Chaffetz at the Western Hunting and Conservation Expo?

[204guy]

Most here probably hasn't bothered to talk to any "evil" person that is for letting public land pay for itself. They get their info fed to them by their "conservation" groups. Every single politician that has been charged for being against public land, is doing so to make the economy in their state better. These huge tracts of public lands are not only a dead weight to those economies but, are the problem affecting these areas since resource development is a big no no on these lands. Because the same people that want to twist things like that into these politicians being evil people, will be the first to sue or, cry foul during the management plan comment period of a plan revision that advises of the natural resources extraction. Forcing a stop to the development process. Ending up in a court room. Where a liberal judge puts a halt to the process by implying restrictions not feasible to continue.


Gentlemen, I do not support truly public land transfer to the states. But, I'm smart enough to realize that in order to keep all public and federal lands open to future Americans, we had better learn to compromise. They are a net loss to any government entity as is. If they were to be utilized to produce revenue, you'd see most all serious proponents of land transfer change their mind on the subject. I make a living in Natural Resource utilization. I've worked for government and private industry in the coal and timber sectors. Responsible management is not only possible but demanded when operating on public or federal lands. It can be done to benefit EVER entity involved. With improved wildlife habitat leading that pack. Regardless of who says so. That is the science behind it and no party punchline will change that.

Have a good evening and God Bless

I doubt anyone here takes you serious anymore, but that is blatantly false. I can show you thousands of well sites on state and fed land within 100 mi of my house. I can show you logging taking place on fed land just up the mountain. WY ranks as one of the states with the highest $ spent per student, in the public school system. That money isn't coming from ranchers paying taxes on private land.

 

[cuerro viejo]

I doubt anyone here takes you serious anymore, but that is blatantly false. I can show you thousands of well sites on state and fed land within 100 mi of my house. I can show you logging taking place on fed land just up the mountain. WY ranks as one of the states with the highest $ spent per student, in the public school system. That money isn't coming from ranchers paying taxes on private land.

I just read this as you just re-affirmed exactly what he was saying, that Public Land has the ability to be responsibley managed to pay for itself and give to the community.

 

[5MilesBack]

Seriously? How do you think that would go? He's a former house member. A career politician. I'm sure he'd shoot you straight about how he and his cronies stand to profit.

OK, so we can add you to the list as a "no"........haven't talked to him. Check.

It's funny how Trump proposes a wall, and every liberal in the country immediately spins that as him being racist........instead of him just "doing what's right for America". Everyone spins what they want to spin, regardless of the reasoning behind one's actions.

 

[Billinsd]

I doubt anyone here takes you serious anymore, but that is blatantly false.

You are correct!

 

[WV Mountaineer]

I doubt anyone here takes you serious anymore, but that is blatantly false. I can show you thousands of well sites on state and fed land within 100 mi of my house. I can show you logging taking place on fed land just up the mountain. WY ranks as one of the states with the highest $ spent per student, in the public school system. That money isn't coming from ranchers paying taxes on private land.

I can’t profess to know how Wyoming generates money for its schools. If they own the resources that are being extracted, then that is great. But, let me point out something to you, if that is the case, then it isn’t an example of federal land management. It’s an example of a STATE doing the proper thing. And, that is against the choir boys chorus of the states not being able to properly manage resources for the greater good.

I get you fellas don’t like me. That’s ok. But, you aren’t going to peddle your lies and ignorance as the truth without being corrected. I want the same thing. And passing rhetoric as the truth will do nothing but cloud the results.

 

[204guy]

I just read this as you just re-affirmed exactly what he was saying, that Public Land has the ability to be responsibley managed to pay for itself and give to the community.

That's because that's what you wanted to read. I didn't say anything about responsibly managed. I was just calling bullshit on what I bolded, it's blatantly false. The high desert of NE WY has already pretty well been raped and pillaged for resource extraction, responsible management is debatable.


5Miles, did you need to talk to Hillary to sus out the specifics on her positions on any number of things? You know so you can have a truly informed opinion. Or did you rely on the MSM? Sounds kinda ludacris doesn't it?

 

[Billinsd]

I get you fellas don’t like me. That’s ok. But, you aren’t going to peddle your lies and ignorance as the truth without being corrected. I want the same thing. And passing rhetoric as the truth will do nothing but cloud the results.

I like you and think similarly. I'm sure others do. You do seem very intense and a bit pushy at times. Don't take me wrong, I'm extremely intense and pushy at times. However, I've backed off on the forums. Cheers

 

[5MilesBack]

5Miles, did you need to talk to Hillary to sus out the specifics on her positions on any number of things? You know so you can have a truly informed opinion. Or did you rely on the MSM? Sounds kinda ludacris doesn't it?

Not really. Hillary was pretty straight forward with her reasoning's, straight from her mouth. I have never heard Chaffetz explain his reasoning's for being "anti-public land" or whether he even is anti-public land. But I sure hear it from everyone else that "assumes" so.

Just as Trump wanting a wall for America doesn't make him a racist, doesn't mean that wanting land transfers makes someone anti-public land. Now Trump very well may be racist, and Chaffetz may even be anti-public land........but I don't think it's their position on single topics that determines that. I've also heard Pelosi and Schumer say that a wall is immoral. Yet I've never heard them explain why they believe a wall to be immoral. My initial reaction would be to assume that they are morons just because of that single statement. But until they actually explain it........I can't be sure on that. We need to hear their reasoning, which I have yet to hear.

 

[Matt Cashell]

Certainly the smart, nuanced folks on the pro public land side wont act like "thoughtless saps" and refuse to have thoughtful discussion with the other side.

Make an effort to educate! Extend an olive branch. Maybe once educated, he might see the other side of the argument? I mean he is a hunter, do we want to continue eating our own?

Or are those sentiments only reserved for the liberal foes?

I cant claim the smart or nuanced part, but I would be interested in having the conversation with him. I'll see if I can track him down. I would try to have a reasonable conversation with Rosie O'donnell about gun control too. Don't know how far that would go though.

A speech isn't a thoughtful discussion. I certainly understand why public land advocates would be upset with the Expo for giving him the stage.

I will attend the Expo for seeing friends, connecting with other hunters, and supporting MDF's habitat work specifically, but acknowledge the shadow of SFW is in every corner as well, unfortunately.

 

[CorbLand]

Chaffetz may not be anti public lands but seeing as he is from Utah and Utah is well known for selling off large portions of its "useless, worthless, nobody wants this 40,000,000 dollar 50,000 acre" State lands. Its not a huge leap to make the connection.

 

[WV Mountaineer]

I like you and think similarly. I'm sure others do. You do seem very intense and a bit pushy at times. Don't take me wrong, I'm extremely intense and pushy at times. However, I've backed off on the forums. Cheers

I’m not pushy at all. And my comment wasn’t directed at you. If I come off strong, I simply don’t know how else to be. I just state things. I’m not emotional and don’t live by them. And, this is print. Not face to face. Most everything I type is in a hurry and, adding in the inability or lack if desire to be the cool guy, I’m an easy target for the rowdy bunch. That’s ok too. As long as we get this right.

 

[MIKEYB]

Cameron Hanes Did a Podcast with Jason back in 2017 around the time some the bills were proposed. There is also a reddit thread.



https://www.google.com/search?q=cam...rome..69i57.9927j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

 

[5MilesBack]

Chaffetz may not be anti public lands but seeing as he is from Utah and Utah is well known for selling off large portions of its "useless, worthless, nobody wants this 40,000,000 dollar 50,000 acre" State lands. Its not a huge leap to make the connection.

If the land is useless and worthless the state needs to make those deicsions. If the residents don't like those decisions, then they need to initiate a ballot measure that restricts the state's ability to dispose of public lands. That may or may not also restrict future federal land transfers to the state. Or the residents can just sit on their hands and moan about it.

 

[CorbLand]

If the land is useless and worthless the state needs to make those deicsions. If the residents don't like those decisions, then they need to initiate a ballot measure that restricts the state's ability to dispose of public lands. That may or may not also restrict future federal land transfers to the state. Or the residents can just sit on their hands and moan about it.

There is a reason I put useless and worthless in quotations. Thats what we are told the land is then you go look at the State lands sale and its sold as prime hunting and fish properties that can be sectioned into 40 acre lots and developed.

I agree that the people in the State need to do things and they do. Utah citizen have stood up against this many times. They did it when Chaffetz tried this a couple years ago. All I am saying is that when it continues to happen over and over again, its not a huge stretch to see the writing on the wall.

This is the one I am referring too but its not the only one that has happened like this
https://trustlands.utah.gov/land-sale-auctions/tabby-mountain/

 

[cuerro viejo]

That's because that's what you wanted to read. I didn't say anything about responsibly managed. I was just calling bullshit on what I bolded, it's blatantly false. The high desert of NE WY has already pretty well been raped and pillaged for resource extraction, responsible management is debatable.


5Miles, did you need to talk to Hillary to sus out the specifics on her positions on any number of things? You know so you can have a truly informed opinion. Or did you rely on the MSM? Sounds kinda ludacris doesn't it?

So they may have or may not, debatably raped and pillaged the land but Undebatably manage to make Wy Schools to be exemplary due to trickle down economics...

So are you asking for more over sight or to cut off WY schools?

 

[WV Mountaineer]

I had to edit. Spell check on a smart phone is not very smart after all.

He’s not really asking anything at all. Just expressing his dislike for me. Without acknowledgement of what variables are at play.

The feds can’t stop private mineral and resource owners from development. It’s federal law. If the gas rights he tried to use as a gotcha point, are truly owned by the state, good for them. If not, the only state revenue that is collected is by taxes. So, what he’s truly using as a point to try and dispute the real issue, is likely a totally separate issue then federal lands paying for themselves.

The feds themselves own quite a bit of resource across this country. That’s where compromise needs to be an option. Just because there are 1000’s of wells in the deserts of Wyoming, doesn’t mean the feds are getting one red cent of it to off set the cost of these lands. If they are, it means the own the resource rights.

Like I said earlier, this is a very diverse subject. One that contains many variables. Just lumping all government owned or managed land into examples of land transfers is wrong. Many people assume Trust land is public land. I hate to break it to them but, that is not the case at all. The state owns them. Many states depend on state trust lands. But, the key is they are state lands. Not public lands. Aside from these obvious FACTS, I don’t know what the deal is in Wyoming. However, I do know if I were going to use it as an example for my cause, I’d sure know the dirty little details.

But, that doesn’t seem important to some. They just want to recite things.

 

[tipsntails7]

Not really. Hillary was pretty straight forward with her reasoning's, straight from her mouth. I have never heard Chaffetz explain his reasoning's for being "anti-public land" or whether he even is anti-public land. But I sure hear it from everyone else that "assumes" so.

Just as Trump wanting a wall for America doesn't make him a racist, doesn't mean that wanting land transfers makes someone anti-public land. Now Trump very well may be racist, and Chaffetz may even be anti-public land........but I don't think it's their position on single topics that determines that. I've also heard Pelosi and Schumer say that a wall is immoral. Yet I've never heard them explain why they believe a wall to be immoral. My initial reaction would be to assume that they are morons just because of that single statement. But until they actually explain it........I can't be sure on that. We need to hear their reasoning, which I have yet to hear.

I would have liked to see a round table with him included, instead of a keynote speech.

I wouldn't mind having a conversation with him, but I already know what he is going to say. He has said it numerous times and made his position clear in regards to his stance on the Federal Government owning any public land. hence his propensity to introduce legislation every time he is legally allowed, to force the Federal Government to dispose of it to the states that it lies within.

He not only feels that it is unconstitutional for the Feds to own any land that is not directly occupied by a building or operation, but believes that states can manage the land in a way that better benefits the residents of that state. and that the people in that state should be responsible for what they want to do with that land and how that land is managed ( single use, multi-use for profit, what have you). Not a lot of people have the time or inclination to watch congressional meetings or sub committees, and he has been less vocal about it of late due to the increased trend of Federal Public Land advocates, but as long as he continued to propose the same bill language under a new number and title I very much doubt his reasoning has changed.

I will give him credit, he represents his constituents how an elected official should, as many Utah residents feel just as strongly as he does so he carries their concerns with him to the legislature.The residents saw fit to continue to elect him, so i would view it as disingenuous if he were to alter course now without acute causation.

I know his feelings, and can respect them, but still strongly disagree with what he wants to accomplish.


On the flip side, I have yet to see any Member of Congress who supports or proposes these bills explain how their states will manage land that does not have a material value that lies within it in a profitable way without immediately selling it. I have not seen anyone explain how they will circumvent their own state legislative requirements to not operate certain line items at a net loss, therefore by default being forced to sell the asset. I have not seen how the economic benefits for states developing these resources will outweigh the loss in revenue that is related to the outdoor industry, not only to states through taxes but the impact to wildlife departments, and not just in year 1 or 2, but 10-15 years from now.

Utah would be greatly impacted by the loss of public lands, not only in their own state but nationwide.

These are questions I have sent to numerous Members of Congress in the past, and would be happy to have the opportunity to actually ask these, and more in person.

The crux of the entire topic is, without harvesting the lands resources or liquidating it, states cannot make public lands a profitable endeavor outside of a few outliers.

 

[WV Mountaineer]

Absolutely a rock solid post man.

 

[Shrek]

[QUOTEThey just want to recite things.[/QUOTE]

The term for these guys is NPC’s

 

[Billinsd]

I’m not pushy at all. And my comment wasn’t directed at you. If I come off strong, I simply don’t know how else to be. I just state things. I’m not emotional and don’t live by them. And, this is print. Not face to face. Most everything I type is in a hurry and, adding in the inability or lack if desire to be the cool guy, I’m an easy target for the rowdy bunch. That’s ok too. As long as we get this right.

Right. We are different in that I am emotional and sensitive. Yes, I know your comment wasn't direct towards me. I used to come off real strong, and still do a lot of times. Carry on....