We Must Stop Mike Lee

grizzly

grizzly

Long Time Member
Messages
5,598
The Senator from Utah, Mike Lee (R), was the sole person to vote NO on the Bipartisan Sportsmen's Act of 2015.

The bill would reauthorize the Land Water Conservation Fund as well as require hunting/fishing activities to be kept open on BLM and Forest Service land. It also requires hunting to be considered as a management tool for wildlife.

It had broad bipartisan support in committee, with Utah's Senator being the sole person to vote against it. It's time to send anti-hunters Mike Lee and Rob Bishop into retirement.

The bill was backed by Backcountry Hunters & Anglers, Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, National Shooting Sports Foundation, and many others.

http://www.ammoland.com/2015/11/201...-on-the-move-in-the-u-s-senate/#axzz3ryczs9ZO

http://blog.trcp.org/2015/11/19/spo...dium=email&utm_campaign=Roosevelt Report 2015

Grizzly
 
>what do you suggest we do?
>
>
>
>"Shoot Straight"


I think we need to let Lee and Bishop know hunters reject their agenda.

Also, we have to let every other hunter know that Lee and Bishop are anti-hunter... maybe not by what they say, but their actions speak louder than their words. If it became common knowledge among the red-blooded hunter crowd to vote against Lee and Bishop, they'd be in trouble.

Republicans in Utah can afford to tick off the Liberals without repercussion, but they can't alienate their own base constituency and get away with it. The Primary election system in Utah is too volatile for them to survive for long.

Most hunters don't know the threat that Republicans like Lee and Bishop are to OUR way of life. Educate them.

Grizzly
 
Senator Lee is not anti-hunting. He is our friend and a damn good senator for Utah. You need to do a bit more research on why he voted against this bill.
Bill
 
If Mike Lee voted against it, then there was something "bipartisan" about it that didn't jive with his solid constitutional perspective...

I think you might want to find out why he voted against it before throwing stones. Just sayin'

"Therefore, wo be unto him that is at ease in Zion!" 2 Ne. 28: 24
 
The same "constitutional perspective" that makes him pro-land grab?

If his understanding of government makes him cast votes that don't enhance our ability to hunt/fish/camp/hike on public land... I consider him anti-hunter. I'll judge him by his votes, not his rhetoric or the letter after his name.

BrowningRage, what is the last bill Mike Lee drafted and got to committee that had the support of Conservation Organizations? I can't find a single one. So is Mike Lee really pro-hunter? How is he helping the hunting community? I just gave two present-day examples of how he's hurting it.

I didn't see him propose amendments to the bill that were pro-hunter compromises. We all get to vote our priorities, protecting public land is a big one for me... right now it's the biggest and he is staunchly on the wrong side of that fight.

(He also was one of two Republican Senators (Flake of AZ was the other) named by Bill O'Reilly as being against Kate's Law.)

Grizzly
 
RMEF Members,

Urge your Senators to Support
the Bipartisan Sportsmen?s Act!

The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee just passed the Bipartisan Sportsmen?s Act of 2015 (S.556)?a comprehensive bill addressing a variety of important issues for hunters, anglers and recreational shooters. The bill also seeks to maintain open access to public lands for hunting, fishing and other recreation. It received only one dissenting vote.

RMEF has been a staunch supporter of this bill since its introduction and has worked diligently with the Congressional Sportsmen?s Caucus and Congressional Sportsmen?s Foundation to assure its passage.

Advancing the bill out of the committee is a good first step but we need the full Senate to follow suit. Please reach out to your senators online or by calling (202) 224-3121 to urge them to support this important sportsmen legislation without delay.

We appreciate your ongoing support.

Sincerely,

M. David Allen
RMEF President & CEO
 
According to many far right constitutionists public land is unconstitutional. I'm sure this is Lee's reasoning, him and many other.

Yea he is our friend all right, Bishop and Ivory too.

As long as you can shoot lead bullets at the private gun range, he is our friend
 
Christ, if your going to post about him, at least tell us why he didn't vote for the bill. Man the MM hate club is amazing,
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-21-15 AT 07:04PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Nov-21-15 AT 06:05?PM (MST)

That's one of the funniest things I have heard in a while?. Either you we're just born yesterday, or your incredibly gullible.

No politician is going to tell the truth on why they voted on any bill, it's all BS, underhanded dealing, and pure deception.

You can only count their votes and make your own mind up about the issue.
 
>Christ, if your going to post
>about him, at least tell
>us why he didn't vote
>for the bill. Man the
>MM hate club is amazing,
>

YBO, you're missing the point. I have seen no official statement as to why he voted against the bill... but it doesn't matter anyway. What I know from his votes, not his rhetoric, is that he was THE ONLY dissenting vote of a major Sportsman's Bill (see RMEF press release about the importance of the law), and also believes the federal government should dispose of all public property (which the state's must then sell because they can't afford to own it, especially with $40 oil).

The fact that he has strong Constitutional morals is a terrible argument... Obama has what he believes are strong Constitutional arguments for gun-control too. I don't care his reasoning, I care about his votes. Ultimately, intentions don't close hunting land, votes do. And Mike Lee's votes are anti-hunting. Period.

Grizzly
 
Posted by Randy Newberg on his website (the 'screwball and wing nut crowd' he mentions is Mike Lee and Ted Cruz, et al, FYI)...

"Given how much behind the scenes artillery has been used to soften up the beach heads, I am hopeful that the screwball and wingnut crowd is taking cover in their bunkers on this one. Any Senator coming out to try kill this one should expect it will be open season on this Senatorial seat, come next election cycle. Not sure I've ever seen the hunting community lobbying as hard on a piece of legislation as they are working on this one. If it passes, there will be a lot of "Thank You" notes to be written.

Please pressure your Senators to vote in support of this bill and get it moving."

Each of the pro-Lee guys can stand with whomever they'd like; but for me, I'll stand with RMEF, Randy Newberg, Backcountry Hunters & Anglers, TRCP, etc...

Grizzly
 
I have to disagree...

The Land Water Conservation Fund is full of bullshit spending......you can't read the readers digest version to understand it......

You actually looked at percentages of this fund and where they go?? It sure as hell doesn't come to benefit many sportsman, look at percentages!!! Building softball diamonds, playgrounds, parks and funding Yellowstone does me as a hunter no good...its the definition of wasteful spending..

People don't get why fuel prices are where they are, this "fund" is a contributor!

Conservatism is hard to come by, and Mike Lee is one of the last few we have...

Voting to receive money for "your interests" is the problem with the country...can't spend money they don't have...
 
Fuel prices where they are? Is that a hint on why the bill is no good according to you? Does it have too much in the way of conservation? Not enough development?

Is selling and transferring public land in the interest of most sportsmen? As we know these same conservatives seem to have that as a commen goal?

Interesting take ntrl_brn_ rbl, let's hear more
 
Sucking off the government teat isn't for me, sorry piper....that's the bottom line. I will not support socialist bills of any kind...I'm old school, an American who believes the government shouldn't spread tax money around to whatever lobby works harder to take it...

I'll bet you have never even read the bill...I can see you drank that coolaid..it's easy to see who hasn't read the bill and is going off what "someone told them"....it's the definition of a usefull idiot...mindless people incapable of doing their own research and reading some dribble from a few lobbiest companies wining that might lose more of there government funding.

If you do support it, and have read the entire bill, and really KNOW where the money goes and see where the spending has really went...your beyond help, your the problem with America...sucking for all your worth of the backs of taxpayers for your special interest...quite simply...a socialist..

Big opportunity awaits for many of you supporters!! Bernie Sanders, 2016!
 
I see, public land and things like the land and water conservation fund are socialist programs that basically need to be done away with in your opinion.

I kind of thought that but thanks for the clarification.
 
I vote republican, have done so most all my adult life. I'm not near as hard core as some and i try to stay away from politics here as it's more of a insult slinging contest than getting anything productive done.

Lately, i've been thinking more and more of just where i do fit in, especially when one side wants to take our public land and put it in someone else's portfolio. I don't care what someone wants to call me, i know who i am, what i've done, and they can kiss my rear end when they start with the insults and name calling but if they want to change ownership of our, mine, yours, everybody's, public land, i'll use my vote, voice, and support to get them out of office.

As i see it, this is one of the biggest, if not the biggest, threats to our hunting, fishing, and outdoor heritage that i've come across in my lifetime.

Don't mess with our Public Land!!!

Joey



"It's all about knowing what your firearms practical limitations are and combining that with your own personal limitations!"
 
Any program that the U.S. government takes money from its citizens and redistributes it to who ever lobbies for it needs to be done away with. I'm not stupid enough to support it, No matter what...I have principles that I don't break, like mike lee...

Principles, 2015 I know it's hard, but there are still a few of us left
 
Mike Lee has the 2nd highest rating by The Freedom Index http://www.thenewamerican.com/freedomindex/ in all of congress, right behind Justin Amash, who is also awesome. I think I'll trust his vote on this one. Besides, being the only one to vote against a bill doesn't mean he's wrong, on the contrary, it most likely means he is the only one who is right.
 
The fund is a 50 year old law that receives royalties from off shore oil and gas leases, it's supposed to be used for things that benefit all citizens with regard to water, wildlife and conservation issues.

I guess that's taking from citizens and giving to lobbyists? and I guess the Dingell Johnson act is a terrible thing also ? Is that the next act in the crosshairs of the fundamentalist right.

I think it has more to do with campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry than anything else. But that my opinion.

More importantly I want to hear about public land transfers and sales by Chavetez, Lee, Ivory and Bishop? Let's hear your defense on that one?
 
>Mike Lee has the 2nd highest
>rating by The Freedom Index
>http://www.thenewamerican.com/freedomindex/ in all of congress,
>right behind Justin Amash, who
>is also awesome. I
>think I'll trust his vote
>on this one. Besides,
>being the only one to
>vote against a bill doesn't
>mean he's wrong, on the
>contrary, it most likely means
>he is the only one
>who is right.

Is that because he knows more about what is better for Sportsmen than every other Congressional Committee members, in both parties... as well as all the outside conservation groups whose only job is to protect hunting? Or is that because he doesn't consider Sportsmen priorities as worthy of protection, and thus votes against it?

Some of us put our outdoor lifestyle, and the desire for our grandkids to have one too, as a very high priority. Others want some Tea Party Utopia. That's the bottom line in this discussion... it's one of priority.

You may think Mike Lee's priorities are the most important priority to vote for, but that doesn't mean he's pro-hunting... in practice, the opposite appears to be true. That's fine, just don't call him pro-hunting when he's not.

What you should probably be saying is, "He's not good for hunting, but I like the other stuff he stands for, and I think that is more important."

It's okay to have differing opinions than I do, and I respect that. But don't tell me he's good for hunting, I've proven how that's not true.

I BELIEVE THAT NOTHING CONGRESS CAN DO TODAY WILL NEGATIVELY IMPACT MY DAY-TO-DAY LIFE AS MUCH AS THE DISPOSAL OF PUBLIC LAND.

That's why I vote the way I do.

Grizzly
 
>Is that because he knows more
>about what is better for
>Sportsmen than every other Congressional
>Committee members, in both parties...
>as well as all the
>outside conservation groups whose only
>job is to protect hunting?
>Or is that because he
>doesn't consider Sportsmen priorities as
>worthy of protection, and thus
>votes against it?
>
>Some of us put our outdoor
>lifestyle, and the desire for
>our grandkids to have one
>too, as a very high
>priority. Others want some Tea
>Party Utopia. That's the bottom
>line in this discussion... it's
>one of priority.
>
>You may think Mike Lee's priorities
>are the most important priority
>to vote for, but that
>doesn't mean he's pro-hunting... in
>practice, the opposite appears to
>be true. That's fine, just
>don't call him pro-hunting when
>he's not.
>
>What you should probably be saying
>is, "He's not good for
>hunting, but I like the
>other stuff he stands for,
>and I think that is
>more important."
>
>It's okay to have differing opinions
>than I do, and I
>respect that. But don't tell
>me he's good for hunting,
>I've proven how that's not
>true.
>
>I BELIEVE THAT NOTHING CONGRESS CAN
>DO TODAY WILL NEGATIVELY IMPACT
>MY DAY-TO-DAY LIFE AS MUCH
>AS THE DISPOSAL OF PUBLIC
>LAND.
>
>That's why I vote the way
>I do.
>
>Grizzly

Mike Lee is good for Liberty, at least better than the vast majority of Congress. That is where my priorities lie. If we have liberty, we will have hunting. If we concentrate on hunting with tunnel vision, soon, you will have no liberty and no hunting.
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-22-15 AT 05:19PM (MST)[p]Hyperbole much?

That argument is what is known as a false dichotomy.

However, there is nothing false about a lack of public land.

Grizzly
 
This thread really belongs in the political forum. Labeling a congressman "anti-hunting" because of this vote is the same mindless drivel we get from the media everyday. Rather than find out why he voted this way, just use a negative label and hope others don't do their own research or know what you are talking about.

By the way, tell me exactly which piece of public land has been sold as the result of Mike Lee's vote? Hint: there isn't any. Just another smoke screen to hide your frustration.

There are some good conservation programs funded by this bill. There is also a ton of flat out PORK in the bill as well. Gone are the days when Congress actually proposes a single purpose bill that gets voted on for its merits.

If the same "good" conservation programs in this bill were packaged with a new Obamacare program, you'd probably vote for that too. There is not a single time Mike Lee has taken a anti-hunting position. Nor is he beholding to big oil. Just trotting out every liberal "bogeyman" shows your desperation.

Bill
 
You can sell all the public land and there will still be hunting, for the rich and lucky anyway, that's only part of the issue.

Your right about no public land has been sold as of yet. But the intent by Lee to sell public has been shown, and it needs to be and has been taken seriously. Intent is not to be taken lightly, people go to prison over the intent to do things.
 
This is ridiculous. I am Utahn and in my life have seen several former pieces of land I used to hunt and use as easements to get to the places that I hunt only to find out that I am locked out. I have no problem with the socialization of our land for everyone to use and to recreate on them. Lets keep this as our fundamental rights to use.

As for voting? I have decided to use public land as a litmus test to gauge a politician's agenda as to how much they value the general public vs the select few who are lining their pockets and are seeking personal gain.

Any politician that is against public land (Lee, Bishop, Chaffetz, Ivory and various county commissioners), is against me.

I know someone very well who is a county commissioner and I quizzed him for over an hour on the subject of public land recently. He knows that Utah will sell a lot of our current public land if given the chance. So I wondered why he would be for this malarkey? Then I realized that he is currently trying to move up and beyond a county commissioner seat and is playing politics to further his career as a politician. I feel that he needs to support these bonehead incumbents so that he can be in the club with them. and move higher. Although a descent guy, I will not be voting for him either.

Thanks for the insight Grizzly.
 
"Sucking off the government teat isn't for me"

Yet you wholeheartedly support an organization whose existence depends on sucking government teat......$FW.
 
Grizzly,

Supporting conservation organizations is not any part of the Republican base as you assert in a couple of your posts. Supporting conservation organizations is actually the democrat "liberal" base.

Tying up public land, creating wilderness, wilderness study areas, roadless areas, preserving public land for the sole purpose for you to hunt and disregarding someone's right to use the public land for another purpose....is part of the liberal democrat base. Thats called " radical environmentalism", which is part of the democrat base. If you support those things you are supporting liberals and not conservatives. Especially if that's the only reason you vote for a candidate.

Don't get me wrong, I love to hunt, likely just as much as you do. I live through the year just for the fall hunts. However, I try not to have a narrow minded view of things.

I have not researched as to why Mike Lee voted against that bill, but you can bet it was for a very good reason based on conservative principles. You admitted yourself you havn't researched it and said you don't care, so it seems to me you are on pretty shaky ground criticizing him for it.
 
Bottom line, those in office or position that support taking, selling, whatever with our Public Land had best rethink if they want to continue the influence that they now enjoy.

Our Public Land Nation wide should not be a political chip and never be on the table for negotiation, not by anyone who wants to stay in office!.


Joey


"It's all about knowing what your firearms practical limitations are and combining that with your own personal limitations!"
 
>Grizzly,
>
>Supporting conservation organizations is not any
>part of the Republican base
>as you assert in a
>couple of your posts. Supporting
>conservation organizations is actually the
>democrat "liberal" base.
>
>Tying up public land, creating wilderness,
>wilderness study areas, roadless areas,
>preserving public land for the
>sole purpose for you to
>hunt and disregarding someone's right
>to use the public land
>for another purpose....is part of
>the liberal democrat base. Thats
>called " radical environmentalism", which
>is part of the democrat
>base. If you support those
>things you are supporting liberals
>and not conservatives. Especially if
>that's the only reason you
>vote for a candidate.
>
>Don't get me wrong, I love
>to hunt, likely just as
>much as you do. I
>live through the year just
>for the fall hunts. However,
>I try not to have
>a narrow minded view of
>things.
>
>I have not researched as to
>why Mike Lee voted against
>that bill, but you can
>bet it was for a
>very good reason based on
>conservative principles. You admitted yourself
>you havn't researched it and
>said you don't care, so
>it seems to me you
>are on pretty shaky ground
>criticizing him for it.

Rackster, I did not say supporting conservation organizations is "part of the Republican base" (I think you are confusing that with Republican platform, anyway). What I said is that hunters ARE the Republican base. Huge difference.

I said nothing about "creating wilderness, wilderness study areas, roadless areas, preserving public land for the sole purpose of (me) to hunt and disregarding someone's right to use public land for another purpose". In fact, I specifically listed multiple uses of public land and think they should all be protected (not sold to one individual like Mike Lee wants).

I also never said I hadn't researched why he was the ONLY person to vote against it, what I said was I couldn't find a statement to that effect (which is likely because he didn't make one). I also said that was not the point anyway... Do you support Obama more if he tells you why he wants to pass his laws and has strong moral or Constitutional convictions? I would guess not.

I also strongly assert that I'm not on shaky ground criticizing Mike Lee for his votes. I would dare bet I have 100 hours of research into the dangers that Mike Lee (and others like him) pose to hunting/fishing/hiking/camping/etc... for every one hour most MMers have invested in this fight.

I work in Logan, if you'd ever like to sit in my office for a few minutes so I can share with you my concerns, where they come from, and where I fear they're headed... I would welcome the discussion. You and I may disagree, and that's okay, but at least you'll know MY morals and beliefs about this and why I feel it is the greatest threat to our way of life as outdoorsmen.

And in the meantime, I'll continue to hold my elected officials accountable for their actions and their votes (and ignore the spew coming out of their mouths).

Have a good one.

Grizzly
 
I've read through the tread and will give my opinion. Mike Lee and Rob Bishop are dangers to the future of public land and hunting. To those arguing over the fact they are voting for "constitutional" principals and you will continue to vote for these individuals and deny the fact they've voted against sportsmen and acted like children at the big table, to that I say this: Through that same ideology wildlife are also a "socialist" item we as a public share equally. Judging by their votes and the fact so many of you are against the government being involved, why wouldn't we let the free market determine who gets to hunt wildlife completely by selling them to only those who can afford it. 99% of you including me would be SOL on most hunting if we treated wildlife like we are treating the public land issue right now. You don't want government involvement? Okay then give up your wildlife which is largely a "socialist" policy and let the free market determine you need thousands of dollars to ever have the opportunity to hunt again. Would you still vote for these men if they voted to change Americas wildlife policy? Then why would you vote for them when they have continually voted to gut sportsmens futures while trapping them into votes because of fear of losing their guns. If ou vote republican just because you vote republican, I'm sorry but you are a fool. If you believe the bullcrap your fed without looking at who finds their campaigns, you're a fool. If you don't look at their voting record and ask yourself if that benefited sportsmen, your a fool. If you've done all of these things, every vote you cast is uniformed and is contributing to future generations not enjoying the same thing you got to enjoy. We are a generation who gets to decide whether or public lands get passed on, or they'll just be something in history books we lost to the rich along with much of our sportsmen heritage.

You can believe in all the principals you want. You can believe government has no business in any part of your life. But bottom line any person who casts a vote against public lands or sportsmen I will not support. Mike Lee and Rob Bishop will never get a vote from me. They are corrupt individuals who are furthering their agendas that they and those who fund their campaigns have. They have voted against public land and sportsmen every chance they've gotten. Find me something they've voted for that helps sportsmen more than oil and gas industries, you better get looking.... Because it's going to take you a while.
 
>Rackster, I did not say supporting
>conservation organizations is "part of
>the Republican base" (I think
>you are confusing that with
>Republican platform, anyway). What I
>said is that hunters ARE
>the Republican base. Huge difference.
>
>
>I said nothing about "creating wilderness,
> wilderness study areas, roadless
>areas, preserving public land for
>the sole purpose of (me)
>to hunt and disregarding someone's
>right to use public land
>for another purpose". In fact,
>I specifically listed multiple uses
>of public land and think
>they should all be protected
>(not sold to one individual
>like Mike Lee wants).
>
>I also never said I hadn't
>researched why he was the
>ONLY person to vote against
>it, what I said was
>I couldn't find a statement
>to that effect (which is
>likely because he didn't make
>one). I also said that
>was not the point anyway...
>Do you support Obama more
>if he tells you why
>he wants to pass his
>laws and has strong moral
>or Constitutional convictions? I would
>guess not.
>
>I also strongly assert that I'm
>not on shaky ground criticizing
>Mike Lee for his votes.
>I would dare bet I
>have 100 hours of research
>into the dangers that Mike
>Lee (and others like him)
>pose to hunting/fishing/hiking/camping/etc... for every
>one hour most MMers have
>invested in this fight.
>
>I work in Logan, if you'd
>ever like to sit in
>my office for a few
>minutes so I can share
>with you my concerns, where
>they come from, and where
>I fear they're headed... I
>would welcome the discussion. You
>and I may disagree, and
>that's okay, but at least
>you'll know MY morals and
>beliefs about this and why
>I feel it is the
>greatest threat to our way
>of life as outdoorsmen.
>
>And in the meantime, I'll continue
>to hold my elected officials
>accountable for their actions and
>their votes (and ignore the
>spew coming out of their
>mouths).
>
>Have a good one.
>
>Grizzly

Griz,

Confusion about the base? Yes you are correct, it is obvious you are confused about the Republican base. The tea party that you have criticized earlier is the Republican base. The Republican base is not one issue voters like you describe yourself, and the base is not sportsmen that only care about hunting, and put their use of the land above other uses like oil and gas. Although I will say that many Republicans in Washington,likely most, have left the base. I am glad we still have a few stalwarts like Mike Lee and Ted Cruz.

It is also obvious you do not know all that is in the public lands bill. That bill will also expand wilderness areas,which is actually why I am not in favor of it.

To say you need to stop Mike Lee and call him dangerous without even knowing or care to find out why he voted against the so called protect sportsman's bill is like Nancy Pelosi saying "we need to pass the bill to find out what's in it".

I'm glad to hear you are in Logan. I actually love Cache valley and most of what it has to offer. Although I did not like all the liberalism on campus, which is where I am assuming your office is.

As for me I will basque in my, as you put it, "tea party utopia" and love every minute of it. Freedom is worth every moment and the freedom the tea party fights for is what is going to keep your right to hunt alive.

I will also let you basque in your socialistic views and agree with you that we disagree.

No hard feelings here, we just disagree. I wish you well at USU.
 
Man, Rackster, you're making some bold statements with not much to go on regarding both my occupation and Mike Lee's sole claim to freedom, which he does not own.

To make one clean example of some inaccuracies regarding your last post, without rehashing the thread... I'm the guy that, while a student at USU, made the journalism department retract a Michael Moore video for being too liberal (anybody else get a public university to do that?). The only contact I have with USU is when they ask me for money (which I never give because they're too liberal, and I tell them that).

My wife and I run our own company and we just built a big beautiful office building in downtown Logan where I would love to sit down in a conference room and talk the next time you're in Cache Valley. I'm sure we'd get along just fine and maybe find we see more eye-to-eye than it seems.

I tell you this only to show that I'm not the big bad bogeyman of liberalism that you think is necessary for an individual to want to protect public land. Hop off MM sometime and check out some other western hunting blogs not so Utah-centric (which I won't name out of respect for Brian) and you'll see the other states have figured out the dangers of Mike Lee, it just hasn't hit Utah yet.

I'm glad there's no hard feelings, I certainly have none. I just want to keep this discussion on substance and not resort to attacks and personal accusations, especially those relating to Nancy Pelosi :).

Grizzly
 
This discussion raised an interesting question for everybody...

Do you believe that unless Mike Lee's Tea Party agenda gets enacted, we will eventually live in a Socialist society?

---I'll answer my own question first with a slight rephrase---

I believe if Mike Lee's Tea Party agenda DOES get enacted we will eventually lose public land hunting. I believe the Socialist stuff is NOT a foregone conclusion, but the loss of public land hunting would be.

That, right there, is why I feel as strongly as I do about this.

Grizzly
 
YBO, that's a hard decision because I feel they all suck.

I used to vote Republican and still do so on a national level. Locally, I have found in Utah that a lot of our Democrats are more like moderates and I have aligned much more with them than the Republicans. More importantly, they want to keep lands public and so do I.
 
If I had to choose between wilderness and the privatization of public lands to developers and Ted Turner like guys; no contest I would rather have them be public. I would rather walk into wilderness than have to pay a billionaire multi thousands of dollars for a trespass fee.
 
The other day someone said Rep. Bishop was anti-hunting for his re-write of this bill, but now Sen. Lee is anti-hunter for opposing it????? Make up your mind.

As a side not, and IMO, defense of the US Constitution is immeasurably more important than any single wealth redistribution issue. Sen. Lee is one of the best.
 
Rob Bishop rewrote the LWCF, he had nothing to do with this bill they are two seperate issues. If you don't even know they are two seperate issues of course you're willing to vote for someone like Bishop or Lee, you don't even know what Bill they're voting for. They both are dangers to sportsmen and hunting. There is no denying that or their voting record on the issues. I will never give them a vote, they stand too far away from the things that are important to my everyday life.
 
>The other day someone said Rep.
>Bishop was anti-hunting for his
>re-write of this bill, but
>now Sen. Lee is anti-hunter
>for opposing it????? Make up
>your mind.
>
>As a side not, and IMO,
>defense of the US Constitution
>is immeasurably more important than
>any single wealth redistribution issue.
>Sen. Lee is one of
>the best.

You've got your facts mixed up. Bishop refuses to allow the renewal of Land Water Conservation Fund. He's trying to change it from its stated purpose to a law that finances the training of oil workers instead of preserving habitat. He even specifically forbids using the money to purchase land in the public trust. Are you really going to tell me he's pro-Sportsmen?

The bill Lee voted against, The Bipartisan Sportsmen Act of 2015, would renew LWCF among other things (see links and RMEF press release above).

Both Lee and Bishop are working to prevent LWCF and they are both casting strong anti-hunting votes.

Grizzly
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-24-15 AT 10:32AM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Nov-24-15 AT 10:30?AM (MST)

Lee and Bishop are embarrassments. There's plenty of conservative representatives in other states that vote for things they vote against. They vote against them because they have their own agendas. If you want to live in Utah and get laughed at for the stupidity coming out of this state, keep voting for the officials the rest of the country is laughing at and scratching their heads over. They thoroughly disgust me. Don't think Utah looks stupid, and our representatives are crooked, here's a short view of the long wrap sheet:

-Big game forever has been given millions and millions for wolf and sage grouse lobbying. Ask any other state who was screwing the wolf issue up. Wolf delisting would have been a lot smoother without the asshats from Utah getting involved. Then they give them millions more for sage grouse lobbying that did nothing and had no benefit to Utahans. Great conservatism.

-A county commissioner is fined and found guilty in court for his involvement in an illegal ATV ride. State officials want $100,000 in tax dollars to pay for his fines. The governor offers up $10,000 to go towards the payment. After all this he was voted commissioner of the year after being convicted. Great conservatism.

-Millions were allocated to a tidy the land transfer to screw Americans out of land they already own. $2 million more have been allocated to sue the federal government if they didn't transfer the land by December 2014. Weird they still haven't sued so where did that $2 million go? While doing this legal expert in Utah are scratching their heads wondering why the hell we wasted the money. Great conservatism.

-Ken Ivory, someone of which is a hero to many Utah commissioners and representatives because he is "standing up to the Feds" allocated 70% of the money raised through county tax dollars to pay himself a $90,000 salary and give his wife a salary. The American lands council took tax dollar donations from several counties in Utah and other states and greased their back pocket with it. Great conservatism.

So go ahead and argue Utahs officials are great and stand up for what is right and just have very conservative views they stick by. Well their record speaks other wise, and so does their full bank account stacked with tax dollars that went to waste. Utahns have had more money wasted by their officials than almost any other state. You want more conservative spending? You want more money for schools? You want better state programs? You want less governmental waste? Stop voting for the same people because they have an R next to their name who have been stealing that money coming out of your paycheck to further their own agenda. Sadly Utahans are sheep, and our representatives know it. They vote the same and deny the fact that they've been robbed blind by their representatives. But hey as long as they put on a good face, shake their head in agreement and give you a warm fuzzy feeling when they're lying to you're face, who cares what they really do when they're representing you right?
 
I've always respected Mike Lee's conservatism and don't know why he voted the way he did on this bill.

I know several western states are looking hard at turning much of the Federal land back to State ownership and I don't believe much of the land would be sold to private interests. The real reason the states are pushing for this change is the mismanagement and or lack of management of the public lands by the Federal Agencies i.e. USFS and BLM. Multiple use of the public land is being severely restricted or removed, from mining to logging to grazing and next on the anti's list is hunting. We are all under fire from the enviros and crazies whom want a total change in the way the public land is managed. States can and would do a much better job of managing the public land and do it much cheaper. Just look at the waste and management of the US Forest Service. It boggles the mind how they waste money and man power. The individual states and the people that live here can do a much better job. We don't need congressman from back east telling us how to manage our lands.

I hear the old argument that the states just want to sell off the land. I don't think that is the case at all. It is the ongoing mistrust that the greens within the Federal Agencies are changing the way our public land is being managed. Multiple use as we know it is fast going down the tubes.

States would ensure that mining, logging, grazing and hunting and other multiple use of the public land would remain healthy and vibrant, contrary to the way the Fed's are managing it now.
 
Stoney, I appreciate your optimism but instead of me explaining how your hope is 100% impossible, please dedicate an hour of your time and listen to the podcasts by Randy Newberg.

He explains, in vivid detail, why the land will be sold... and why it must be. Keeping it in State-control is not an option. They're basically telling us the same thing Obama did about Obamacare, it sounds good (remember: everybody's insurance goes down and free coverage for the poor) until you understand the numbers and you'll learn what they're saying is impossible. But if they told you the truth now then nobody would vote for it.

PS. Try and get the state to put in the bill that all land will remain public (they won't, I've tried). They know dang well that land will be sold, they just hope we don't figure it out before it gets passed.

Grizzly
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-24-15 AT 04:27PM (MST)[p]I didn't realize that stoney, thanks for the info. Everywhere I go public lands seems to getting industrialized, gas fields, wind farms and open pit mines are the most noticeable, but grazing, logging, ski resorts and other stuff in there also.

I presume your from Utah? It must be different there in Utah than in next door Wyoming and Nevada?

In many places the west is barely recognizeable from just a few decades ago.
I was thinking the other day about what an intelligent and thoughtful law the wilderness act is, preserving a little part of America in a somewhat pristine state for those that will be here a hundred years or more from now.

I thought that was pretty cooler, now you tell me how terrible that is and how selfish I am?
I'm confused?
 
I won't go into all the issues, it's been discussed and the information is widely available from a several sources why your optimism is just wishful thinking.

Lets start out by looking at how the state currently manages the land it does have. Specifically, the great salt lake. They have cut funding to manage it, have let Phragmites over-run it, and plan on putting in new reservoirs that would lower the lake level from its already historically low levels. I'm sorry but the GSL is big to the economy that surrounds it and a very important ecosystem. The state ignores it, and it just shows their incompetence to manage what they already have, why would we hand over millions of acres when they can't even afford the small amount of management they have to do now?

Do the BLM and FS do a great job? No, they definetly aren't perfect by any stretch, but there is plenty of access and just because something is turned to wilderness does not mean it is closed to you. In reality very few BLM or FS lands are closed to recreation such as camping,hiking,biking,hunting,fishing,etc. I would bet 90% is open to those activities.

It would also be a good note that the same people complaining about the BLM and FS managing the lands are the same people who vote to strip their budget every year. It's easy to make someone look bad when your in charge of what they have the ability to do.

I agree, listen to Randy Newbergs podcast number 10, search "hunt talk Randy Newberg" on iTunes or stitcher and it will enlighten you on the true situation.
 
Griz,

Just could not let your misleading statement pass. Yes, it is true that the public lands bill is looking at selling some public land. However, the proposal is for a max of 5% of total public lands within any particular state. This is because of all the environmental law suits against the Blm and Forest Service on decisions to fulfil their mission of multiple use.

So, your fear mongering of Mike Lee and Rob Bishop selling off al our public lands is grossly exaggerated and inaccurate. They would only be able to sell 5% and areas of special designation could be included.

Also, lets just be clear about the Sportsman's bill. This vote you are talking about was only a vote in committee. You can pretty much bet that when that bill goes to the floor of the Senate that Mike Lee will be joined by other senators to vote against it. Many of which will have the R by their name.
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-24-15 AT 11:02PM (MST)[p]5%!!. That's only roughly 30 million acres, of once public land that a kid once could hunt cottontails or catch brook trout on. Now it will now get sold to the top 1% and they can put no tresspassing sign on it.
Cool rackster, I'm sure impressed they have Rs by their names.
Heck those kids always have drugs to enjoy, that's better than letting them run around in the country anyway.

5% this year, 5 % in a year or two, pretty soon there is nothing left.

Glad your boys are watching out for future sportsmen and regular folks.
 
>Griz,
>
>Just could not let your misleading
>statement pass. Yes, it is
>true that the public
>lands bill is looking at
>selling some public land. However,
>the proposal is for a
>max of 5% of total
>public lands within any particular
>state. This is because of
>all the environmental law suits
>against the Blm and Forest
>Service on decisions to fulfil
>their mission of multiple use.
>
>
>So, your fear mongering of Mike
>Lee and Rob Bishop selling
>off al our public lands
>is grossly exaggerated and inaccurate.
>They would only be able
>to sell 5% and areas
>of special designation could be
>included.
>
>Also, lets just be clear about
>the Sportsman's bill. This vote
>you are talking about was
>only a vote in committee.
>You can pretty much bet
>that when that bill goes
>to the floor of the
>Senate that Mike Lee will
>be joined by other senators
>to vote against it. Many
>of which will have the
>R by their name.

Rackster, stop the personal attacks and stick to the point. I've said nothing misleading or inaccurate and I've backed up everything I've said with specific examples. There is NO cap on what can be sold (they call it disposing of excess property). I have requested one from Mike Noel and he would not do it.

In discussions with Mike Noel, I've requested all land remain public or a requirement that 75% of both houses of Congress approve any land sales to make it much more likely land remain public. He was not interested in that. I wonder why?

The government's own study, paid for with your tax dollars, said the State would never even recover initial start-up costs of taking over federal land, and that assumed the following:

-Oil stay above $120/barrel (its at $41/barrel today)
-Oil production in Utah increase 15%/year (oil rig counts in USA have begun falling due to low oil prices)
-The federal government give up all oil royalties (they keep 50% right now and there is no reason to believe they'd give it all up)
-The federal government agrees to fight all wildfires on state and private land (there is no reason to believe they'd do this. One large fire would deplete the entire State land-management fund for an entire year and the state can't afford it).

This is just the tip of the iceberg of the pile of crap you're being fed. I've sat in meetings, talked personally with the proponents and the hunters that are opposed. I have hundreds of hours into this. Do not tell me I don't know what I'm talking about.

I'll keep this civil, but I won't be told I'm being dishonest when I can back up every single word I've said.

Grizzly
 
Piper,

Giv me a break. 30 million acres? Show me the numbers. Catch a Brook trout and hunt? The lands they are looking at are lowland desert country that has already had development started. Yes there may be some desert hunting there, but good grief. You will still have 95% of all public lands to hunt and I would be willing to bet your hunting opportunity would not be effected in any way. Catch a Brook trout, not hardley. Unless your able to pull a Brook trout out of cactus, bare dirt, and a few p\j trees, and alittlt bit of sage.

Also,remember, public land is to be managed for multiple use, not just for hunting and fishing. A little selfish to think that it should 100% be managed for you and I to hunt. Especially when there are other benefits on that 5%. Revenue and the taxes from oil and gas and mining on that 5% will go to fund education for the particular State. Not to mention the benefit you get for having petro to put in your truck to go hunting.
 
Piper,

I was talking Utah lands when I wanted you to show me the numbers to support 30million acres. However, when you take out California and the other States that are not included in the public lands bill, you will be hard pressed to come up with even close to 30 million acres. So yeah, show me the numbers.
 
The Feds are in bed with the radical environmentalist movement to stop all consumptive uses on Federal lands. The Spotted Owl stopped logging on much of the Federal lands, and the wolves are putting the hurt on our wildlife numbers and further threatening to curtail hunting. The Mexican Gray wolf expansion program is moving to go from 100 wolves to 350 wolves which will absolutely put a hurt on our elk and deer herds here in AZ and NM. Public lands grazing is being phased out and cut back in ever an ever growing movement to do so. The radical environmental movement is a much greater threat to public lands than state control would ever be. Besides the individual states could manage the public land with much less waste and man power than the Feds are doing today. The huge waste of money for the Feds firefighting program is a big cancer on the US taxpayer and besides that we have proven that the Feds let many of the fires get going good before they even attempt to put them out. Then they bring in the big dollar machine they have developed to battle big blazes, when many times they could have simply put them out from the get go with out the big money pit coming into play. It is a business to the US Forest Service and many, many of their employees benefit monetarily when they get more fires to fight. The firefighting division is taking money away from all of the other FS programs such as trails, grazing and all other multiple uses.

Don't get me wrong, I like what the public lands offer for hunting and recreation and I am a believer in Wilderness. I think the Federal government controls enough land and hate it when the RMEF and Nature Conservancy buy private lands and turn them back to the Feds.

I have personal experience with public lands grazing permits and outfitting permits for the last 40 years and can attest to what is actually happening within the US Forest Service and it's management or lack thereof. The huge, huge waste of taxpayer money by the US Forest Service makes me sick. This together with the Feds being in bed with the enviros is what is driving the western states to take over management of the Federal public lands. It is not about selling the land. I have listened to all the doomsdayers here in NM and think there are much greater things to worry about than the state takeover of the Federal lands.

Hunters need to work hard against the wolf expansion programs facing the west today as I feel this is a much greater threat to hunting and management of the public land.
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-25-15 AT 12:10PM (MST)[p]Yep, keep following in a line sheep. There's no way for the state to manage these lands without selling or developing them beyond belief. Do you really think lawsuits will stop just because it's turned over to the state? Do you think wildfires won't continue? The ESA still applies to all lands federal, state, and private. If you don't believe the state will be strapped with lawsuits if it doesn't sell the land you are denying the inevitable.
 
We'll that explains a little, Stoney doesn't live in Utah. He probably has no clue about the corrupt F-ing dirt bags that run that state. Especially Lee and Bishop.
 
>The fact that Mike Noel is
>still in office is proof
>that Utah voters are sheep.

Funny story: In a conversation with Mr. Noel he stated as proof that Federal lands should be seized, "Some of the best deer hunting in the world is on a private ranch right by my house."

I guess he expected me to acknowledge the improved wildlife management on private property.

The problem is the land that he used as his example is a CWMU managed so only the very wealthy can hunt every year.

Mike Noel is truly oblivious to what hunters are trying to protect.

Grizzly
 
It's easy for a buck to get big behind a "No Trespassing" sign. Along with that he obviously doesn't understand wildlife management or any actual science behind it. Just another prime example of the uneducated trash representing this state and those we call representatives. Some of them may be nice people to know, but they are trash as representatives.
 
I do know that Mike Lee is a fiscal conservative which is his strong suit. I see him in the national news all the time, just tonight on Blaze with Dana.

Oneeye,

It seems there are more than one herd of sheep here. The sheeple are outvoting us so we can expect more Federal regulation, control and waste to become more rampant, and the take over by the leftist radicals to a non use of the Federal mismanaged lands.

I firmly believe the states could do a much better job of managing for a sustainable yielding multiple use of our public lands and do it way more efficiently. Besides the western states would protect the uses we now enjoy on a much more strategic and knowledgeable level, without the interference of the easterners and radicals whom want to change the way our Federal land is used, into an esthetic utopia that they are working hard every day to make it a reality.

Research the Wildlands Project to get an education on how they are gradually and steadily making their dream of no human use of the wilderness areas and limited human use in the corridor areas between the wilderness areas. Part of this in the SW is called the Sky Island Project but they have mapped the whole United States. Many of our western towns are all but drying up and blowing away with timber, mining and grazing going out or totally gone. This is exactly what they are trying to do to move the people out of the remote areas and back to the cities.

The wolf introduction and expansion is nothing more than to get us off the land and to primarily stop public lands livestock grazing with hunting as one of their direct targets. It is not about the wolf. It is about the control of the land.
 
If all you listen to is the lying media you'll never figure anything out. Sounds like you have a conspiracy theory propagated over it all. I listen to Glenn Beck every day. I am pretty conservative. I like him a lot and I agree with a lot of what he says, but I also disagree with some of the things I hear on his program and the Blaze. Both left and right wing media sources are caught in the game of who can bash the other more and how can they further their agenda. Read the reports, read the studies. Learn the actual gravity of the situation, not just what one source of media has propagated to you. The land transfer is a terrible idea and would end in disaster for the American public. Does that mean I don't agree with you that better land management needs to be the ultimate goal? No, I believe the FS and BLM need to be better managers. The real issue is, hunters, anglers, etc. are not involved enough to stop losing ground on the issues. As sportsmen we are too laid back or lazy on issues and that is why our future is uncertain. The Federal agencies do what the courts tell them to do, with the threat of a lawsuit around every corner. The states will have the same problem unless they sale the land to private interests. What should be a policy issue has turned into a right/left issue. If you could remove many of the policies making it possible for enviro. groups to sue the federal agencies and fund them adequately, management wouldn't be as hard of an issue as it is today. Many BLM/FS employees have a long list of projects they want to do but can't because of the threat of lawsuits or no money left to do them. Fix the broken system don't just declare bankruptcy and throw it all away.
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-25-15 AT 08:45PM (MST)[p]Bottom line I love hunting. I love wildlife, and I love the outdoors and the BLM and FS lands. If I could find anything but empty promises that told me this transfer would help any of those things, I would be for it. Bottom line is it doesn't benefit any of those things and I will fight it until I die. People like Mike Lee don't hold those of their interest. Their interest is profit, and those things I listed are more important to me than that. I mean this whole ideology of this transfer idea is like saying, my truck has a bad part so I'll just give it to my friend and he can fix it and do what he wants with it. There are problems within the management of public lands, but that doesn't mean I, or the 325 million other Americans just give them up.
 
Just listen to a few of Randy Newbergs podcasts. In one he states he was at the natural resource panel and the anti-public land guys were giving praise to a state representative advocating for this transfer. One of the points he made were the ridiculously low rates the Feds charge for oil/coal/etc leasing and how the states would charge more. Three weeks later the secretary of the interior, Sally Jewl in front of the same board brought up these points and how the department could do better and maybe they should raise rates. The same individuals got pissed off and were upset she would even think of it. There were many other points. Now why would they praise the same ideas 3 weeks earlier and get pissed off over them when Sally Jewel brought the same ideas up? Because this has nothing to do with management, it is about getting a hold of that land.
 
Of course it's about getting the land. It's about money greed power, just like everything political.

I know the Nevada players in this game and they are some of the lowest human beings I have ever met.
It's no coincidence that these same people do everything possible to make sure there is few or no elk in Nevada.

They have realized massive outright sales of public land won't happen soon. So it's now a game of deceit, a grand compromise, 5% of public land to be sold, and which land? The most valuable land of course. Water, access, minerals, and development prospects will decide.
That and proximaty to Demar Dahls ranch of course?
 
I 100% agree Piper. Stoned you need to do more research on the issue along with many of those that have commented on the thread. These crooked state officials are using bad management as an advantage to sell to the public the idea they could manage these lands better. Then when the BLM or FS try to work with them and improve management they sit and ##### and moan like a 2 year old.

Red flags like the state officials calling ideas great, and then 3 weeks later almost word for word getting pissed off at the Department of the interiors secretary for those same ideas show this has nothing to do with management. They've offered to work on things and then the state officials get pissed off over it when they want to change anything. The real agenda here is that congress and crooked state officials want these lands to look bad. They want them to be mismanaged. What better way is there to get a hold of them than to say they are a wasteland? It's pretty easy to call them that when you have people like Bishop and Lee voting to turn them into inaccessible wastelands. That sportsmen act will open up and keep lands accessible. So what does Lee do? He votes to keep them inaccessible and future access uncertain. But wait if the states had them I thought we would be better off? So why did he just vote against sportsmen access? Read the damn bill!

The people who want this transfer so bad are the same people who are voting us into the exact bad management we are in right now.
 
I didn't read all the back and forth here, but I will say this: there are many threats to the sportsman's way of life these days. None of which are greater than the political party most of us support. Don't get me wrong, I'm not running out and becoming a democrat, but I will say that I have seen first hand how the republicans in Utah feel about my way of life as a hunter and fisherman.

We saw this play out in our stream access fight. We had a 5-0 Supreme Court ruling that the water belongs to the public, always has, and is able to be used by the public because of that. Utah legislature thumbed its nose at that and cut literally thousands of miles of public streams out of use in 2010. Just recently, after years in court and a CRAP TON of money and resources by all sides involved (including tax payer dollars) we have a court ruling that what the legislature did was unconstitutional and the state is barred from enforcing that terrible law. You who preach fiscal conservatism before all other issues, how do you like your legislators throwing your money down the drain in loser legal battles?

The federal land grab is the same. If Utah tries to take this land through the courts, they lose. There is no debate about that, and Ken Ivory is a liar if he says otherwise. He knows Utah loses, and as a consequence, wastes millions more of our tax payer dollars. The office of legislative research (the attorneys that draft the bills for the legislature) even said Utah would lose in the bill notes. The only way for this to constitutionally happen is get congress on board to either sell or trade the land to the state. Enter Rob Bishop and Mike Lee. Cut from the same mold as most of Utah's legislature, they are fine with private interests taking over the public land for development, mineral extraction, etc etc etc because it means more money for them.

I love to hunt and fish more than anything outside my family and my religion. If hunting and fishing becomes something that I have to shell out big bucks to do in trespassing fees because public lands are sold off to the highest bidder, I would just as well assume live in a communist country anyway, because a life without fishing or hunting is not a happy life for me. I will fight against any elected official that bows to special interest groups for his/her own benefit over the people he/she was elected to represent. I will refuse to vote for those people, even if it means voting democrat when I subscribe politically to conservative principles. The people of Utah need to take off the blinders and quit worrying whale talking heads will say about them if they oppose the golden child Mike Lee. He is no friend to my way of life, and therefore no friend to me.
 
Oneye,

I listened to the pod cast and all of your arguments and much of what you say is right on. Mostly crooked politicians.

On the other hand those of us in the Gila Region and Mogollon Rim country see our National Forest becoming locked up more and more each day. From the effects of the wolf to the FS new strategy of Travel Management further locking up the forest. We have watched as our timber industry was destroyed, livestock grazing drastically reduced and our local towns absolutely drying up. The people here have no way to make a living. The US Forest Service is our biggest employer. These are taxpayer dollars and not natural resource production dollars.

I realize the FS is under heavy fire with all the lawsuits brought on them by the rabid enviros. The FS and the people here on the land are the big losers and we are losing more everyday. This is not a conspiracy theory, just what is actually happening and getting worse everyday.

I for sure don't have all of the answers but only see what is happening on the ground here and know something has to change or the way of life most of us know and enjoy is going away fast. Whether it is state control or Federal control it is going to take a concerted effort from all of us in the hunting world and the natural resource world to keep what we have come to expect, on our public lands.
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-26-15 AT 12:30PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Nov-26-15 AT 12:29?PM (MST)

Vanilla, excellent post. I couldn't have said it any better myself. Thx.

Stoney, thanks for listening to the podcast. I'll always respect somebody's opinion when they do their due diligence and come to an informed conclusion, whatever it may be. It's the people who spread uninformed propaganda that rub me wrong because we'll all lose due to their unwillingness to get educated. I've never met an Outdoorsman that understood the details of the land grab and supported it as a positive for outdoor recreation.

Hopefully you can appreciate why Utah hunters are so against Lee and Bishop. We don't have the problems you're having down there... up here it's simply a land-grab. Lee and Bishop want to take land we've hunted on for generations and sell it to somebody else (the same people that are donating hundreds of thousands of dollars to their campaigns).

As to the problems facing New Mexico, the counterargument that I would make is that NM is not a wealthy state. Are you 100% certain that you want your state to be faced with paying for those massive, beautiful lands on its own? How long before roads get closed, campgrounds unkempt, lands overgrazed, and timber harvested beyond sustenance just to pay the monthly bills? There is no verifiable way that any western state can pay to manage its own land for public access (which is why TX and ND, though both oil-rich, have been so heavily privatized). But I do now better understand the problems you're having in New Mexico and can see why you would want improvement down there. I would propose we use our clout as hunters to improve what we have, maximize potential, protect our most pristine lands for the future and keep public land in public hands. Once it is sold... we can never get it back.

Have a Happy Thanksgiving.

Grizzly
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-26-15 AT 02:22PM (MST)[p]I'm glad we can agree. If this land transfer agenda had anything to do with better management I would be all for it. The bottom line is though, their are politicians trying to capitalize and take advantage of the public land crisis we currently have. They don't care about the management or they would be willing to fix the system. That isn't their interest, their interest is taking the land and they don't come right out and say it, but their tactics show it. If you believe you can trust any politician democratic or republican, you just haven't dug deep enough into their file yet. Their are decent ones, but I'm sorry Mike Lee and Rob Bishop on this subject as well as a lot of other Utah representatives are crooked as they come on this issue. From county commissioners to the governor, they all have their agendas, and taking on millions of acres so they have to pay to manage and put up with the BS it takes to manage public land is not what interests them about the land, it's about the paycheck they can benefit from it while the 325 million other owners get screwed.
 
>LAST EDITED ON Nov-28-15
>AT 05:45?PM (MST)
>
>Like I said way up in
>Post# 7 of this thred.
>You "all" can go to
>this site and sign up
>to say all of this
>stuff {agree with him or
>not} right to Mr.Lee's face
>at his next town hall
>on Dec 9th.
>
>Record it and report back then.
>
>
>http://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/tele-townhall-meetings

Nobody would know what to tell him if they don't learn about it from other interested parties first.

Grizzly
 

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

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

ID bull 21 2.jpg
Big Bull Elk
Utah Muzzy Bull
Screenshot_20240117_040425_Instagram.jpg
Screenshot_20210919-145900.png
Ethan B Zone.jpg
IMG_1203.jpeg
The best view
524470_10200477809523577_86876633_n.jpg
AB1180BE-6D64-4CA7-BDBF-C956D61823AF.jpeg
_AAX1741-Edit-Edit-2.jpg
A2E832B3-DC50-4390-9CE8-88CBAB08BA7E.jpeg
Back
Top Bottom