land grab.
You can't have a land grab without selling the land afterwards. Even the UofU study, paid for by our Legislature, says the land grab will result in selling land. The people that tell you public lands will remain public absolutely refuse to bind themselves to that promise in the legislation. They'll give you lip service, but they won't write it into their own law. They know land will be sold, but hope people will be too stupid to read the studies themselves.
It's just like Obama saying, "If you like your health plan, you can keep your health plan." But this time its, "Public lands will remain public."
Hawkeye is right. SFW is too scared that if they oppose the land grab that they'll lose their meal ticket. Luckily many hunters (and SFW members) are seeing through the smoke and mirrors, hence the just-issued non-committal press release. This was a clear attempt to stem the tide rising against them.
SFW is quickly finding themselves in a spot where they'll be forced to oppose the land grab like every other conservation group or risk alienating themselves, minimizing their influence, and identifying their true agenda to hunters everywhere. This could be their last non-stand.
Grizzly
When it comes to wolves, moose, or grouse we get email blasts telling us to contact our legislator. At Proclamation time, SFW floods RAC and Wildlife Board meetings. For other topics, SFW schedules a rally at the Capitol. Their entire existence is based on being seen influencing legislators.
It took SFW four years of heavy land-grab talk to even issue this Press Release and in it they don't even have the balls to oppose the land grab.
You can't have a land grab without selling the land afterwards. Even the UofU study, paid for by our Legislature, says the land grab will result in selling land. The people that tell you public lands will remain public absolutely refuse to bind themselves to that promise in the legislation. They'll give you lip service, but they won't write it into their own law. They know land will be sold, but hope people will be too stupid to read the studies themselves.
It's just like Obama saying, "If you like your health plan, you can keep your health plan." But this time its, "Public lands will remain public."
Hawkeye is right. SFW is too scared that if they oppose the land grab that they'll lose their meal ticket. Luckily many hunters (and SFW members) are seeing through the smoke and mirrors, hence the just-issued non-committal press release. This was a clear attempt to stem the tide rising against them.
SFW is quickly finding themselves in a spot where they'll be forced to oppose the land grab like every other conservation group or risk alienating themselves, minimizing their influence, and identifying their true agenda to hunters everywhere. This could be their last non-stand.
Grizzly
LAST EDITED ON Feb-12-17 AT 01:25PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Feb-12-17 AT 10:16?AM (MST)
Private organizations are already getting their hands on a ton of the most sought after (premium) tags in Utah. Couple that with locking out every average Joe hunter from... what is right now our public lands....well that right there boys and girls would be the perfect recipe for some folks and don't think for a second that they wouldn't love to do it. Who would think of an idea like that?
How can things get any better for those who already have the means necessary to get their beautiful manicured hands and fat wallets on some of the best tags the west has to offer? Maybe locking you and me out of those lands that the critters call home and have the place to themselves???
I've been saying it for years! Maybe I'm not so crazy.
"Now that they know they can get their hands on the tags, next will be the lands those critters live in."
"Wildlife and its habitat cannot speak. So
we must and we will."
Theadore Roosevelt
Private organizations are already getting their hands on a ton of the most sought after (premium) tags in Utah. Couple that with locking out every average Joe hunter from... what is right now our public lands....well that right there boys and girls would be the perfect recipe for some folks and don't think for a second that they wouldn't love to do it. Who would think of an idea like that?
How can things get any better for those who already have the means necessary to get their beautiful manicured hands and fat wallets on some of the best tags the west has to offer? Maybe locking you and me out of those lands that the critters call home and have the place to themselves???
I've been saying it for years! Maybe I'm not so crazy.
"Now that they know they can get their hands on the tags, next will be the lands those critters live in."
"Wildlife and its habitat cannot speak. So
we must and we will."
Theadore Roosevelt
I am a hiker and a Hunter, I also look at issues individually. wilderness protection is important to me as I have seen so many places basically ruined for the experience I enjoy because or motorized access.
The ultimate lockout is a big no trespassing sign by a private landowner. Period
The ultimate lockout is a big no trespassing sign by a private landowner. Period
grizzly
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 5,591
Herbert says it is "worth exploring" selling public land to pay off Federal deficit.
He says, "I would argue we could privatize this public land and have it developed commercially."
Obviously, even if that worked it is a temporary fix because in a few short years the deficit would start climbing again but now we would be out of public land to sell.
He says it is "unfortunate" that the Federal government is allowed to run a deficit and selling public land is a way to pay it off.
The problem for hunters is that Utah is Constitutionally-forbidden from running a deficit and thus would be required to take drastic steps, such as selling public land, in years of economic downturn.
How on earth SFW can stand by this guy at the expense of hunters is disgusting. They should be ashamed of themselves.
Grizzly
He says, "I would argue we could privatize this public land and have it developed commercially."
Obviously, even if that worked it is a temporary fix because in a few short years the deficit would start climbing again but now we would be out of public land to sell.
He says it is "unfortunate" that the Federal government is allowed to run a deficit and selling public land is a way to pay it off.
The problem for hunters is that Utah is Constitutionally-forbidden from running a deficit and thus would be required to take drastic steps, such as selling public land, in years of economic downturn.
How on earth SFW can stand by this guy at the expense of hunters is disgusting. They should be ashamed of themselves.
Grizzly
1911
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 6,197
>I am a hiker and a
>Hunter, I also
>look at issues individually.
> wilderness protection is
>important to me as I
>have seen so many places
>basically ruined for the experience
>I enjoy because or motorized
>access.
>
>
>The ultimate lockout is a big
>no trespassing sign by a
>private landowner.
> Period
Apparently you are unfamiliar with no trespassing signs being placed in the name of wilderness protection. Not sure how your rose colored glasses rate one ultimate lockout over another.
>Hunter, I also
>look at issues individually.
> wilderness protection is
>important to me as I
>have seen so many places
>basically ruined for the experience
>I enjoy because or motorized
>access.
>
>
>The ultimate lockout is a big
>no trespassing sign by a
>private landowner.
> Period
Apparently you are unfamiliar with no trespassing signs being placed in the name of wilderness protection. Not sure how your rose colored glasses rate one ultimate lockout over another.
grizzly
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 5,591
Outdoor Retailers officially announced they're leaving Utah after 20 years in the state.
Bottom line is a group of Corporate CEOs met with Herbert via teleconference today and announced the decision shortly thereafter.
Apparently, these wise men and women who have built business empires based on the use of public land have come to the same conclusion as CEOs of Sitka, First Lite, KUIU, Realtree and other hunting-based companies. This is also the same conclusion that RMEF, B&C, BHA, TRCP, P&Y, and virtually every other conservation organization has reached. They've all read the studies, seen the numbers, and heard both sides of the argument and know the land grab will be the end of public access in the State of Utah.
But SFW remains a supporter of the politicians behind the land grab. SFW would obviously rather protect the politicians than the wildlife and public land.
What's up, SFW? Every other conservation organization and hunting-based company is wrong and you think you're right?
You were on the wrong side of the stream access bill and you're on the wrong side of this one... and thousands of your own members know it. Time to put on your big boy pants and stand for the hunters/anglers you've committed to protect, even if it means you risk all the welfare funds in the process. Do what's right.
Grizzly
Bottom line is a group of Corporate CEOs met with Herbert via teleconference today and announced the decision shortly thereafter.
Apparently, these wise men and women who have built business empires based on the use of public land have come to the same conclusion as CEOs of Sitka, First Lite, KUIU, Realtree and other hunting-based companies. This is also the same conclusion that RMEF, B&C, BHA, TRCP, P&Y, and virtually every other conservation organization has reached. They've all read the studies, seen the numbers, and heard both sides of the argument and know the land grab will be the end of public access in the State of Utah.
But SFW remains a supporter of the politicians behind the land grab. SFW would obviously rather protect the politicians than the wildlife and public land.
What's up, SFW? Every other conservation organization and hunting-based company is wrong and you think you're right?
You were on the wrong side of the stream access bill and you're on the wrong side of this one... and thousands of your own members know it. Time to put on your big boy pants and stand for the hunters/anglers you've committed to protect, even if it means you risk all the welfare funds in the process. Do what's right.
Grizzly
