Bishop, GET HIM OUT

bowhunt

bowhunt

Long Time Member
Messages
3,191
When are you guys in Southern Utah going to finally vote this guy out of office.
In short his plan:

-Get land moved to state ownership
-Collect personal money from lobby groups wanting to buy the land
-Watch as companies buy up, and LOCK up the land.
-Ride off into the sunset.

This transfer of property to the state is no more than a scheme to sell off land to his buddies, and get you locked out.

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=38199508&ni...iled-already-sparking-criticism&s_cid=queue-9
 
He's Northern Utah Representative, not Southern.

But, yeah I would like to see him go as well. Unfortunately I don't have a vote in that district either!
 
I still think we need bumper stickers and yard signs that say something like, "Rob Bishop hates hunters".

If we could get every truck with a Tines Up sticker (or other hunting sticker) to have an 'anti-Rob Bishop' sticker next to it... he'd be voted out.

Grizzly
 
Why stop there Grizzly? Maybe you could report him for child abuse or take out a billboard calling him a racist.

It is sad that men would attack men's character publicly and wish them and their family ill for a deer hunting spot.
 
Oops, Northern.
Go look up his top donors.

Oil and gas
Cattlemen

You think the land he is lobbying to return to the state will be kept open for us, or USED and sold?
 
Did you forget to mention the flip side of the initiative?

- More wilderness areas
- Expansion of existing wilderness areas
- Another National Monument

Seems to me all you libs would be for all that.

Lets see, just how much land does he propose for oil & gas activities? According to a bunch you MMers...its the whole state.

Maybe you ought to read the initiative again. There is more acres proposed for creation of wilderness and monuments than there is for oil & gas (the so called land grab part of it). Read it.

Some of you say...more wilderness....thats great! However, maybe you ought to look at the regs that come along with it....not talking about ATV use here. Go look up the regs for your favorite wilderness area.

This is what I was debating with you about GRIZ....a while back. This is the initiative that will dictate what happens on public lands...if passed through Congress and signed by the President.....Not some meaningless bill that Gov Herbert signed.

Well, do you believe me now.....or are you still in denial.
 
Question is....did you you even read it???

"-More wilderness areas"
"-Expansion of existing wilderness areas"

Are you talking about Bishop's so called "wilderness" areas that would allow mining, logging, oil and gas extraction and grazing? What a f-ing joke.
 
Keep him in office. I vote for him every time. He is opposed to making my favorite hunting area in the whole world into a no hunting allowed National Park the way Obummer has proposed. I like that.
 
Rackster,

So the Public Lands Initiative is what you are alleging to be talking about?

You may want to review how that thread is specifically referring to the $14 Million lawsuit by the Utah STATE Legislature... which has absolutely nothing to do with a congressional proposal by our FEDERAL Congressmen. In fact, the PLI is in direct contradiction to the state-sponsored lawsuit that attempts to force the seizure of federal lands without congressional proceedings.

You are attempting to conflate two entirely different situations. They are completely unrelated, they just have similar objectives... to use our lands to make money for a wealthy few. The lawsuit attempts to seize all federal land (except National Parks) in Utah's border. The PLI offers an exchange/management-decision of specifically drafted and identified parcels. These are entirely different discussions and one has no bearing on the other. They could both pass or fail independently of the other.

For the record, if we get more/bigger wilderness areas (though they're not real wilderness areas due to RS2477 roads) and new national monuments, we are guaranteed public access and hunting in perpetuity.

However, if the $14 Million lawsuit succeeds, we are guaranteed to lose public land forever, though nobody knows exactly how much (we do know that some must be sold, according to the State-sponsored study which is the basis for the very lawsuit we were discussing).

I didn't agree with it, but if Clinton hadn't established Grand Staircase National Monument, it is entirely likely that we'd have oil shale operations in southern Utah that are now shutting down and leaving destroyed land and ghost towns in their wake (it has happened with every energy boom and is happening currently to American oil operations due to falling prices). But we would now have less water flowing down our rivers and more air pollution throughout our state, plus roads and land destruction everywhere they had set up shop. If that is what you want, you can keep it.

You seem to really want to stand with Rob Bishop.

That is fine, but I'll stand with hunting groups like the Teddy Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Backcountry Hunters & Anglers, and Boone & Crockett Club, all of which have opposed the land grab. And if you want to call hunter/conservationists "liberals" as a pejorative, then there's not much I can do for you.

Here is an example of RMEF, who officially opposes the land grab and Rob Bishops Land Water Conservation Fund antics, working to protect public land (something that Rob Bishop clearly tries to avoid, at the expense of Utahans)...


Here is a video posted by BHA showing somebody fighting against the Bundy occupation, which is the latest iteration of the land grab buffoonery. (Rob Bishop refused to even sign the Grijalva resolution opposing the "unlawful, armed occupation" of the Refuge. Remember the Refuge was paid for with duck stamp proceeds, funded by hunters. Yet Bishop wants to turn management/owenership over to ranchers that don't even own it just because they graze cattle nearby. This could close the land to hunting forever, and nobody will promise otherwise)...


I've proven my point. Rob Bishop's land grab scheme is overwhelmingly opposed by hunting groups. Whether his dream is achieved through refusing to fund the Land Water Conservation Fund, a successful state-lawsuit that he has said he supports, or a PLI that allows the destruction of public lands in the promise of some nameless oil company making millions of dollars by destroying and pillaging our land... hunting groups oppose Bishop's ideals.

ROB BISHOP CLEARLY IS NOT PRO-HUNTER! It's indisputable and not even close.

Grizzly
 
>Keep him in office. I
>vote for him every time.
> He is opposed to
>making my favorite hunting area
>in the whole world into
>a no hunting allowed National
>Park the way Obummer has
>proposed. I like that.

He wants to make Bears Ears into a National Monument, like most of the Desert Bighorn sheep units in Utah, that obviously do allow hunting. Huge difference.

Grizzly
 
>Keep him in office. I
>vote for him every time.
> He is opposed to
>making my favorite hunting area
>in the whole world into
>a no hunting allowed National
>Park the way Obummer has
>proposed. I like that.


Really? Obummer proposed a new National Park in Utah?

Where do people like you get your information from?

No wonder Bishop, Noel and Ivory keep getting re-elected, they have a bunch of clueless idiots voting for them.
 
Shortgun and Grizzly hate businessmen and free market economies. They hate anyone who makes more money than them and anyone who might actually think and work for their daily bread and not just wait around for a cheep deer tag or meal ticket.
 
Wrong again Pig. This thread is about public lands, not rich vs poor. I hate anyone who tries to take our public lands from us, but you wouldn't know anything about that seeing how you're a TexASSen.
 
I have heard that Obama is going to make another huge national monument in Utah when he leaves office just like Clinton did. Talking San Juan county. Anyone else heard this, and if so is this why Bishop is trying to get this done? I am not that knowledgeable about the subject.
 
>I have heard that Obama is
>going to make another huge
>national monument in Utah when
>he leaves office just like
>Clinton did. Talking
>San Juan county. Anyone
>else heard this, and if
>so is this why Bishop
>is trying to get this
>done? I am not
>that knowledgeable about the subject.

There are rumblings that Obama will assign National Monument status to the Bears Ears area. Bishop has felt like if he could get the PLI passed, that he could ward off the Monument designation (in fact, the PLI specifically takes the Antiquities Act, which allows Monument status to be granted, from those specific counties forever).

People can disagree on which option is better for hunters, but that is the basic history of the situation.

---My personal opinion is that there are worse things for outdoorsmen than a National Monument designation. For instance, roads stay as they currently are, hunting is allowed, camping/hiking/ATV's are allowed, grazing continues as it currently is. It just prohibits mineral extraction and consumptive uses and keeps the land from being pieced and sold off. Admittedly, it can inhibit some of those local communities ability to make money off the land. But the other side of the coin is that it protects that land from those communities that want to make money off of it. There's definitely two ways to think about it.---

Grizzly
 
so you are poor Shortgun? Keep telling yourself those lies. You and Grizzly have all ready decided truth credibility and being a man mean nothing on this thread.
 
Griz my boy,

You have proved nothing other than your lack of education on the matter.

Tell me this Griz....if Gov Herberts signed bill is such a threat, then show me where the State has been selling off State lands since the Gov signed his bill. Show me where big business has bought State lands in Utah since he signed the bill and how those lands have been raped and pillaged and closed to hunting. If it is such a threat, then why am I still hunting on State lands? Why am I still seeing bucks and bulls on State land? Why am I still shed hunting on State lands.

Your hype on this is nothing but hype.....you would have me believe that if the law suit is won (which I hope it is, but it has no chance of winning), then all wilderness in Utah would be sold off and an oil rig will be put on top of Kings Peak.

You say I have conflated two issues. Really, and you havn't? Thats the pot calling the kettle black.

You said "For the record, if we get more/bigger wilderness areas (though they're not real wilderness areas due to RS2477 roads) and new national monuments, we are guaranteed public access and hunting in perpetuity." For the record Your Wrong! RS2477 roads are are cherry-stemmed out of the proposed wilderness......Not a new idea....current wilderness have the same thing. Also, any road that is a non-system road will be closed. Second point....hunt in perpetuity.....Really? Do you know the History of Zions National Park. It was a National Monument prior to it being designated as a Park. Can you hunt there?

You can hunt wilderness so long as you abide by all the wilderness regs.......or you can do what you want so long as you dont get caught...many people do.

If public lands are so protected under BLM and FS management, then why dis they just pave a road into the Bookcliffs? Why all the oil & gas? Why all the mining? This is all happening on federal lands. Here is the answer to that....they are both mutliple use agencies by law. It is no more protected under federal agency jurisdiction than it would be under State. Disagree? Then show me all the State lands that have been sold since Herbert signed that bill. Shoe me where hunting access has been close on State lands.

Here is a great example on how the FS has protected Teddy Roosevelts old ranch (sarcasm there).

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/3ec3...ing-begins-near-roosevelts-north-dakota-ranch

Griz, the vid you posted is just a bunch of Enviro junk.......That kind of thing is being done several places without the RMEF, but actually initiated by the States. But of course that must be bad, becuase the State initiated the process of getting rid of the checker-bording. But its good if its RMEF, Right?

As you said, there are to sides of the issue.....but you are on the selfish side of things. Leave ALL the land for YOU and for what YOU want to do with it. Others that have a different idea.....well they are just wanting it for the $$$ and to fill their pockets right? Aren't you just as selfish?

Bowhunt,
The articles you posted have nothing to do with what you say. However, I knowwhat your getting at...the Enviro groups have made that complaint. If you were to dig into it, you will see that all wilderness regs will apply to all wilderness that is created or expanded. Enviro groups lie more than any other group of people I know.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-21-16 AT 07:14PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Jan-21-16 AT 07:12?PM (MST)

Here's one sale:

http://trustlands.utah.gov/sitla-land-auction-earns-673k-for-public-schools/

And you get to hunt state owned lands because the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources gives SITLA millions of dollars a year and had to sign a contract for your right to hunt on those lands. Don't get under the false premise that your using state lands for free. That's how your still hunting state land Rackster. Imagine the criticism and bashing the BLM or Forest Service would get if they even thought of charging our state for the right to hunt the federally managed lands.
 
Rackster, I am always willing to have a discussion with passionate, yet reasonable, people with differing views as long as they are honest and the discussion is in good faith. You and I have had many long discussions and I feel they have remained on-topic and were never personal (hopefully you agree). We just disagree in our philosophy, and that is okay.

However, when you came on here and replied to a RMEF video showing a mere snippet of the good work they do, this time in opening up thousands of acres to public land hunting forever by calling it "a bunch of Enviro junk"... well I simply refuse to acknowledge that with any response.

Frankly, you should retract it and apologize. This is a hunting website and the hard work groups like RMEF do to preserve hunting for everybody should be unanimously commended here.

Grizzly
 
Oneye, to add to your point. A full 1/3 of every private acre in the State of Utah was once state-owned.

If people will pause and wrap their head around the huge tracts of land that are in private hands today, and try and imagine a time when 33% of that was public... Wow! We've already lost millions of acres of state land to private ownership and this could be just the beginning.

You're right, though. Federal lands allow access. State lands are often leased out for various private enterprises. So, not only are state-owned lands very likely to be sold, they're also very likely to be leased to somebody else and closed to public access.

And these aren't projections or spook stories. They're verifiable facts to anybody who cares to look for them.

Grizzly
 
Rack
Really?
Read the proposal. The designated areas can still be leased, and locked up.
That is not propaganda spewed by Enviro wackos, that is stated by Bishop.
Utah land that has sold recently:
640 acres in Garfield County
640 acres in Wayne County
There is an auction set for the end of February to sell off more.

State land has been being sold to private individuals and locked up for the last 100 years. Look into it, we have lost millions of acres.
I am all for use of this land, and am actually an advocate of pipelines, mining, grazing, etc. MULTI USE.

Bishops bill does not preserve land, it puts it in a pool for sale.
 
Griz,

Ok. I agree. We have had many good discussions. And I agree that we disagree on philoshophy.

No apology. RMEF, although they do some good.....they are about one thing and one thing only....elk/big game.In my book, that is environmentalism.

Bowhunt,
I know the proposals. I have sat in several meetings about this initiative. You have know idea what you are talking about.

Sold land? Show me the sell. Also, is it was sold, who hunting area did it take away? Was it on on top of the mountain, or was it sagebrush, p/j and dirt? Even if it was a sell, I thought you guys said it was all eminant and that it was all going to be sold. The State has acquired a ton of land over the last 50 years from private land owners. Sell it, I would like to see evidence that prie hunting ground was sold.
 
Rackster your a joke. If you believe conservation of the very damn places you hunt and wildlife need to survive is bad your as anti-hunting and anti-wildlife as any extremist out there. Get out of hunting if you can't be a steward of our wildlife, their habitat, and places we hunt. They deserve better than an anti like yourself.
 
http://trustlands.utah.gov/our-agency/faqs/

Oil and Gas

How do I nominate lands for the competitive sale?

If there are trust lands you would like to see appear on a Competitive Offering, notify SITLA either by email to [email protected] or by letter addressed to Mr. Bonner at 675 East 500 South, Suite 500, Salt Lake City, UT 84102. Your expression of interest should describe the lands by township-range-section and quarter-quarter description. SITLA will review your request and if the lands are available, they will be placed on the next available sale. Refer to the Competitive Offering Schedule Dates.

What do I need to do to get an approved Application for Permit to Drill (APD) on SITLA lands?

The Division of Oil, Gas and Mining (DOGM) requires that SITLA first approve an APD before it approves any APD on lands SITLA administers. SITLA requires the following:

1) A complete APD has been submitted to DOGM

2) All necessary resource reports have been sent to SITLA, and may include archaeology, paleontology, and wildlife.

3) Well pre-site inspection

SITLA then completes its review of the APD and sends approval to DOGM.

Does my proposed well location require a paleontological survey?

Well locations within the orange-shaded area on this map will require a paleontological survey.

How many copies do I need to send when submitting an assignment change?

SITLA requires two original assignments, one for SITLA records and one to be returned to assignee.

If the assignment is submitted in a blanket form, you must send a copy for each lease number listed plus one, two of which must be originals. Filing fees are per lease number, not per blanket assignment.
Property Planning and Development

How does trust land become categorized as development land?

The Development Group oversees approximately 1% of the lands managed by the Trust. When the Development Group identifies a land parcel with development potential, the director designates it as development land after reaching consensus among all agency managers.

How do I purchase, develop, lease or secure an easement on trust lands?

Contact SITLA with your transaction proposal. Please be prepared to identify the location of the land, including township, range, section, or specific street address. The Development Group periodically distributes Requests for Development Proposals (link to page) for specific parcels.

What does the Development Group do?

The Development Group applies real estate development, land planning, land conservation, legal, and finance disciplines in its management of trust land properties designated for development. We create value by working with the private sector, governmental agencies, and other interested parties on the tracts of land we manage. We capture this value by taking these lands into well structured, creative transactions with the private sector, always with an eye toward quality planning, preserving open space, and meeting larger community needs.
 
Wow! I am amazed no one hunts on private land.

The fear here is that yall will actually have to pay to access hunting.

The welfare recipients are scared they may actually have to work to get their food.
 
More indisputable evidence of how the state manages/sells its land.

Thx blacktail_slayer.

Grizzly
 
>Wow! I am amazed no
>one hunts on private land.
>
>
>The fear here is that yall
>will actually have to pay
>to access hunting.
>
>The welfare recipients are scared they
>may actually have to work
>to get their food.


Only an Assclown from the big city in TexASS would make such a statement. It must suck to be you, living in a giant sh!thole of a city, having to pay an access fee every time you want to hunt, always looking on the internet at us poor ole ignorant western folk, how we can just go and hunt when and where ever we want. No wonder you're such a bitter jealous butthurt little man. Now I understand why your favorite hobby is arguing on the internet with strangers from the west.

How's that Little Man syndrome going? Are you getting help for that?

BTW City Boy, pretty much all my big game hunting is on public land. I spend far more time hunting birds then big game and probably 95% of my bird hunting is on private land all for free just by knocking on doors and building relationships with landowners. Again, something you would know nothing about because you live in Sh!tholesberg TexASS.
 
All that childish talk to hide your true feelings Shortgun. So why would people on this thread specifically say Bishop hates hunters if he is trying to change public to private ground? Do you have the juevos to answer or are you just going to keep being bitter about being shortgun?
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-22-16 AT 02:20PM (MST)[p]I am in support of keeping our public lands public and I make my living off of public land, mostly USFS Wilderness areas.

I recognize that we have a pretty good mix of private and public and realize how in the last 100 years the general public has come to love and respect and protect their public hunting and recreation opportunities. This is very understandable.

With that said private property made this nation great and if not for our forefathers founding principles, of a nation where one could own land and prosper on it, is the cornerstone of our nation. With the onslaught and ever growing socialist democracy we see a big shift in feelings toward the distribution of wealth and the longing for those have nots, to have.

I hope Utah, NM AZ and the other states trying to take back the public lands in those states keep what is public, public, and not make it state trust lands with all of the restrictions that places on land.

The public land (excluding wilderness) should be managed for sustainable yielding multiple uses including grazing, logging, mining, oil and gas, hunting, fishing, ATV's, camping, wood cutting and all consumptive uses. All uses should be done with good land stewardship as the driving factor. We already have a good share of the public land in Wilderness. In the Gila Apache National Forest we have 800,000 acres out of 3.5 million total FS acres. That's almost 25% of our public land here in the Gila, Aldo Leopold and Blue Range Wilderness areas. We have very little private land here in the southern portion of the largest county in the State of NM.

Sadly we are losing to both Federal over regulation and radical environmentals takeovers, using the Endangered Species Act as the bludgeon and non use by wilderness proxy with such things as the USFS Roadless Initiatives and Travel Management restrictions on game retrieval, camping and many other restrictions.

Here in Catron County NM we fear the feds and enviros much more than the state control of the public land. I for one don't think the feds and the US Congress will ever let it happen. I think and I may be wrong, that hunters have much more to be worried about.
 
He isn't northern's region he is every ones representive that live out side the metertopolitan are of salt lake,Davis,and utah county. So all you south, east, west, and north of that. He basically is a rural rep.

And further more he needs to go, just like all our 4 congressional delegates because they have all sold out to the RNC and the establishment. It only took Mrs. Love 1 day when she caved on her first vote to keep the cry baby boehner in.

All are backing Rubio who is a losing cause and the establishments choice. What a joke.

We all are idiots for getting fooled by these D-Bags.
 
Stoney,

You are spot on. Those are exactly the points that I have made repeatedly on this forum. Glad to hear someone else gets it.

Blacktail Slayer,

All that you posted means squat. I said to post up State land that has been sold since Gov Herbert signed his public land takeover bill (HB 148).

So Blacktail start posting it up. So far you havn't posted anything that shows State land being sold since that bill was signed. And if it was such an eminent threat, then wouldn't all State lands be sold by now? If you all think the State is so bent on selling lands to the highest bidder to fill their pockets, then why is there still State land for me to hunt. If that was the case, then all State land would have been sold by now.

ONEYE...calling me anti-hunting for those reasons is like me calling you anti-american, because you want all the land for yourself. However, I won't pass that judgement on you. You just need a dose of common sense.
 
I hear a lot of bashing of the oil industry. Lets see how many deer you all bag with out them.

By the way the size of the renewable energy foot print on BLM land is right on the verge of passing the size of the one left by the oil patch.

This is right from the BLM:

"The BLM proposes to amend existing regulations to facilitate responsible solar and wind energy development and to receive fair market value for such development. The proposed rule would promote the use of preferred areas for solar and wind energy development and establish competitive processes, terms, and conditions (including rental and bonding requirements) for solar and wind energy development rights-of-way both inside and outside these preferred areas."

And guess what,,, neither the sun nor the wind will get you back and forth to your honey hole.
 
So stoney?

What do you do on the Wilderness Area's to make a Living?



>LAST EDITED ON Jan-22-16
>AT 02:20?PM (MST)
>
>I am in support of keeping
>our public lands public and
>I make my living off
>of public land, mostly USFS
>Wilderness areas.
>
>I recognize that we have a
>pretty good mix of private
>and public and realize how
>in the last 100 years
>the general public has come
>to love and respect and
>protect their public hunting and
>recreation opportunities. This is very
>understandable.
>
>With that said private property made
>this nation great and if
>not for our forefathers founding
>principles, of a nation where
>one could own land and
>prosper on it, is the
>cornerstone of our nation. With
>the onslaught and ever growing
>socialist democracy we see a
>big shift in feelings toward
>the distribution of wealth and
>the longing for those have
>nots, to have.
>
>I hope Utah, NM AZ and
>the other states trying to
>take back the public lands
>in those states keep what
>is public, public, and not
>make it state trust lands
>with all of the restrictions
>that places on land.
>
>The public land (excluding wilderness) should
>be managed for sustainable yielding
>multiple uses including grazing, logging,
>mining, oil and gas, hunting,
>fishing, ATV's, camping, wood cutting
>and all consumptive uses. All
>uses should be done with
>good land stewardship as the
>driving factor. We already have
>a good share of the
>public land in Wilderness. In
>the Gila Apache National Forest
>we have 800,000 acres out
>of 3.5 million total FS
>acres. That's almost 25% of
>our public land here in
>the Gila, Aldo Leopold and
>Blue Range Wilderness areas. We
>have very little private land
>here in the southern portion
>of the largest county in
>the State of NM.
>
>Sadly we are losing to both
>Federal over regulation and radical
>environmentals takeovers, using the Endangered
>Species Act as the bludgeon
>and non use by wilderness
>proxy with such things as
>the USFS Roadless Initiatives and
>Travel Management restrictions on game
>retrieval, camping and many other
>restrictions.
>
>Here in Catron County NM we
>fear the feds and enviros
>much more than the state
>control of the public land.
>I for one don't think
>the feds and the US
>Congress will ever let it
>happen. I think and I
>may be wrong, that hunters
>have much more to be
>worried about.








"I'm Living & Dieing with the Choices
I've made!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=N8i5NLyXZdc
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-23-16 AT 09:28AM (MST)[p]Griz,

I just read you post about Black tail Slayer.....Ha..What a laugh.....indisputable facts? I said to post up Sate land that has been sold since Herberts HB148 bill. Blacktail has yet to do that. I'd also like to see when it was sold since that bill, how much, to what big business $$$ freek, and how that land has been developed. Most important thing though....Show me what prime hunting ground was lost because of it.

Come on post up the facts Blacktail.....Griz, maybe you ought to help him out.

Again, there is still State land out there for me to hunt. The way you all have been talking, especially Griz, since HB148 was signed all State land should have been sold by now. Because they are greedy right? They just want to fill there pockets right? THen why is there State land that I can still hunt. Why did I hunt on State land last season?

Don't you all think you have exaggerated this whole issue even just a little bit passed what reality is? Anyone willing to admit that?
 
I have to agree with Rackster about there being state land out there to hunt. 3 of my family have killed six 4X4s and a few smaller bucks on State land over the last 6 or seven years.

Personally I like the push back by the state on the feds, It does help to keep them in check.

That being said I don't want the state to take over our federal lands.

Gridlock is a good thing some times.
 
I have been outfitting in the Gila Wilderness, and Blue Range Wilderness for 30 years. Our niche in the industry is our packin by horseback and mule, wilderness hunts, mainly big elk. I don't hunt out on the roads much as I hate the ATVs and all of the rackett and hunting pressure.I also outfit to the west of me in AZ in the Blue Range Primitive area.
 
>I have been outfitting in the
>Gila Wilderness, and Blue Range
>Wilderness for 30 years. Our
>niche in the industry is
>our packin by horseback and
>mule, wilderness hunts, mainly big
>elk. I don't hunt out
>on the roads much as
>I hate the ATVs and
>all of the rackett and
>hunting pressure.I also outfit to
>the west of me in
>AZ in the Blue Range
>Primitive area.


Sounds Good stoney!

A Place where there isn't any ATV's & all the other BS that goes with them Huh?

Sounds Like My kinda place!

You ever had to do any TUNE-UP'S?







"I'm Living & Dieing with the Choices
I've made!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=N8i5NLyXZdc
 
Rackster,

Did you even go through those yearly reports??? The reports talk about state land being sold every year. Do you think they are lying in the reports? How about a majority of the UT State TRUST Lands being closed except for what the F&W has paid to allow access for the public. Pretty crazy that the public have to pay to access public land! I'm assuming you did not read through anything that I post from your response. Sounds like you are one of those people that run and hide from the facts. Go ahead and keep your head in the sand. I heard that really works well.
 
I believe that instead of just reading the posted article we should actually read the Public Land Initiative bill as well. Here is a link to the PLI's website that has the bill draft and just as important, maps of the proposed land exchanges.
Go to:
[www.utahpli.com]

I will say I believe that this bill has a few merits. However its obvious that the proposal is not designed to conserve the states wild land as politicians might want us to focus on. It seems the bill was drafted so SITLA and the oil and mineral companies win while making the citizens believe that its conserving the states public land. One reason I say this is because it looks like 90% or more of the supposed "New" wildernesses are already designated as BLM wilderness study areas.
My biggest concern with this bill is the consolidation of 336,441 acres of SITLA land into large chunks of land. The biggest chunk is located right in the middle of the book cliffs.
The bill does release the mineral rights to the BLM for the SITLA owned roadless area (~46,644 acres) of the book cliffs but in return they gain ~109,980 acres of very accessible land for drilling and mining.

I put together my own maps because the websites maps don't show current ownership of the bookcliffs.

7663bookcliffswide.jpg


6072bookcliffsnarrow.jpg
 
Very good post bighorn.
You are correct. This transfer is about make state land available for sale, and for lease. Locking out others. Period.
Rackster,
You are the one that just not have a clue.
Several people have posted links to land sells. If you really believe it does not happen you have your head in the sand.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-25-16 AT 12:02PM (MST)[p]Blacktail,

Again, you have posted nothing that show State lands being sold since Gov Herbert signed HB148, in which prime hunting ground was lost.

Bowhunt,
I reiterate to you what I just said to Blacktail.

Come on really. Aren't you guys exaggerating this whole thing just a little bit? As I have said before, if the State was so bent on selling State lands to the highest bidder to fill their pockets......wouldn't all State lands be sold by now? And if so, then why was I able to hunt State trust lands last October.
 
Why are you guys even wasting your time responding to this clown. He thinks RMEF are a bunch of "Environmental Wackos" for christ sake. You can't fix stupid.
 
Shotgun 1,

Try to find anywhere on this thread or any other thread where I called RMEF Environmental Wackos. Never said it. Griz is the only one that used that term. I did say they are a type of an environmental group. By definition that is what they are. Try to prove otherwise. I also said they do a lot of good.

Now are you telling me that you wont play with me either, because I said that RMEF is a type of environmental group. That's kind of funny.
 
Rackster, there you go again...

I never used the term "environmental wackos". My post (23) exactly quotes your post (21) referring to the RMEF video as "a bunch of Enviro junk".

You need to check your facts on this entire subject.

I will have a friendly debate with anybody, as long as it is reasonable and informed. I simply choose not to have a debate with anybody that refers to the video I linked of RMEF's work as "Enviro junk".

However, I will come on here to defend misquotations about my posts (especially ones that can be clarified in about 10 seconds).

Grizzly
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-27-16 AT 09:23PM (MST)[p]Griz,

Ok, you are correct, you did not say that I used the term Environmental Wackos. My apologies on that. However, you have to admit that I never said that term either.

I did say "Enviro junk". And I was actually referring more to your Enviro slant on the issue than I was the video (RMEF initiates land exchange - good; State does it and its bad). The RMEF are a type of environmental group and I will not apologize for saying that. They are what they are by definition. I am opposed to nearly all environmental organizations. However, as I said before, RMEF does some good. And I do not classify them as a radical environmental group like the Sierra Cub or Wilderness Society
 
"No apology. RMEF, although they do some good.....they are about one thing and one thing only....elk/big game.In my book, that is environmentalism."

My apologies you didn't say environmental wackos. You said the above. So I guess MDF, DU, Pheasants Forever, TU, NAWSF, and so on are all a form of "environmentalism" and don't get your support either because they're about one thing and one thing only.
 
I guess some people don't like a clean environment? Some don't like pristine wilderness?
I would say there is some strange people out there.
 

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

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

Buck 3.mov
7CA74ED9-4EC6-4208-B033-32FFB56BB74D.jpeg
Sheep Hunt
Better view
96DDB3ED-39A9-4998-BBAC-12C1291DBAB7.jpeg
IMG_5850.jpeg
5B236FE7-924F-4110-9FD1-9ACE0F10BBCE.jpeg
20210929_092849.jpg
Joe Herrero and his 13A buck, 11-14-2022.jpg
leroy elk.jpg
Monster Bull from the San Carlos
Screenshot_20210925-230458.png
Back
Top Bottom