Public Access (SFW, RMEF, BHA)

grizzly

grizzly

Long Time Member
Messages
5,598
We should get all the hunting organizations to join forces with the non-consumptive outdoor recreation groups (backpacking, ATV, horsemen, mountain biking, climbing) to start a ballot initiative to require that all land gained through any future land grab be encumbered by a Perpetual Public Access Easement.

This easement would require that public access be guaranteed forever and would be irreversible. This is a commonly used tool with much legal precedent and would be an effective tool to see exactly who actually wants to keep public lands in public hands.

Imagine the power shared by a coalition of SFW, RMEF, TRCP, BHA, Patagonia, Sitka, First Lite, KUIU, Remington, MDF, TU, USAC, Black Diamond, etc...

This doesn't mean the land grab is a good idea, but why not plan for the contingency by guaranteeing public access forever.
 
I honestly think they'd participate. I think SFW is made up of good guys who want the best for hunting and public land, we just have different tolerances for what we think should be left open for the whims of a future legislature.

How could SFW not participate in a ballot initiative to guarantee federal lands remain open for public access when I think they clearly want that? And their membership certainly wants it.

Grizzly
 
As you say, guarantee FEDERAL LANDS remain open for public access.
What about when Federal LANDS are granted to the state through this land grab that the state is trying to pass?
Once the land belongs to the state it is no longer public land and there for subject to altogether different rules.
I have been kind of following this and find it difficult to trust the state.
 
I would support that coalition. That would force groups and politicians to truly pick a side. Are you committed to keeping public lands public?

-Hawkeye-
 
Hell no to SFW involvement in any public land issues.






"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
 
A few thoughts on this:

1- In theory, this is a fantastic idea. I really like it. There are a ton of variables, but I like the idea.

2- Ballot initiatives are huge undertakings. It would probably take two years to effectively plan it before even trying to get signatures.

3- Would it be worth it if the legislature could then just turn around and modify the law the next legislative session?
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-10-17 AT 11:56PM (MST)[p]I agree on the idea, I dont think Utah polititions would ever go for it without a "back door". A back door with a speed ramp leading directly to it for them. And if it did ever happen they would immeadeatly complain the state couldn't afford the management costs. Then crooked little smiles and eyes would begin glazing over when an idea like a "use tax" is suggested . Then the new adjenda would be to provide new an exciting ways to implement and incfease fees. Utah polititions could use a small portion of THE STATE'S money to go (for the children of course) to education, and mabey a tad more could go to improving public transportation, after all public land should pay for public projects. More homeless shelters, drug rehabs with a "use" tax everyone wins. Then when every bunter,fisherman,camper,mountain biker,along with every business that produces,promotes,or provides goods for the "use" folks are taxed to thier limits. Well then the management revenue(15% or so of whats left for the land)isnt enough...well we have to sell some land or close all the homeless shelters,rehabs,public trasportation,and ever 3rd school. Sorry for the sinisisum and rant,I just have an opinionated veiw of Utah politics.
 
You want to know why this is a bad idea? Because nothing on this earth is forever. Grown ups understand that. Whenever you start making rules that last forever you are pretty much for certain screwing future generations. This nation is in constant dynamic change. Do you realize the foundation of all our laws can has a proper pathway for alteration. Your founding fathers realized the importance of change. They weren't stupid people.

Grizzly I am glad you are being pro-active but its time to be a little less self-centered and focused on control of real estate for the sole purpose of hobbyists and recreation.
 
>Another thread ruined by Tristate


EXACTLY!! Once you see the poisonous or venomous name, ITS OVER!
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-11-17 AT 09:39AM (MST)[p]Did Tri post? I must've skimmed over it again. Oops.

I'm certain there's a way to write a ballot initiative to institute some protections from an untrustworthy Congress. We all saw the fear in the eyes of the politicians when the Count My Vote initiative gained steam. It would also give more legal ammo in the case of future public-land-protecting lawsuits based on public good and original intent. It may not be bulletproof, but it certainly would be beneficial.

As to SFW... Honestly, I'm surprised that none of the SFW supporters have backed the idea of a public land initiative. Of course, maybe they've just not logged in to MM and seen the thread.

I believe most SFW members are good, honest men and thus I can't possibly fathom how they could support the attempted takeover of public land by the state (on nothing more than the hope that the state won't sell it in the future) and not demand those protections be written until the law. All the while, the politicians are on record saying public land must be sold and they want to "commercially develop" public land "for the kids".

Huntin50 and JMO, I'd sincerely like to hear your thoughts; although we disagree, I respect your views.

Grizzly
 
>You want to know why this
>is a bad idea?
>Because nothing on this earth
>is forever. Grown ups
>understand that. Whenever you
>start making rules that last
>forever you are pretty much
>for certain screwing future generations.
> This nation is in
>constant dynamic change. Do
>you realize the foundation of
>all our laws can has
>a proper pathway for alteration.
> Your founding fathers realized
>the importance of change.
>They weren't stupid people.
>
>Grizzly I am glad you are
>being pro-active but its time
>to be a little less
>self-centered and focused on control
>of real estate for the
>sole purpose of hobbyists and
>recreation.

I like how Pigboy spews out his opinions and assumptions like they're facts.

Thanks for your opinion, Pigboy.
 
Excellent responses guys. Yall must have all been on the same cheerleader squad in middle school. Someone disagrees with you and instead of listening yall bash him.

Grizzly your idea will get reeeeeeal far with that attitude. I have a question for you. Does it really make you feel powerful when the same dozen "Jonesenites" come on here and give you their affirmation? How is that progress for your cause?
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-11-17 AT 12:36PM (MST)[p]Injecting SFW philosophy in to the lands discussions will end one way.

Look at the trends.

Wildlife
Wildlife Board
Conservation Permits
The Expo
The Expo Bid
And on and on.

If you don't think there's an angle being played here wake up

Keep Peay as far away from this as possible.




"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
 
>Excellent responses guys. Yall must
>have all been on the
>same cheerleader squad in middle
>school. Someone disagrees with
>you and instead of listening
>yall bash him.
>

Wa wa wa. Whine whine whine whine whine whine whine while.
 
He just accused me of seeking affirmation for my posts when I had just barely said, "Huntin50 and JMO, I'd sincerely like to hear your thoughts; although we disagree, I respect your views."

It just shows Tri's posts are nonsensical and without value (except of course keeping these threads at the top of the page, which I appreciate). MM is more fun when I just ignore him. Carry on.

Grizzly
 
Try harder fellas. With a little bit of effort yall can make the entire thread about me and forget that your welfare system is falling apart and the best idea you have is to whine on the internet about "forever" laws.

Hey Grizzly if just writing a law and putting "forever" in it solves problems, why wouldn't all law be like that? Why would you ever work? Everyone could get together and petition the government to give us food "forever". Then you could get them to give you transportation "forever". How about a telephone "forever"? Why stop with land access "forever"? Starting to sound familiar? Sounds like Heaven doesn't it.

Here's what is funny Grizzly, I WANT YOU TO HAVE CHEAP HUNTING AND TONS OF ACCESS. But it doesn't happen with organizing an internet whine-a-thon for forever free stuff.
 
Welfare or Birthright....

Guess it depends if your in TexASS as to your opinion.




"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 Apr-12-17 AT 06:00AM (MST)[p]"Welfare or Birthright...."

If it was a birthright it would either be in the constitution as such or your kids would have to pay taxes on it when you die.
 
That's the end of this thread for me.
A good idea being discussed civilly and some one fed the troll
There is no chance of this thread going anywhere now
I was looking forward to some genuine attainable ideas
 
Perhaps a perpetual public access easement is not the ultimate solution. At this point, who knows? However, a discussion amongst a group of sportsmen, conservation groups and the outdoor indsutry companies, who all share a common goal on maintaining public access on public lands, would be a very good start. A unified colation would be a powerful force to pressure our policians to do the right thing. I like Grizz's suggestion to start a discussion and try to build a coalition behind a group of organizations who share a common goal. Grizz's idea of a perpetual easement may be the best solution or it may evolve into something else.

-Hawkeye-
 
Hawkeye,

A coalition can be a great thing. But when a coalition comes at government with a problem and no realistic solution it loses every bit of credibility it once had. That's why I am writing here. Get your coalition together and start working together within the coalition to come up with a realistic solution to your own problem then present that.

There are realistic solutions to this problem. But for whatever reason the concerned parties can't think of them or refuse to recognize them.
 
Which Constitution ya wanna start with there dickweed?? State or Federal?

240 years worth of precedent says different, western states enabling acts says different.

I'm begging you to go all Cliven up in here. Please tell me the Govt can't own anything other than forts.






"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
 
Did Tri really bring up the Constitution. He's the same guy that said, "Don't ever assume your constitution is perfect and correct and don't assume it can't be changed."

His arguments are merely argumentative and not even intellectually defensible.

Let's make the ballot initiative referenced in my original post a Constitutional Amendment. Utah passed three Constitutional Amendments this year alone. It seems that one based on protecting public lands would have the support of the vast, vast majority of Utahans and would receive bipartisan support.

(I must admit I find the SFW crowd's silence more than a little disconcerting. Maybe I was wrong and gave them too much credit.)

Grizzly
 
Please show me Wiley where there is 240 years of precedent stating free access to land is your "Birthright". Pleeeeeease I would love to see you pull that one out of the south. You are living in a dreamland.

Grizzly I thought you were ignoring me. :D

By the way your quote has nothing to do with what Wiley spouted off about except for the word "constitution". We are talking about apples and you think its the same as oranges. You looked smarter when you had me on pretend ignore.
 
One reason this site is going downhill. A good conversation goes on in a thread that deals with local situations. then Tristate thinks he has to join. and dumb down/dilute the whole conversation.
 

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

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

4EF4300E-AFBB-4A40-9B0F-F40D01A1977C.jpeg
B9978AF7-E0BA-4B81-B90F-A3169BBE470C.jpeg
Trashy Hawg Buck
20230906_194905.jpg
D66FE92E-DC89-4C25-94D2-3DCD5FEF99A8.jpeg
08B238E8-7639-48A5-B488-EE25011AAB75.jpeg
Big Wyoming Buck for Buckfever34
A5EB0560-BDD6-430C-B022-D46E2885AD8C.jpeg
Elk 2.jpg
Screenshot_20220204-152753_Gallery.jpg
General Utah Buck for JakeH
IMG_5738.JPG
Back
Top Bottom