Land Sale bills introduced by Utah Legislators

[DougTheChug]

I sent an email off to Rep Labrador of ID. Thank you for the heads up. This is a slippery slope that puts the North American model of Wildlife Conservation in danger.

 

[gmajor]

Man Utah has an absurd proportion of horrible legislators. Thanks for prompting our input with this thread!

 

[hobbes]

Emails sent to Daines and Zinke of MT.

 

[elkyinzer]

I am in the process of emailing my legislators, this is an American issue, not a local one. This is real stuff. Us backcountry hunters should find ourselves aligned with other conservation orgs with whom we may not agree on all issues in this developing alignment. Strange bedfellows indeed, but we can sort it out in the morning so to speak. Think of what some of the $$ eyed hunting companies have to gain by turning hunting into a rich man's sport. Support the good ones. Represent our sport well. We have such precious little public land where I am that I cherish every square foot of the West.

 

[airlocksniffer]

Us backcountry hunters should find ourselves aligned with other conservation orgs with whom we may not agree on all issues in this developing alignment. Strange bedfellows indeed, but we can sort it out in the morning so to speak.

Great point. I think the federal land transfer thing is a great way to show what we have in common with other groups. I think as a country we have a lot more in common with our fellow countrymen than the media and Congress would have you believe.

 

[tttoadman]

emailed my congressman and both of my senators.

 

[CrzyTrekker]

I am a Utah boy and this crap is embarrassing. Too many Utahns just do what they're told.

 

[CrzyTrekker]

Here is the thing people rarely acknowledge: Without the feds, we wouldn't even have a national birthright of public lands. Saying the states would "more efficiently" manage the lands, and pretending the states wouldn't sell such lands one parcel at a time, is naivety defined.

 

[Gobbler36]

I live as far away from this problem as possible out here in Florida but me and buddy come out every year to hunt elk in the west, would someone please let me know how I can help, these matters mean alot to me as I cherish the time I have spent on some of the public lands would never wont to lose those places.

 

[gauge]

I live as far away from this problem as possible out here in Florida but me and buddy come out every year to hunt elk in the west, would someone please let me know how I can help, these matters mean alot to me as I cherish the time I have spent on some of the public lands would never wont to lose those places.

You are not actually as far away as you believe. Mark Rubio, FL senator, is one of the biggest supporters of the selling of our public lands. Not to turn this into a presidential political debate, but many people are not hearing this because most hunters are right wing. The people that we vote for do not stand for some of our beliefs.

www.backcountryhunters.org
Check these guys out. They stand up for hunters on this issue.

 

[ChrisS]

Here is the thing people rarely acknowledge: Without the feds, we wouldn't even have a national birthright of public lands. Saying the states would "more efficiently" manage the lands, and pretending the states wouldn't sell such lands one parcel at a time, is naivety defined.

If Louisiana could sell a couple of hundred thousand acres right now they would in a heart beat. Why? Because they repealed a tax without replacing the revenue or cutting the spending and oil isn't $100/barrel presently. Those are transient issues. But once that land is gone from public access, it'll be gone for a long, long time.

 

[Gobbler36]

You are not actually as far away as you believe. Mark Rubio, FL senator, is one of the biggest supporters of the selling of our public lands. Not to turn this into a presidential political debate, but many people are not hearing this because most hunters are right wing. The people that we vote for do not stand for some of our beliefs.

www.backcountryhunters.org
Check these guys out. They stand up for hunters on this issue.

Definitely didnt know about Rubio, I just know that most of the right is for selling of the public lands but thanks for the info. I will be sending an email his way.

 

[Dos Perros]

I live as far away from this problem as possible out here in Florida but me and buddy come out every year to hunt elk in the west, would someone please let me know how I can help, these matters mean alot to me as I cherish the time I have spent on some of the public lands would never wont to lose those places.

I would email the folks representing the states you travel to, tell them about your trips there and how the public land makes it all possible, and I'd copy the chamber of commerce for some of the towns you supply out of when you go. The message is that you come and you bring tourist dollars that would go away without the land.

 

[-bowfreak-]

When push comes to shove, public land issues are pretty far down on my list of concerns. I am for public access and disagree with any public land transfer or sell but am more concerned about liberty, personal freedoms and the 2A. If this means I have to support a guy who wants to sell public land, I will. The death of one of the most staunch supporters of the constitution should make it evident to everyone as to how easy it is for us to lose our 2A rights. I find it humorous that there is a faction of hunters who are foaming at the mouth over the sell of public lands. They are so pissed that they will support the very people that will stop them from having a weapon that would allow them to take game on said public land. Oh well.....at least we still have public land. Time to break out the granola and Birkenstocks and do some yoga at the trailhead.

 

[elkyinzer]

Bowfreak, you are certainly entitled to your thoughts, but no one made this a second amendment issue until you brought it up. Because it is not one. Public lands are under a much more realistic and imminent threat than second amendment rights. See my post above, the great thing about America and democracy is that we can form alliances on the basis of one matter even though we may disagree on others. That is the way the system is supposed to work. We can cozy up to and work with the yoga crowd as you so politely referred to them and work alongside a multitude of groups advocating for public lands on this issue, and still have room to disagree on others. It's not all or nothing like you suggest. Participating in local politics, communicating with our legislators, voting with our wallets etc. gives us a greater say than the single vote every fourth year for President. Grassroots movements are going to turn the tide the other way on this matter I hope.

 

[airlocksniffer]

2A is a right, public lands are a privilege. The latter is much more at risk. Anytime a Dem is in office the right howls about the 2a and imminent confiscation of our guns. Certainly haven't seen that in the last 7 years. The politics of fear are very strong with the right.

 

[gauge]

When push comes to shove, public land issues are pretty far down on my list of concerns. I am for public access and disagree with any public land transfer or sell but am more concerned about liberty, personal freedoms and the 2A. If this means I have to support a guy who wants to sell public land, I will.

It is possible that you own private ground in the west bowfreak, but the majority of us that hunt the west, do so on public ground. Would I trade my rifle to keep bow hunting public land elk? Absolutely! Obviously it won't come down to this, but as a registered republican I am not afraid to take a stand on an issue within the party that does not sit well with me. I am also willing to stand with "the yoga crowd" if they support keeping public land, public land. There is a lot of gray area when it comes to these issues that many guys are scared to accept.

And as others already stated, losing our 2A right is not nearly as real as losing our public land access.

 

[-bowfreak-]

Bowfreak, you are certainly entitled to your thoughts, but no one made this a second amendment issue until you brought it up. Because it is not one. Public lands are under a much more realistic and imminent threat than second amendment rights. See my post above, the great thing about America and democracy is that we can form alliances on the basis of one matter even though we may disagree on others. That is the way the system is supposed to work. We can cozy up to and work with the yoga crowd as you so politely referred to them and work alongside a multitude of groups advocating for public lands on this issue, and still have room to disagree on others. It's not all or nothing like you suggest. Participating in local politics, communicating with our legislators, voting with our wallets etc. gives us a greater say than the single vote every fourth year for President. Grassroots movements are going to turn the tide the other way on this matter I hope.

I didn't make it an issue....it is an issue. If you don't think that leftists are actively working to disarm the public you have your head in the sand. If the public lands issue is of more importance to you to the point where you would support someone who would love to see you lose your guns, go for it. I am a single issue voter....if you are a liberal I am voting against you because I disagree with you on pretty much every issue that exists other than public lands.

2A is a right, public lands are a privilege. The latter is much more at risk. Anytime a Dem is in office the right howls about the 2a and imminent confiscation of our guns. Certainly haven't seen that in the last 7 years. The politics of fear are very strong with the right.

A right huh? I guess it doesn't matter since it is a right. The court ruled 5-4 in favor of Heller vs. DC saying that an individual could possess a firearm. That means 4 justices voted that Mr. Heller did not have that right to possess a firearm because he happened to live in DC. Given the fact that 1 of the 5 is now dead, it seems that might spell doom for any future court decision.

If a gun rights case came before the 9th circuit court while only 8 SC Justices, the ruling of the 9th Circus would stand. Many elected Democrats are smart enough to NOT actively vote against gun rights BUT they don't have to....rigging the courts and other government agencies with leftists insures that they can achieve their ultimate goal "stealthly." Leftists play the long game and they never stop trying when they have been beaten. They regroup and come back even harder.

It is possible that you own private ground in the west bowfreak, but the majority of us that hunt the west, do so on public ground. Would I trade my rifle to keep bow hunting public land elk? Absolutely! Obviously it won't come down to this, but as a registered republican I am not afraid to take a stand on an issue within the party that does not sit well with me. I am also willing to stand with "the yoga crowd" if they as support keeping public land, public land. There is a lot of gray area when it comes to these issue that many guys are scared to accept.

And as others already stated, losing our 2A right is not nearly as real as losing our public land access.

I don't own any land other than the land my home sets on in KY. I hate the fact that Republicans want to sell off or transfer public land BUT that issue does not outweigh the fact that Democrats always caucus with liberals.....so I don't vote for Democrats for any national office.

 

[elkyinzer]

You bring up salient points about the Supreme Court which I agree with, but this simply isn't a gun issue. My only hope is that the vast majority of average joe hunters would side with my take, but sadly I fear I am wrong. Which is to say that the NRA fear mongering machine is one of the most effective propaganda campaigns in history by turning millions of rural white men into single issue voters and allowing crap like this to be pushed through against our will. In standing so firmly for one issue you are giving up your right to participate in the democratic process on a multitude of others. Should I go grab my tinfoil hat or am I looking at this reasonably?

Another way of looking at it is that politicians are like molded like clay. Few have their own beliefs and conscience, most side with the money, and occasionally listen to the loudest bitching and moaning. If we bitch and moan about this enough, and choose the right allies covering the money factor, we can mold conservative politicians to our side of the issue. It's not like writing a politician in support of public lands or asking Cabelas, Bass Pro etc. to side with us is a vote for Bernie. Sheesh.

 

[5MilesBack]

I find it humorous that there is a faction of hunters who are foaming at the mouth over the sell of public lands. They are so pissed that they will support the very people that will stop them from having a weapon that would allow them to take game on said public land. Oh well.....at least we still have public land. Time to break out the granola and Birkenstocks and do some yoga at the trailhead.

This is how special interest groups are formed.......over a single issue. They quickly lose sight of everything else and tunnel vision prohibits decision making outside of that issue........even at the expense of possibly losing every other right, privilege, freedom, and liberty. This is also how politicians become corrupted.

You bring up salient points about the Supreme Court which I agree with, but this simply isn't a gun issue.

You're right. It isn't "simply" a gun issue. It is an "all rights", freedoms, and liberties issue.......of which the 2nd Amendment just happens to get caught under.