SFW's Official Position Regarding the Transfer of Federal Lands

Hawkeye

Hawkeye

Long Time Member
Messages
3,014
Two weeks ago, the Dixie Chapter of SFW adopted a resolution expressing support for the transfer of federal lands. http://www.americanlandscouncil.org...ish_and_wildlife_passed_resolution_of_support

Then on Friday, the mother ship issued a press release setting forth the official position of SFW, which is in essence, "SFW has not taken an official position on this issue" . . . at least yet. SFW leadership has begun gathering input and opinions from its membership and will continue to do so. SFW President Jon Larson commented, ?Our public lands sit at the very pinnacle of importance for the long-term health and viability of wildlife and are at the heart of SFW?s mission to protect and enhance wildlife and habitat in the western states. There are many ramifications and potential outcomes to such a decision, and as a wildlife conservation organization we need to take adequate time to study the pros and cons and consider potential risks and benefits.? http://sfw.net/2015/03/21/sfw-comments-on-utahs-interest-in-federal-lands-transfer/

If you are a member of SFW or a sportsmen with friends within the organization, I encourage you to get involved and share your opinions with SFW leadership. Whatever your views may be, make them known.

-Hawkeye-
 
Ok I want to ask a question but before I do I want to make it perfectly clear, I am not knocking anyones personal beliefs. This is not meant to start an argument about religion.

I have heard the opinion that this land transfer movement is an LDS backed platform. I dont think, but I have no idea, that the LDS church has or would take an official position on such a thing. However, the movement sort of got wings in Utah and I have noticed that many of the people I know who are pushing the idea also happen to be LDS. Is it something that might be related to LDS teachings or history, or just happens that some conservative leaders and constitutionalists happen to be LDS or is it simply a coincidence?

PLEASE DO NOT take this as an insult to the LDS church. Although I am not LDS I am a firm believer in the freedom of religion. This just happens to be a place where I might get a representative opinion.
 
I am LDS, but I do not live in Utah. But I do know the structure of the church well enough to know that the "Church" is not for or against this. It might be talked about between its members at church but no way is the church supporting this. I consider myself ultra conservative and anti Big government. But there is no way that I think giving the states control of these lands is a good idea. I think as usual we hear the voices of a few and think it is the majority. The majority sits on their hands and does nothing. I'm guilty of thinking there is no way something like this will pass (common sense), so I don't do anything. Then when it passes I can't believe what just happened. The older I get the more involved I get.

DZ
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-23-15 AT 12:47PM (MST)[p]Good info Hawkeye!
It's time we get off our duffs and make our voices heard.

NVB, I don't know where you got the idea that this was religiously driven. It's politics, pure and simple and some folks see where they could gain by having State control.

IF, and I say IF, there was a way to absolutely guarantee that the State could/would NOT lease or sell the land in any higher degree than currently done by the Feds and public input was involved before any lease action was taken, I might be swayed.

But, and I say BUT, I doubt the States want those kind of restraints since they would use the land as a fiscal fail-safe, selling/leasing it, as needed, to run in the black.

Zeke
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-23-15 AT 12:40PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Mar-23-15 AT 12:36?PM (MST)

Thanks for the info Hawkeye.
So no official statement one way or the other from SFW presently.
I thought I read how SFW was pushing this for their rich friends.

Their could be advantages either way. It depends who is in office. IMO. I trust Governor Herbert and the past governors a lot more than Obama.
IF the state took over public land, and guaranted that the land wouldn't be sold, and maintained public access, I believe the state could do a better job than the federal government. State ground is more productive than federal ground IMO. Although I have not reserched the topic. You can camp on State and Federal ground in Utah. WY you can't camp on State ground which I disagree with. People pay taxes and should be able to use the land. Just take care of it.

What has the federal government done with the debt?
How are they going to pay the debt?
What have they done with Medicare and SS?
Look at all the corruption and scandals.
Does Obama follow the Constitution and laws?
How come the government is buying and stock piling AMMO?
How come the Federal Government is trying to ban more AMMO?

I agree. Sportsmen need to be organized and protect our right to own guns, have AMMO at a resonable price, and have the opportunity to hunt, camp, and enjoy our public lands,State and Federal Lands. If our elected official don't listen, vote them out.

The federal government uses the ESA to close off land. National Monuments to restrict hunting and access. Their needs to be protections from one liberal judge to over rule the majority of the citizens. IMO also.
 
NVB,

I am a member of the LDS faith and live in Utah. No offense taken.
As a people, who were driven West because of religious persecution, and not supported by the federal government, there is a natural distrust for federal control in our neck of the woods. But half of the people in our state are also of other faiths and the LDS Church has not taken any public stance on this issue. There are, however, plenty of very conservative people here who think the Feds are the enemy.
I for one do not endorse this movement because I fear that State Legislators would eventually sell off public lands rather than increase taxes.
 
I hear you Zeke. I am not a fan of our federal government and I am quite conservative on most political issues, but on this particular issue, I am focused first and foremost on preserving public access on public lands. I am convinced that there is a greater risk of losing access to our public lands if the state has control than if the feds continue to have control.

Why does the State of Utah want control of these lands? So that they can "better manage" them. What does that mean? Increased development? Increased oil and gas production? Leasing and/or selling off some of the lands? Who will be making those decisions? What criteria will be driving those decisions?

The State of Utah recently prepared a 700+ page report analyzing the potential impacts of transferring federal lands to the State of Utah. Page 286 states the following with regard to hunting, fishing and other types of outdoor recreation: "If the state takes over management of the federal land currently used for wildlife-associated activities there is a chance a cost-benefit analysis can be performed to determine the best use of the public land. This could include reallocating hunting and fishing areas for alternative uses including oil and gas production, commercial development, or other types of recreation." http://publiclands.utah.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/1. Land Transfer Analysis Final Report.pdf

I don't know about you, but I don't want the State of Utah engaging in a "cost benefit analysis" and potentially "reallocating" my favorite hunting and fishing areas to some more important or economical type of use. Frankly, that is exactly what SITLA recently did when it leased over 100,000 acres of Utah's Book Cliffs for oil and gas exploration. http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/56784250-90/acres-book-decision-lands.html.csp Since that time, sportsmen groups, including SFW, have been fighting an uphill battle to preserve those areas.

I am all for the state and local representatives negotiating with the feds for an increased voice and involvement with federal lands. But I cannot support the push to transfer ownership and control to the State of Utah. What do you guys think? From a sportsman's perspective, where am I wrong?

-Hawkeye-
 
Greg-

You raise some good points. I had one other thought, as sportsmen, why are we concerned with maximizing the productivity of our public lands? Shouldn't that be the concern of lobbyists, corporate groups, developers, the cattlemen's association, the wool growers association, the timber industry, the energy industry, etc?

Don't get me wrong, I generally believe in working together and compromising, and I think there is room for multiple uses and balance when it comes to public lands. In fact, I come from a family of ranchers. However, I believe that sportsman's groups should be focused on the interests of sportsmen -- hunting, fishing, camping, hiking, etc. Let the other groups advocate and look out for their own interests. This is the very reason why SFW got its wires crossed on the stream access issue. SFW represents sportsmen.

-Hawkeye-
 
Hey NVB,
In Utardia there is no separation between church and state. You judge for yourself what stance they take.

$FW not taking a stance? Is anyone surprised at that. They didn't take a stance with the stream access thing either. They're too chicken$hit to take a stance. They don't want to completely alienate themselves from sportsmen anymore then they already have and at the same time their lips are nursing off the teets of Utah legislators and tax payers so they don't want to mess that up either. It's nothing but pure typical $FW chicken$h!t. IMO
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-23-15 AT 02:14PM (MST)[p]Hawkeye,
Why maximize productivity of lands?
We have a growing population. Our kids and grandkids want to stay in Ut. More development and demands are placed on our resources. Sportsmens should work with ranchers and other industries to provide a win win situatuion when possible.

Ranchers wanted to cut the Bison herd down on the Henrys. Water was one of the issues. SFW/sportsmen did some projects to maintain population objective, transplanted some to the Books so we now are able to have more Bison to hunt.

Sportsmen groups have bought grazing allotments to maintain, increase, or transplant sheep and goats to new areas. More herds, more hunting, more future hunting.

The UEA wanted to lease out School trust lands and form CWMU's on the Book cliffs. The DWR and SFW provided funding to UEA, I think it's $350,000 a year so we have public access to school trust land.
I just think if we can have in writing that our lands will be maintained for public use and access and not be sold the State will do better than Federal government. The state is mre fiscally responsible, and I personally trust decisions made by our State officials more than our Federal government. I think we both want the same thing in the long term.
Just my personal thoughts with what info I know. I don't claim to be an expert.

Shotgun,
Years ago the State DWR had no money. Back in the 80's part of our license fee's were used for non-hunting species. Song birds and desert tortus. That is not the case now. SFW lobbied and got more than a million dollars to fix the badly needed State fish hatchery. The stream access vs private land rights is another issue. I personally try to maintain public access when possible.
 
Huntin50,
I always get nervous when I hear the words "maximize" or "highest and best use" or "fiscal feasibility studies" etc.
I know this means that someone if looking for a way to change thing for monetary gain and I suspect the sportsmen will be the losers.

Shotgun1 just couldn't resist slobbering on the thread with his petty religious/political digs. Keep-on kicking against the prix, dude!

Zeke
 
Greg-

My question was not why maximize the productivity of our public lands. My question was why should sportsmen and sportsmen's groups be leading that charge? From my perspective, "increasing the productivity of public lands" is fancy language for increased use, development, drilling, selling of land, etc. It goes back to the section that I quoted above from page 286 of the State's own report that says if the State were to somehow gain control then "there is a chance a cost-benefit analysis can be performed to determine the best use of the public land. This could include reallocating hunting and fishing areas for alternative uses including oil and gas production, commercial development, or other types of recreation."

I agree that we should look for opportunities to work together with other groups and find win-win situations. But the reality is that increasing or maximizing "productivity" in many instances will have negative impacts on sportsmen and wildlife. For a hunter and sportsman, some of the most "productive lands" are those with little, if any, development. These lands, though highly valued by sportsmen and wildlife, would be particularly vulnerable in a "cost-benefit analysis." I don't think that my local sportsmen's group should be focused on creating jobs, providing affordable energy and new housing opportunities, or protecting large landowners from greedy fly-fisherman. Those are all worthy causes but there are other groups that can better advocate for those interests. Please stick to protecting and furthering the interests of hunters, fisherman and wildlife.

-Hawkeye-
 
Zeke,
I agree we need to watch and be informed who ever is in charge of our lands. Me personally trust the state where local sportsmen can rally. The federal government is getting more difficult and less trust worthy. Do you trust Obama? What is our confidence level with our congressmen?

How come .22 shells are so hard to come by? More future AMMO bands.
 
LBH, thank you.

Zeke, religiously driven isnt exactly what I meant. I was just wondering if there was any correlation in philosophy or history. I think LBH probably summed it up.

Again, please dont think I was being less than genuine.
 
Hawkeye,
I wasn't aware that sportsmen groups were leading the charge.

What ever happens we need written protection to maintain access and hunting. We need to protect habitat, and when possible help improve habitat. I forgot the numbers, but in the next 20 years Utah's population is expected to be one of the fastest growing states.
I don't know many who frequent this site that don't want a better future for hunting and our kids.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-23-15 AT 02:57PM (MST)[p]Huntin50,
If sportsmen pay $350K per year already to keep public access on State lands, how much will we pay in the future if the State owns the whole-ball-O-wax? Mind-numbing amounts of money!

You're right, I'm not in love with the Feds and there are factions of our government I'd rather do without.

Ammo? who caused that? Now, don't get all psycho on me when I tell you the truth. The end-users did it to themselves through hoarding. There's much more to it but the only thing that caused this hoarding was a rumor about the Gov which never even came close to happening.

I don't have the energy to engage in an economic discussion right now but I'll summarize: the demand was sparked by a rumor and the shortage occurred because of hoarding (or stocking-up, as some would say).

Peace out,
Zeke
 
Greg-

I hear you. You and I are not that far apart on some of these issues. We just disagree on how best to reach the final destination. Despite all of the headaches and problems associated with federal control, I believe that transferring federal lands to the states would put those lands at a higher risk for increased use, development, and potentially even being sold. The State of Utah's own analysis essentially says this very thing.

And with regard to leading the charge on this issue, the Dixie Chapter of SFW did in fact pass a public resolution in support of the transfer. I am not aware of any other sportsman's groups to publicly express their support. Do you happen to know if Dixie SFW's decision was based upon a desire to protect and further the interests of sportsmen or was it based upon furthering the some other interests (ranching, oil and gas, mining, development, giving the bird to the feds, etc.)?

Thanks for the discussion. It is good to have a discussion and hear opposing views even if we don't always agree.

-Hawkeye-
 
Zeke,
I don't have all the answers, but the 350K is school trust land, not regular State land.
I am perfectly fine with keeping the federal land as is, if they won't try to close it off for public access. If they don't let Sportsmen take care of wildlife and do projects to help wildlife, hunting, and predator control.

I just trust our local leaders more than federal. We need to watch both, be informed, and make our elected officials listen to the citizens.

I have said all along,we need in writing protections if the State is in charge. We don't have any guarentees with the Federal government.
 
This isn't religious at all, and I'm quite sure the church has no position on this.

This is just the latest manifestation of the sagebrush rebellion, It's more orchestrated now and they have secret strategies, but it's the same self interest groups. In Nevada it's mainly some ranchers and their sort of paid for legislature. I imagine in Utah it goes deeper, but it's about power and money like always.

Sad deal for the young folks if it ever happened.
 
OH. And the truth that in Nevada the same group of sagebrush rebels are the same ones who keep Nevada's elk herds at unreasonabley low levels.

Thirteen thousand elk compared to four hundred and sixty thousand cattle, on a state that's composed of nearly 85% public land. Does that sound balanced to you? The sagebrush rebels want it all
 
huntin50,

Pretty obvious you've not spent much time in local politics...where they can be bought off with a steak dinner. Sorry if I don't find "an agreement in writing" at the state level worth the paper its written on. Every legislation session, there are literally hundreds of worthless bills introduced, again, sorry I don't put any faith in local elected officials.

Any sportsmen's group that is "on the fence" on this issue, isn't much of a sportsmen's group.

Federal lands need to remain in Federal ownership, if not, they're going to be sold.

Want proof?

Just look at the amount of State Lands that Utah has already peddled...
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-23-15 AT 04:49PM (MST)[p]Buzz,
I believe you work for the federal government and you think wolves are not a big issue and there are plenty fo elk and moose around in those states that have wolves. I doubt I'll trust anything that you say.

For all I know you are probably for the AZ watershed national monument so they can have more wolves in AZ.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-23-15 AT 04:56PM (MST)[p]I am not so certain that our state politicians would be dead set against selling off public lands. I have included a link from Governor Herbert in 2011, where he expresses an interest in exploring a possibility of "privatizing public lands" -- whatever that means. Like I have said before, my primary concern is making sure that public lands stay public. As a sportsmen, this whole idea of privatizing and developing public lands scares me to death.


-Hawkeye-
 
In true SFW fashion, when in doubt, fall back on the wolf issue.

I tell you what, those wolves are really slacking...had 5 elk tags between MT and WY this fall, filled them all in 8 days of hunting.
 
If the Land Grab passes, the best case scenario for Utah public land is that it is NOT sold to the highest bidder and is merely used for more cattle, sheep, logging, drilling, and mining.

Now, picture your favorite hunting spots in Utah (you got one in your mind?), now decide which of the above "uses" you prefer on that land to what we have today. The options above, like more mining and drilling, are the BEST CASE scenario if the State gets the land, the point of which is to increase revenue without the Feds requiring pesky things like public comment periods and environmental impact studies.

This next comment is going to sound like a tangent, but stick with me, it's very relevant... Do you guys remember when the NRA supported Harry Reid for reelection and the Republicans were ticked that they weren't supporting his Republican challenger? The NRA response was basically, "We are a gun rights group, and Harry Reid has proven to be pro-gun, therefore we must support him. As a gun rights group, we cannot take other votes into consideration."

That is what SFW needs to do about this Land Grab bill... have the guts to support the Sportsmen that make up the first word in the name of their organization.

I've said it before, when SFW uses the same fervor in defeating the Land Grab bill that they use in their other money-raising endeavors (example: petitions and emails on wolves and sage grouse or organizing public rallies) then I will overlook their other shortcomings and join SFW. As many problems as I see with SFW, none compare to the pending crisis of this Land Grab idea.

Grizzly
 
Anybody that thinks this Land Grab will drastically change land management in the State of Utah, is frankly naive or an idiot.

When the logging industry was devastated in the Pacific Northwest, it didn't matter who had title on the land... the Endangered Species Act knows no bounds. ESA will shut down any industry, anywhere... which is why we have SFW and their Sage Grouse push.

If that doesn't work, EPA regulations that govern waterways and air pollution know no bounds. Heck, they could conceivably prohibit the intrastate export of Utah products if they wanted (now what is our oil/timber worth?).

Even if Utah did own all the land, the first Democratic-controlled Presidency and Congress (and there will be another one) will use whatever tools are at their disposal to shut down any industry they don't like. They'll transplant in a few wolves or list sage grouse, prairie dogs, or some random fish or bird as Endangered and close everything down anyway. You ever tried to get something through the Army Corp of Engineers? Watch what happens when an industry needs their approval and the Feds don't want to give it?

Heck, last year the FDIC was going after banks that had account holders that ran completely legal gun stores and threatening to shut them down so the banks were forced to cut off the gun stores. If the Feds have a desire to stop any money-raising industry in Utah, they'll do it.

And as quickly as an Administration can change hands, so can the Utah State Legislature... they can undo any "public land shall remain public" clause with a mere 51% majority. Who here trusts the people that stood by Mark Shurtleff and John Swallow? Anybody?

Grizzly
 
Shouldn't take the SFW 5 F'N Seconds to Stand Up & Say it Stays as FEDERAL GROUND!






We laugh, we cry, we love
Go hard when the going's tough
Push back, come push and shove
Knock us down, we'll get back up again and again
We are Members of the Huntin Crowd!
 
And NVB!

Why Must you Drag Religion in to it?

Yes there are lots of Mormons in TARDville!

Some JACK-Mormons as well!





We laugh, we cry, we love
Go hard when the going's tough
Push back, come push and shove
Knock us down, we'll get back up again and again
We are Members of the Huntin Crowd!
 
To me what makes nervious is what is going on with the?Plumas National Forest in California. Are we screwed no matter who owns the land.
 
How long do you think hunting would be allowed on public lands in California if the State of California suddenly took possession of all public lands?

-Hawkeye-
 
Hawkeye, you know there is a total difference between Utah and California. California is anti hunting and would shut down everything. I do not think Utah is in that same situation. I am not saying one way or the other. Don't know if i trust either one.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-23-15 AT 10:46PM (MST)[p]Do either one of you realize hunting is controlled by the states?
 
>Do either one of you realize
>hunting is controlled by the
>states?

Piper, do you realize that if the state owns land it can change the rules and regulations for that land via executive decision, and that it wouldn't require voter approval? Significant hunting changes statewide would require much higher levels of scrutiny than a simple declaration of "hunting big game is not allowed on state land". The states can't make that same fiat on land they don't own, which makes the amount of land they control very crucial.

Grizzly
 
YES NVB!

Seein if you're Payin Attention!:D

You don't even Mention 'JACK-MORMONS'!

WTH?

>Elkass,
>
>Do you even read the posts?
>
>
>
>[font color="blue"]I don't make the soup,I
>just stir it.[/font]








We laugh, we cry, we love
Go hard when the going's tough
Push back, come push and shove
Knock us down, we'll get back up again and again
We are Members of the Huntin Crowd!
 
>
>And NVB!
>
>Why Must you Drag Religion in
>to it?
>
>Yes there are lots of Mormons
>in TARDville!
>
>Some JACK-Mormons as well!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> We
>laugh, we cry, we love
>
> Go hard when the going's
>tough
> Push back, come push and
>shove
> Knock us down, we'll get
>back up again and again
>
>We are Members of the Huntin
>Crowd!

Its a fair question. Nothing happens on Capitol Hill that doesnt first get ran past the Presidency. The CHurch is one of, if not the biggest land owner in the state. And interestingly enough, one of the biggest tax dodgers because of it. Utah is still VERY mormon, if you doubt that take a look at the legis. and governor. So no, officially they rarely take a public stance. Behind the scenes, they get first look at EVERY bit of legis. in the state. Thats not a stance by me, "just the facts".

As for $fw, what do you really expect? There is going to be a sizeable portion, the ones who don't use public land to hunt, who will either be indifferent, or for the transfer. Unfortunately for us, thats also the portion with the deep pockets, and political access. On the other side they have the dudes that do the work, and at least in yearly dues, support them. For them, this IS a litmus test, and they are smart enough to realize that, so they will sit as long as possible. In the end, I believe they will be for the transfer, for simple economic reasons. It creates openings for the deep pockets to lock up little hunting "nirvanas". It also makes it MUCH easier for $fw to dictate policy, AND soak up truckloads of money to "stop the wolf" or whatever else they are going to stop. THE DON has a lot more sway in Salt Lake than DC, and them supporting the clowns on the hill would buy a TON of favor, which $fw can turn into power and money, its two main focuses.

If I am wrong, send me the paperwork, I'll join them. I remember when they help beat back a HORRIBLE prop back in the day, and if they help beat this back, they deserve my membership. (Hell shutting me up should be enough to make them anti land grab)
"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"
 
>>
>>And NVB!
>>
>>Why Must you Drag Religion in
>>to it?
>>
>>Yes there are lots of Mormons
>>in TARDville!
>>
>>Some JACK-Mormons as well!
>>
>>


>
>Its a fair question. Nothing
>happens on Capitol Hill that
>doesnt first get ran past
>the Presidency. The CHurch
>is one of, if not
>the biggest land owner in
>the state. And interestingly
>enough, one of the biggest
>tax dodgers because of it.
> Utah is still VERY
>mormon, if you doubt that
>take a look at the
>legis. and governor. So
>no, officially they rarely take
>a public stance. Behind
>the scenes, they get first
>look at EVERY bit of
>legis. in the state.
>Thats not a stance by
>me, "just the facts".
>
>As for $fw, what do you
>really expect? There is
>going to be a sizeable
>portion, the ones who don't
>use public land to hunt,
>who will either be indifferent,
>or for the transfer.
>Unfortunately for us, thats also
>the portion with the deep
>pockets, and political access.
>On the other side they
>have the dudes that do
>the work, and at least
>in yearly dues, support them.
> For them, this IS
>a litmus test, and they
>are smart enough to realize
>that, so they will sit
>as long as possible.
>In the end, I believe
>they will be for the
>transfer, for simple economic reasons.
> It creates openings for
>the deep pockets to lock
>up little hunting "nirvanas".
>It also makes it MUCH
>easier for $fw to dictate
>policy, AND soak up truckloads
>of money to "stop the
>wolf" or whatever else they
>are going to stop.
>THE DON has a lot
>more sway in Salt Lake
>than DC, and them supporting
>the clowns on the hill
>would buy a TON of
>favor, which $fw can turn
>into power and money, its
>two main focuses.
>
>If I am wrong, send me
>the paperwork, I'll join them.
> I remember when they
>help beat back a HORRIBLE
>prop back in the day,
>and if they help beat
>this back, they deserve my
>membership. (Hell shutting me up
>should be enough to make
>them anti land grab)
>
>
>
You'll join them based on this issue? The LDS Church or SFW? Or both?
 
I have been sitting on my hands now for a month or so and not responded to this topic. Some of my hesitation to comment is from the fact that most involved in the conversation are from Utah and that this is a Utah matter which i long ago learned to avoid if possible. Really though, this is more of a Country wide subject, a Country wide threat, it's not just a Utah thing, and it's end results could greatly change the ability for a common man to go out and hunt or enjoy our, the people's outdoors.

Yes, there is a similar issue going on close to where i live in North Eastern Calif. Plumas Co has been given a map of all the roads that are to be closed, National Forest access. This has been going on for years. No doubt, some access has been and some more will eventually be restricted but the land will still be all of ours to enjoy and local law enforcement has made statements that they will not enforce such closures if they do eventually come to pass. This is a huge difference from the land being sold to deep pockets and forever lost to us regular ol guys who like it the way it is and has been.

History has shown great reason not to trust our individual States to do what is best for the Outdoors enthusiast. Not that i completely trust anybody when it comes to this sort of issue, i do have more faith in the National Forest Program than i do handing it over to the States to try and come up with a way to manage these set aside lands.

I don't trust the States! I believe that they will sell out piece by piece and balance budgets with what was, your and my secret little honey holes. Anybody that supports State control of our lands, i believe has a agenda that will eventually pad their own pockets in some way. I can only hope that there are those smart and effective enough to put a stop to this nonsense. We don't have to let history replete itself, we don't have to become like the Country's elsewhere that only hunt the Kings game.

Joey





"It's all about knowing what your firearms practical limitations are and combining that with your own personal limitations!"
 
I agree Joey, I don't trust the States either, but neither to I trust the Federal gov. Both have proven, time and again they will behave poorly when it come to hunting and fishing access.

The bottom line is this, unfortunately. The Feds keep locking away lands, in different ways, in different locations. Some are to wilderness, some to national parks, some to national monuments, some to cooperate mineral/oil leases, closing more roads, restricting more access, using public lands for political benefit and the list goes on and on, with ample evidence that they are going to continue to make less and less land available for hunting, fishing access, at least to anything other than access by foot or horseback. I hate that. I hate that young children and old people are not able to see the public places that are controlled by the Feds. I hate it that some of the most desirable locations in the country are lock away accept for the strong and the horse men and even then, under highly regulated circumstances. And yes, the Feds have also traded public lands for development, when it suits them.

And............there is every indication that the Federal government will continue or even excelerate their restriction of access to the general public, to public lands.

Then, on the other hand, the we know the State has sold public State lands, at their choosing. Will they do it again, yes the will. Will the States, if they control the all public lands, lease it to cooperations, that will lock out hunters and fishermen and others. Yes they will. Will the State lock us out of more land than the Feds have all ready and will continue to do in the future? Who can say for sure?

It's a fricking mess. We are damned if we do and damned if we don't. Both arms of Government are going to harm us, there is no doubt, regardless of which way this goes, and I'm guessing the Feds will win this fight but then what? More Federal closures and restrictions? Yes, for sure.

Sportsmen need to do all they can, with what ever legal, political, social, economic means they have available to them, regardless who wins this fight, to keep exsisting public lands accessable, huntable and fishable.

To pick sides, without a commitment from either the State or the Feds is simply trusting a rattle snake not to bite you, if you treat is nicely. NO THANKS.

DC
 
2lumpy, Well said! For me though, the deal breaker is the Complete loss of access by the State selling lands that were once public, to private owners, Vs, the Feds plans to keep the lands public but to restrict some access. I'll go Public lands with restricted access any day of the week.

Hell, i hunted as hard as the best of them in my day but i can't hardly get across the street anymore so i'm for public access to public lands where it already exists. That all goes out the window though if the lands were suddenly behind locked gates and sold off to private by a needy State Budget.

They, the States, could all use the money, could all welcome the Power and payback new infrastructure that would be needed, that they would have to expand with the newly acquired lands needed management. They could all sell off what is now, not theirs to sell and have a fine time of it, all on our loss to what was once Public Land.

Let's not let that happen!

SFW, i've been pretty neutral on the subject aside from expressing my feelings that Utah is already a lost cause to NR's without deep pockets. But this is a huge deal breaker for me. Unless some of you have personal gain in this issue, i'd advise trying to get SFW to change their stance on the subject. Deal breaker for sure, for me anyway!

Joey






"It's all about knowing what your firearms practical limitations are and combining that with your own personal limitations!"
 
>I agree Joey, I don't trust
>the States either, but neither
>to I trust the Federal
>gov. Both have proven,
>time and again they will
>behave poorly when it come
>to hunting and fishing access.
>
>
>The bottom line is this, unfortunately.
> The Feds keep locking
>away lands, in different ways,
>in different locations. Some
>are to wilderness, some to
>national parks, some to national
>monuments, some to cooperate mineral/oil
>leases, closing more roads, restricting
>more access, using public lands
>for political benefit and the
>list goes on and on,
>with ample evidence that they
>are going to continue to
>make less and less land
>available for hunting, fishing access,
>at least to anything other
>than access by foot or
>horseback. I hate that.
> I hate that young
>children and old people are
>not able to see the
>public places that are controlled
>by the Feds. I
>hate it that some of
>the most desirable locations in
>the country are lock away
>accept for the strong and
>the horse men and even
>then, under highly regulated circumstances.
> And yes, the Feds
>have also traded public lands
>for development, when it suits
>them.
>
>And............there is every indication that the
>Federal government will continue or
>even excelerate their restriction of
>access to the general public,
>to public lands.
>
>Then, on the other hand, the
>we know the State has
>sold public State lands, at
>their choosing. Will they
>do it again, yes the
>will. Will the States,
>if they control the all
>public lands, lease it to
>cooperations, that will lock out
>hunters and fishermen and others.
> Yes they will.
>Will the State lock us
>out of more land than
>the Feds have all ready
>and will continue to do
>in the future? Who
>can say for sure?
>
>It's a fricking mess. We
>are damned if we do
>and damned if we don't.
> Both arms of Government
>are going to harm us,
>there is no doubt, regardless
>of which way this goes,
>and I'm guessing the Feds
>will win this fight but
>then what? More Federal
>closures and restrictions? Yes,
>for sure.
>
>Sportsmen need to do all they
>can, with what ever legal,
>political, social, economic means they
>have available to them, regardless
>who wins this fight,
>to keep exsisting public lands
>accessable, huntable and fishable.
>
>To pick sides, without a commitment
>from either the State or
>the Feds is simply trusting
>a rattle snake not to
>bite you, if you treat
>is nicely. NO THANKS.
>
>DC

As I see it, it's not just about access which is bad enough. It's also about sustaining or growing the wildlife. The closure of roads and leasing of land is one thing when it comes to managing hunting and fishing, but the sell-off of that land is something else when it comes to managing the wildlife. Wildlife, especially big game, need a large amount of unbroken viable habitat (food, shelter, security, water) and when that isn't a high wildlife priority for the landowner, no matter who it is, there will be little or no wildlife to hunt even if we had access. And take it for what it's worth, there are a lot of landowners who don't have wildlife and hunting very high on their priority list and those that do will likely not be wealthy enough to buy enough land to keep the big game herds going.

And since hunting and fishing provide only about 6% of Utah's gross state product, it's down the list quite a ways in the eyes of Utah's lawmakers. As it is, the DWR is one of few, if not the only, division that is expected to be self-sustaining and they receive very little of their budget from the Utah general taxpayer funds. If the State of Utah gets 31 million more acres to manage, even those funds will be in jeopardy.

It's a sad situation alright, but I and a lot of other sportsmen believe that the Federal rattlesnake's venom is less toxic and can be better managed.
 
The Fed's may be a rattlesnake but they are a rattlesnake that has tied itself in a knot and defanged itself. What I mean by that is that nothing can get done in Congress anymore, we all know that is a fact, and that fact is the very thing that keeps public lands public. Nobody in Congress has the strength, determination, or fortitude to try and sell public land. In addition, the Feds have no hesitation about keeping the land public and just adding to the federal deficit, which may be bad from a macro-economics standpoint, but it is good for hunters.

On the contrary, the State has one main objective to get the land and that is to "manage" it for more money it can waste on government programs. How can the state get more money from the land? There are two ways: 1) Sell it. 2) Mine it, drill it, log it, or graze it.

Those are the only two options. Which of those two do you think should be implemented on your favorite hunting unit. What if they increase cattle and sheep grazing on the Henry's, drill for oil and gas on the Book Cliffs, and log the timber from the Manti? And remember, that is the BEST CASE SCENARIO where the state agrees never to sell any land (even though the state-sanctioned report admits that selling public land likely will be necessary).

How many elk tags will be on the Wasatch in ten years when the state realizes the "best use" for that land is to subdivide it into 40 acre "micro-ranches" and it is covered in roads and cabins? Will there be more or less Wasatch elk tags?

For the record, closing roads is NOT closing access. Hop on a bicycle or pick up a bottle of water and a backpack and go for a walk. The real threat is a NO TRESPASSING sign, and that will not happen if the Feds keep control. You can't promise that if the state gets the land.

Grizzly
 
I agree that the biggest threat to sportsmen is not game populations, opportunity to hunt, price of hunting etc but it will be ACCESS. This problem did not happen overnight and will not be solved overnight. 80 years ago people believed in conservation and handing something down to their kids in better shape than they inherited but we now are now an entitlement society and for immediate gratification. As a result we as a country are broke and everyone is looking for money. That in turn is going to leave us with nothing but tough choices and decisions.

With fewer people hunting and fishing wildlife agenda estate are going to continue to look for other sources of revenue and those sources will also have greater influence on wildlife policies.

I agree that public land is in better hands at the federal level than state. It is going to take the cooperation and organization of all sportsmen if we want this heritage to continue.
 
I wish I had your confidence in the Federal Government. I don't. Sorry.

Do I want the Feds. to turn these lands over to Utah or each State. Not at this time. Maybe never, but it will depend on the Feds fixing the problems they have created, over their recent management behaviors and regulations imposed on our public lands.

What I want is to fix the Federal system, because it's killing us. Just because it may be less poisonous than the State rattle snake, doesn't mean we'll not be just as dead, if the Fed. continues to take more of these land out of multiple use and impose more access restrictions.

This is a mean, mean, son of ##### and it's because of the bad behavior of the present government that has control of these public lands for, the reasons I've already mentioned and others I've not, because I don't even know all the harm they have done, over the last 40 years.

Regardless of which government has control of our public lands, I want to keep them multiple use, in it's original concept, where the land stays public and the public has "equal" access and what I mean by equal is no closure to vehicle access, so everyone can us it, not just those that own horses or are vigorous enough to go in on foot, with as much or more fishing and hunting access as we have now.

That is my position and that is what I will use my limited influence with SFW, my contacts in the Legislature, the news media, and anyone that will listen. I'm absolutely not willing to get in bed with "ANYBODY" that doesn't preserve and protect multiple use, in it's original concept. That's how I'll vote, that's where I'll invest my time, my energy, and my merger funds.

Any politician that does not support that position, I will campaign against and lobby every one else I can influence to do the same. And right now I don't believe any Legislature, be it Federal or States, gives a rats ass about hunter and fishing access, on this issue and we damn well better let them know we'll vote against them if they don't start to articulate their concerns for the sportsmen of America. We might be fewer in number but if we are smart we can force our politicians to "protect our interests".

As I've said repeatedly, I don't believe there is a chance in hell this land transfer mess will every actually happen, but I do believe there will be deals made and concessions agreed to. Those deals better treed carefully where it come to hunting and fishing regulations. Let me just say this, for both sides to hear:

"SPORTSMEN CAN AND WILL ORGANIZE A SURPRISINGLY POWERFUL POLITICAL FORCE ON THIS ISSUE, IF WE ARE FORCED TO. POLITICIANS, YOU CAN TAKE THAT TO THE BANK!

THEREFORE, TO THOSE POLITICIANS ENGAGED IN THESE DISCUSSIONS AND IN THESE NEGOTIATIONS, PROCEED WITH CALCULATED CAUTION, IF YOU VALUE YOUR POLITICAL FUTURE! OUR POLITICAL SYSTEM ALLOWS A SMALL NUMBER OF VERY COMMITTED AND UNITED PEOPLE TO DETERMINE WHO GETS TO RUN FOR OFFICE. WE KNOW HOW IT WORKS AND WE WILL ORGANIZE TO PROTECT OUR LIFESTYLE.

DC
 
It is kind of ironic when I see a commercial for "visit utah" they use advertise the 5 national parks within its borders as a prime reason to visit UT. Seems kind of hypocritical to me. Guess they will have to modify that commercial if they ever take control the lands.
 
There in lays the heart of the program flatlander. Currently 5 large sections of land closed to hunting and other multiple uses. How many more should Utah allow the Feds to take from us before we say enough is enough?

DC
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-26-15 AT 07:19PM (MST)[p]2Lumpy, are you seriously complaining that there should be no National Parks or Places that we can't hunt?

Maybe not in Utah, but our National Parks here have been closed to hunting for years and so they should be. Game refuges too!

So the Feds have some places closed off...or they have long ago "taken them" for Parks or Monuments, big deal, they have not sold them so Big money deep pockets could then build a fence around the whole Mountain Range and put up "No Trespassing" signs every 100 feet.

I don't agree 100% or even close to how the Feds have managed OUR land but in my lifetime, i give them a "C+" for doing the hard job that they have. It cost big money but we still have the Land, it's still ours, and most of it we can go, come, hunt, fish as we choose.

With State control? I don't believe that the States could possibly even consider taking over these national Forest Lands unless they already had a agreement set in place for huge chunks of what was our land, to be sold off before the ink could dry.

...and getting assurances that the State or the Feds are only going to do with the land, any other than them doing what they want to do? Good Luck with that my friend :)

Joey


"It's all about knowing what your firearms practical limitations are and combining that with your own personal limitations!"
 
DC, I agree with you in your post above when you talk about keeping hunting and fishing access, but then you choose to support the one "Sportsman" group that actually campaigned to limit fishing access in Utah? I believe access is the number one concern for the future of hunting, so I treat this as a "with us, or against us" platform... sadly, SFW hasn't said they're "with us".

Flatlander is right when he said above that, "It is going to take the cooperation and organization of all sportsmen if we want this heritage to continue". It is impossible to have all organizations working together if the major player in Utah isn't showing up with RMEF, BHA, and UWC at the State Capitol to protest the Land Grab.

Hopefully you can appreciate the skepticism of many of us about SFW's true intentions considering their Stream Access position as well as silence and non-participation on the Land Grab so far.

One more thing, we definitely need road access to certain areas, but we hardly need road access everywhere. I believe we should leave some wilderness and roadless areas for our posterity. For an area to be truly multi-use, we have to allow those that want to experience nature without motorized vehicles that opportunity as well. I don't feel at all that Utah, or any Rocky Mountain state for that matter, is lacking in vehicle access. Actually I would say we have a pretty good mix right now and would like to keep it that way.

You and I have a disagreement about which side of the fence to be on, but the one thing that I hope to convey is this isn't an anti-SFW position... but one based on an abundance of caution and a difference of opinion on which threat is more substantial. Have a good one.

Grizzly
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-26-15 AT 08:53PM (MST)[p]Not opposed to national parks Joey, but that's not the point. If five are good, are ten better, then maybe Utah should have 15 or twenty. How about an few more monuments, then in the future make them national parks such as Capital Reef and Canyon Lands, in the recent past. How about somebody decide that all National Forests, should be National Parks? Count on it, if we don't get a bit in this horses mouth. I've long sense stopped saying, "Oh, they'll never do that." Been proven wrong way, way too many times what "they" will do it. It seems if I can imagine it, somebody will try to do it, regardless of the madness of it."

How much land that you access in your back yard is Federal and how much of it has had reduced access, in one form or another. In my circle of travel, where I hunt, I've had to give up land to wilderness, national monuments, roads that have been open for all those year you mentioned have be bull dozed closed, millions of acres of forest "dead" to disease and rotting on the stump because the Feds didn't take care of it 50 years ago and they won't take care of it now. Allowing aspen forest to die and now trying to move heaven and earth, within their own Federal regulations, to fix what the Feds themselves want fixed.

What hell kind of system government over seer do we have Joey, that cannot fix something in it's own forest, because of it's own regulations? Doesn't that sound like madness to you?

It would be like saying, "SageAdvice can't treat himself for skin cancer because Joey Cardoza has to give SageAdvice permission, based on all his aunts, uncles , and cousins, part of which are too uninformed to know if cancer is a serious threat to Sage's health. The EPA, our Federal government, has more control over our National Forests, than the US Forest Service our Federal government has. The Federal government restricting the Federal government, how can that work Sage. Well..... its not. And it's screwed up and is going to more screwed up.


Ya I know,......be careful what you wish for. The fire burns hotter than the frying pan. Right, I get it.

Status quo is safe. (the proverbial frying pan) We know the mess were in and we don't dare take on the mess because we might make it worse. That's what we are all saying here, "we don't like what we got, but by damn don't try to make it better because you might make it worse. That's it, isn't it? Oh, I get it. But here's the sad truth, as I see it. WE DON"T KNOW WHAT THE STATUS QUO IS GOING TO GET US, ANY MORE WE KNOW WHAT THE ALTERNATIVE MIGHT BE and I'm starting bow my back on what the frying pan feels like. And damn it, what kind of people are we, if we don't have the courage to do what ever it take to break the horse. My hell, Sage, if our Grandpa had settled for status quo because they might have made it worse, where would you and I be today?

And, all I'm saying is I don't like the current Status Quo. I'm also saying, I'm damn sure afraid of the State and what it might do too. So......I'm trying to be proactive, as much as I presently believe I need to be, to make sure that you and I come out with the shirts on our back, when and if this tar baby lays an egg.

Peace Bro, we're on the same side here. I'm just not going to show my cards yet, cause I don't know what the other players are holding and I'm going to check my bet until I see the river card.

DC
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-26-15 AT 09:29PM (MST)[p]I'm going back to sitting on my hands. :)

My comments here on this thread are about something that concerns me greatly, something that is not just about Utah. Because though, i know so little about Utah specifically, and that Utah is the hot subject State, i'll say Thanks guys for the opportunity to express my views without even once being insulted and peacefully bow out if allowed. My previous comments stand.

2Lumpy, that friggen River Card has cost me a fair piece o change! ;-)

Joey


"It's all about knowing what your firearms practical limitations are and combining that with your own personal limitations!"
 
Grizzly. Here is the bottom line, for me. You do what you think is right, as will I.

I'm an SFW member, nothing more, nothing less. I support SFW, as I've said at least a thousand times by now, I support them and that does not mean I support everything they have ever done or ever will do. As a point guard in basketball, I didn't quit the team when some of the players did stupid stuff. As the quarterback of my football team I didn't stomp of the field when the guard pulled left on a quarterback draw and I got flattened. Did we have words, oh ya! But he didn't quit and neither did I, that's how I was always taught "teams" won championships. I always figured I had a better change winning if I supported the team. And if there is one thing I am, it's all about wanting to win. I hate fat lips, I don't go looking for a fight but so if I'm going to got after at it I'm going to go after it to win. I hate fighting for the love of fighting. hate it.

I'm a card carrying Republican, I am so pissed off with some the things the Republican National Party and the State Republican party do, I could pull my hair out some days. Why am I still a Republican? Because I'm less pissed off with the Republicans than I am with the other parties. If there was a better party than the Republican party I'd quite the Republicans and join that party. I'm not leaving the Republican party over this issue, but you can better your last biscuit that I am actively engaged in trying to make sure that Republican politicians, that I work with, know where I'm going to be coming from on this issue. Already very engaged actually. I know it's the National and the State Republicans that are pushing for this land transfer, would it be smarter for me to leave and fight them from the outside or stay on the inside and fight them from within?

Likewise, when SFW does something I disagree with I don't leave. However, if there was a better sportsmen's organization for hunting and fishing, I'd join that organization. Like my membership in the Republican party, I support the best there is but have no qualms about leaving, if there is a better game in town.

As I said, with both SFW and the Republican party, I do every thing I can, from with in both organizations. to get them to do what I believe is best for you and I. I'm a effective? At times, yes, other times, no. I'm a proactive SOB. I believe I have as much right to my opinion as anybody else and I'm going to "get after it" or shut up and accept someone else's rules. I believe I have better success doing that from within the body of an organization than I do from the outside.

Do you think I try to get SFW to do what I believe is best? You bet your ass I do. Do they, not always, usually not. Does that mean I stop or leave, hell no, I stay because they are the ones getting something done, and I'm going to do all I can to make sure all they get done, is sometimes, what I want to get done.

I've seen SFW's official statement regarding the land transfer issue. I like it, I believe it's the right thing to do, so long as they are busting their ass to make sure that our public lands stay accessible and open to hunting and fishing, regardless of which government is in charge of them. I trust SFW, you don't. I understand that. I wish you did but you do what you do, as do I. No offense. That's what makes America the best Nation on earth. I wish you felt different but know this Grizzly, regarding this land transfer issue, I want the same out come as you, as I believe SFW leadership does. Whether the Feds manage our public lands or the States do, it makes no difference to me, so long as who ever manages it does what we hunters and fishermen want done with it.

Now, I've discussed this enough for now. I've repeated myself number times on this thread and on other posts in the past. I'm going to work and watch. We'll see how the cards start to play out and how the players bet their cards, based on that, I'll do what I believe is best, regarding my actions and reactions. I believe the SFW leadership will be doing the same.

Most Respectfully,
DC
 
Sage, your a gentleman. No doubt, you're a wise man. I respect your thoughts and how you express them. You are very right regarding some of these issues and related discussions. they have far reaching, in reality, civilization altering, consequences.

Those things we do or don't do today will live with us and future generations for eternity, be they large or small.

DC
 
>>>
>>>And NVB!
>>>
>>>Why Must you Drag Religion in
>>>to it?
>>>
>>>Yes there are lots of Mormons
>>>in TARDville!
>>>
>>>Some JACK-Mormons as well!
>>>
>>>
>
>
>>
>>Its a fair question. Nothing
>>happens on Capitol Hill that
>>doesnt first get ran past
>>the Presidency. The CHurch
>>is one of, if not
>>the biggest land owner in
>>the state. And interestingly
>>enough, one of the biggest
>>tax dodgers because of it.
>> Utah is still VERY
>>mormon, if you doubt that
>>take a look at the
>>legis. and governor. So
>>no, officially they rarely take
>>a public stance. Behind
>>the scenes, they get first
>>look at EVERY bit of
>>legis. in the state.
>>Thats not a stance by
>>me, "just the facts".
>>
>>As for $fw, what do you
>>really expect? There is
>>going to be a sizeable
>>portion, the ones who don't
>>use public land to hunt,
>>who will either be indifferent,
>>or for the transfer.
>>Unfortunately for us, thats also
>>the portion with the deep
>>pockets, and political access.
>>On the other side they
>>have the dudes that do
>>the work, and at least
>>in yearly dues, support them.
>> For them, this IS
>>a litmus test, and they
>>are smart enough to realize
>>that, so they will sit
>>as long as possible.
>>In the end, I believe
>>they will be for the
>>transfer, for simple economic reasons.
>> It creates openings for
>>the deep pockets to lock
>>up little hunting "nirvanas".
>>It also makes it MUCH
>>easier for $fw to dictate
>>policy, AND soak up truckloads
>>of money to "stop the
>>wolf" or whatever else they
>>are going to stop.
>>THE DON has a lot
>>more sway in Salt Lake
>>than DC, and them supporting
>>the clowns on the hill
>>would buy a TON of
>>favor, which $fw can turn
>>into power and money, its
>>two main focuses.
>>
>>If I am wrong, send me
>>the paperwork, I'll join them.
>> I remember when they
>>help beat back a HORRIBLE
>>prop back in the day,
>>and if they help beat
>>this back, they deserve my
>>membership. (Hell shutting me up
>>should be enough to make
>>them anti land grab)
>>
>>
>>
>You'll join them based on this
>issue? The LDS Church or
>SFW? Or both?

I never did get asked to go on a mission, been sulking for 22 years over that one. I was told, by a feller in here, JMO that I should shut up and watch $fw, that they realized they had a problem and a newer crop of guys was taking the helm that wanted to get back to there roots. Standing up to the deep pockets that push this crap would prove he was right, and prove I was wrong. I am big enough to admit it if it happens.

As for that damn mission call, my bike is ready and waiting!!

"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"
 
This has been a good discussion guys (other than Hossblur's off-topic discussion about his continued goal to serve an LDS mission). ;-)

For those of you who think that hunters would be better of with the State of Utah controlling all 31 million acres of Utah's public lands, please understand that the entire goal of this attempted transfer is to increase the productivity of the land. That means increased mining, oil and gas drilling, logging, development and even selling off the property in an effort to generate revenue. This is not a scare tactic. It is a fact.

Consider the following. First, look at the state's own report on the issue. http://publiclands.utah.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/1. Land Transfer Analysis Final Report.pdf You will notice that the State does not spend a great deal of time addressing hunting and fishing. However, they do plainly state that on P. 286 that "there is a chance a cost-benefit analysis can be performed to determine the best use of the public land. This could include reallocating hunting and fishing areas for alternative uses including oil and gas production, commercial development, or other types of recreation." Those are their words, not mine.

Second, look at the arguments raised by Ken Ivory, the American Lands Council and other supporting transfer. They are based upon an argument that the Federal Government had a "duty to dispose" of all public lands in the West. http://www.americanlandscouncil.org/byu_law_review_fed_govt_s_duty_to_dispose_of_public Whether you agree or disagree with this legal argument, the point is that these folks are suggesting that the Federal Government should have disposed of or sold off all of these lands. In other words, the root of the legal argument is not that the lands should have been given to the states. Rather, it is that the Federal Government breached its obligation to sell off all of our public lands. After doing my own research, I personally do not agree with the "duty to dispose" argument. However, to the extent that there was such an agreement, thank goodness the Federal Government did not sell off our public lands in Utah.

Third, the folks supporting transfer like to point to the Eastern states as the model of how it should be. Take a look back east ladies and gentlemen. The Eastern states do not own, control or maintain large swaths of public lands. Rather, what you see back East is the vast majority of the lands were sold to private landowners who own and control those lands. Most of those lands are posted as "private property" and are not open to the public. In other words, if a sportsman wants to hunt back east then he needs to join a club, pay a trespass fee or get permission from a private landowner. That sounds great to Easterners but I personally love the fact that we have millions of acres of public lands in Utah that are open to the public. I don't always agree with the rules and guidelines imposed by the feds but I put a huge premium on access. In fact, when finished school I had opportunities to go work in other locations where I could have made more money. But I chose to stay in Utah, in large part, due to the outdoors and the many opportunities that are available to us on our public lands.

Finally, I mentioned before that I am a conservative and I generally vote republican. However, I believe that our state Republican lawmakers have chosen the wrong side on this issue. They are focused primarily on growing the economy, increasing tax revenue and opening up our public lands to development. I want to create jobs and grown the economy but not at the risk of losing our public lands. If you have any questions about how our state leaders view this issue then take a minute and watch this short clip of Governor Herbert talking about the possibility of "privatizing" and selling off some of our public lands.
Once again, those are his words - not mine.

There is an old saying that "the devil you know is better than the devil you don't know." That rings true here. Federal management of public lands is Utah has its problems. But at the end of the day, we have access to those lands and the restrictions are fairly minimal. If we have issues and concerns with federal management, then let's band together and negotiate for change. I would be scared to death if the State of Utah somehow wrangled away control of our federal lands. Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water. The fact that roughly 80% of the lands in our state are open to the public is not a problem. Rather, it is an gift and an asset to be enjoyed and preserved. And I still cannot see what any sportsmen's group would support any effort to transfer these lands and open them up to increased mining, oil and gas drilling, logging, development and even selling off the property in an effort to generate revenue.

-Hawkeye-
 

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

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

318A25F6-461F-46CF-A86A-A9F626FC3B37.jpeg
1FF7066B-6608-4163-B46C-C68669741A15.jpeg
20220819_072041.jpg
D5AC7B55-7817-4206-8CD5-ACFE7F2506C9.png
Big Buck
IMG_0019.jpeg
IMG_1051.jpg
102_0004.JPG
Resized_20211120_083144.jpeg
IMG_8772.jpeg
B59726CD-3B66-4858-BA59-F488D72C9C98.jpeg
fullsizeoutput_4878.jpeg
Back
Top Bottom