Chaffetz at the Western Hunting and Conservation Expo?

[cuerro viejo]

Maybe these states should read their own Enabling Acts before they start pursuing lawsuits and land transfers. They did it to themselves, and not a single western state could afford to manage these lands without federal assistance. Not. One.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Technically feds can’t afford either but leases do cheapen the cost back a lot

 

[JWP58]

I hope you didn’t get that from my posts. If you did, i wish I had been clearer with my words.

Nope. It was directed towards "trial153". I find it extremely ironic when someone supports dialogue with a left leaning group, even when that left leaning group is against hunting or firearm rights (bha/post/meateater inc). However is against dialogue with someone on the other side of the fence in regards to land ownership/use. Could it be that certain people have issues they hold dear and are not willing to budge or negotiate with? Or are those that believe in their beliefs and prefer not to befriend those actively attempting to undermine their beliefs (or rights) just "sapps"? Maybe the people who reside on the irony rich side of this observation can reflect and realize maybe it's not that different. Either way do what you want, but hold up on the preaching.

 

[Trial153]

There is little to no dispute among legal scholars about the legality of the federal government to own land.
The Property Clause is one of the few articles in the constitution that is agreed upon by both sides in most debates. For example linked is a conservative think tanks take on it, because so many only want to “ believe their side”.


https://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/4/essays/126/property-clause

Here are links to SCOTUS case that all up hold the property clause and the Supremacy Clause.


https://scholar.google.com/scholar_...+States+v.+Gratiot&hl=en&as_sdt=8006&as_vis=1


https://www.justice.gov/archive/opa/pr/Pre_96/October95/533.txt.html


In the US v San Fran the ruling specifically enumerated that the federal government ..
“Congress may constitutionally limit the disposition of the public domain to a manner consistent with its views of public policy.”


https://scholar.google.com/scholar_...icy"+san+francisco&hl=en&as_sdt=8006&as_vis=1

 

[Mtnboy]

That show has been corrupt for years, everyone just ignores it.

Sad really....

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

 

[5MilesBack]

"This bill directs the Department of the Interior: (1) to offer for disposal by competitive sale for not less that fair market value certain federal lands in Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming, previously identified in the report submitted to Congress on May 27, 1997, pursuant to the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996"

Hard to get more anti-public land than that.

Seriously???? I sold a house once, that doesn't make me anti-housing. And if you listened to the podcast you heard him say that he withdrew that bill. So with your reasoning above, since he withdrew the bill.........based on that act alone you'd consider him pro-public lands.

 

[5MilesBack]

Sure, let Colorado take over control of all the federal lands in the state, then you can day hunt because you won't be allowed to camp on it. That is, til one good fire bankrupts the state and they sell off your elk spot to the Chinese.

Is that what Chaffetz proposed? That's what we're talking about here. I haven't seen that proposal. I doubt that they would transfer federal land into the State Trust lands.

 

[orionthehunter1]

That show has been corrupt for years, everyone just ignores it.

Sad really....

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

Yep crazy guys keep going and giving money to SFW when everyone knows how corrupt they are

 

[Matt Cashell]

Seriously???? I sold a house once, that doesn't make me anti-housing.

Your private residence and everybody’s public lands are not equivalents. If you sold the city park, your action would be anti-public lands.

So with your reasoning above, since he withdrew the bill.........based on that act alone you'd consider him pro-public lands.

That isn’t my reasoning. That’s nobody’s reasoning.

 

[CorbLand]

Seriously???? I sold a house once, that doesn't make me anti-housing. And if you listened to the podcast you heard him say that he withdrew that bill. So with your reasoning above, since he withdrew the bill.........based on that act alone you'd consider him pro-public lands.

You then turned around and purchased another house, right? So if they were selling land to buy more land that would be a different story but they arent. They are selling land to help fund the states government. So any time land is sold, its taking land out of the public hands and privatizing it. Your house was private and was sold to another private entity, two completely separate concepts.

He withdrew the bill because of the back lash from the citizen of Utah. Which is the way it should be but to then say that he is pro public lands because of this is asininely dumb.

Is that what Chaffetz proposed? That's what we're talking about here. I haven't seen that proposal. I doubt that they would transfer federal land into the State Trust lands.

But this is what they want, so you may doubt it but the way everything has been talked about and written from those that are pro land transfer is to turn them into State Trusts Lands. If this was to change then you may see a different attitude towards this, until then, I will continue to make my voice heard about this. By your "logic" this would be the equivalent to passing a law restricting firearms but saying it will never be enforced. We have all seen what happens when you say that.

 

[tdhanses]

It's only a problem if the state residents allow it to be a problem. If the residents of the state of Utah didn't support the selling of those state lands then they should have done something to stop that. It's not like they were all sold off the same week in the last couple years. They've been a state for some time now. And Chaffetz even withdrew HB 621, and he's not even a Congressman anymore. So his opinion is just like everyone else's at the moment.......an opinion. An opinion that still doesn't yell "anti-public land". That's my opinion, but you're entitled to your opinion as well.

That only works if the correct groups hold a majority of power in state politics. One day they are safe the next they are not. I’d be willing to bet 80% of most states residents could careless about fighting for public land until it effects a vacation plan after they have lost the right.

States cannot properly manage these lands and until they prove they can I’m for Federal management of our lands, not state residents lands.

 

[tdhanses]

You then turned around and purchased another house, right? So if they were selling land to buy more land that would be a different story but they arent. They are selling land to help fund the states government. So any time land is sold, its taking land out of the public hands and privatizing it. Your house was private and was sold to another private entity, two completely separate concepts.

He withdrew the bill because of the back lash from the citizen of Utah. Which is the way it should be but to then say that he is pro public lands because of this is asininely dumb.




But this is what they want, so you may doubt it but the way everything has been talked about and written from those that are pro land transfer is to turn them into State Trusts Lands. If this was to change then you may see a different attitude towards this, until then, I will continue to make my voice heard about this. By your "logic" this would be the equivalent to passing a law restricting firearms but saying it will never be enforced. We have all seen what happens when you say that.

And don’t forget that funding the state gets from the sale of lands is more then likely wasted quickly in social programs.

 

[5MilesBack]

Your private residence and everybody’s public lands are not equivalents. If you sold the city park, your action would be anti-public lands.

One could be very pro-public lands and still sell off the city park for the right reasons. Are all the cities that removed Civil War monuments anti-monument, or anti-public monuments??? You really shouldn't label someone based on one action or decision. Many people hate it when people stereotype, but at least with stereotypes you have hundreds if not thousands or even more actions or decisions to go off of to develop that stereotype.

Personally, I need more information and/or decisions and actions to form a more solid opinion about Chaffetz. I certainly don't have enough evidence to sentence him to death just yet.

That isn’t my reasoning. That’s nobody’s reasoning.

You based you statement of anti-public land on one action.......proposing HB 621. So if you're going to use one action to base a new sentiment on, then logically you could conclude that he is "pro-public lands" after withdrawing the bill. That's what happens when you only use one action for your labels.

 

[5MilesBack]

And don’t forget that funding the state gets from the sale of lands is more then likely wasted quickly in social programs.

All funding that the government gets (state or federal) is quickly wasted in social programs and everything else the government has no business being in. That's why we're in the state of affairs we're in. We're getting completely off the Chaffetz topic, but how on earth do people propose eliminating the $20+ trillion debt load we have now? Not to mention the $850 billion deficit for this coming year? Hard decisions need to be made in hard times. But the public certainly doesn't seem to want to reel in social spending at all. If anything they want to expand it......free education for all, free healthcare for all, free childcare for all........what on earth is wrong with people.

 

[CorbLand]

Chaffetz may have only proposed 2 bills that would be anti public lands but the Utah Legislature has primarily been anti public lands since the 80's. So when someone that is part of that comes in and proposes something like that, its not a stretch to make the connection.

So if Chaffetz isnt anti public lands because he has only proposed 2 bills that are deemed anti public lands, where are the 2 pro public land bills that would offset these? I live in Utah, I vote in Utah and I cant think of a single one that he has proposed that could be considered pro public land. Thus, his history is primarily anti public lands.

If someone steals something from you, do you look into there past life to determine whether or not that person is a thief?

 

[5MilesBack]

If someone steals something from you, do you look into there past life to determine whether or not that person is a thief?

We all pick and choose our battles based on whatever information we want to include, and whatever we hold tight to. Colorado stole a spring bear season from us. But that's how our Republic was made up and designed to work. That's also why so many states have adopted hunting amendments into their state constitutions. Because all it takes is a bunch of anti-hunters or those that find animals cute and cuddly to form a majority and vote it out. So what do you do when you find yourself in the minority on a subject?

 

[tdhanses]

All funding that the government gets (state or federal) is quickly wasted in social programs and everything else the government has no business being in. That's why we're in the state of affairs we're in. We're getting completely off the Chaffetz topic, but how on earth do people propose eliminating the $20+ trillion debt load we have now? Not to mention the $850 billion deficit for this coming year? Hard decisions need to be made in hard times. But the public certainly doesn't seem to want to reel in social spending at all. If anything they want to expand it......free education for all, free healthcare for all, free childcare for all........what on earth is wrong with people.

Agreed we have hard decisions or need to make changes but don’t use a bandaid to do it, if we sell our public lands that will barely touch the deficit and is not replaceable once gone.

Make the LCWF permanent as that funds public lands very well. Stop mismanaging our forests and reduce costs through proper management etc. problem we have is no one wants to do anything but what they want with regard to managing publicly lands. It is a fixable issue and we do not have to sell our lands or strip them of their resources to correct this.

If we stopped paying for all illegals, actually stopped drugs from being prevalent and revamped social programs to not be a life style we could pay our debt off quickly.

 

[CorbLand]

We all pick and choose our battles based on whatever information we want to include, and whatever we hold tight to. Colorado stole a spring bear season from us. But that's how our Republic was made up and designed to work. That's also why so many states have adopted hunting amendments into their state constitutions. Because all it takes is a bunch of anti-hunters or those that find animals cute and cuddly to form a majority and vote it out. So what do you do when you find yourself in the minority on a subject?

Accept the fact that I am in the minority and continue to voice my opinion on things in the hopes of "educating" others on a subject that I hold close to me. So basically what I am doing right now. I use the word educate, not because I feel I am smarter than anyone or that I know all, merely because I cant think of a better word.

You also never answered my question.

 

[Matt Cashell]

You based you statement of anti-public land on one action.......proposing HB 621.

Hardly. If you read back, I said the bill was anti-public land specifically.

It is easy to see where he stands on public lands generally, not just in the two very anti-public lands bills mentioned earlier. He has spoken often in support of the American Lands Council, Ken Ivory, Rob Bishop, and fully supported making Federal Land Transfer a national Republican Party platform plank, where it remains today, unfortunately.

Personally, I need more information and/or decisions and actions to form a more solid opinion about Chaffetz. I certainly don't have enough evidence to sentence him to death just yet.

I encourage you to do that, and make up your own mind. Not sure where the “sentence him to death” hyperbole came from. I wish him a happy, long life complete with good friends, family, and filled tags.

 

[sneaky]

Is that what Chaffetz proposed? That's what we're talking about here. I haven't seen that proposal. I doubt that they would transfer federal land into the State Trust lands.

He wants federal lands transferred back to the states, that's exactly what it is. Utah is at the forefront of that campaign, even though their own Enabling Act gave up their claim to said lands. They've set aside millions in the state budget to sue over this, even though every legal expert they've consulted has told them they stand zero chance of winning. Of course, the lawyers would still try, they would make millions in legal fees. Chaffetz and his buddies stand to make a LOT of money off of this as it'll be corporations that they are buddy buddy with that will benefit from this when they get to buy these lands.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[WV Mountaineer]

Anybody took three minutes and read the FLMPA subsection 1701 yet? I assume no sincevwe are debating irrelevant theories.