Money - All Powerful

2lumpy

Long Time Member
Messages
7,961
The threat of loosing revenue will bring the politicians to the table quicker than anything any of the rest of us do.

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=43105355&nid=148&title=outdoor-retailer-show-to-consider-moving-out-of-utah

Politicians are motivated by two things, votes that translate into power, and money.

These large revenue producing organizations can bring to bear on our Federal and State Representatives more than all the letters and protests the rest of can do in combination. If the Outdoor Retailer organization can get to our Federal Representatives to wake up, the Governor and the rest of the State Republicans will follow suit.

What our politicians need to be doing is start a serious discussion on an alternative to transferring public land to the State. There are other solutions out there that need to be explored in depth. With nearly 70% of Utah controlled by the Feds, and our rapidly growing population, something has got to change, but it can be done much differently than by locking up and or selling off our public lands.

As a general rule, I disagree with most of the efforts made by our Outdoor Retailer types, in fact I believe they are the catalysts for way too much Federal Government over reach, when it comes to our public land. They are the wind beneath the wings of the many monuments and parks the Federal Government has taken out of the Multiple Use management system, but.................. I'll let them help us fight against the State for now and fight them off at a later date. Kind of like Britain and the US did with Russia when we were at War with Germany. Sometimes your adversary can and should be used to your advantage.

DC
 
Why do things need to change? Because some highly paid wordsmith came up with" federal overreach".? There are simply too many people wanting too much, your vision is not the same as mine? So it's Federal Overreach if some rancher cannot put all the cattle they want on the public pasture?, or if it's a designated wilderness area and you can't drive there. Or if there are rules and regulations when it comes to clean air and water, or wiping out species of wildlife? "Federal Overreach."?

Maybe thats why Utah and Nevada are some of, if not the fastest growing states in the union? Possibly because there is the freedom of public land? and of course that awful "Federal Overreach"
 
So?

Piper doesn't Believe there is Over-Reach?

Swear to God there are More Blind MM'ers/Hunters than I figured there was!










RIP Johnny Doerr!
 
Interesting post Piper. I see it hasn't occurred to you that growing populations need more access to resources. Not because of some sort of greed but the fact all those new children have needs. It isn't a great economic plan either to constantly send your money to other states to satisfy your material needs.
 
So, according to the Pipers of the world, my dad who had lung cancer and carried his oxygen in his jeep, should just give it up, roads are bad. My cousin who just had a stroke, and has balance issues as well, shouldn't be allowed to access public land. All our kids, who are too young to do hike in carrying a pack, they should just wait. Pregnant women who shouldn't backpack, well, just get back in the kitchen. All the old folks, public land aint for you either. You ranchers, you don't realize that grass.....well hell that grass will just die if your animals don't eat it, but, it should just die thats natural?

Piper, and your ilk. None of us wants to drill every inch of Utah. None of us want ranchettes covering the state. BUT... Do you have a furnace? Water heater? Do you hike to work? Did you type your ideas on anything plastic? Do you wear, eat, use anything that is trucked in? Do you live in a house? NIMBY. NOT IN MY BACK YARD. How do YOU, and the outdoor retailers draw the line? Last I checked Black Diamond has a factory, it uses plastics, it ships all over the world. But its anti energy? NO, its "WE WANT OUR PLAYGROUND PROTECTED, BUT WE WOULD BE HYPOCRITES FOR SAYING IT LIKE THAT, SO WE CLOAK OUR DESIRES IN ENVIRONMENTALISM" Piper and the Outdoor retailers aren't for locking up country to preserve it, they are for LOCKING OUT people they feel superior to.
Does it suck that in this issue we get the gawd awful devil we know, vs the horrendous devil we don't know(but are sure we do), yeah. I find myself daily swinging back and forth. I have rancher friends, I know what the BLM and FS do, not just to them, but us. I also know how quickly the state sells out to insiders($FW). So thats where we find ourselves, pretty much damnnd either way. And yes, I do realize that I just agreed with TRISTATE, I'm hoping the Russians hacked his computer and are now posting for him.


"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"
 
Why do things need to change? Because our forests are in extremely unhealthy condition. Too much political influence not enough science running our public land. It's not all about ranchers range.
 
So how about an argument as to why Outdoor Retailers would want to stay in a State that continues to elect people who would harm their bottom line?

If you set up a business model to cater to people using the great outdoors and freedom to roam, why would you support a state that elects people who want to hurt your bottom line?

It is too bad we can't just sell the Public lands inside of Utah's border back to Utah for what they are worth and have Utah's congressional delegation leave the rest of us alone. If Utards had to pay for these lands and their management that would fix many of the problems complained about here when it comes to Federal over reach. They average Utard would be wishing they had more federal over reach when they got their tax bill.

Nemont
 
"It is too bad we can't just sell the Public lands inside of Utah's border back to Utah for what they are worth and have Utah's congressional delegation leave the rest of us alone."

Good point NeMont. And I understand exactly why you made that point.

The day I talked to Ted Stewart, the gentlemen "Utah" elected to office, he told me without Montana, and the other western State's support, the transfer management plan would not pass Congress. We in Utah, all need to appreciate Montana's vote against the transfer.

You may wonder why Utah citizens vote for these Representatives. The answer is population growth in our large cities. Utah, unfortunately, is following the same past of other western States, who's urban cities have grown to millions. The millions vote. They don't have the interest in Multiple Use, hunting, fishing, back packing. etc. They are interested in Shopping Malls, Movie Theaters, Music Concerts, Marijuana, Hooking Up, Texting, Sexting and all that goes with urban populations. We are suffering the same kinds of issues in Utah, now that we have grown our larger cities, the people in them vote much like the citizens of San Francisco, Portland, Seattle, Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Berkley, Boulder, and Denver etc.

It's interesting, like Washington and Oregon, much of our growth has come from people moving out of the West Coast States, to get away from the culture and the environment in those cities, and the minute they get to Utah, they start voting and and demanding the same kinds of things they claimed they moved away from. Crazy for sure.

Of course, you left out the fact that if the Feds transfer the land to Utah it will be sold as quickly as possible, because, with our growth, as has already been pointed out, requires an increase in tax revenue, to support the growth. We can't keep growing and support the growth without a more income from nearly 70% of our lands.

There are ways to get greater revenue from our public lands, without selling them, or changing them from the Multiple Use system. We need to explore those options at length.

DC
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-07-17 AT 11:42AM (MST)[p]Don't let Bess know you would ever praise Montana for anything.

The challenge with saying more revenue needs to be produced from public lands is that many public lands users don't want that revenue to come out of their pocket.

Try telling any rancher that they should allow the free market to set grazing fees, you won't get anything but push back from that. Timber, mining, oil and gas are all boom and bust industry where the issue becomes that the profits are privatized and legacy costs of these activities become socialized. How many superfund sites does it take to figure out that we need to include the environmental costs as being true costs of these activities?

- The Kennecott (North Zone) site is located in Magna in Salt Lake County, Utah. Since 1906, the site processed copper, lead, zinc, molybdenum, arsenic, gold and silver-bearing ores. The resulting wastes contain hazardous substances, including heavy metals. Soils and sludge are contaminated, as are surface and groundwater, which affect wetlands between the site and the shore of Great Salt Lake. Cleanup is ongoing.

-The 142-acre Murray Smelter site is located in Murray City, Utah. This former mineral processing area was once the largest lead smelter in the country. Formerly owned by the American Smelting and Refining Company (ASARCO), the site included two smelters: the Germania Smelter and Refinery Works, which operated from 1872 to 1902, and the Murray Smelter, which operated from 1902 to 1949. In addition to lead, primary smelting byproducts included slag, arsenic and cadmium. Smelting activities and waste disposal practices contaminated soil, sediment and groundwater with heavy metals. Following cleanup, operation and maintenance activities are ongoing.

-The US Magnesium Superfund site is located adjacent to the Great Salt Lake in Toole County, Utah, 33 miles to the north of Grantsville and 40 miles to the west of Salt Lake City. The sparsely populated, 4,525-acre site includes the US Magnesium facility and surrounding areas of waste disposal. The facility has been producing magnesium at the site since 1972. The production process involves isolating magnesium chloride salts from the Great Salt Lake and then extracting the magnesium by electrolysis. Facility operations and waste disposal practices contaminated soil, air, surface water and groundwater with hazardous chemicals. In addition to threatening the health of US Magnesium workers, the contamination poses a threat to birds and wildlife.

The list goes on and on.
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-07-17 AT 01:52PM (MST)[p]It's not the ranchers or the mining companies that need to pay more Nemont, it's the property owners of the public lands. (I agree, miners need to pay for all reclamation, out of their profits.)

If the "public" own public lands, the public needs to pay the taxes for it, to the State. If the taxes on the private sector are not keeping up with their public service needs, taxes are increased or services are reduced. The same should apply to the owners of the Nations public lands.

You and I should not be paying extra taxes, to keep our State's public services viable in order to keep public lands public, for the rest of the country. If the citizens in Vermont want to keep Utah and Montana lands public, they need to contribute a lot more to keep it public. They are the owners of the property, they need to pay the same amount of taxes for their lands, as you and I do, for our property. People in Vermont and Ohio are paying some taxes for our public lands, but not even close to what the private sector is paying in property taxes. They need to anti up, as our costs go up.

If we're going to keep it public, the owners (all Americans) need to pay more in taxes than they are paying now. Otherwise, these Utah Federal Legislators are going to win and we'll loose it to the private sector and the people in Vermont will loose these public lands along with those of us that live next to them.

We can not, in this day and age, have it both ways, someone is going to pay the "piper". Now isn't that ironic?

DC
 
2Lumpy,

It is in congress where the rubber meets the road on funding and taxation. When congress has members like Chaffetz there is no way they are going to give public land more money to help manage, pay for or for higher PILT reimbursement.

https://archives.utah.gov/research/exhibits/Statehood/1894text.htm

Second. That the people inhabiting said proposed State do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within the boundaries thereof; and to all lands lying within said limits owned or held by any Indian or Indian tribes; and that until the title thereto shall have been extinguished by the United States, the same shall be and remain subject to the disposition of the United States, and said Indian lands shall remain under the absolute jurisdiction and control of the Congress of the United States; that the lands belonging to citizens of the United States residing without the said State shall never be taxed at a higher rate than the lands belonging to residents thereof; that no taxes shall be imposed by the State on lands or property therein belonging to or which may hereafter be purchased by the United States or reserved for its use

Instead of expanding funding to public lands, congress is cutting funding and wants to starve it so that transfer seems like a better idea.

Why should ranchers be exempt from market forces deciding what they pay for grazing? Can you find and $2 an AUM grazing available anywhere other then federal lands?

Nemont
 
Having a high percentage of public land effects more than just grazing rights or milo production.

You have to consider that it drives up prices of private property and especially large blocks of private real estate. So say for instance an investor wants to build a new NASCAR track and facilities including hotels and other tangent services which would employee tens of thousands of people he realizes that the cost of a large enough land block is going to be much to expensive for his investment and he decides to take it to Kansas. Your state and your children just lost out.

There are literally hundreds of examples that could be brought up on how lopsided public land ownership can negatively effect a population.
 
>You may wonder why Utah citizens
>vote for these Representatives.
>The answer is population growth
>in our large cities.
>Utah, unfortunately, is following the
>same past of other western
>States, who's urban cities have
>grown to millions. The
>millions vote. They don't
>have the interest in Multiple
>Use, hunting, fishing, back packing.
>etc. They are interested in
>Shopping Malls, Movie Theaters, Music
>Concerts, Marijuana, Hooking Up, Texting,
>Sexting and all that goes
>with urban populations. We
>are suffering the same kinds
>of issues in Utah, now
>that we have grown our
>larger cities, the people in
>them vote much like the
>citizens of San Francisco, Portland,
>Seattle, Los Angeles, Las Vegas,
>Berkley, Boulder, and Denver etc.

Disagree w part of this. Specifically the CO example w regard to PLT. CO is more urban than UT, WY, MT, NV, ID, NM, probably AZ. Many west coast refugees in CO, we even went blue in the election. We are majority-opposed to PLT. Enough urban users to clog bike trails, wilderness, and inflate hunting preference points beyond reason. There is nothing like SFW here, and plenty of voting opposition to large-scale auction of quality tags.

I contend those PLT politicians in UT are much more in bed w conservative, rural, LDS, good ol' boy interests than w the dazzling urbanites. CO hunters are grateful for the bad examples of UT politics, wildlife "management," and PLT zealotry. And we wouldn't mind taking that Expo off your hands.
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-07-17 AT 11:26PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Feb-07-17 AT 11:13?PM (MST)

Actually. Tristate is dead wrong, there is plenty of land in Public land states available for population growth. Despite the high percentage of public land and growing population, the vast majority of private land in Utah or Nevada or Idaho is owned by only 1% of the population.

And if public land were to be sold in those states or any others, the land would be purchased and owned by that same 1% of the population.

You are a silly naive boy tristate, a Texan with little or no understanding of western culture or values.

Hossblurs post is even more laughable, he cries about his disabled and old age relatives not being able to drive or use helicopters to access the designated wilderness areas. Not mentioning the huge amount of land available for recreating in that is motorized accessible. What a strange thought process?
 
And to top.it all off Tristate makes some statement comparing Kansas to Utah. And how companies will move their faculties to Kansas instead of Utah???? Really Tristate? Why don't you Google. Kansas and its population growth and economy? Then compare it with Utah?
Please do that
 
>So how about an argument as
>to why Outdoor Retailers would
>want to stay in a
>State that continues to elect
>people who would harm their
>bottom line?
>
>If you set up a business
>model to cater to people
>using the great outdoors and
>freedom to roam, why would
>you support a state that
>elects people who want to
>hurt your bottom line?
>
>It is too bad we can't
>just sell the Public lands
>inside of Utah's border back
>to Utah for what they
>are worth and have Utah's
>congressional delegation leave the rest
>of us alone. If
>Utards had to pay for
>these lands and their management
>that would fix many of
>the problems complained about here
>when it comes to Federal
>over reach. They average
>Utard would be wishing they
>had more federal over reach
>when they got their tax
>bill.
>
>Nemont


Ya know nemont, as much as you loosely throw the word 'tard' around, it surprises me that a self proclaimed sophisticate would use slang for people with mental disabilities to express a feeble mind. Grow up.

4abc76ff29b26fc1.jpg
 
>>So how about an argument as
>>to why Outdoor Retailers would
>>want to stay in a
>>State that continues to elect
>>people who would harm their
>>bottom line?
>>
>>If you set up a business
>>model to cater to people
>>using the great outdoors and
>>freedom to roam, why would
>>you support a state that
>>elects people who want to
>>hurt your bottom line?
>>
>>It is too bad we can't
>>just sell the Public lands
>>inside of Utah's border back
>>to Utah for what they
>>are worth and have Utah's
>>congressional delegation leave the rest
>>of us alone. If
>>Utards had to pay for
>>these lands and their management
>>that would fix many of
>>the problems complained about here
>>when it comes to Federal
>>over reach. They average
>>Utard would be wishing they
>>had more federal over reach
>>when they got their tax
>>bill.
>>
>>Nemont
>
>
>Ya know nemont, as much as
>you loosely throw the word
>'tard' around, it surprises me
>that a self proclaimed sophisticate
>would use slang for people
>with mental disabilities to express
>a feeble mind. Grow up.
>
>
>
4abc76ff29b26fc1.jpg


1911,

Go look at the replies I get from your pals and how they use the word. All I do it parrot it back to them. If you don't like it don't read my posts. Fairly easy to do.

Nemont
 
Piper you really don't know how to read at all.

Go ahead and ham string your children and grand children for some cheap outdoor time. I always love watching people who will cut their nose off to spite their face.
 
Tristate,

Are there literally hundreds of examples of how having public lands helps said states?

Fastest Growing State economies and percent ownership by Feds

1. Oregon 52.9% owned by Federal Gov.
2. California 45.8% owned by Federal Gov.
3.Texas 1.% owned by Federal gov
4. Colorado 35.9% owned by Federal Gov.
5.Montana29% owned by Federal Gov.
6.Utah64.9 % owned by Federal Gov.
7.Florida 13.2% owned by Federal Gov.
8.Washington28.5 % owned by Federal Gov
9.Nevada 84.9% owned by Federal Gov
10. North Carolina 7.7% owned by Federal Gov.

Look at an activity other then a NASCAR complex, For instance at how many ski resorts have been permitted by the Forest Service. Places like Vail, Aspen, Mammoth plus literally hundreds of others, all have ski hills and resorts permitted by the forest service and they generate billions in Revenue for private operators and surrounding communities.

The best skiing in the western states with many of the best resorts is on public lands. That is just one example.

Not saying there are many costs associated with public ownership of lands but it isn't as cut as dried as you want to try to make.

Nemont
 
Well...... we can ping pong this back and forth between ourselves, and the attention and influence we have had and will continue to have pail by comparison to what one large, revenue generating organization like the Outdoor Retail Show, with it's two week event, and 40 million dollars, can and will have on the politicians behind this effort.

Money - All Powerful. Talk - Cheap and Powerless.

If this effort fails, as most of us seem to want, it won't be because of our talk, it will be because of one or two factors, Money and/or Votes. If the Utah Legislators loose the money war, they loose. If they fear they will loose their voter support, they loose.

Regardless, if the States win or lose the current fight, the Western States are going to come back, again and again, until there is some greater ability for the States to generate revenue off the land within their States boundaries, and................ if the Federal government continues to carve more and more Wilderness, Monuments, National Parks, areas out of the Western States, and restricting more and more of the State's ability to manage and control the access and use of lands that lie within it's boundaries, the more and more support the States will get from it's citizens to transfer public lands to the States.

Then the Sage Brush Rebellion campaign failed in 1981 the effort lied dormant for fourteen years, until 1996 when President Clinton "protected" 1,880,461 acres from the State of Utah. "Protected" is a carefully selected to word. What President Clinton really did was "Took" 1,880,461 more acres out of the control of the State of Utah by giving those acres a higher and more restricted status than the Multiple Use system was giving it. Meaning no mining, no State revenue, no timber sales, no State revenue, no oil, no State revenue.

Utah already has 5 National Parks, more than any other State, numerous National Monuments, Wilderness Areas, and people and organizations pushing and pushing and pushing every new Federal Administration for more and more of the lands within the State of Utah to have a more restrictive use status, be it a Park, Monument, or Wilderness Area.

IF.............. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOES NOT BACK OFF, there will more and more effort by Utah and other Western States to prevent these acres from becoming more restrictive and reducing Utah's or other Western States from their ability to generate revenue

In my opinion, if the Federal government had left these lands in Multiple Use, as they have been for nearly 100 years, we would not have had the Sage Brush Rebellion nor the current lands transfer effort. If the Feds would have left it alone, Utah and the other States would have left it alone.

There you go piper, never used the "O-R" phrase once. Didn't go down any better, did it. ;-)

DC
 
Yes and no Lumpy, I grew up in Elko Nevada, and it can be associated with being the birthplace of the sagebrush rebellion as much as anywhere.

So I personally have know many of the people who started that, mostly money hungry ranchers who despised the cutbacks on federal grazing permits , also the local newspaper was very antifederal government and the vocal part of the local population bought into it.

I believe that the wealth of information everyone has available to them now days will keep the sagebrush rebellions at bay. That information wasn't readily available back in the eighties, and single sources of information like the Elko Daily free press cannot influence local populations like they once could.
Also people are starting to realize that the very same rebellion promoters are the ones who want to privatize public land, the same people who demand elk herds be shot down to minimum populations or in some cased be wiped out.
 
So yes if the federal government does stuff that is unpopular and wrong in most people's opinion. They should be called out on it.
But the narrow minded lies and distortions that the past sagebrush rebellion relied on for support should be brought to light also, and I think that Is the case these days, much more so than in the past
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-08-17 AT 12:36PM (MST)[p]When government and the people who control government get too pushy, it's people push back. Like they are did in 1981 and like they are doing today.

When government uses a heavy hand, there will be push back.

When greedy people, be it ranchers or tree huggers use a heavy hand, there will be push back.

There will always be heavy hands, and there will always be push back.

Human nature. Harmony is as fleeting as the smell of the wild, after a summer rain.

DC
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-08-17 AT 05:16PM (MST)[p]I don't necessarily agree that is all about money, much can be said about demographics and certain voting blocks.

Chaffetz is holding a town hall tomorrow. Started out in a small venue and was changed to Brighton High's auditorium. He was running HB 621 ( transfer lands ) and HB 622 ( transfer law enforcement to bubba ). He ran a nice little rant on Facebook begging "real Utah voters" to come to his town hall to offset the ass kicking which will be delivered by the hunting and outdoor community.

After hearing from one of his key demographics he pulled HB 621. He knows he's not going to get the liberal prius driving contingent to vote for him any way, but once he loses favor with hunters, and their ingrained fear of losing guns and land he prolly figured he'd pushed far enough to have an effect come election time with a demographic he counts on.

Preached it from the beginning, its a hell of a lot easier to sell the good guy image of land thief and get elected than be percieved as a mythical grabber of over 300 million guns in GOP Utah.



"If the DWR was just doing its job, and
wildlife and hunting were the actual focus,
none of this process would even matter.
But that is not the focus or the goal in any
of this. The current DWR regime, and
SFW were born out of wildlife declines,
and are currently operated and funded
under that paradigm. Those 200 Expo
tags would not even be worth anything if
the focus was where it was supposed to
be, and wildlife and tags were plentiful.
But under the current business model,
that is how the money and power is
generated. It is generated through the
rising "value"(monitization) of a declining
resource. A resource that is supposed to
be being beneficially managed for the
masses that own that resource, ie. US.
The problem is obvious, hedging is not a
long term sustainable strategy, and
others have to lose, for some to win. In
this case it is us, the many, and our
resources, that are being forced to lose,
because there is a minority who's power
and money is derived from our loses."

LONETREE 3/15/16
 
"Real Utah Voters" Huh?

I Hope the Coal Rollers Choke them F'N Prius Drivin Bastages Out on the Way over there!

Sad,But Even This State is Run By a Bunch of JOKERS Now!









RIP Johnny Doerr!
 
The Outdoor Retailers would be smart to leave Utah and go somewhere that appreciates public land. We should send all anti-public-land groups to Texas where they belong.

I, for one, am more likely to buy Patagonia since their pro-public-land announcement.

Grizzly
 
Sad,But Even This State is Run By a Bunch of JOKERS Now!

Now?? Where ya been the last 10 years?






"If the DWR was just doing its job, and
wildlife and hunting were the actual focus,
none of this process would even matter.
But that is not the focus or the goal in any
of this. The current DWR regime, and
SFW were born out of wildlife declines,
and are currently operated and funded
under that paradigm. Those 200 Expo
tags would not even be worth anything if
the focus was where it was supposed to
be, and wildlife and tags were plentiful.
But under the current business model,
that is how the money and power is
generated. It is generated through the
rising "value"(monitization) of a declining
resource. A resource that is supposed to
be being beneficially managed for the
masses that own that resource, ie. US.
The problem is obvious, hedging is not a
long term sustainable strategy, and
others have to lose, for some to win. In
this case it is us, the many, and our
resources, that are being forced to lose,
because there is a minority who's power
and money is derived from our loses."

LONETREE 3/15/16
 
>LAST EDITED ON Feb-07-17
>AT 11:26?PM (MST)

>
>LAST EDITED ON Feb-07-17
>AT 11:13?PM (MST)

>
>Actually. Tristate is dead wrong,
> there is plenty
>of land in Public land
>states available for population growth.
>
>Despite the high percentage of
>public land and growing population,
> the vast majority of
>private land in Utah or
>Nevada or Idaho is owned
>by only 1% of the
>population.
>
>And if public land were to
>be sold in those states
>or any others,
> the land would be
>purchased and owned by that
>same 1% of the population.
>
>
>You are a silly naive boy
>tristate, a Texan
>with little or no understanding
>of western culture or values.
>
>
>Hossblurs post is even more laughable,
> he
>cries about his disabled and
>old age relatives not being
>able to drive or use
>helicopters to access the designated
>wilderness areas.
> Not mentioning
>the huge amount of land
>available for recreating in that
>is motorized accessible.
> What a
>strange thought process?

Helicopters? Really? I love how guys like piper NEVER think it will happen to them. My dad, actually lived ON THE MTN. Literally. They had a camp that followed around the herders. Drove to town to work, etc, then back to live on the mtn. As for my "old sick cousin", he owns a section of land. He grew up ON THE MTN. Then one day, dad thinks hes got pneumonia and boom, lung cancer. I guess IN YOUR OPINION that meant he should just go lay in some bed and die. IN OUR OPINION, we outfitted his jeep with a oxygen compressor, and we didn't miss a beat, other than he couldn't go on some mile long jaunt. As for the cousin, a blood vessel burst in his brain most likely from puking with the flu. Now I know, he's old, or whatever so he should just go away and die somewhere. And yeah, yearly we see more and more roads closed, most were wagon roads originally, cuttin off access to guys like this. IT WILL BE YOU SOMETIME, GUARANTEED. So I guess when it is, you'll just go sit in a chair? I guess in your opinion its better for some jackwagon in DC to read a story about some piece of ground, then lock the gate to "save it"? Yeah, I don't want every inch of earth drilled. But have you been in the Uintah basin lately? Do you think by supporting the museum land management policy, that drilling stopped? No, it continues daily over there.
I know, Trump is Pres, the pressure backed off a little. You want Elizabeth Warren deciding that Utah or Nevada needs to be "saved" even more?

Let me be clear, I fear Herbet having control of public land in the state, but if you think that means we have to celebrate Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Shummer, or Elizabeth Warren having control, i can't understand that thinking.

But, I guess I'll go jump in my helicopter and go for a burn!


"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"
 
"IT WILL BE YOU SOMETIME, GUARANTEED."

Hoss it already is. I'll never hunt Dall Sheep or goats on Kings Peak. Both are out of reach physically and one financially. Should I demand motorized access to Kings Peak or ask Alaska to pass a law that a Dall hunt can't exceed $250.00? Where is the line? Which group is the one thats just looking over the line but can't cross? Physically unable? Financially unable? Or the kid lost in the scarcity of opportunity to hunt to grow trophies or CWMU's?

I know this sounds plickish it's not meant that way and no disrespect is intended.

The one constant that will be here for generations is the land. We can do as every generation before us has and pass it on. Or we can be the first generation to not.

Get your kids opinion on which they'd rather have.




"If the DWR was just doing its job, and
wildlife and hunting were the actual focus,
none of this process would even matter.
But that is not the focus or the goal in any
of this. The current DWR regime, and
SFW were born out of wildlife declines,
and are currently operated and funded
under that paradigm. Those 200 Expo
tags would not even be worth anything if
the focus was where it was supposed to
be, and wildlife and tags were plentiful.
But under the current business model,
that is how the money and power is
generated. It is generated through the
rising "value"(monitization) of a declining
resource. A resource that is supposed to
be being beneficially managed for the
masses that own that resource, ie. US.
The problem is obvious, hedging is not a
long term sustainable strategy, and
others have to lose, for some to win. In
this case it is us, the many, and our
resources, that are being forced to lose,
because there is a minority who's power
and money is derived from our loses."

LONETREE 3/15/16
 
Hey ww!

Give it 2 more years!

And Thanks to USFS Doing Absolutely F'N Nothing to Enforce current Laws!

And You Just might be Physically Able to Drive your Quad to Kings Peak!










 
You'd a laughed your ass off if you'd seen me coming out of the goose honey hole on Saturday.

Going in on the ice was easy, coming out dragging sled full of full bodies, layout blind and 7 birds through mud, not so damn much. Glad I had help.




"If the DWR was just doing its job, and
wildlife and hunting were the actual focus,
none of this process would even matter.
But that is not the focus or the goal in any
of this. The current DWR regime, and
SFW were born out of wildlife declines,
and are currently operated and funded
under that paradigm. Those 200 Expo
tags would not even be worth anything if
the focus was where it was supposed to
be, and wildlife and tags were plentiful.
But under the current business model,
that is how the money and power is
generated. It is generated through the
rising "value"(monitization) of a declining
resource. A resource that is supposed to
be being beneficially managed for the
masses that own that resource, ie. US.
The problem is obvious, hedging is not a
long term sustainable strategy, and
others have to lose, for some to win. In
this case it is us, the many, and our
resources, that are being forced to lose,
because there is a minority who's power
and money is derived from our loses."

LONETREE 3/15/16
 
Or you could grow up like a big boy. Do you still use racial slurs for he same reasons?
4abc76ff29b26fc1.jpg
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-09-17 AT 10:26AM (MST)[p]1911,

http://www.monstermuleys.info/dcforum/DCForumID11/21360.html



1911 (5291 posts)
Click to EMail 1911 Click to send private message to 1911 Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
Feb-01-17, 07:00 AM (MST)
7. "RE: Go Montana!"
>LAST EDITED ON Jan-31-17
>AT 11:41 AM (MST)
>



Most us tards had the same excuse as you....plus a hundred or so miles give or take.


Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top


You don't seem too bothered by the term. You and your pals use the word "Tardville" or "Utard" or "Tard" and you are fine with that but if I say it, I have to "grow up"? Your fake outrage is about as consistent as Elkassassin's sex life.


Nemont
 
>"IT WILL BE YOU SOMETIME, GUARANTEED."
>
>
>Hoss it already is. I'll never
>hunt Dall Sheep or goats
>on Kings Peak. Both are
>out of reach physically and
>one financially. Should I demand
>motorized access to Kings Peak
>or ask Alaska to pass
>a law that a Dall
>hunt can't exceed $250.00? Where
>is the line? Which group
>is the one thats just
>looking over the line but
>can't cross? Physically unable? Financially
>unable? Or the kid lost
>in the scarcity of opportunity
>to hunt to grow trophies
>or CWMU's?
>
>I know this sounds plickish it's
>not meant that way and
>no disrespect is intended.
>
>The one constant that will be
>here for generations is the
>land. We can do as
>every generation before us has
>and pass it on. Or
>we can be the first
>generation to not.
>
>Get your kids opinion on which
>they'd rather have.
>
>
>
>
>"If the DWR was just doing
>its job, and
>wildlife and hunting were the actual
>focus,
>none of this process would even
>matter.
>But that is not the focus
>or the goal in any
>
>of this. The current DWR regime,
>and
>SFW were born out of wildlife
>declines,
>and are currently operated and funded
>
>under that paradigm. Those 200 Expo
>
>tags would not even be worth
>anything if
>the focus was where it was
>supposed to
>be, and wildlife and tags were
>plentiful.
>But under the current business model,
>
>that is how the money and
>power is
>generated. It is generated through the
>
>rising "value"(monitization) of a declining
>resource. A resource that is supposed
>to
>be being beneficially managed for the
>
>masses that own that resource, ie.
>US.
>The problem is obvious, hedging is
>not a
>long term sustainable strategy, and
>others have to lose, for some
>to win. In
>this case it is us, the
>many, and our
>resources, that are being forced to
>lose,
>because there is a minority who's
>power
>and money is derived from our
>loses."
>
>LONETREE 3/15/16


My friend, I love how we go to the most extreme example to make a point. Is there a road up Kings Peak that was recently closed that I was unaware of? I know of dozens on the Manti that have been there 100 years, that suddenly have been, for no real reason other than "because". Believe me, I get that on this subject I'm worse than my wife when I ask her where we should go to dinner. But, I watch. I watched Obama "save" 200k acres just to smack the Bundys, in Nevada. I saw Grand Staircase, now Bears Ears. I see who the Dems are becoming, East coast super libs. How long do you really think it would take Elizabeth Warren to stop hunting on Public land? Or Cory Booker? I get that if its leased out or sold off, we don't hunt it either. So I guess thats the dilema? We wont always have the congress, senate, pres. Eventually that pendelum will swing back, and I guess my worry is, we stood up, and supported public land by the feds, what happens when those feds turn on us? I guess my hope is that we not be in such a hurry to "beat the Russians, we support the Taliban" on this one.



"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"
 
Hossblur,

Which then begs the question, what will you accept when it comes to public lands?

Many on here even from Utah have stated they don't like the idea of transfer to the states. So there is one point of agreement.

2Lumpy says he wants more tax money from the people who live outside of the State be paid directly to Utah. Then in the next breath he says he wants more local control. Those two things are kind of mutually exclusive on a political level.

Can you elaborate on what exactly anyone has lost with the Bears Ear designation? I lived through and now with the Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument that came about in Clinton's waning days in office. I opposed it strongly, now taking a step back, it is jewel of both hunting, fishing and recreating. The surrounding ranch properties have sky rocketed in value due to the recreation aspect and abundant big game populations the monument has improved. Cattle still graze on it and the lands are an amazing place for the Public to use for the coming generations.

While I don't believe Monument designation is always the right or correct course I am opposed to transfer because the result would end up like you say, no access.

So where can we agree on what we want moving forward? Would you accept the Bears Ear designation if Hunting were included in the monument designation language?

Nemont
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos
Back
Top Bottom