Chaffetz at the Western Hunting and Conservation Expo?

[CorbLand]

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

I did and I fail to see what the "irrelevant theories" we are debating are?

I see no where in there where it talks about whether or not the legislature in Utah is primarily anti public land or where it talks about whether or not Chaffetz proposal of anti public lands bill makes him anti public lands.

 

[sneaky]

Perhaps we should all ask why he was invited to speak. I'd venture to say that Don Peay could care less about your ability to hunt on public lands. He's got the money and influence to get in bed with the land transfer crowd. Personally I hope Chaffetz gets shouted off the podium, but that won't happen from the bedazzled jean, flat bill crowd.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[tipsntails7]

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.



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.

Your being oddly emotional or oddly obtuse about this entire interaction and its strange coming from you.

Chaffetz has proposed an HB 621 bill no less than 8 times at this point, it may be called a different name and ride under a different bill number but the language in it is almost verbatim. so its not just a one off as you keep making it out to be.

Chaffetz has gone on the record numerous times saying he wants to sell public lands to private people, and he has not minced words about it.

He has stated and attempted in concert with Rob Bishop numerous times to force the federal government to either dispose of the land through sales, or give it back to the states so they can decide what to do with it.

This is not some weird political buzzword reaction, this is not some jump to conclusion based off a single bill. Chaffetz in one way or another has been advocating for the selling of public lands back to private citizens for almost a decade and has made it clear that bills like HB 621 are a "first step" or "moves the ball in the right direction" towards a continued effort to dispose of public lands.

Just because you haven't literally heard it with your own ears or taken the time to do your own research does not mean it has not occurred.

With that said, it is possible that you agree with Mr. Chaffetz that land that "serves no public purpose" should be disposed of immediately to pay down the deficit. Or you may believe that states should be given all the land within their state boundaries to manage as they see fit. But what you should understand is that if the land or its resources can not be a profitable endeavor the states will sell that land, as mentioned before most have legislative requirements to do so.

One of the biggest talking points for Bishop and Chaffetz is how these lands could help children. They fully intend to add any and all state land given to them by the Feds to the state trust lands.

It should be telling that he actually pulled HB 621. It shows that people that are passionate about public lands are finally paying attention and making their voices heard.

 

[WV Mountaineer]

I did and I fail to see what the "irrelevant theories" we are debating are?

I see no where in there where it talks about whether or not the legislature in Utah is primarily anti public land or where it talks about whether or not Chaffetz proposal of anti public lands bill makes him anti public lands.

That’s the debate you are having. This thread has about three different narratives being debated. It’s all associated with public lands. And, while your debate isn’t subjective to the post of mine that you quoted, many are.

 

[Matt Cashell]

That’s the debate you are having. This thread has about three different narratives being debated. It’s all associated with public lands. And, while your debate isn’t subjective to the post of mine that you quoted, many are.

WVM,

I just don’t understand the point you are trying to make. The section you reference just lays out the authority, methods, and considerations that Congress and the Secretary have to make laws regarding public land management.

This thread is predominantly about Chaffetz, his public land history, and his invitation to speak to an expo attended by thousands of public land hunters.

 

[CorbLand]

That’s the debate you are having. This thread has about three different narratives being debated. It’s all associated with public lands. And, while your debate isn’t subjective to the post of mine that you quoted, many are.

Which ones? I read it and dont see how it applies to anything that has been said in this thread.

 

[5MilesBack]

Your being oddly emotional or oddly obtuse about this entire interaction and its strange coming from you.

I'm not emotional about it at all. I tend to leave emotions out of all discussions and decisions. But there sure are a lot of people that are absolutely emotional about the land transfer subject regardless of the reasons.

 

[WV Mountaineer]

Corb and Matt; My comments were based on a discussion early on stating who owned BLM lands. This is why I said what I did. The feds own it. Not us. So, it truly isn't pubic land.


SUBCHAPTER I—GENERAL PROVISIONS
§1701. Congressional declaration of policy
(a) The Congress declares that it is the policy of the United States that—

(1) the public lands be retained in Federal ownership, unless as a result of the land use planning procedure provided for in this Act, it is determined that disposal of a particular parcel will serve the national interest;

 

[Matt Cashell]

Corb and Matt; My comments were based on a discussion early on stating who owned BLM lands. This is why I said what I did. The feds own it. Not us. So, it truly isn't pubic land.

That typo is kind of funny.

I think you are caught in semantics. We all own it through our duly elected representative democracy.

 

[WV Mountaineer]

I agree. Contradiction at its finest. However, the Supreme Court and Congress doesn't see it that way.


Man, it is always great to talk to you Matt. You always handle yourself well and, are always very cordial. Thank you for that. Take care and God Bless

 

[Matt Cashell]

I agree. Contradiction at its finest. However, the Supreme Court and Congress doesn't see it that way.

I am not sure what you mean by this. Federal ownership IS public ownership. The Supreme Court has upheld this for over a century.

The law you reference even codifies that, requiring management decisions to be made from a “multiple use” viewpoint for the benefit of the people ... the owners.