Petersen's Hunting on Land Grab

http://www.petersenshunting.com/outfitter/push-to-sell-off-federal-lands/

This is a really good write-up.

Great article. They capture the challenges facing us pretty well. Thanks for sharing.

Grizzly,

Thanks for taking the time to post this. I thought it was a great article and shed some clarity on this issue.

You may want to read this one too. https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/hisnps/npshistory/righter.htm

Published by the National Park Service and shares some reasons Monuments and other re-designations, were used to get public land moved into a National Park, where hunters loose all their hunting access. Notice how much concern for hunting is discussed in the article........ twice, lumped in with trapping, and hardly then. We aren't relevant, in the big picture.

Now we think hunting and not must else, but I promise you, regardless of what the Peterson article says about Jason Chaffetz's reasons for backing off, it wasn't because of his concern for hunters or their concerns. As you know, he's not running for office again, at least for right now, so he won't, at the present, be passing any legislation. But rest assure, he is as determined as ever and I'm more inclined to think he and his political counter parts are regrouping as we speak. Maybe going to wait out Donald Trump, but not going away.

Hunters are but a blimp, in the huge economic/political environment. It's better to accept that, so you can fight the best fight, if you intend to win the war.

The Peterson hunting article is biased toward hunting, and in doing so, it ignores, to a great degree, the two elephants in the room, when it comes to Federal control, vs State control of public lands. Those two elephants are the growing political behavior by US Presidents, to use public land management as a vote generating tool and the growing populations in the Western States, that need revenue to support the growth. When 81% and 69% of your State is controlled by someone without the State's best interest coming first, eventually the State will push for more control. As the Feds tighten Federal control and limit use, not hunting use, that hardly an after thought, the States are going to resist and push back.

Regardless of how this present push/issue by Utah and other States turns out, and I still believe the States (Utah) will loose this round, again, if the politicians don't get together and get the Feds to substantially increase their revenue to the States, for these public lands, and/or stop carving out more Monuments, Parks and Wilderness areas, the States will be back at it again. They will wait for more stars to line up and they will chink away at it, until, one the Federal elephant changes how it's funds the State for use of these land and two, it stops re-designating the public land, in the States. If these two issue don't get resolved, this will continue, in one form or another.

You can take that to the bank.

Like the front wheel on your four wheel drive pick-up, if it's out of alignment, it will just keep eating away at the rubber, until it blows up, and you can put a new tire on it but unless you fix the real problem, you'll just keep blowing out new tires, as fast as you can replace and wear them out.

DC

Lumpy's point that little bandaids will never fix cancer is well stated. There is an even bigger elephant RE western lands in a changing climate. Water. Impossible to accurately grasp politics in the western US until water is understood.

Can't be true lumpy. I've been assured over and over on this sight that national monuments rarely become national parks. I read it right here in these pages!

From the link that 2Lumpy posted: Concerning the formation of the Antiquities Act back around 1900.

"Congress, of course, did not relinquish its powers without debate. In the hearings over various versions of the Antiquities Act, legislators voiced considerable concern over the president's power. The majority of lawmakers agreed with the need for protection of Southwest prehistoric sites, but the idea of extending carte blanche to the executive branch worried some, particularly western congressmen. One way to reduce the chance for misuse was to limit the size of national monuments. Congressman John Shaforth of Colorado argued for a maximum of 320 acres, while his influential state colleague, Senator Henry M. Teller, was willing to extend monument size to a section, or 640 acres. Both Colorado congressmen were sympathetic to livestock interests and had experienced the "excesses" of the Forest Reserve Act in their state. [8] Although Teller's request received consideration when the final Antiquities Act emerged it read that national monuments "shall be confined to the smallest area compatible with proper care and management of the objects to be protected."

1.3 million acres might have exceeded the original intent?

Sure is a huge issue, Elkduds. When was the last time we had a thread on the issues of Western water rights, and how that plays into all of this. It's a freaking freight train, doing 90 miles an hour down a crocked track!

There are many, many parts to this fight and unfortunately, hunters are so unorganized and unwilling to organize, because we are "rugged individualists" and we're so proud of our independence, we are and will continue to be irrelevant.

DW Yep, you heard it here first and trust me, you'll hear it here again, because that's what we want to believe and you know, "a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest".

DC

Exactly eel, and if the Feds ever start to behave, like those that created the Antiquities Act intended them for them to do, we wouldn't be in this fight. Some are offended by the term but it is a classic example of "over reach", the same kind we see in dang near very Federal Department, from the CIA, FBI, US Fish and Game, EPA, Education, Health, and on and on. Great intentions in the beginning but all become political vote gather weapons, rather than setting aside 640 acres, to protect the wonderful and valuable antiquities from previous cultures or a specular canyon of red and orange hoodoos and wind/water worn anomalies.

Not one of these is just a few hundred acres. HOW MUCH MORE OF UTAH IS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT GOING TO MOVE FROM MULTIPLE USE BEFORE ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. Is this list not long enough already. How many more will the Feds add to the list, to garner favor with eastern voters? It has to stop. In fact, some of it needs to be reconsidered and returned to it's original designation.

Zion National Park
Bryce Canyon National Park
Capitol Reef National Park
Arches National Park
Canyonlands National Park
National Monuments
Cedar Breaks National Monument
Dinosaur National Monument
Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument
Hovenweep National Monument
Natural Bridges National Monument
Rainbow Bridge National Monument
Timpanogos Cave National Monument
Hoodoos in Cedar Breaks National Monument
Bears Ears National Monument
Glen Canyon National Recreation Area
Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area
Paria Canyon-Vermilion Cliffs Wilderness.
Ashdown Gorge Wilderness[6]
Beartrap Canyon Wilderness[6]
Beaver Dam Mountains Wilderness[6]
Black Ridge Canyons Wilderness[6]
Box-Death Hollow Wilderness[6]
Canaan Mountain Wilderness[6]
Cedar Mountain Wilderness[6]
Cottonwood Forest Wilderness[6]
Cougar Canyon Wilderness[6]
Dark Canyon Wilderness[6]
Deep Creek Wilderness[6]
Deseret Peak Wilderness[6]
Doc's Pass Wilderness[6]
Goose Creek Wilderness[6]
High Uintas Wilderness[6]
LaVerkin Creek Wilderness[6]
Lone Peak Wilderness[6]
Mount Naomi Wilderness[6]
Mount Nebo Wilderness[6]
Mount Olympus Wilderness[6]
Mount Timpanogos Wilderness[6]
Paria Canyon-Vermilion Cliffs Wilderness[6]
Pine Valley Mountain Wilderness[6]
Red Butte Wilderness[6]
Red Mountain Wilderness[6]
Slaughter Creek Wilderness[6]
Taylor Creek Wilderness[6]
Twin Peaks Wilderness[6]
Wellsville Mountains Wilderness
Zion Wilderness

Which area of Utah is next? Which area in your back yard is the next tool to buy a politician some one's votes?

DC

What impact will this have on shed hunting. Ready....go!