The Utah delegation is like herpes.....

[elkduds]

In the midst of this discussion RE church-vs-state in UT, don't forget to call your reps, Bishop, House budget committee and oppose land transfer funding, law enforcement reform, the whole enchilada. Carry on.

 

[CorbLand]

Has the LDS church told anyone you know how to vote? Of course they hold conservative values most church's do but forcing a certain candidate I've never heard it from anyone that could back it facts.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

Thats because they can't find the facts because they aren't there. People like to blame the LDS church for everything in Utah but they forget that its the people that do the voting. I went to church for 16 years and never once was I ever influenced to vote a specific way or for a conidate.

 

[sneaky]

You mean, facts like the quaint little neighborhood caucus system they use? No pressure there or anything. Only place I've ever lived that uses that system. They'll join the 21st century eventually. I get it, defend the system in Utah, don't want to get your neighbors mad at you. One thing about being non LDS in this state, you get the cold shoulder from a lot of folks. That's from personal experience, you can defend that BS all you want. If you want to think the church has no influence on politics here, then keep your head buried in the sand.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[CorbLand]

It has influence because the people hold the same values, its not the church as a whole. The caucus system is not used because if you do it this way people will vote a specific way because of fear, Jesus, get over yourself. Could I tell you why they use it, no but I can tell you thats not why. I have lived in Utah for 7 years and Rexburg, Idaho for an additional 6 years. There are those that look down on you because your not LDS but the most don't care. In fact, Logan is better than Rexburg was. Quit alienating yourself and you will notice that most don't care.

 

[ben h]

I'm with Elkduds, church vs state is a separate topic from the task at hand. I suggest starting a new thread for that one and those that want to participate can.

 

[Jason Snyder]

In the midst of this discussion RE church-vs-state in UT, don't forget to call your reps, Bishop, House budget committee and oppose land transfer funding, law enforcement reform, the whole enchilada. Carry on.

Right on. Regardless of what we deem the root cause of this, the best option is to call your Congressional delegates and tell them you really don't like Representative Bishop's ideas in regards to PLT.

 

[Publiclandhunter]

Enough of this side track church business. Use your energy on helping fight for our public land everyone. Let's stay on the path of agreement.

 

[1signguy]

I would be interested in seeing a list of what is gained by keeping all the land public versus seeing some of the land made available to private interests. Not looking to start a war- I enjoy the public land. But there must be some benefit to the common person in the state or the elected officials who support privatizing some of the land would not have been elected. Help me understand this from both sides.

 

[COlineman78]

I would be interested in seeing a list of what is gained by keeping all the land public versus seeing some of the land made available to private interests. Not looking to start a war- I enjoy the public land. But there must be some benefit to the common person in the state or the elected officials who support privatizing some of the land would not have been elected. Help me understand this from both sides.

They were elected because they are in extremely conservative states/areas where a dem has no chance. There is also short-term financial benefits where the states can attempt to turn the lands into income streams, which may work for a while until the first big fire, and also when they sell them for privatization. The reason they will become greater income streams under state control are:

1) They can/will charge more for private use of the land (ie grazing livestock)
2) They aren't as easily sued to prevent using the land for it's natural resources (logging, oil drilling, mining, etc)
3) The states aren't required to follow the mandate of managing the land for everyone's use, so they can tailor the lands for use by whomever/whichever generates the most $$$.
4) The land is now an asset of the state and can be liquidated (sold) to offset budgetary deficits rather than raising taxes (which we all know is a death sentence for a politician, especially a conservative)

 

[Montanated]

Wait aren't these forums supposed to be about derailing the original topic?

So many issues coming to the front not only in UT but many states. Stay tuned in and don't let these types of topics slip through in noticed.

 

[Publiclandhunter]

I would be interested in seeing a list of what is gained by keeping all the land public versus seeing some of the land made available to private interests. Not looking to start a war- I enjoy the public land. But there must be some benefit to the common person in the state or the elected officials who support privatizing some of the land would not have been elected. Help me understand this from both sides.

Trust me you can vote for someone and not agree with everything they do. Im generally conservative, they are wrong on this subject including some I've voted for. As for gains, short term financial gains for a few with long term consequences for us all and every generation that follows. Federal managment needs to be improved not tossed out. There is devekopment, recreation, and preservation as it stand now. Everyone has a seat at the table. I would also point out 1signguy none of these guys are advertising this to their voters as a "Sale" they are saying "transfer." They say transfer and openly admit that selling these lands are extremely unpopular. I would say even in Utah it's a 50/50 split on transfer and less than 5% of the population wants to see public land sold off. Even the polticians pushing transfer say they won't sale the land. However Utahs and Wyomings state studies proved that public lands would need to be sold to fund budget shortfalls when they absolutely would occur. I'm a republican from Utah. There are a few people I've voted for that I don't agree with on this issue. Many times they are the only one running. There's a slew of reasons they get elected but I can say with absolute certainty the huge majority of the public want public lands to remain public.

 

[gdog]

If you think it's not the ol boys club your here in UT your fooling yourself. Go check out the recent amendment HB 011 passed just this past legislative session for example. Red state...push the Rep. party line button and go on your way. Toss out the $45 million convention...and you think a few out of state license fee's would matter? Neither do....way too much money at stake in regards to getting control of the Fed land. Oil, gas and land development much more lucrative in the long term. Entitlement x 100. Ivory, Bishop, Lee, Chavez and the like won't be swayed by phone calls. The pressure will have to come from outside the circle. The UT voters won't touch these guys....hell look at Hatch..he's been in office 41 years!!

 

[CrzyTrekker]

The interesting thing about growing up in Utah, and still having a number of family and friends over there, is seeing how willingly the people go along with what their representatives/leaders tell them. It's a cultural thing. This goes way, way back in time for the State of Utah. A long history of elected representatives (many with close church ties) wasting millions of taxpayer dollars attempting to achieve their own public policy goals. It happened with same-sex marriage, it happened with abortion, it happened with . . .

Don't mistake me for a guy who is in favor of any of those things. I am definitely not. However, you have to be pragmatic when you hold the purse strings. You can't make policy decisions willy nilly. You have to pay attention to things like the U. S. Constitution, legal precedent, and prevailing winds. Utah has a history of ignoring pragmatism. Utah is the perfect place to lead a war against public land.

 

[tipsntails7]

I would be interested in seeing a list of what is gained by keeping all the land public versus seeing some of the land made available to private interests. Not looking to start a war- I enjoy the public land. But there must be some benefit to the common person in the state or the elected officials who support privatizing some of the land would not have been elected. Help me understand this from both sides.

Pretty simple list: I can use it, my son can use it, his sons can use it.
Not to mention the millions if not BILLIONS public lands create in the outdoor industry, the millions of dollars in tag sales across the west that buoy wildlife management. Money spent on gas, food, maybe lodging in areas I'd never step foot in without public lands. The benefits of keeping public lands public is endless, what's the benefit of privatizing lands? Cheaper gas? More expensive beef? Inability to enjoy the wilderness? Sweet deals on land for rich guys and ol boys like SFW?

How much is some? What states get to fork it over? When is enough enough? 3.5 million acres enough? 35 million acres? 350 million acres? What's good for the goose is good for the gander at that point right?
Most people are not one issue voters, especially one issue public land voters.

If that land is "transferred" then sold it's probably NEVER coming back.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Gr8bawana]

probably [/B]NEVER coming back.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There is no probably about it. Once sold it is gone forever.