Some good news

C

cyrus

Member
Messages
36
LAST EDITED ON May-06-15 AT 08:47AM (MST)[p]Finally there are a few politicians starting to see the light.
Not sure if this has been posted on mm already but I ran across this yesterday.
The Latest "Backcountry Hunters and Anglers" facebook post:

"Great news BHA fans!

In Colorado, both bills aimed at transferring or privatizing your public lands are officially dead!

In Montana, Governor Steve Bullock vetoed the lone land transfer bill that passed through the legislature!

In New Mexico, not a single land transfer bill passed during the session!

And in Idaho, sportsmen played a key role in killing all meaningful land transfer legislation dead in its tracks.

A big thanks to all who came out to rally in defense of our public lands in these and other states!"

Not sure if there is more info available on this but it sure sounds encouraging, now as one comment put it, "if we can just get the utah wackos to quit leading the charge."
 
That is good news.

My own thought on this "transfer BS" is that it will never come to fruition and is a huge waste of money and time. We need to stay active/united and keep our public lands the way they are.

Zeke.
 
+1 Zeke!! Thanks for posting Cyrus!!


Joey

"It's all about knowing what your firearms practical limitations are and combining that with your own personal limitations!"
 
Not only did the legislature kill the land bill, they also vetoed for the third time in a row,Bonus or Preference points. Outside sources tried to weasel there way into the state,and it didn't work, thanks to the sportsman of Idaho!!
 
cyrus,

You posted, "'if we can just get the utah wackos to quit leading the charge.'"

I find it very interesting how some hunters are so bold about using the term "Utah wackos" but seem uninterested in confronting the environmental wackos. I have no problem with people disagreeing with the land transfer, but it is disturbing to me how quickly they jump on the "Utard" bandwagon and seemingly are uninterested in confronting the environmental wacko movement.
 
"Utah wackos" vs "wackos in Utah".
No doubt there are plenty of them in Utah just as there are plenty in every other State of the Union! It's not exclusive to Utah, as some would have you believe.

no blood, no foul however
Zeke
 
>cyrus,
>
>You posted, "'if we can just
>get the utah wackos to
>quit leading the charge.'"
>
>I find it very interesting how
>some hunters are so bold
>about using the term "Utah
>wackos" but seem uninterested in
>confronting the environmental wackos.
>I have no problem with
>people disagreeing with the land
>transfer, but it is disturbing
>to me how quickly they
>jump on the "Utard" bandwagon
>and seemingly are uninterested in
>confronting the environmental wacko movement.
>


Maybe because the Utarded wackos are the bigger threat right now.
 
This is for Wildman.

4605image.jpg
 
shotgun1

You said, "Maybe because the Utarded wackos are the bigger threat right now."

I'm sure that is exactly how the wolf lovers and anti-hunters hope you feel.
 
shotgun,

Thanks for the photo, but if you think two grandmas from Montana calling Utahns wingnuts is a strong political statement, I guess your welcome to your opinion.
 
As I read this article, I started to think, and have thaought this the whole time. But when they sale off all the lands, and lets assume it takes 10 years to sale off all public lands to the "AMERICAN" people, and they use this money to build road/highways, what will they do in 15 years and 20 years when there is no more land to sale? This is what scares me. I am sure it will be a tax to all of us after that.

This is my idea....

So keep lands public!
Get rid of 50% of public officers (Dem/Rep....)
Get rid of their ridiculous wages!
Limit office terms to EVERYONE of them!
Make them follow the same rules we have, same insurance, same taxes...Everything!

I bet then we will have a surplus of $$$ to get out of debt.

Just my thought, and now no need to sale off public lands.
 
>LAST EDITED ON May-06-15
>AT 08:47?AM (MST)
>
>Finally there are a few politicians
>starting to see the light.
>
>Not sure if this has been
>posted on mm already but
>I ran across this yesterday.
>
>The Latest "Backcountry Hunters and Anglers"
>facebook post:
>
>"Great news BHA fans!
>
>In Colorado, both bills aimed at
>transferring or privatizing your public
>lands are officially dead!
>
>In Montana, Governor Steve Bullock vetoed
>the lone land transfer bill
>that passed through the legislature!
>
>
>In New Mexico, not a single
>land transfer bill passed during
>the session!
>
>And in Idaho, sportsmen played a
>key role in killing all
>meaningful land transfer legislation dead
>in its tracks.
>
>A big thanks to all who
>came out to rally in
>defense of our public lands
>in these and other states!"
>
>
>Not sure if there is more
>info available on this but
>it sure sounds encouraging, now
>as one comment put it,
>"if we can just get
>the utah wackos to quit
>leading the charge."

https://themontanan1889.wordpress.com/2015/04/03/the-great-puppet-show-in-the-west/

I'm asking an honest question who is BHA ? Their "fans" seem to be the enemies of hunters.
 
BHA members are real hunters and conservationists, in the mold of Teddy Roosevelt.

Your link makes me laugh JMO. Anti energy is equated to antgun? Interesting, do they need an outside energy source to power their guns?

I wonder who the brainchild is behind that? Lets see it couldn't be a money thing could it? I guess wild animals don't need wild country anymore?
We can privatize the public land and we can grow trophy animals on private game farms, and then fire up the old Ray gun and kill um.
 
Personally I relate a lot more to the "environmental wackos" than I do to Utah politicians as far as public lands are concerned. Escaping to the wilderness only to find the gas wells and mini ranches have already taken it over isnt the most appealing prospect to me. As far as the possibility of the feds one day selling it off to pay for infastrucsture, debt, etc. I believe could be a possiblity, however I still trust them more than I do the states to keep the land public for the longest amount of time. Just my two cents, could be wrong.
 
I asked a simple question. I don't believe everything I read on the internet. So you're saying the facts in the link I shared are false ? I think we are being fed with lies on both sides of the argument. I have not made my mind up as to what's best for sportsmen concerning federal vs state control of public lands. I've spent hours reading articles concerning the topics. The one thing I am convinced of is that I do not trust the anti hunting organizations and their tactics.
 
JMO,

You may want to do some research of your own, I suggest you start with Will Coggin. He's a flunkie that works for Richard Berman...here's a bit of info on Berman, real stand-up trustworthy sort.

http://www.bermanexposed.org/

As to BHA, in full disclosure, I am the Chairman for the Wyoming Chapter, so I may have a "biased" view of BHA and what they do.

I personally either know, or have met, just about all of the Chapter leaders, the board of Directors, staff, and also Executive Director. If you can find a group of more dedicated hunters and anglers anywhere, I'd be surprised.

Website for BHA:

https://www.backcountryhunters.org/

I would look at the board of Directors:

https://www.backcountryhunters.org/index.php/who-we-are/board-of-directors

Funny that Will Coggin says BHA is anti-gun. Really? Strange that an ant-gun group would offer, as a promotion last, kimber pistols in 380 and 45, as well as a kimber rifle to new life members. Further, Ryan Busse, VP of sales for Kimber Firearms is on of the board of directors.

BHA needs no defense of their positions, funding, or anything else, its all there on the home page including the 990's.

The Wyoming Chapter is only a couple years old, but is making a significant impact on wildlife, hunting, fishing and public lands issues.

Some of the things we've done:

1. Held 2 annual buck and rail fencing projects on Pole Mountain which closed several miles of illegal off-road trails improving habitat, riparian health, and also water quality for Cheyenne's drinking water.

2. Have board members that are active in the Sheep Mountain, Casper area, and Platte Valley Mule Deer Initiatives.

3. Recently donated money to AccessYes in Wyoming as well as funding a sign project for the Medicine Bow National Forest.

4. WYBHA is a member of the Wyoming Sportsmens Alliance.

5. Have a board member on the Wyoming GBGLC (moose).

6. Recently classified drones in the definition of aircraft in regulation and has proposed flight restrictions regarding aerial scouting for big-game.

7. Active at the legislature helping to pass and kill important legislation regarding wildlife, habitat, hunters and anglers.

8. Testifying against the Transfer of Public Lands at the State and National Level.

Those are a few of the items, off the top of my head, that WYBHA is engaged in.

The Wyoming Chapter has strong leadership and guys/gals that flat get things done for wildlife, wildlife habitat, and Sportsmen.
 
Buzz thanks for the reply. I think about the only thing we have in common is the love of the outdoors. I believe almost every MM member would support a man that fights against the radical left wing groups Berman fights. Thanks for the link it confirmed many of my suspicions. If you support large labor unions, the humane society, peta, and the other groups that Berman targets you are no friend of mine. Your link causes me to ask the question why is BHA being included with the likes of the for mentioned left wing radical organizations ?

http://www.bermanexposed.org/
 
LAST EDITED ON May-06-15 AT 09:44PM (MST)[p]Intuitively obvious, Berman is a paid hack.

Berman likes to talk about accountability and transparency...then hides from same:

But the speech, given in June at the Broadmoor Hotel and Resort, where the Western Energy Alliance held its 2014 annual meeting, could end up bringing a new round of scrutiny to Mr. Berman and the vast network of nonprofit groups and think tanks he runs out of his downtown Washington office.

Mr. Berman repeatedly boasted about how he could take checks from the oil and gas industry executives ? he said he had already collected six-figure contributions from some of the executives in the room ? and then hide their role in funding his campaigns.

?People always ask me one question all the time: ?How do I know that I won't be found out as a supporter of what you're doing?? ? Mr. Berman told the crowd. ?We run all of this stuff through nonprofit organizations that are insulated from having to disclose donors. There is total anonymity. People don't know who supports us.?

What is unclear is if the hardball tactics that Mr. Berman has pitched will succeed in places like Colorado. Already, The Denver Post editorial page, generally supportive of the oil and gas industry, has criticized Mr. Berman?s tactics, calling one video spot ? featuring fictitious environmentalists who debate if the moon is made of cheese before calling for a ban on fracking ? ?a cheap shot at fracking foes.?

In fact, at least one of the major oil and gas companies that had executives at the event ? Anadarko, a Texas-based company that operates 13,000 wells in the Rocky Mountain region ? now says that it did not agree with the suggestions that Mr. Berman offered on how to combat criticism of oil and gas drilling techniques.

?Anadarko did not support Mr. Berman?s approach and did not want to participate in his work because it does not align with our values,? John Christiansen, a company spokesman, said.

Mr. Berman probably appreciates the criticism. As he explained in his remarks, what matters is increasing the number of people who see his work, which is part of the reason he intentionally tries to offend people in his media campaigns.
 
Good post Buzz, I'm sure JMO will have a smart alleck remark, you have more patience that I do in your responses.

I have been around that type most of my life, not much you can do.
 
I have nothing more to say. Buzz answered my questions. I'm going to bed now so have a good night.
 
>Utah is so politically corrupt when
>it comes to wildlife its
>a joke

When it comes to political corruption, Utah is the Chicago of the west...............Based on my lifetime of observing both of them up close and personal.

***********************************
Member RMEF, Pope & Young Club, NRA, UWC & DP Hate Club
 
JMO is that "type"?? Because he expresses an opinion based on his questioning of what is fact and what is not?

Kudos to him for not blindly following without delving deeper into this morass.

Thanks for the links from JMO and Buzz. After reading those links( and the link posted by Smokestick; which everyone seemed to ignore), I can see why JMO has questions.

While I would agree that much of what Berman and co. do is suspect, I would have to say that anyone that publicly opposes and attempts to discredit PETA and HSUS is not all bad! Excuse me for steering this thread away from it's intent, but it would appear as though that has already happened.

Perhaps the link posted by Smokestick should raise the most eyebrows. State or fed...let's not forget they are all politicians and answer only to those who got them elected. No...not us. Big money rules this country.

I guess I can now be included with that "type"??
 
nontypical,

You hit the nail on the head, in my opinion.

The bottom line is that I do NOT want to see our public lands sold; rather, I would prefer that our state administer the management of those lands.

Wyoming has little, if any, incentive to take possession of these public lands and sell them off as 95% of the money would go to the federal government. The state only gets to retain 5%. I also believe that Wyoming is best suited to determine the best uses of our public lands. If you are paying attention, it is primarily the national groups which are opposed to state ownership/management. Why is that? I believe it is because they are set up to influence things on a national playing field. All of these extreme environmental organizations would be hard pressed to exert the amount of influence that they have in Washington DC in Wyoming or the majority of the western states.

The hard reality is that the federal government has little, if any, incentive to keep public lands public. They could start selling it off to pay for programs Washington DC deems critical or to address our national debt. How different would the west become if foreign countries were to buy up significant portions of the west? I could see this actually leading to the fracturing of the United States. We are already very divided. Imagine what would happen if foreign countries started sending their citizens here to live.

We need to change how state lands are managed in Wyoming. That is going to be one of WY SFW's main emphasis' over the next few years.

Under state management, land exchanges could be used to block up checker board land owner patterns and we could address access issues much better than we can currently. I can understand how Sportsmen can be divided on this issue; however, I believe that we are better off telling the state how we would like to see state lands managed and push for the transfer of federal lands to the states.
 
SMOKE, That's about as big a pile of Horse $hit i've seen written here in years.

I'm about as Wacko a liberal as you are a greedy SOB that wants to get control of our public lands for your own personal gain and self interests. I'm a hunter, outdoorsmen, and a conservationist... All my life and to the day i die.

Keep your friggen Paws off, not Wyoming's, but our, the people of this country's, Public Land.

Joey




"It's all about knowing what your firearms practical limitations are and combining that with your own personal limitations!"
 
>SMOKE, That's about as big a
>pile of Horse $hit i've
>seen written here in years.
>
>
>I'm about as Wacko a liberal
>as you are a greedy
>SOB that wants to get
>control of our public lands
>for your own personal gain
>and self interests. I'm a
>hunter, outdoorsmen, and a conservationist...
>All my life and to
>the day i die.
>
>Keep your friggen Paws off, not
>Wyoming's, but our, the people
>of this country's, Public Land.
>
>
>Joey
>
>AMEN!
 
Smokestick is a good handle, talk about blowing smoke.
Don't be fooled by any of this, and if you think land managed by the federal government will get sold before state land your delusional.

The main reason this won't happen economically is because the states are required to balance their budgets. That alone means over time it's done, as has been proven in the past, Wyoming has already sold a quarter of theirs,and what's left a Wyoming citizen cannot legally even camp over night on.
Nevada has no state land, because it has all been sold, other states have a similar record.

*SWF Wyoming? Is that related to the other SWFs? Isn't that the same outfit that tried to give Wyoming trophy tags away to outfitters?
 
You know the alcoholics do it best, and we should all start doing it. "I'm Bob, and I'm an alcoholic".
"Hi, I'm JMO, and I'm in the leadership of $fw". See if you know that going in, then you understand the bias right off the front. That doesn't mean he is a bad dude, we have internet fought, and obviously still disagree, but he has been a gentleman, and classy everytime. BUT, his going after another group, who most likely is sucking money or influence, or is deemed a threat to $fw shouldn't suprise anyone, nor is it coincidence that SMOKE, jumped in with him, but SMOKE at least let his bias be known.
The reason Utah is the power player is simple, population. And, lets be honest, MOST of Utah votes in a block, so convincing very few, means you get the state. Yes, this is about UTARDS, or Utah Wackos, this is about the corruption of Utah politics, and about the corruption of monied interests in wildlife. Any time wildlife orgs partner up with energy groups you can guess why, MONEY. Bet your AZZ though, if Brother Romney was in DC this wouldn't be whispered. This issue is perfect for Utah, take our corrupt poitical system, and the constant feeling of inferiority, toss in some supposed anti government feelings(notice not one time have we EVER not taken the feds money. Also note what happens in Utah everytime the mention of a FEDERAL Air Force Base closing). AND PRESTO, Utah can "stand up" to Obama and "take control" of our land. Then we can sell it to the dozen power players in the state, that will show Obama!!
The deepest pockets in the state, and perhaps the west reside in Utah, at Temple Square. When the bidding starts, who do you think is going to buy it up, and then, someone should explain to me, when they do, and they DON'T pay taxes, how does that benefit the state? Lets not get off on a tangent, lets discuss facts, if "the church" owns that land, the state gets nothing. If Chevron owns it, after it is run through 100 different shell companies, each of which show a loss, the state gets nothing. If Denny Austad(example) buys it, it will be set up as a non profit, or charity, and the state gets nothing. Orrin Hatch, is a millionaire. Rob Bishop is a millionaire. Jason Chaffetz is a millionaire, but the state gets nothing.
This is soley about money, but the money is for the political class, UTAH will get nothing.


"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"
 
Some refreshing honesty there.
And a lot of unfortunate truth.

This is all about power and money, no question about that.
I know the Nevada players in this coordinated campaign well.
Sway public opinion, turn Clive Bundy into a hero, demonize the forest service and BLM.

It's the exact same people who have managed to keep wildlife objectives down.
 
Good news, yes, but this is a long way from being over in Utah. And we should expect related activity to continue in the U.S. Congress. (As you recall, the bipartisan Sportsmen?s Act of 2014 was on its way to passage until Ted Cruz attached an amendment to auction off our public lands.)

I'm one of two state co-chairs for BHA Utah, "ground zero" for the land grab movement. BHA is all about preserving habitat and access for hunters and anglers. That's our agenda, simple and straight-forward. As for Ricky Berman, he's on contract for an undisclosed party. You can speculate on that party's agenda for yourselves.

I'm a "silver beard", 61 years old, who has hunted and fished Utah all my life. Never once has an anti-hunter or a "liberal" prevented or affected my outdoor activities, yet those activities have been dramatically affected over the course of my life. Meantime, population growth continues in the western states. Some projections are that Utah's population could double by 2050. We all know what that means.

As I see it, we hunters and anglers are out-numbered and out-gunned. BHA has chapters in 17 states, but no single organization has the membership, the money or the political clout that will be needed in the near future. It's great that there's a long list of individual NGOs, but there's also something to be said for joining forces when necessary. And yup, that might include coalition with folks who don't wear camo.
 
I have no problem leaving Federal ownership of land in Federal hands. That's what I want. I love all the hunting you guys do.

One thing we have to be careful of is aligning ourselves with all these environmental groups that appear (on the surface) to want to protect our hunting and access. There is a growing body of people in this Country who want total hands off wildlife.

Do you think that all this effort to reintroduce super predators like wolves and grizzly bears is because they want you to have a bear skin rug or a wolf mount? You better rethink that. In a natural world there are no excess animals for humans to harvest.

Just be extremely careful who you sleep with, is all I'm saying. Don't be used by either side, Republican or Democrat.

Eel

It's written in the good Book that we'll never be asked to take more than we can. Sounds like a good plan, so bring it on!
 
I'm in SFW leadership ? That is news to me. I am a volunteer in Weber/Davis chapter of SFW. I do take part of as many of their wildlife and conservation projects as possible. I only post my opinion on this site from time to time. I don't speak on behalf of SFW. I did not attack BHA. After reading the article from the original post I noticed a relating article that I posted. I asked a simple question as to who BHA was. BuzzH then replied with information as to who they are. I read the info and agreed with many of the things they have done. He brought up Rick Berman by posting the link with Rachel Maddow. The link helped me come to my own conclusion that I would not support BHA.

I did attend a fulfillment committee meeting for SFW last month regarding the Federal land transfer. This meeting was open to all members. The first hour of the meeting there was a representative from SUWA to inform SFW members why they should oppose the land transfer. The second hour the American Land council addressed the group in defense of the transfer. The meeting was very intense as this is a topic that carries a lot of emotion. As stated in their press release SFW invited its members to inform themselves on the issue. The main concern of EVERY SFW member in the room was how can we be insured that there won't be a sale of public grounds. The ALC made many valid arguments as to how better the state would be able to manage public lands. They made a compelling argument as to how Wildlife would be better off under state control. I personally asked many questions directed at the two county commissioners representing the ALC. . I wasn't convinced one way or the other. If I had to vote today I would say keep the land in federal possession. If more details come out and there is a plan put together insuring the land would not be sold off, I could be persuaded. The truth is I don't believe the Feds will ever give up possession.
 
>I have no problem leaving Federal
>ownership of land in Federal
>hands. That's what I want.
>I love all the hunting
>you guys do.
>
>One thing we have to be
>careful of is aligning ourselves
>with all these environmental groups
>that appear (on the surface)
>to want to protect our
>hunting and access. There is
>a growing body of people
>in this Country who want
>total hands off wildlife.
>
>Do you think that all this
>effort to reintroduce super predators
>like wolves and grizzly bears
>is because they want you
>to have a bear skin
>rug or a wolf mount?
>You better rethink that. In
>a natural world there are
>no excess animals for humans
>to harvest.
>
>Just be extremely careful who you
>sleep with, is all I'm
>saying. Don't be used by
>either side, Republican or Democrat.
>
>
>Eel
>

"Sleep with"? Why does it have to be viewed as all or nothing?Just because we agree with and cooperate with some group or groups on some issues, that is a far cry from "sleeping with them". UWC has and will continue to cooperate and agree with SFW, RMEF, MDF, UBA, BHA and others (even SUWA) on some issues, but outside of those issues, we are on opposite ends of the spectrum and will oppose their positions at every opportunity. Regardless of who ends up owning or controlling "public" land, those groups will continue to push agendas we don't agree with and we will continue to push back and I'm pretty sure they will do the same.
 
JMO, your a insightful man. Thanks for sharing. Like you I'm first and foremost, on this issue, keeping public land public but only if I can hunt and otherwise access it. Public land that is not managed for hunting is of little interest to me. Further, I support National Parks, but I want no new ones, and I believe many off our National Park environmental issues could be solved by careful, well coordinated sport hunting.

Personal, I don't really care who manages the public land, the Feds or the States. I was perfectly content until the Feds started leveraging votes with the EPA, the Endangered Species Act, the politically motivated Wilderness programs and more recently the National Monuments expansion programs. Once those endeavors started in earnest, some 20 years ago, I started to want either want greater State management, or the Feds to BACK OFF.

Either way, I'll never support any or either effort to "privatize" or "hippyize" another acre of public land.

Public lands are the poor man's Shangri-La, collectively owned and collectively funded. If the collectively funding fees/taxes are inadequate, RAISE'EM.

DC
 
It doesn't matter what you want, under state control they will be eventually auctioned off.

I'm not that narrow in my interests, hunting isn't everything to me, I enjoy a bunch of outdoor activities on public land.
I also enjoy national forests and wilderness in lots of other states, Colorado,Utah,Wyoming,Nevada,Arizona, New Mexico, Alaska, California, all over the place actually.

I especially like many of our federal wilderness areas.

I don't want to lose any of my national forest or BLM land to whatever state government is in power, any time.
 
JMO, I mispoke, I apologize, I couldn't remember your official/non official position, that is why I said leadership in general. My point though was that you are affiliated, and in these discussions we should put that affiliation out front.
My point however, hasn't changed. It is good that $fw had speakers on both sides, but is that what they are given that "welfare" for? To be neutral? I have my beliefs, your have yours, but $fw is SUPPOSED to be representing sportsmen, neutrality isn't representation. Its the Obama leading from behind strategy. Personally, I think this issue shows how far from its original course $fw has strayed. They can't be solely for public ownership, they have far to many deep pocket interests that WANT private ownership. That money that helps to support it, comes from energy companies, comes from developers. On the other hand, if they come out for private, they loose all the good guys, who hold there nose, and support $fw because they want do good. Those guys have day jobs, have mortgages, they aren't buying ground, and KNOW they will be locked out.
So, $fw sits on the fence, hoping that the criticism in doing so, goes away when the dust clears and they can jump off on which ever side wins and claim victory for themselves.
I don't like SUWA, but you have to give them credit, they know what they are for, and whether you agree or not, they fight for it.
Funny how something like land transfers, are exposing groups for what they are, some are fighters, some are about self promotion.

JMO, I meant what I said, you have always been classy, I did not, nor do not mean to personally attack you, we have discussed previously where you are at, and where I am, and we still disagree, but your still "welcome at my fire" anytime.


"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"
 
I don't know jack about these orgs or their motives, but I did speak to a local state representative a few weeks ago regarding his view. I live in a somewhat rural part of the state so prehaps his views are different. I haven't seen his concerns mentioned in these discussions.

He told me he supported state control of public lands primarily because of the wild horse issue, grazing on federal land, logging on federal land, and federal land trail closures. Apparently his constituents are upset because the Feds hold a large number of wild horses and it drives up local feed prices. I'm sure the growers (brokers) get premium price for their crop but voters would surely outweigh the number or growers. Mentioned in the conversation was Bundy and the tarded county commissioner who was recently convicted for his role in the illegal OHV ride. Grazing and logging were mention in the same sentence because he feels the federal policy of not thinning out old forest creates a fire danger and further depletes the land of reseeding thus dropping the number of grazing permits for domestic animals and wildlife.

Now I don't know if he is right or wrong but this was his perception.
 
A rural politician, the kind I cannot even listen to without gagging. But that's just me.

Was that a Utah one or a Nevada one?
 
> A rural politician, the kind
>I cannot even listen to
>without gagging. But that's
>just me.
>
>Was that a Utah one or
>a Nevada one?

Yep, LOL

Amazing, people like that are elected to any office.
 
>I don't know jack about these
>orgs or their motives, but
>I did speak to a
>local state representative a few
>weeks ago regarding his view.
> I live in a
>somewhat rural part of the
>state so prehaps his views
>are different. I haven't seen
>his concerns mentioned in these
>discussions.
>
>He told me he supported state
>control of public lands primarily
>because of the wild horse
>issue, grazing on federal land,
>logging on federal land, and
>federal land trail closures. Apparently
>his constituents are upset because
>the Feds hold a large
>number of wild horses and
>it drives up local feed
>prices. I'm sure the growers
>(brokers) get premium price for
>their crop but voters would
>surely outweigh the number or
>growers. Mentioned in the conversation
>was Bundy and the tarded
>county commissioner who was recently
>convicted for his role in
>the illegal OHV ride. Grazing
>and logging were mention in
>the same sentence because he
>feels the federal policy of
>not thinning out old forest
>creates a fire danger and
>further depletes the land of
>reseeding thus dropping the number
>of grazing permits for domestic
>animals and wildlife.
>
>Now I don't know if he
>is right or wrong but
>this was his perception.

The state is the one jacking up hay prices with all the mustang feeding they are doing at the mustang holding areas. He should be more careful, rural utah has no chance with salt lake calling the shot, and livestock men don't have near the clout in the state as they did even 20 years ago. He should go for a ride up Emigration Canyon, over to Park City. That is what it will look like if the "conservatives" get control.
Unless you like the current CWMU system, and think the entire state should be CWMU only, the state in control is a poor idea at best. I can't help but notice that no one in legs. is floating a trust system in which the state runs the land, but it is locked into a trust system in which zero acrea can be sold for a long period(100 years?) I read a lot, and I read about the state getting the land under there control, but little about what they are going to do then.


"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"
 
The Wild and Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act of 1971 would not be affected by a land transfer. Neither would Federal authority under The Endangered Species Act of 1973.

These are smoke-and-mirror shenanigans by politicians trying to fear-bait people into supporting this flawed idea.

Grizzly
 

Similar threads

runamuk
Idaho wildlife federation
Replies
10
Views
924
devobrodie
devobrodie

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

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

IMG_2362.jpeg
1644170343208.png
Screenshot_20210904-094748_Instagram.jpg
C739E57E-F897-4178-A188-DBA772399A7C.jpeg
IMG_20230920_155832.jpg
Long Tines......
20211023_111227.jpg
1693610742267.png
20231204_183613.jpg
001.JPG
B4972078-BC61-48B8-A4F1-BB2CB6411CA2.jpeg
Big Bull Down
Back
Top Bottom