Utah Governor?s Race ? An Opportunity for Change?

Hawkeye

Hawkeye

Long Time Member
Messages
3,014
Many of us have been concerned about the direction of wildlife management in the State of Utah. While there are certainly some reasons to be optimistic, many Utah sportsmen are frustrated with the lack of accountability and transparency, the current makeup of the wildlife board, the number of wealth tags (conservation and expo tags) in Utah, the DWR?s failure to follow its own rules, etc. For those that have taken the time to get involved and contact our political leaders, you likely know that our questions and concerns have largely fallen on deaf ears. However, the current governor?s race may be an opportunity for change.

I had the pleasure this morning to join a small group of sportsmen in a private meeting with Jonathan Johnson, Republican candidate for governor. I was impressed with what I heard from Jonathan. He was sincerely interested in hearing our issues and concerns. If elected, Jonathan stressed that he would do the following:

? Work to eliminate nepotism and cronyism within state agencies.
? Improve accountability and transparency of all state agencies, including the DWR.
? Carefully evaluate state appointees and make changes where necessary.
? Bring in the most qualified people to fill open positions.
? Protect the Second Amendment.
? Emphasize local input and control with the state?s safeguards and controls.
? See http://hirejj.com/

For those of you who don't know where Governor Herbert stands on these issues that affect hunters and sportsmen, please consider the ?canned responses? that the Governor?s Office sent out to sportsmen who expressed concern about the process the DWR used to award the most recent Expo Tag contract. See http://www.monstermuleys.info/dcforum/DCForumID5/23277.html Or perhaps you may want to watch Governor Herbert's speech at the Expo in February of this year:
Or perhaps you should consider the fact that he has stacked the Wildlife Board with individuals ties to a single conservation group. See http://wildlife.utah.gov/board-members.html. Or perhaps you should consider the fact that Peay?s Consulting Co. has donated to the Herbert campaign. See http://www.followthemoney.org/entity-details?eid=39715880&default=candidate.

Now, I am not here to tell anyone how to vote in the upcoming election. That is a personal decision and there are typically many issues that come into play with such a decision. However, if you are a concerned sportsman that is frustrated with the status quo, then the current governor?s election is an opportunity for change. Please consider Jonathan Johnson and spread the word to your family, friends and fellow hunters. If you have already made the decision to vote for Governor Herbert or some other candidate, please take the opportunity to contact Governor Herbert's office and let them know that sportsmen are not happy with the status quo. He is apparently under the impression that everything is great for sportsmen in the State of Utah:

http://www.utah.gov/governor/contact/
The Office of Governor Gary R. Herbert
350 North State Street, Suite 200
PO Box 142220
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-2220
Phone: 801-538-1000
Toll Free: 800-705-2464

-Hawkeye-
 
I am really tired of the DWR and Wildlife Board breaking their own laws and turning a deaf ear to the public. It's time for a major overhaul and Johnson is the man for the job. If you've been waiting for a chance to make a difference, go and vote in the Republican Primary this year. This race is very tight and your vote literally could be the one that decides it.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jun-14-16 AT 11:45PM (MST)[p]Jonathan Johnson's apparent position on the transfer of pubic lands.

http://utahpolicy.com/index.php/fea...-ownership-and-local-management-of-utah-lands

Jonathan Johnson Releases Plan for Utah to Gain Ownership and Local Management of Utah Lands
on 03 March 2016. Posted in Featured Articles

Jonathan Johnson, Republican candidate for Utah Governor, released his plan to bring ownership of public lands to Utah.
In a policy paper issued today, Johnson stated his distinct ability to effectively execute this plan saying: ?As a lawyer and business executive, I have been involved in many high-stakes negotiations? and commented that the end goal is to obtain ?the state?s rightful ownership and local management of Utah?s public lands.?

Key motivations for Johnson?s plan include:

Protecting the health of Utah?s public lands

Securing better access for this generation and generations to come

Increasing economic activity desperately needed in rural counties

Providing more funding for education

During his two terms as governor, the Utah legislature has provided Gov. Herbert with multiple tools to help transfer public lands to Utah. However, Gov. Herbert has not taken meaningful action on any of these opportunities. Johnson noted, ?The Utah state legislature has done its part. It's time for a governor who leads.?

A key difference in Gov. Herbert and Johnson?s strategy is their willingness to sue the federal government over this issue. In December 2015, Gov. Herbert stated, ?I don't want to go to court?.

In today?s policy paper Johnson expressed his differing opinion stating: ?As governor, I will get the federal government to transfer public lands to Utah by leading out on this issue and enlisting the help of governors and local and federal officials ? [and] bringing a lawsuit against the federal government.?

Johnson also specified what he plan does not include such as:

Selling large portions of public lands to private parties.

Lessening public access to public land.

Exploiting the land in irresponsible ways.

Johnson closed this policy paper by stating: ?It's time for Utah to own and manage its public lands..?

I vehemently oppose the transfer of Federal public lands to Utah. Herbert too is seeking to have public lands transfer to Utah. so I'm not happy with either Herbert or Johnson, however, if have to chose one over the other, I'll vote for Hebert. I'd rather deal a know quantity as opposed to one I have great reservations should he become Governor. I don't trust Johnson either. For example, in this article he is quoted as saying:

"Johnson also specified what he plan does not include such as:

Selling large portions of public lands to private parties.

Lessening public access to public land."

So where is Johnson going to get the money to manage these lands, if he isn't going sell some of them for an increase in State Property Tax revenue. If he leases State land to mining companies how is he going to maintain pubic access? I can't believe that will be acceptable to the mining operators.

In my opinion Johnson is terribly naive or he is not being entirely straight forward with the public on this issue. I believe he's trying to straddle a nasty barb wire fence. So "if" he's confused on this issue, what else is he confused about.

So.............. I hope Gov. Herbert is re-elected. I;d rather deal with him on this issue.

DC
 
I also oppose the transfer of federal lands. That is one of the few issues that you and I agree upon. Unfortunately, both Herbert and Johnson are both headed down that road. Herbert may be trying to "straddle the fence," to borrow your expression, by appearing to drag his feet but the state is already preparing to file suit. The legislature has already hired lawyers and allocated several million dollars to fund the litigation. See http://www.sltrib.com/news/3641356-155/legislature-sets-aside-funds-for-lawsuit

Given that the two front runners both support the effort to transfer federal lands, I am looking at other issues to distinguish between the candidates. As I said in my prior post, there are many issues that play into my decision. I think Johnson is much more likely to address the current problems facing Utah sportsmen (e.g., the lack of accountability and transparency for public assets, the current makeup of the wildlife board, cronyism, the number of wealth tags in Utah, the DWR?s failure to follow its own rules, etc.).

Get out and vote on Tuesday, June 28th.

-Hawkeye-
 
I also had the opportunity to meet with Jonathan Johnson. I was a state delegate at this years convention. I received a invite to attend a open house where the candidates running for governor would be present. To my surprise it was poorly attended. Due to the poor attendance I was able to speak one on one with both Jonathan Johnson and gov Herbert. I mentioned to Johnson that I was a avid sportsmen, and that I was a member of the Northern RAC. Jonathan had no idea what that meant and wasn't famaliar with with many issues that concern most sportsmen. What he did want to talk about was Ken ivory and the ALC. When I told him my reservations about turning control over to the states he told me to read his plan on his website. He told me sportsmen would be one of the biggest winners when the state took control. He then shared how he was the only one that would stand up to the Feds and sue them. I appreciated the time he took to talk with me, but I left feeling that he really didn't care too much about sportsmen.
I'm curious if he has made himself more aware of sportsmen issues since I met with him back in April. He wasn't famaliar with the RAC system and I doubt he even knew the Wildlife board existed at that time.
 
>I also had the opportunity to
>meet with Jonathan Johnson. I
>was a state delegate at
>this years convention. I received
>a invite to attend a
>open house where the candidates
>running for governor would be
>present. To my surprise it
>was poorly attended. Due to
>the poor attendance I was
>able to speak one on
>one with both Jonathan Johnson
>and gov Herbert. I mentioned
>to Johnson that I was
>a avid sportsmen, and that
>I was a member of
>the Northern RAC. Jonathan had
>no idea what that meant
>and wasn't famaliar with with
>many issues that concern most
>sportsmen. What he did want
>to talk about was Ken
>ivory and the ALC. When
>I told him my reservations
>about turning control over to
>the states he told me
>to read his plan on
>his website. He told me
>sportsmen would be one of
>the biggest winners when the
>state took control. He then
>shared how he was the
>only one that would stand
>up to the Feds and
>sue them. I appreciated
>the time he took to
>talk with me, but I
>left feeling that he really
>didn't care too much about
>sportsmen.
>I'm curious if he has made
>himself more aware of sportsmen
>issues since I met with
>him back in April. He
>wasn't famaliar with the RAC
>system and I doubt he
>even knew the Wildlife board
>existed at that time.

Its the devil you know vs. the one you don't. Shockingly and I am sure as a surprise to everyone, the absolute lack of oversight by the governor to maintain some degree of openness in the DWR and WB I believe isn't an accident but a plan. Seems to me he is if not "in the pocket" of a certain "conservation" group, he is too closely aligned with it. HOWEVER, my friend 70% of the time is still my friend. Mr. Johnsons lack of connection on the issues affecting us I think makes him to much of an unknown, thus, I would have no idea if he would be a friend or foe.
On a more personal note, and I would bet JMO would agree, after 5+ years of an economy that tried to bankrupt and shutdown construction buisnesses here in the state, we are starting to enjoy a bit of a comeback, and whether soley or not, the current Gov. deserves some credit, so I personally will have to support him.


"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"
 
Here are my two questions regarding Johnson's plan for public lands:

1- How do you utilize the land to increase economic opportunities for rural communities without selling, leasing, or restricting the access to the public lands?

2- How do you utilize the land to increase funding for education without selling, leasing, or restricting access to the public lands?

He can say that sportsman will be the 'big winner' if the state gains the control, and I'd love to hear a detailed description of how that is even possible. The whole idea of state control is to be able to profit off of it. Being willing to sue the federal government in a law suit we almost assuredly will lose is not a real strong selling point to me either. $14m down the drain. I'd be interested to see how much this out-of-state law firm the legislature hired has contributed to the ALC...

I've listened to this Johnson's positions on a few things, and unless something changes dramatically, he won't be getting my vote. That said, neither will Gov Herbert.
 
Im not a fan of Herbert at all but he's getting my vote. Johnson intends to be more aggressive with land transfer. The biggest issue IMO.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jun-15-16 AT 09:12AM (MST)[p]It seems to me that only a state constitutional amendment that states explicitly that the state government could not sell any of the transferred federal lands to private entities without approval of 2/3 of the voters in the state, would make me be somewhat okay with any transfer of federal lands. When money and politics get involved in these kind of things, its usually the general public that get the short end of the deal. I really don't trust that the state wouldn't at some point sell or lease properties because they need the money to administer them.
What I would like to see is the State having more say about how Federal lands are administered. In my experience there have been times when those entities (FS, BLM etc) seem unreasonable in what they do. Many times they seem to even make decisions that go outside of what they are legally allowed to do. The difference of opinions on how big game should be managed in this state may pale in comparision to what happens to "public" land and access to it in the future-- along with hunting.
 
All valid comments. Unfortunately, I believe our state is already headed down the road to file a lawsuit in an effort to take ownership of federal lands. I have spent a fair amount of time looking at this issue, including meeting personally with Ken Ivory. As a lawyer, I think this is a mistake and I believe we are picking a fight that we we cannot win.

In any event, whether you are going to vote for Johnson, Herbert, a democrat or write in Don Peay for governor, this is an opportunity to let our voices be heard. If you are unhappy with the current direction of wildlife management in Utah, then take the time to express your concern to ther candidate(s) of your choice.

-Hawkeye-
 
I just looked at the HireJJ site. I couldn't find anything on there about fixing our Wildlife Board/Wildlife Management Issues. Our current wildlife management has been set up by Utah's Legislature. I can't see how JJ changing anything except repealing SB54. This will make our situation worse as sportsman. Our caucus system allows the very well connected to get their ideas to trump what the public wants. Look at the polls on most issues in Utah. The Clowns on the Hill goes against the majority most every time. It's time to get rid of our caucus system and let the public's voice be heard.

I've worked closely with many UDWR employees over the last 20 years. There's issues every year The DWR where would like no; however, the threat of extreme budget cuts keeps them silent.

I say hell no to JJ!
 
Clearly the DWR isnt too worried about shortage of money. They turned downs hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions, to give their buddies the expo bid. They would have had alot of extra money.

The good thing about a new Governor is that they can make it so that all government employees, AKA DWR, re apply for jobs. That would be a great way to clean house.

I am still on the fence on who to vote for. I am looking at this closely. I have not been a Herbert hater, but not a fan either. As an owner of a small business, he irritates me. I see both sides of what hes doing, but all the tax cuts and credits to big business gets old when the owners of those big business makes millions, and yet I pay full tax amounts and barely get by. To see him stand up at the last expo and rant and rave about how great the expo is and all it brings in was annoying. It was a pre written speech by either Peay or Shehann. Herbert has no clue as to wildlife and the DWR.
 
The DWR had no vote who got the Expo bid. The bid process was set up by the Utah Legislature. The last minute tweaking assured who would win.

Robiland you're right about Herbert having no clue about wildlife and the DWR. Neither does Johnathan Johnson. They will spew whatever BS they can to get votes. Neither has real concern our interests.

Neither will get my vote in November.
 
Runnoft-

Actually the DWR set up the new formal RFP process in conjunction with the Utah Division of Purchasing. The legislature played no role in that decision. In fact, the DWR chose to move to the formal RFP process even though that change violated the DWR's own administrative rules.

At the end of the day, I don't care who people vote for. That is a personal decision. However, use this opportunity to bend the ear of the candidate of your choice on issues relating to wildlife management. Herbert certainly was not interested in listening to the concerns of sportsmen several months ago. He might be more willing to listen now.

-Hawkeye-
 
There isn't a chance in hell the feds relinquish control of public lands. I wish I could cast 1,000 votes against Herby. Common-core loving, gas-tax hiking, default P.O.S. Governor is what he is. I'm sick and tired of getting worthless default Lt. Governors because our current Governors bail on us at the first chance of a federal position. This has happened twice in recent history. Kick Herby to the curb.
 
Quote from today's Trib...

---
Rep. Ken Ivory, who has been a leader of the drive to sue the government over the ownership of public lands, wrote an editorial in The Tribune on Wednesday endorsing Herbert's Republican challenger for governor, Jonathan Johnson ? who has said he would sue over the lands if he's elected ? and chastised Herbert, who he said has "at best, stood idly by" for the past seven years "as federal control over our state metastasizes."
---

I will likely vote for a Democrat this year. It's the only way I see to stop the land grab for at least a few years (see Randy Newberg's Youtube videos for great perspective on it) and a Democrat would likely join Dabakis in fixing the DWR/Expo shenanigans.

I'm willing to step across the aisle if needed, and this year I think it is.

Grizzly
 
LAST EDITED ON Jun-15-16 AT 07:27PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Jun-15-16 AT 07:22?PM (MST)

It's a tough call for sure. (Ditto, the federal races.) And highly complicated by the fact that we all have to vote also as a father/mother with children in school, grandfather/grandmother, spouse, homeowner, tax payer, employee/businessman/retiree, gun owner, outdoorsman/woman and dozens of other roles we play and there isn't any way any candidate's statements, views, or agendas could satisfy ALL those roles. In this case neither of them satisfies my role as a big game hunter who loves hunting public land. Utah couldn't possibly manage all that transferred land without negatively impacting big game (or any other) hunting.

However, as a sportsman, I'm leaning toward Johnson at this point. I already know how much Herbert regards the average (majority) hunter and it's not impressive. Like most politicians, he follows the money and publicity and that means the EXPO and Conservation Permit distributions and the so-called "donations" made by the groups who participate in those programs. He's also been around long enough to know how the RAC and Wildlife Board system works and he knows what he's doing in that regard. He can't claim ignorance.

Would Johnson be any better? I don't know, but I can't see how he could be any worse and there may be a chance he'd be open to learning a thing or two. Of course it ain't November yet is it, and the past has shown there can be some October surprises. I'll keep all my options wide open, including voting "D" for Governor for the first time in my voting life.
 
Where does He stand on the Land-Grab BS?








[font color="blue"]HUNTIN,FISHIN,AND LOVIN EVERY DAY,I WANNA SEE
THEM TALL PINES SWAY!
[/font]
 
If Ken Ivory is endorsing Johnson , that's all a Ut Sportsmen has to know. Herbert in the primary and we will see come Nov. The land transfer is a way bigger threat to Ut outdoorsmen than the wildlife board. IMO
 
>If Ken Ivory is endorsing Johnson
>, that's all a Ut
>Sportsmen has to know. Herbert
>in the primary and we
>will see come Nov. The
>land transfer is a way
>bigger threat to Ut outdoorsmen
>than the wildlife board. IMO
>


Exactly. Ivory is the scourge of the earth IMO and anyone who aligns with him is part of the cancer. Utah needs a change away from the conservatives that control it. I only butt in because their cancer has spread to Nevada.
 
Here is my vote on each of the issues that matter to me:

Public Education: Johnson. He will get rid of Common Core and give more power to local communities.

Taxes: Johnson. He has pledged to reduce unnecessary government agencies and not raise taxes.

Economy: Johnson. He is a heck of a business man. By reducing the size of government there will be more jobs for private industry.

Wildlife issues: Johnson x100! His son is a hunter and he has pledged to get rid of all the corruption within our DWR and Wildlife Board. I wouldn't be surprised to see auction and convention tags reduced if he's elected. Jonathan hates cronyism!

Stream access: Johnson. He wants to find the right balance between land owners and the public. Herbert is clearly on the side of land owners.

Public lands: Johnson again. While I'm not pushing for the transfer of lands personally, I believe his stance on this issue is much more comforting than Herbert's. Somebody asked: How will he get more economic activity and funds for education without selling, leasing, or closing off our public lands? His explanation to me was clear and confidence-inspiring: "Better access, better health, and more productivity." If we have well-maintained roads and trails, healthy forests, and a strong local economy, more people will want to come visit. More money will be earned by you and spent in rural communities. That increases economic activity and funds for education. Johnson is highly opposed to the sale of public lands to generate revenue. He has promised to put those safeguards in place to prevent the sale of our public lands.

My comments are based only on the Republican primary election. For me it's a pretty clear choice. Herbert is just a dirty career politician and it's time for a change.
 
I try to keep things in perspective because I can't have everything I want or need, so I prioritize what's most important to me.

A number have said they'll vote Democrat if Herbert is the Republican Candidate for Governor. I can't do that, in spite of Herbert's support for the public lands transfer to Utah. I have strong feelings on these things, in addition to public lands transfer issues.

Not in any order of priority except abortion, that is my number one, will not support an individual that supports abortion, whether he/she claims to personally support it or not. If that candidate represent a political party that supports abortion, beyond the saving the life of the mother, in my opinion, by your vote for that candidate, you may as well be killing the unborn child yourself. If you hand someone the knife, by handing them your vote, you might just as well have used the knife on the fetus/child yourself. I will for not vote for anyone, in any political party, that supports abortion, regardless what happens to public lands, gun control, immigration, or fiscal policy. That one's the total deal breaker for me.

These are my other reasons for not voting for a Democrat over a Republican, in spite of what that Republican has done personally. They are more important to me than the public lands transfers issues.

1. Second Amendment, the right to bare arms, not for hunting, but to protect each other from a tyrannical government. After protection from a tyrannical government, I need to protect my family, my neighborhood and my friends, from anyone attempting to harm us, until law enforcement can arrive to provide protection.

2. National Security. I don't want or need the US to be an international bully but I certainly believe we must demonstrate enough strength and commitment to use our strength to discourage any other country from attempting to harm us or any of our equally committed allies, such as Israel, Australia, Britain, Canada and Mexico, and a few others others, I have no interest in bribing anti American countries with our national treasure. If they want to pay up and pony up, I'll assist them, as I would Israel, Australia, Britain, Canada and Mexico, and a few others others, if they want a partnership with us, they need to earn it. This would include a powerful, well funded, well trained Military, with an appropriately number of loyal soldiers. Our Military should always be fluid, as the needs increase the military should reflect the increase, as needs decline, the military can be adjusted accordingly.

3. Immigration control. I'm an immigrate. I've been a US citizen for 30 years. I applied and waited my turn and paid my dues. I don't hate immigrates, I detest people who break laws, for any reason. If we have a bad law, live it until you can change it. If we allow some individuals to break one law, what keeps a different individual feel justified in breaking a different law? If we are going to have peace and order in our country we must obey our laws and work to make those laws server our bests interests by keeping them updated, to meet the needs of our citizens, not to meet the needs of non-citizens. At the present time, I don't believe we allowed Germans or Japanese to immigrate into the US, while we were at war with those governments. "Some" people from Islamic nations are doing their damnedest to make war with the US and it's allies, because it is literally impossible to know who in those countries support America and who what's to kill us, I would not allow people from those nations to immigrate to the US, until the people from those nations stop trying to kill us. I don't care if they are doing it for religious reasons or for some other reason, until we get this attitude they have to kill us, they don't get to share our county and our culture. I believe asking them to stay home, until this "war" is settled, is better than allowing them to come here, then get treated poorly, abused, or eventually deported or worse interred, as we did with the Japanese, when we couldn't tell who was and who wasn't trying to kill us. Part of our problem is we already have children of disgruntled Islamic immigrants, that have been here for 20/30 years, that have turned away from our culture and embraced the enemy. Until we can demonstrate an ability to live together with people from these countries, and they with us, why would we want to exacerbate the current situation, by allowing more potential problems to enter the country.

4. Preserving free enterprise. I don't have a problem with a robust government, but in my world a robust government and the national budget would be spent on ensuring the country make free enterprise the best it can be, i.e.: making sure regulations are not inhibiting easy entry and easy exit of businesses. On the other hand, I would use government to come down hard on businesses and individual businessmen that knowingly do harm to consumers, I'd let businesses run much freer than they are now, but they damn well better do no harm!. I'd come down harder than we do now, if a business knowingly does harm. I would have government be all over monopolies or any business that is so large, powerful or so important that life without it would be very difficult. If we are going to allow these kinds of business to exist, they need to be closely monitored by government, to keep them honest. I don't trust Board of Directors of monopolistic companies any more than I trust self serving politicians.

At least these four issues (abortion is beyond one of the four, for me) are more important and of greater concern to me than who controls public lands or hunting, fishing issues, because I believe they are an integral part of the fabric of America, that includes hunting and fishing. If we elect a politician that supports keeping public lands Federal and managed for Multiple Use, but takes our guns away, or does not protect us from our international enemies, or causes fiscal collapse, what good will our public lands be. If we can't access them or have not interest in accessing them because we can't hunt them with a rifle, having public lands are of little interest to me. I have not interest in accessing public lands for anything other than hunting and fishing. Walking through them, or driving around them, are of absolutely not interest to me.

So, you may not like Herbert but if your going to vote for a Democrat, because you're pissed off over Herbert's behavior, regarding hunting and fishing regulations, and public lands transfers (which will never happen, regardless if Herbert is Governor or not) be damn sure your prepared to live with these other issues as a consequence of your vote.

Will it would be nice to "show Herbert" how pissed off you are, oh ya, but for hell sake, don't cut your nose off to spite your face, because Herbert's life will be just fine, as Governor or a pass Governor.

I'm voting for Herbert because I like Johnson less and I can not vote for a Democrat because of these other issues. Hope that make some sense as to why I'm voting for Herbert.

DC
 
>>If Ken Ivory is endorsing Johnson
>>, that's all a Ut
>>Sportsmen has to know. Herbert
>>in the primary and we
>>will see come Nov. The
>>land transfer is a way
>>bigger threat to Ut outdoorsmen
>>than the wildlife board. IMO
>>
>
>
>Exactly. Ivory is the scourge of
>the earth IMO and anyone
>who aligns with him is
>part of the cancer. Utah
>needs a change away from
>the conservatives that control it.
>I only butt in because
>their cancer has spread to
>Nevada.

Hey NVB!

You need to make a Stand!

Before The BS is outa hand!












[font color="blue"]HUNTIN,FISHIN,AND LOVIN EVERY DAY,I WANNA SEE
THEM TALL PINES SWAY!
[/font]
 
Lumpy. I understand your positions, and in fact probably share them although perhaps not in that order. However, none of those are affected nor can be by a governor.

What no one wants to acknowledge, and it is the elephant in the room, THE CHURCH. It sounds fine and dandy to have all sorts of grand plans and great ideas, but the reality in this state is THE CHURCH either directly, or through their natural voting block, decide most issues. Herbert(and again holding my nose), has walked this mine field for a while. Johnson would most likely either run head on into that, or he too is tied to this voting block, which makes a lot of what he says, TALK.

IMO, the best plan would be federal ownership, but state run public lands. It would be nice if instead of pissing my tax money away to which ever law firm is the most connected(how much of the tobacco lawsuits did the sick smokers get vs. the law firms?), that there could be some sort of agreement on the BLM going away and replacing it with a locally controlled department. Perhaps a Trump presidency might allow for this type of negotiation? If JJ is aggressive on handing lawyers millions, because that is all this is, he should just send it to the Bundy defense fund, because that is how this hair brained idea will turn out, particularly if Hillary gets to replace the Supreme court, because ultimately this is where that lawsuit ends up.






"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"
 
El Matador- How are we going to have better maintained roads and trails without selling other lands to pay for the man power and equipment? The only other answer is raise taxes. The plans Johnson laid out to you are literally impossible to accomplish with selling or leasing. It reminds of the teenager that runs for student body president on the platform of no more homework and free soda out of the fountain all day long.

DC- Your issues are almost all federal issues that have nothing to do with the governor.

Abortion---I hate it. I think it's an absolutely despicable act, except for in very limited situations (one being what you mentioned). But guess what---the US Supreme Court has spoken over and over again, abortion is here to stay. And it's a federal issue now, not state. I don't understand why that issue is still a part of our debates?

2nd Amendment- federal issue. Utah's constitution guarantees the right to keep and bear arms independent of the 2nd Amendment. So any action on this will be federal, not state. Therefore has nothing to do with governor.

National Security- not a governor issue.

Immigration- federal issue, not state. Again, nothing to do with governor.

Economy/Free Enterprise- Utah's economy speaks for itself. I don't give Herbert credit for it, because it was great before him and will remain so after him. We the people of Utah are a good business bunch.

I guess what I'm saying is---use those issues to guide who you vote for on the federal level, because in Utah we control very little to none of that. I'm not trying to convince you to vote for Herbert or Johnson or anyone else.

But saying voting for a democrat for a local office is like handing the knife to kill a baby is a bit extreme, and slightly insane! I guess there is a reason some of our founding fathers were smart enough to warn against a two-party political system.
 
+1 Vanilla.

Anybody with a solid understanding of Obamacare could see it was intended to fail to get a single-payer system, in a roundabout way. And its working and the foolish voters fell for it.

The land grab is exactly the same. The state cannot afford the land and the proponents know it, their own study says so. They won't even let us see the tax-payer paid law review because we'll see all the reasons its a bad idea and they'll lose support. Combine that with the Utah Constitution requiring a balanced-budget and you see the selling of public land is the only logical destination of this fraud.

It is almost wholly funded by counties looking for increased revenue (for the kids, of course), which comes from property taxes on the land once it's privatized. Connect the dots and the future of public land under either Republican Governor is clear.

Grizzly
 
Unfortunately, the State is not a vacuum, nor is the Federal Government. the States and the Fed. are so intertwined they can not nor should not be compartmentalized.

It would be a entirely different story it they were completely independent but they aren't. The public lands issue is a perfect example. Suggesting the Feds own State lands and wanting the States to manage them, is intertwining the States and the Fed. even more than they already are.

Truth is, in America, in the political world, all government is totally so interwoven, local, State and Federal, that a thread moved in any one of these political levels is a thread moved in all. States Governors have a tremendous impact on Federal issues and vise versa.

Vote for a Democrat on a local level, on a State level or on the Federal level, but when you do, accept the fact that you strengthen the entire Democrat system/fabric on all matters of government and regulation.

DC
 
Herbert is no friend to sportsmen and gun owners (I wont even mention all the taxes he has raised, support for common core, selling access for legislative support, or signing the Incumbent Protection Act). 1) Herbert signed the bill eliminating stream access for sportsmen 2) Herbert has vetoed and continues to threaten to veto constitutional carry bills.

Utah, its time for a new Governor.
 
DC, That last statement sums it all up. I've been so Republican it hurts, but as far as I am concerned, I find that neither party is taking Utah in the direction I would like to see. You always hear slow the flow of water, but I would like to see slow the flow of people settling here. Good slow growth would be great for me. I was on the Monroe Mountain last night at sun down and saw very few deer. I have to keep the head lights on every time we hit the dirt roads because of all of the people. Soon you will only be allowed on the mountain determined by your odds or even license plate.

In a spot where I had service I got two messages from Governor Gary Herbert of which I deleted immediately because I was sure they were canned. When we pulled in the driveway there was a hub bub going on around the corner from us. We found out this morning it was the Governor who was visiting the sheriff.

Do you suppose he came to see me because of all my letters about wildlife, government lands, or slow the flow(of people) and I hung up on him. :)
 
>Herbert is no friend to sportsmen
>and gun owners (I wont
>even mention all the taxes
>he has raised, support for
>common core, selling access for
>legislative support, or signing the
>Incumbent Protection Act). 1) Herbert
>signed the bill eliminating stream
>access for sportsmen 2) Herbert
>has vetoed and continues to
>threaten to veto constitutional carry
>bills.
>
>Utah, its time for a new
>Governor.

So under lumpy's line of thinking, a vote for a republican is a vote against fishing and the 2nd amendement.

See why that line of thinking is flawed now? Probably not...but it is.
 
This has been a good discussion. So here is my take on the public lands lawsuit issue: it is a bad idea. I don't know what the confidential report from the hired law firms says but I have looked at the issue and I believe that it has little to no chance of success. There are many arguments raised for and against the transfer but the following language from the Utah Enabling Act seems pretty clear to me: "That the people inhabiting said proposed State do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within the boundaries thereof." Couple that langauge with the fact that any lawsuit seeking such a transfer must be filed in Federal District Court and, sorry, but I don't see that lawsuit ending well for the state.

Like many of the other posters on this thread, I have very little confidence that the state could could afford to manage our public lands without selling significant portions of the land to finance those activities. However, I don't think that will ever be a problem because we will get our tails handed to us in the litigation. So that brings me to the next issue, should we be filing a lawsuit that will likely cost taxpayers millions of dollars with little chance of success? I say no but our lawmakers seem to be hell bent on doing so. Whether we end up with Herbert or Johnson as governor, the state appears to be preparing to file suit. You can thank our legislature for that. Perhaps they are hoping that a highly publicized lawsuit will put pressure on the federal government to compromise and allow the state to have more of a voice in management decisions. Who knows?

As I said in prior posts, there are many issues that are important to me and influence the way I vote. I have already made up my mind that I will not be voting for Governor Herbert for a number of reasons. Get out and vote and make your voices heard.

-Hawkeye-
 
Hawkeye,

I agree with you 100% on your assessment of the lawsuit. In fact, the legislature's own attorneys up at the Office of Legislative Research and Counsel agree with you as well.

I too will not be voting for Herbert. I just haven't decided what I will do as Johnson does not excite me either.
 
Regarding the law suit.

Have you folks ever negotiated for anything?

Think about it.

Utah is growing in population, we've all had children and they all have children, like deer, when you hit a critical mass, you population begins to increase exponentially. As a State we are beginning to approach critical mass and our population will start to go rapidly.

Our State is around 65/70 public lands. As we've grown and we continue to grow we need an increase in tax revenue to support the increased in public services. Roads, schiools, law enforcement, military (our share of national military is what I mean) etc. etc. etc. Without more revenue from our State assets we will each need to pay higher taxes, if our State assets (public lands) is able to contribute enough to support our public service needs.

Currently, the Feds send the State 1/16 for as much for federal public lands as a private land owner pays for an equivalent acres. That is not nearly enough to support Utah's increasing population need for public revenue.

So.......a smart negotiator, will start.a law suit, asking for the whole enchilada when in fact what he really hope to get is something less, as he negotiates for an acceptable settlement.

What Utah is really after, is not the public lands, but a more equitable yearly Federal payment in lieu of private tax revenue.

The American public, (that owns all public land) owes Utah and all western States with public land, more revenue each year.

That is what the law suit hopes to end up with, not the public land.

You need to look beyond the horizon.

DC
 
LAST EDITED ON Jun-16-16 AT 11:00AM (MST)[p]DC-

Yes. I negotiate deals nearly every day. As I explained above in Post #33, one of my theories is that the state plans to file a lawsuit that they know they likely will not win in an effort to negotiate a compromise that would provide them with more of a voice in managing the public lands. But that is just speculation on my part. I simply do not see the strength of the legal support that many of our state leaders keep referencing.

Have you spoken with any of the movers and shakers in this movement? Do you have any inside information as to the state's motives and goals? Or are you just speculating? I have spoken with several folks involved, including a one-on-one meeting with Ken Ivory. I can tell you that Mr. Ivory's end goal is not to negotiate a more favorable PILT payment. He wants title to the land.

-Hawkeye-
 
Agreed Hawkeye, but what they say and what they mean could be two separate things. Everything is abstract in politics.

Not only that it is just like the gun issue, an inch here and an inch there, but just keep the pressure to your wanted end result.
 
My concern isn't predicated on the success or failure of the lawsuit, it is also the intent of those in charge.

There is a push, that I think could very well succeed, to transfer lands to the states legislatively.

The reason this is concerning is a test vote last year passed through the Republican-led Senate and would certainly pass the House with people like Rob Bishop and Paul Ryan already supporting it. If we had a Republican in the White House, it is entirely plausible that the transfer would've already succeeded.

And there would be no stopping it as the law is clear that the Congress has the right to dispose of public property.

We need a leader that is against the land grab and will fight for public land.

Grizzly
 
LAST EDITED ON Jun-16-16 AT 12:55PM (MST)[p]How does the state plan on paying for the wildfires that happen on the public land? If the state takes control, they will be held liable for all fire suppression and fees. When fires cost tens of millions of dollars, who's going to pay for this? One bad fire season and our state will be bankrupt!
 
LAST EDITED ON Jun-16-16 AT 01:18PM (MST)[p]>How does the state plan on
>paying for the wildfires that
>happen on the public land?
>If the state takes control,
>they will be held liable
>for all fire suppression and
>fees. When fires cost tens
>of millions of dollars, who's
>going to pay for this?
>One bad fire season and
>our state will be bankrupt!

Exactly. Not to mention the massive litigation by Environmental groups that will now be the State's responsibility to defend. And of course the fact that the Endangered Species Act, Army Corp of Engineers oversight, and Environmental Protection Agency still apply to state and private land and therefore the alleged "federal overreach" would not be mitigated by a land transfer. It would just a massive transfer of liability with no way to pay for it.

To me, the land transfer is far more dangerous than any other single factor affecting my daily way-of-life, and therefore my vote will reflect that belief. I can't vote Republican this year in state/local elections (I never thought I'd say that).

Grizzly
 
A few weeks ago I posted, somewhere here on MM, that I met with Chris Stewart during the Sevier County Republican Convention, we spoke at length at that time, about the law suit and the public land issues in Utah and the west. As you know Stewart is the Chairman of the National Committee, so, he"s about as close to the issue as it gets. One of the thinks I shared with you folks after meeting with Stewart regarding Montana, was confirmed, at length by a guy I can't stomach, that calls himself Zim, on MM, about a week ago. Research my comments and Zim's, if you like. It's here somewhere.

I had a brief conversation with Gov. Herbert about three weeks ago. I let him know what I wanted to see happen.

I visit with Utah House Representative Kay McIff at least once a week, or more.

McIff is retiring this year from the Legislature, I spent Four hours with the gentleman that will most likely win McKiff's set in November. We talked at great length about public lands, graving rights, Multiple Use, hunting, fishing, and the issues involved with the law suit

Do I have a crystal ball or sure knowledge, hell no, it's too dynamic and constantly shifting to claim future absolutes but if you connect enough dots you begin to see an image start to form.

I've told you, over and over, when it comes to issues I believe are important I get to know the 500 pound gorillas. I try to influence them as much as I can, to get what I believe are very important issues.

Having done that, for many years, with many, many people, of diverse interests and ambitions, and while I wish Herbert was better, I believe he is the best option available to sportsmen.......at this time. Same as I feel about Dinald Trump, I wish we had a better candidate for President but of the choices we have, for me, he is head and shoulders above any other choice I have, so he too will get my vote.

Do your due diligence. Vote the big picture.

DC
 
>LAST EDITED ON Jun-16-16
>AT 12:55?PM (MST)
>
>How does the state plan on
>paying for the wildfires that
>happen on the public land?
>If the state takes control,
>they will be held liable
>for all fire suppression and
>fees. When fires cost tens
>of millions of dollars, who's
>going to pay for this?
>One bad fire season and
>our state will be bankrupt!
>

1) If you think the wildfires are expensive now, wait 'til Mr. Ivory gets to build his houses almost anywhere he wants. We currently have 3 of them going on a few miles southwest of here on Federal Land and so far we haven't lost any homes or lives (though 1 firefighter was injured), but that would be a much bigger problem if the State of Utah took title or full control of Federal Lands and sold them to pay the bills.

2) Fighting the fires is expensive and so is the restoration of wildlife habitat after the fire. We're still planting bitterbrush on the scorched land from fires we had two years ago.

3) Another issue with the transfer is the fragmentation of wildlife habitat that is sure to happen. Mule deer and elk migrate and fences, roads and homes seem to make it more difficult for them to do so. Access to habitat isn't just an issue with humans, it's also an issue with wildlife.

Aside from the wildlife issues, the transfer of public lands would have other far-reaching effects for Utahns and NONE of them are FREE! There is a price to pay in some form or another for EVERY ONE OF THEM. Re-read the OP and do your homework on this issue and the others. And no matter how this all turns out, I wish the best for all of us and when all is said and done, I still believe that God is still in charge.

Lee
 
Kay McKiff's retirement is very much welcomed. He did more to take away opportunities for sportsmen with his HB 141 than any other legislator in Utah's history.

While I agree that sometimes you find yourself having to choose the lesser of two evils in politics, does it have to be every time? Has our political system become so broken that only whack jobs and corrupt individuals are willing/able to run for public office?
 
So a vote for Peay and Benson's Bankers will get us more of the same.

Not only does "Available Jones" need to go, so do all of the other crony's.

Never understood how people can complain about politicians that have proven themselves to be corrupt over multiple terms and then vote for them again.

We can speculate about Weinholtz and his views on the 2nd Amendment and the reality of what that may mean. We can continue to paint everybody without the R next to their name as Satan, while re-electing the corrupt cronies.

Make a change... Throw the bums out.



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

LONETREE 3/15/16
 
Wouldn't it be funny (not) if the State won the suit and the Fed's just handed over the land? All the politicians would be standing around with their thumbs in there... well you get the picture. They'd have zero way to pay for all this "better" State management except to start selling off nice big chunks of it to the very folks who we don't want to have it.
There's nothing win,win about it for the sportsman and JJ is NOT any better on this issue and may in fact be worse based on his own disclosure.

The election cycle choices suck from the top down!

Now, where's that sand I can stick my head in?
Zeke
 

Similar threads

Bluehair
A special wolf job opportunity
Replies
10
Views
587
SS!
SS!
V
Looking for a great mule deer unit in Colorado for youth (my son) with 5 points (last year as a youth)
Replies
4
Views
1k
VWiddi1
V
C
Wasatch thoughts
2
Replies
193
Views
5k
elkassassin
elkassassin

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

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

7CA74ED9-4EC6-4208-B033-32FFB56BB74D.jpeg
IMG_1521[1].JPG
20200922_182118.jpg
2015 Colorado 003.jpg
20190709_230821.jpg
IMG_20201114_150644_172.jpg
IMG_20130524_165024_238_zpsa75ed5f2.jpg
887E19E6-D016-4426-ABF1-78E3861CCBAC.jpeg
Euro Mounts
HUNT0107 - Copy.JPG
632ED05F-BF1E-4BDA-9273-AE2ACDBFA34E.jpeg
Tuscarora bucks.jpg
Back
Top Bottom