Hunters view on Utah land grab?

G

Gauge

Guest
I have been hearing about how the governor of Utah wants to take control of the Federal lands and then sale the land to private land owners in turn closing the land from the public. I have seen a couple of T.V. commercials from SUWA opposing it. I'm just wondering what's everyone's opinion on this? From my limited knowledge It sounds bad for us. I just have a hard time agreeing with SUWA.
 
DO NOT Let the State get Their GREEDY Hands on it!

But here's the Deal!

Our Government/USFS is Broke!

Here's another Deal!

Even if they Sold it!

It wouldn't get them out of the Hole They've Dug!







[font color="redhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMsueOnu0kY
 
As bad as the feds are, this state would sell the land so fast and it would be closed access the next day. F*&K Herbie!
 
Sounds like another Texas if this would happen. Only this would requiring fencing mountains and canyons. Terrible dumb idea and in my part of the world, nw colorado, many want this done here as well. All in the name of developement. Feds are way f'ed up but the states would piss it away to the highest bidder taking lands away from the people. Get some different folks in DC and those seeking to develope or utilize resources on federal lands might be a bit happier. Feds are just not giving the states free run of federal lands and some are crying about it as it eats into there personal gain.

"Courage is being scared to death but
saddling up anyway."
 
Darn straight Elkasassin. I moved from Utah to Idaho and have found out that Island Park has more Utah landowners than Idahoans. So many very rich people in Utah and if the state can your lands will be gobbled up until Utah looks like Park City up high and Ogden to SLC down low.
There is no sin in being rich but there is a sin when they buy up and lock up all we have. Utah is a very pretty and diverse state. It's arid but still awesome.
 
If the State gets control of the land, It will be sold off,( my guess to big companies like own areas around Park City and or Oil and Gas) The transaction will be sold to the public as a way to "Create new job's... Or " for the benefit of our children". The public will be the ones to pay the REAL price. I DESPISE most of the Federal Goverments socialist BuIIshlT. But letting the State of Utah have ownership will be worse for the people of the state.
 
never and I say never let the state get the land' look at the state trust lands, little by little its getting sold...
 
Keep it in Fed's hands.

NEVER TRUST THE UTAH LEGISLATURE! My hell, these are the buffoons that stood by two straight Attorney's General under felony indictment.

I will happily align with SUWA and Sierra Club on this one.

Don't just type it here, though. Call or email your State Representative and Senator. Make sure they know their own constituency doesn't want this. Make a call to Rob Bishop, too. He's the big part of the problem.

Grizzly
 
I like the Utah Governor, I like a bunch of the Republican Legislators.

I hate SUWA, Sierra Club, and the rest.

I hate wilderness and national monuments.

I do not trust the Federal Government, for countless, justifiable reasons.

AS MUCH AS I HATE WILDERNESS, MONUMENTS, MISTRUSTS THE FEDS AND LIKE THE GOVERNOR AND THE UTAH LEGISLATOR.................I WILL NEVER SUPPORT TURNING THE FEDERAL LANDS IN UTAH OR THE WEST OVER TO THE STATES. NEVER. I'D RATHER SEE IT BECOME WILDERNESS, A NATION MONUMENT OR EVEN A NATIONAL PARK BEFORE I'D SUPPORT TURNING IT OVER TO THE STATE, AND LIVE WITH THE CONSEQUENCES OF THAT ACTION.

What pisses me off is being put in a position where I have to support the things I despise! Damn it!!!!!!

DC
 
I think all of you above have missed the whole point of the States rights versus Feds argument and proposed legislation above. NM has had similar legislation the last couple of years and no where could I see where the state would be selling off the public land.

It is a movement to regain control of the individual state's natural resources which are being locked up and put off limits for ever, under the present Federal Realm. The states and rural counties within, have lost their ability to survive as most counties have relied on logging, grazing, hunting mining and overall management of these Federal lands that went into the public realm long ago. With the modern day green environmental movement many of the counties and their residents are losing their ability to use the public natural resources and our local governments are drying up and blowing away, and our rural citizens are be deprived of their custom, culture and way to make a living....

What I see is, the States want the ability to mange this public land much the same way as the USFS, BLM and etc. have been trying to do since their inception. Our public lands have been hi-jacked by the greens.

I don't think it would be a sell off of this land to private interest and don't think the American public would ever let that happen. If it is a part of the legislation in these respective states, it will never pass muster.

The states already manage a huge portion of their respective States in the State Land Trusts. It is different in that the State is required to make money off these state lands to support the education systems in their respective states. They do so and with out all the burden of expense the Feds are using trying to manage the public land. I think if the right legislation was passed to mange these public lands in the multiple use, sustainable yield mission that they were set up to do originally, the states could do so and with much less monetary resources than the Feds are spending now. With all of the environmental and regulatory burden being put on the Feds, the public land is becoming an aesthetic playground for the non consumptive users and the rest of us are losing out on a daily basis.

Personally I don't think Utah or NM will ever get this legislation passed but the State Wildlife Federation's and other green conservation groups are using it to whip up the hunting community into a frenzy, to get them to join their ranks.

I for one will never join one of these socialist greenie groups.
 
They are Fed. lands and belong to all of us.
They are not meant to be sold off for profit.
The states in the west gave up any right in original state signing papers.
I do not trust ANY state to manage them.
Fed. lands need to be managed.
Not raped and pillaged or all turned into no go zones the corps./wealthy/greenies would love ...

Teddy Roosevelt is rolling in his grave everytime he looks at what we have now done or are contemplating.
 
I trust the State a whole lot more than the Fed's continuing mismanagement of the public land. They could do it a lot more efficiently and still keep it in public hands. We are losing more and more everyday under the Fed's rules and regulations. Look at the Endangered Species Act and how it is being used to stop all consumptive uses of the land. Then the anti's use our taxpayer money to sue the Fed's into taking away public use and now most of the Federal Agencies are controlled by these greenies. The States would do a much better job of managing for the multiple use concept that we have all came to love and trust.

As long as hunters are complacent and willing to let the take over of our Federal managed lands by these greens, we will, and are losing more everyday.
 
From page 286 of fiscal analysis...

"If the state takes over management of the federal land currently used for wildlife associated activities there is a chance a cost benefit analysis can be performed to determine the best use of the public land. This could include reallocating hunting and fishing areas for alternative uses including oil and gas production, commercial development, or other types of recreation. This however, would likely have a negative effect on wildlife associated recreation as wildlife would be displaced by human intervention. Likewise, hunters and anglers may be discouraged from participating near private industry. Similarly, they may not desire an area that becomes developed and crowded by other industrial pursuits."

When it says "reallocating hunting and fishing areas for commercial development", it means selling public land to the highest bidder.

This is not good for wildlife or sportsmen, and it was never meant to be. Period.

Grizzly
 
>From page 286 of fiscal analysis...
>
>
>"If the state takes over management
>of the federal land currently
>used for wildlife associated activities
>there is a chance a
>cost benefit analysis can be
>performed to determine the best
>use of the public land.
>This could include reallocating hunting
>and fishing areas for alternative
>uses including oil and gas
>production, commercial development, or other
>types of recreation. This however,
>would likely have a negative
>effect on wildlife associated recreation
>as wildlife would be displaced
>by human intervention. Likewise, hunters
>and anglers may be discouraged
>from participating near private industry.
>Similarly, they may not desire
>an area that becomes developed
>and crowded by other industrial
>pursuits."
>
>When it says "reallocating hunting and
>fishing areas for commercial development",
>it means selling public land
>to the highest bidder.
>
>This is not good for wildlife
>or sportsmen, and it was
>never meant to be. Period.
>
>
>Grizzly

Grizzly, is that contained in the link provided above or elsewhere? If not can you provide a link to that fiscal analysis?

Thanks


[font color="blue"]I don't make the soup,I just stir it.[/font]
 
>>From page 286 of fiscal analysis...
>>
>>
>>"If the state takes over management
>>of the federal land currently
>>used for wildlife associated activities
>>there is a chance a
>>cost benefit analysis can be
>>performed to determine the best
>>use of the public land.
>>This could include reallocating hunting
>>and fishing areas for alternative
>>uses including oil and gas
>>production, commercial development, or other
>>types of recreation. This however,
>>would likely have a negative
>>effect on wildlife associated recreation
>>as wildlife would be displaced
>>by human intervention. Likewise, hunters
>>and anglers may be discouraged
>>from participating near private industry.
>>Similarly, they may not desire
>>an area that becomes developed
>>and crowded by other industrial
>>pursuits."
>>
>>When it says "reallocating hunting and
>>fishing areas for commercial development",
>>it means selling public land
>>to the highest bidder.
>>
>>This is not good for wildlife
>>or sportsmen, and it was
>>never meant to be. Period.
>>
>>
>>Grizzly
>
>Grizzly, is that contained in the
>link provided above or elsewhere?
>If not can you provide
>a link to that fiscal
>analysis?
>
>Thanks


It says there is a chance that fiscal analysis would show.... That means that none has been done. I agree with all that say this is a terrible suggestion for any state. There is no way an individual state like some of the western ones that have millions of acres of Federal land could ever oversee them without going bankrupt and leading to the sale of part or all of it to the highest PRIVATE bidder! We have enough land locked up now as it is and we certainly don't need to take a chance and increase it by tenfold!
 
I believe the States could manage these millions of acres just fine and do it with a whole lot less money and personnel. The big government Agencies waste millions of dollars a year to over see the public land. It is a big cancer out of control. The USFS is especially wasteful and has too many employees, too many vehicles and too many regulations to properly manage the resource as it should be. The States can do a much better job and leave it in public lands status with out selling anything off except where it makes sense to do a few land exchanges to block the public land into more accessible lands for everyone.

The Daggett County web site is flawed in that they push for more wilderness with the tired old reasoning that grazing will remain the same. It has been proven by the Range Improvement Task Force, RITF, of New Mexico State University that this premise is not the case. In almost all wilderness areas grazing has almost been eliminated. The Gila and Aldo Leopold Wilderness areas now have only a very small fraction where grazing is still being practiced.

We can set back and let the greenies and the Feds run over the top of us or get our States rights back and manage the public land as it was supposed to be, in a multiple use concept. We need and like Wilderness areas but how much more is needed to be locked up, so the hippies can tip toe through the tulips.

Many in the sportsmen camp would like to see all western lands public. I think we have a good mix of private and public now and we need to protect both private property rights and our public lands we all want to enjoy.
 
If you value hunting and fishing on public lands in Utah, do not let this happen. Period. Utah hunters (and anyone who hunts Utah) would be totally screwed if this happened. No doubt about it.

The state could not, I repeat, could NOT manage these lands for far less money. Read any credible financial analysis of this proposition.

The hardest thing to get anyone in this great state to understand is you have to drop the "party line" on this one. I am a big proponent of state power and state rights. I value hunting and fishing higher than anything outside of my family and my religion. Therefore I am a huge opponent of the state of Utah taking over federal lands. Utah would screw this up and screw us over.
 
>If you value hunting and fishing
>on public lands in Utah,
>do not let this happen.
> Period. Utah hunters (and
>anyone who hunts Utah) would
>be totally screwed if this
>happened. No doubt about
>it.
>
>The state could not, I repeat,
>could NOT manage these lands
>for far less money.
>Read any credible financial analysis
>of this proposition.
>
>The hardest thing to get anyone
>in this great state to
>understand is you have to
>drop the "party line" on
>this one. I am
>a big proponent of state
>power and state rights.
>I value hunting and fishing
>higher than anything outside of
>my family and my religion.
> Therefore I am a
>huge opponent of the state
>of Utah taking over federal
>lands. Utah would screw
>this up and screw us
>over.

Good post because this has nothing to do with what party you align yourself with. Stoney is one of very view that I have come across on any forum discussing this topic that don't see the big picture on this issue, thank God. Sure there is waste in about anything you can name in the Federal Government, but you can do the same darn thing in any State related matter too and his idea that a state could better manage the land for less with less employees is not true!
 
Ivory has already said the state should decide which lands to keep, which lands to sell, which lands to develop and which lands to protect.

This isn't rocket science. The cover is the State wants to the lands for the school children, so they can fund education and the best way to do that is build ski resorts, mine, build, drill, lease, and more importantly sell. To believe otherwise is very foolish.
 
Stoney,
Don't know where you live, but if you think the state of utah could manage its public lands better then the Feds, you're delusional.
 
>Ivory has already said the state
>should decide which lands to
>keep, which lands to sell,
>which lands to develop and
>which lands to protect.
>
>This isn't rocket science. The
>cover is the State wants
>to the lands for the
>school children, so they can
>fund education and the best
>way to do that is
>build ski resorts, mine, build,
>drill, lease, and more importantly
>sell. To believe otherwise
>is very foolish.

+1

Grizzly
 
Utah's politics may be different but here in NM there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the State Of NM can manage the present Federal mismanaged public lands cheaper and better than the Feds.

Like I said above the Feds are run by greenies and they are making sure the consumptive users and multiple uses of our public land are soon to become a thing of the past.

Not delusional just realistic my friend. Wake up and look around what is happening on the USFS and BLM lands today. Look what is happening to our rural economies whom depend on this vast natural resource for our livings. It isn't a pretty picture.

The Federal Machine is a big cancer on society! Period!
 
I don't know if the State could manage the public land better than the Feds or not but one thing is certain; The State would need to sell some land to manage anything at all. This alone would start the slippery slope of privatizing public lands in the State of Utah. Rather than live within a budget they would just sell more land!!!!
It's bad for hunters unless you've found your pot of gold and could afford your own spot to buy.

I vote not just "no" but "hell no".
Zeke
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-08-14 AT 04:02PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Dec-08-14 AT 04:01?PM (MST)

LAST EDITED ON Dec-08-14 AT 03:52?PM (MST)

Stoney, I respect you and the position you've taken on issues in the past, especially the wolf issue and the feds behavior with that issue. That's just one of the many reasons that I have no trust in the Feds.

However, I believe your on the wrong side of this issue.

The reason Utah and other western States want these Federal lands is so they can generate revenue off them. They gave them up without a fight years ago because the States could "NOT" afford to manage them and nobody could afford to own them and pay the property taxes on them, a century ago, so the Federal government had to take responsibility for them, the States wouldn't and couldn't. The west is different now than it was a 100 plus years ago and these land are now valuable, with oil, coal, timber, grass, and there is a high demand for "toy ranches" for the rich and famous, along with Urban and Suburban commercial and residential building. This was not the case in the 1800s.

So........if the States can take these land over or take them back, as it where, they aren't going to take them and have them be a liability, regardless of what they agree to on the front end of the transfer. They have to make money off these lands or they can't afford to take them back, it's no different today than it was when the Feds first took them.

Once the States get these lands back, they will being to determine the best use for the land, so far as revenue is concerned. The ranchers that lease the livestock grazing rights currently will be faced with one of two options, purchase the land outright and start paying taxes on it, like any other privately owned property or pay a much high AUM fee to graze livestock on the acreage. It will not be any where near the sub $2 per cow/calf that it is now. Most grazers that lease federal lands now will be forced to give up there leases to the "toy ranchers" or take home a lot less money per year than they are now, and most are barely keeping the Bank loan paid as it is right now.

These lands will go out to bid, like they have done with ten of thousands of the best State lands in Utah already, and 20 acre ranches will be the order of the day.

The large thousand acre tracks will be bought by coal, oil or timber companies and closed to hunting and public access.

That is the only way the States can afford to take over these lands. They can't take them over and loose money on them, like the Feds do, every year. The only reason the Feds can keep any sort of system on these lands now is because of "general Federal Tax dollars", that all wage earning American's contribute, go into to subsidizing the cost of keeping these lands viable.

Stoney, my friend, your a smart guy. Surely you can see that if the States take over these lands, ranchers such as yourself will no longer be able to access your leases. The people who will suffer most, in my opinion, are the current ranching and livestock families that depend on these lands for the family businesses. Hunters and fisherman will be next, back packers and tree huggers next and city picnic party'ers will be last, which is why the city folks aren't going to help us win this fight.

I still hate SUWA..................and I don't trust the Feds. Sometimes you're "forced" to support the lesser of two evils.

DC
 
>Utah's politics may be different but
>here in NM there is
>absolutely no doubt in my
>mind that the State Of
>NM can manage the present
>Federal mismanaged public lands cheaper
>and better than the Feds.
>
>
>Like I said above the Feds
>are run by greenies and
>they are making sure the
>consumptive users and multiple uses
>of our public land are
>soon to become a thing
>of the past.
>
>Not delusional just realistic my friend.


>Wake up and look around
>what is happening on the
>USFS and BLM lands today.
>Look what is happening to
>our rural economies whom depend
>on this vast natural resource
>for our livings. It isn't
>a pretty picture.
>
>The Federal Machine is a big
>cancer on society! Period!

Realistic my rear! NM is already the most unfriendly state in the west the way they have almost completely shut out NRs from hunting unless you pay big bucks for a landowner tag. What would happen if they gained complete control of all public lands within the state?! I'd bet all that great Gila elk country would go for a pretty penny to guys like Ted Turner and the Wilks brothers in short order if the state got into any fiscal problems.
 
>I still hate SUWA..................and I don't
>trust the Feds. Sometimes
>you're "forced" to support the
>lesser of two evils.
>
>DC

I totally agree!
Zeke
 
DC,

I think if you really analyze the situation, Feds versus States,I still firmly believe the States could manage the public land without selling off any of it. They would start letting the logging industry come back, the grazing industry would go to a possibly higher level of fees but numbers of livestock would be put back at their best levels of production, whereas the USFS has drastically cut numbers on the grazing allotments. Mining could be started up. Stumpage fees and grazing fees off these public lands would go a long way to supporting the takeover. Take away the bloated bureaucracy and the ridiculous over spending because of the regulatory nightmare the FS and BLM are under, would bring the cost of running this public land to just a pittance of what it is now.. The Feds support all Endangered Species and if the State could control the wolf population with appropriate trapping and hunting measures it would allow more of our ranchers to stay in business. There are way more positives than negative to the State control and management. I could go on and on.

All I ever hear from the other side is that the States will sell off the public lands if they took control. I think that won't ever happen. The SUWA and the State WF's are using this to hype up the State movements and are really making hay with it to the unsuspecting sportsperson.

I spend a lot of my free time fighting the Feds and I submit that States rights could go along way to solve many of our problems. We get no support from the USFWS, the USFS or the BLM, all the while they let the greenies run rampant.

Our AZ/NM Coalition of Counties and supporting groups have just spent well over $15,000 to provide comments to the USFWS DEIS on the Mexican Gray Wolf Expansion plan and they totally disregarded all of our and comments but did take into account the greenies comments. We are fighting for our lives and the Feds are dragging us down.
 
Stoney: "The SUWA and the State WF's are using this to hype up the State movements and are really making hay with it to the unsuspecting sportsperson."

I would submit that the only unsuspecting sportsperson is yourself and thank God that is the case or we would be in deeper dodo than we already are!
 
Good post 2Lumpy, You sir, have a solid hold on the handle of this issue. I agree that , if Utah ever gains control of the lands in question, Sportsmen,cattlemen,and other Public Land users would pay the price. It wouldn't happen overnight, but over time we, the public,would loose. First the State government would need time to "sell" the reasoning for selling off the land. It would be the same sad stories they sell alot of thier crap with. "We spend less per student than any other state"."Our Teachers deserve more". "We all need and will benefit from modern transit, roads and Freeways". "Incarceration of criminals is not the answere, Its Education, and that costs money". "we need a newer and better State Prison". And like always they sell idea's and when the money is gone. (along with the land in this case) they will begin THE SAME SOB STORIES, the next time they have an idea to sell. I genuinely despise what our Federal Government has became, But that said I sure ass heII wouldnt want the state of Utah controlling it
 
Stoney, I understand, completely, where your coming from and why. If we were discussing any other issue that I can think of, I'd be in your camp, 100%.

The problem with your assessment is the "could" factor. The States, if they controlled the public lands, "could" open up logging, sell coal and oil leases, raise grazing fees, manage with fewer employees, etc. But, don't you see, that's the problem, if they raise the fees, you can't afford to use the land. If they sell coal and oil leases, the State isn't going to simply turn a blind eye to the process and let the mines and producers have unrestricted use of the land. As soon as you have regulations, you need regulators, you need rules and systems and people to manage, oversee and administer the system, be it State or Federal. So your correct, the State "could" do a lot of things but based on our State, our State lands are the most neglected, abused lands in the State.

To add insult to injury, any land State that was worth anything to anybody, has subdivided and already sold by the State, in the last twenty years, not long ago, but just this year and ten years back.

So, in Utah, we've already seen how the State has dealt with the lands that it's owned, we don't need to wonder what they'll do, we already know. That's why, people that would otherwise be very supportive of the State and are anti-Fed are responding to the proposal like they are. We have recent history.

In Utah, we already know what our politicians will do, they've got a well developed track record.

I would suggest New Mexico too, in a short time will succumb to the same "thirst for cash", if they acquire your Federal lands.

Regardless, thanks for all you do for wildlife in your State, your a true Patriot.

Best of the Christmas Season, my friend.
DC
 
I have a island property, BLM on all sides. I pay the feds for an easement, on which I have a dirt road and undergrond electric line.

On the property I have a water well with water rights which I have to pay a state licensed water engenier every so often, so he can tell the state that I am making good use of those rights.

And ofcorse like everybody I have to pay the county property taxes every year no matter what.

I hear a lot of complaining about ALL the differant goverment agencys. I have been treated fairly by all of them.

I am glad to live in a country with such a great system.

Like Lumpy,, I have a few issues with the feds and the tree huggers,, but don't think he State of Utah would do much to protect the common man's access.
 
Stoney,

Regarding your quote "I still firmly believe the States could manage the public land without selling off any of it" - as long as it is a "belief" I'm skeptical. All I've heard thus far is conjecture. Utah politicians need to articulate a clear plan as to what will be bought and sold. Until that happens I don't know how people can support or oppose this.

I'd love to see Utah take these lands from the feds. Saying Utah can't manage cost effectively is nonsense. Oil royalties will increase significantly to the state. All of the royalties will stay here instead of going to a federal bottomless pit.

Although there is some merit in the idea, there needs to be some concrete assurances in place to preserve hunting rights before I sign on.
 
Would any of you who are opposed to the transfer be in favor of it if there was a guarantee hunting rights stayed with the state? In other words someone could buy the land with a deed restriction that says the public can hunt there regardless of who buys it.
 
I'm not sure that you can ever create a legal contract, with a government, that binds the hands of a "future government". You can do it in the private sector but not in government.

Now, if you owned the land, you could sell me, or sell the government an "easement" or a "right to access" that would become part of a deed, but I don't think it can go the other direction, if the government owns the land. The best you could do would be a "lease" for x number of years.

I could be completely wrong however.

For me, this issue goes beyond hunting access. I'm as concerned over the other users of the public lands as I am with my personal use for hunting and fishing. I am a diehard believer in the multiple use concept, and want these lands to remain available to live stockmen, miners, loggers, back packers, atvs users, and picnic'ers from the city. I'm a diehard supporter of requiring all working Americans to contribute to and have the use of our current public lands. Once they become private property, I'm out and so are miilions of others.

Why should all Americans pay for what only some use? For the same reason I pay taxes for municipal golf courses, swimming pools, race tracks, sports arenas, schools, fire departments, etc. etc. I use none of those things but I pay for them because they make us who we are as a people, and they make communities more than labor camps and feudal system of Europe before freedom broke out. We're all in this together and we all pay for everything, whether we use it or not. Not unlike an irrigation company and the canal systems or Inter-State highways.

Hell, if I was going to really tell you how I feel, I'd tell you I think the Federal government should be required to purchase large tracts of land all the States, (from willing sellers, of course) especially those in the East, the Mid-West and the South and turn them into multiple use lands, so all Americans would have public lands access in every State, not just here in the Western States. Having access to thousand upon thousands of acres to use responsibly, at your own discretion, is a priceless freedom no other peoples in this world enjoy and it should be part of every State and it must never be taken away from our citizens. That's how over the edge I am about this public land business. It's no different than sharing in the cost of a school to educate our children, not one bit different.

I'd rather pay more personal income and or property taxes, and receive fewer government services, in order to be able to make sure that Stoney can graze his live stock on our ground, Big John can mine coal on our ground, Kelly can log timber on our ground, and you and I can hunt these deer were trying to raise on our ground, under the multiple use program, than to take any chance on cutting a better deal with State government.

Here's an novel idea, elect some Federal Legislators that will fix the damn Federal mess, including the U.S.F.S., BLM, EPA, and all these screwed up Federal Bureaucracies and get Federal public lands administration doing with it's supposed to do. Lets fix the problem rather trade it off to some other group of State Bureaucrats that have already proven they will absolutely make it worse.
 
Spend a few minutes looking into the hunting situation on state owned land In some of the western states and it will be real clear why this is a piss poor idea. NM being at the top of the list.
 
So SMELLYBUCK?

You'd Trust what one Politician Promised for a year or two?

Then only to have a Future Politician Change/or do something different?

"With the Guarantee of Hunting Rights"

JUDAS!

I Guess you forgot about the Colorado Landowner Tags that were suppose to Guarantee the Buyers of the Tags they could Hunt the Private Ground of the Seller?

They turned that in to a:

I'll Sell you the Tag but You're NOT Huuntin on My Property,You'll have to Hunt The Public Side,along with everybody else!

Show me the Enforcement?

Like I said!

You Can't Bail the USFS out even if they Sold it!

Think about it!

It's Not Theirs to Sell!



>Would any of you who are
>opposed to the transfer be
>in favor of it if
>there was a guarantee hunting
>rights stayed with the state?
> In other words someone
>could buy the land with
>a deed restriction that says
>the public can hunt there
>regardless of who buys it.
>










[font color="redhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMsueOnu0kY
 
First and foremost I think the States (Utah or NM) have as much chance to take over the Federal lands as a snow ball in hell. It won't ever happen.

What I see is the NMWF propaganda machine at work to bring more hunters into their membership roles and and liberal ideas, by banging on the drums of the public land being sold off. There is way too much power in the Federal realm to ever let that happen.

DC, I am with you in that we have the finest concept in having all of the public lands we have to use. It was a brilliant move to make use of the unappropriated lands that weren't homesteaded in the early days in the Western states. The big problem is that we are losing on a daily basis our multiple uses of these lands. They are being locked up in huge amounts as we speak. We need to work harder to protect the multiple use concept on our public land.

What we see in our local areas here where we are almost totally surrounded by the public land are millions of acres of timber lands that have been managed on an even age and uneven age stand management for the last almost 100 years and millions of dollars of thinning projects making the Forest more productive, just sitting there not being able to utilize this valuable resource, as well as on most NF's the severe decline in the AUM's of grazing allowed, with almost all mining shut down forever and hunting and hunters on the chopping block.

What is happening and what is politically and environmentally possible in today's world is that us consumptive users are on the losing side in the current liberal political world and are sadly outvoted.

State and County and local control is on the losing side. We are farting dust trying to fight this movement. I for one won't ever give up the fight however.
 
"So, in Utah, we've already seen how the State has dealt with the lands that it's owned, we don't need to wonder what they'll do, we already know. That's why, people that would otherwise be very supportive of the State and are anti-Fed are responding to the proposal like they are. We have recent history.

In Utah, we already know what our politicians will do, they've got a well developed track record."

That quote is exactly why I 100% oppose the idea of the state of Utah taking over federal lands. It is not that I'm afraid of what "could" happen. I'm afraid of what WILL happen. Utah has already proven what they want to do and will do. And that will result in me getting screwed over on lands that were once public property. I'm just as much against the federal machine as anyone. Which makes it tough to wrap my head around my position on this at times. However, it is not speculation. It is not liberal fear mongering. It is absolutely proven through our prior track record what would happen to public lands in Utah. And it won't be all of us going out into the mountains to chase animals or toss a feather into a small stream for awesome trout. But at least I will be able to look at pictures on the internet with someone's logo slapped on them, though...
 
Not good at all. The state will sale the land to special interest groups and us ave guys will not be able to hunt on it. That is exactly what happened in europe and only the elite get to hunt. We do not want this at all.
 
I do not support it! Everyone else not supporting it has summed up well why I also DO NOT SUPPORT THE STATE TAKING THE LAND.
 
This is one issue I do not support. Keep these lands Federal and in the hands of the people. Our State land does get auctioned to the highest bidder and it will!

I have met the Honorable Governor Herbert. Infact I was apart of a flyfishing trip with him and his friends. 90% of them were land developers who were very wealthy. No doubt in my mind special interest groups are involved with this land grab to privitize it and to keep the public out and develop it.

This land grab is not for the State of Utah but for those friends of his with deep pockets. We all currently own this land so let's keep it that way so we can keep using it.

Governor Herbert already has a history of being in favor of the wealthy few at the expense of the common Joe Utahn. Remember "Streamside Access" where you weren't tresspassing long as you were below the "high water mark"? This provided fantastic fishing opportunities for people like me who don't have the money to buy a huge ranch. He has family with property on the Provo River that do not like sharing public waters with the public. Governor Herbert then privatized our public water in support of the Rich few who don't like seeing anglers in a river. I got a ticket for fishing on the Weber River below Rockport Reservoir directly after this mass privitization. This land and resources belongs to us all and not a select priviledged few.

Furthermore, if I did own a huge section of private water, I would rather have the ability to fish everything the State of Utah has than just my few private holes.

This land is completely different than the Valle Caldera. Keep it public! I am conservative but will not vote for Governor Herbert. Lets get rid of him.
 
I'm glad to see you Utah guys talking about this. It's a movement that's happening all over the west. Here in Nevada the people who are pushing it the hardest are the people who graze public land. They deal the most with BLM and feel they get the shaft. I agree that this will result in more land being sold to private interests and see it as a threat to what is important to me. There are a lot of complicating issues for sure.

I think those grazers are in for a surprise if it happened though. The land that would come up for sale might not be affordable for ranchers. I fear that the real interest in purchasing the land would come from Asia.


[font color="blue"]I don't make the soup,I just stir it.[/font]
 
As you can tell, I do not post much, but wanted to chime in and agree with many who have commented on this issue of "State Rights" vs. "Federal Ownership". Let me preface this by saying that I worked for the State of Utah for 13 years and I did manage land. I must also preface my views by saying that I am currently a land manager for the Feds (going on 8 years).

Now, having stated my possible bias based on experience with the State and with the feds, my opinion is that this is no doubt a land grab intended to open more areas for oil and gas development, as well as other types of development. As hunters, should we care about this? Absolutely!!! Even if your favorite hunting unit remains open to hunting even if it is heavily leased, you will see less game. One only needs to go to NE Utah and the adjacent area in Wyoming and the NW corner of Colorado. Go to the Jonas gas fields in Wyoming. This type of development is very dense.

Drilling is getting better and land managers are requiring less pads and more horizontal drilling, but it still has an impact to the overall population of wildlife. The current discussion of Sage Grouse is a prime example. For those who think that if Utah owned the land, the Endangered Species Act would not apply. Think again! I enjoy lower fuel prices today because of this domestic oil and gas exploration and the industries ability to get it out of the ground, but it needs to be a happy medium that considers the long-term affects.

It saddens me that some have some poor opinions of those who work for the Forest Service and for the BLM. I know many of those working in these agencies and they are very fine people that are not "greens" or extreme environmentalists like some of you say. Instead, they are "Conservationists" that realize that resources are scarce and have many laws and regulations (given to them by politicians that sometimes conflict) that make it difficult to manage and juggle. Most of the people that I know are "home grown" and grew up on public lands hunting or part of a ranching family. They care about the resources. Sometimes we might get upset because we see a road closure or things like that, but in reality it is because of our (hunters and other recreational users) stupidity that gives them no choice but to close a road. I could go on and on about this, but I think I am getting too far away from the initial post.

So, can the State manage all these lands? This is a definite NO!. We had a hard enough time managing the lands that we did have and the State Legislature did not help fund the management of these lands. Instead, management was paid for by hunters and fisherman's dollars as well as utilizing a match from Pittman-Robertson Act dollars that the federal government provided. (That's right! The feds are helping pay for the management of lands already owned by the State.) The state would have to "prostitute" the land to pay for management, whereas the federal dollars for management comes from taxes generated in every state and city across the US including places like LA and New York.

Yes, it is frustrating as taxpayers to see so much federal money being spent, but once again, it is the Washington cronies that have created the mess with insane federal agency contract law and fiscal policy and a system where an actual budget is not even done until half of the fiscal year is already done. Trust me, the BLM and the Forest Service are lean on personnel and on money because they have been punished for trying to protect resources that ultimately benefit hunters and a whole host of other users for the sake of those seeking the almighty dollar.

Let me end by stating this clearly. If Utah is successful in this land grab, the land will be prostituted and we, as hunters will lose out in a big way. Sure, there still will be hunting, but it will be very limited because of reduced population size and the ability (inability)to access lands. One only needs to look at Northern Utah for this model......and the rest of the US east of Colorado for crying out loud. This land grab does not improve your ability to graze if you are a rancher. It does not improve your ability to run your ATV wherever you see fit, and it certainly does not improve our opportunity for hunting. Say goodbye to public land as we know it both in size and in scope.

Keep up the talk and put a bug into your Legislature's Ear. Utah is set to waste $3 million dollars on a law suite that the State attorneys have already said is likely to fail, but it is still a scary proposition if it comes to fruition.
 
Wildlifehabitat,

Great post and all that really needs to be said.

This public lands transfer scam, promoted by the wingnut fringe teaparty, needs to stop.
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-11-14 AT 08:42AM (MST)[p]>Wildlifehabitat,
>
>Great post and all that really
>needs to be said.
>
>This public lands transfer scam, promoted
>by the wingnut fringe teaparty,
>needs to stop.

+1 That was an informed and informative post. Thanks.

I think by-in-large the posters on here have the same sentiments.
State control is the wrong direction and will only diminish available lands and public access.
The "average joe" (like me) has everything to lose and nothing to gain by the State "taking control" of public lands.
Federally controlled, publicly-accessible, wild land IS what makes many of our western States so great!

Zeke
 
>I like the Utah Governor, I
>like a bunch of the
>Republican Legislators.
>
>I hate SUWA, Sierra Club, and
>the rest.
>
>I hate wilderness and national monuments.
>
>
>I do not trust the Federal
>Government, for countless, justifiable reasons.
>
>
>AS MUCH AS I HATE WILDERNESS,
>MONUMENTS, MISTRUSTS THE FEDS AND
>LIKE THE GOVERNOR AND THE
>UTAH LEGISLATOR.................I WILL NEVER SUPPORT
>TURNING THE FEDERAL LANDS IN
>UTAH OR THE WEST OVER
>TO THE STATES. NEVER.
> I'D RATHER SEE IT
>BECOME WILDERNESS, A NATION MONUMENT
>OR EVEN A NATIONAL PARK
>BEFORE I'D SUPPORT TURNING IT
>OVER TO THE STATE, AND
>LIVE WITH THE CONSEQUENCES OF
>THAT ACTION.
>
>What pisses me off is being
>put in a position where
>I have to support the
>things I despise!
>Damn it!!!!!!
>
>DC

Lumpy why do you hate wilderness???
 
Sounds great to me. I say go for it. There's more to a picture than whether you or I get free hunting access.
 

Similar threads

gr8fuldoug
For Sale Heads Up On Some Great Optics
Replies
0
Views
235
gr8fuldoug
gr8fuldoug

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

Screenshot_20211126-092745_Instagram.jpg
IMG_8593.jpeg
F11108CB-2CCB-4702-8AB9-9D17C64C91B9.jpeg
Screenshot_20220825-080730_Gallery.jpg
Big Buck for hornkiller
Screenshot_20200127-155929_Gallery.jpg
D074DD50-5BDE-439A-AD01-6CC69998F7AD.jpeg
tmj3.jpg
B4AEB852-8CE0-493A-971E-438A56C5F29B.jpeg
9B4BA25F-63D8-491E-BD7D-28B188C43C73.jpeg
IMG_0335 - Copy - Copy.JPG
B17C93CA-32AD-4F3E-B75E-4E13A6630658.jpeg
Back
Top Bottom