Trump - shrinking bears ear and escalante

[Chad E]

Yup. Utah has done a fine job of managing it's natural resources. How many states ever created a Predator Control Program that pays you for each dead coyote and they did it w/o requiring you buy a hunting license? I trust Utah more than DC. Smart reversal IMHO.

A bounty on coyotes is your example of how well Utah manages their natural resources? Utah's model of wildlife management leaves a whole lot to be desired if you are not wealthy. Utah politicians continue to push a public lands transfer concept. I'd hardly call them the shinning example of resource managmemt.

 

[Billinsd]

Patagonia "The Activist Company
We believe the environmental crisis has reached a critical tipping point. Without commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, defend clean water and air, and divest from dirty technologies, humankind as a whole will destroy our planet’s ability to repair itself. At Patagonia, the protection and preservation of the environment isn’t what we do after hours. It’s the reason we’re in business and every day’s work."

I'll pass on the kool-aid. I'll keep those "dirty technologies". I'll drive to the trail head in my dirty technology truck and heat my house with evil fossil fuels. You "green hunters" all can walk or drive green cars to the trailhead to "bag" those mountain peaks. I'll also continue to live my life socially irresponsibly. Thanks, but no thanks Patagonia! Bill.

 

[durangobrad]

Patagonia "The Activist Company
We believe the environmental crisis has reached a critical tipping point. Without commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, defend clean water and air, and divest from dirty technologies, humankind as a whole will destroy our planet’s ability to repair itself. At Patagonia, the protection and preservation of the environment isn’t what we do after hours. It’s the reason we’re in business and every day’s work."

I'll pass on the kool-aid. I'll keep those "dirty technologies". I'll drive to the trail head in my dirty technology truck. The rest of you all can walk or drive green cars to the trailhead to "bag" those mountain peaks. Thanks, but no thanks Patagonia! Bill.

Another science denier and "alternative facts" guy. This would be another great thread

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

 

[Billinsd]

Another science denier and "alternative facts" guy. This would be another great thread

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

Nope green hunter feller. I got a BS in Geological Sciences, how about you? Just because I refuse the extremist views of companies like Patagonia does not mean I don't understand science. It doesn't mean I totally disagree with some or all of their views either. Personally overpopulation is destroying the planet in my opinion. I don't have extreme views on controlling population either.

 

[muddydogs]

A bounty on coyotes is your example of how well Utah manages their natural resources? Utah's model of wildlife management leaves a whole lot to be desired if you are not wealthy. Utah politicians continue to push a public lands transfer concept. I'd hardly call them the shinning example of resource managmemt.

Whats wealthy have to do with anything? I'm not wealthy and I have no problems recreating, hunting and fishing in Utah. I dare say that Utah has more hunting opportunity then Washington does for the average man.

Every state is having issues with general population growth, less wildlife habitat and more hunters hitting the field. There's not a state in the union that doesn't have long draw odds on premium species and point creep if there using points. I can hunt OTC elk in about 40% of the state depending on what tag I purchase and one can draw a deer tag every year if they just want a deer tag. So deer and bull elk every year and a cow elk tag about every other year isn't to bad. What people need to stop doing is believing stuff they read from some guy who is trying to draw a premium deer or elk tag out of the 4 or 5 units where there offered along with the other 5000+ applicants. Sure Utah isn't perfect but is any state?

 

[realunlucky]

These threads always go down the same rabbit hole. Kool aid drinkers and uneducated opinions

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

[durangobrad]

Nope green hunter feller. I got a BS in Geological Sciences, how about you?

I'm a believer of starting a new thread so this one doesn't get too far off topic.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

 

[durangobrad]

These threads always go down the same rabbit hole. Kool aid drinkers and uneducated opinions

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

And name caller's

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

 

[vdeal]

Whats wealthy have to do with anything? I'm not wealthy and I have no problems recreating, hunting and fishing in Utah. I dare say that Utah has more hunting opportunity then Washington does for the average man.

Every state is having issues with general population growth, less wildlife habitat and more hunters hitting the field. There's not a state in the union that doesn't have long draw odds on premium species and point creep if there using points. I can hunt OTC elk in about 40% of the state depending on what tag I purchase and one can draw a deer tag every year if they just want a deer tag. So deer and bull elk every year and a cow elk tag about every other year isn't to bad. What people need to stop doing is believing stuff they read from some guy who is trying to draw a premium deer or elk tag out of the 4 or 5 units where there offered along with the other 5000+ applicants. Sure Utah isn't perfect but is any state?

As I alluded to earlier this isn't all about hunting. Some of us here live in states where there are no point systems. More hunters hitting the field - not everywhere - in fact the number of hunters nationwide is down. Folks need to think outside their little boxes - this is a bigger issue than hunting.

 

[Billinsd]

I'm a believer of starting a new thread so this one doesn't get too far off topic.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

I can save you some time. The earth is very complex and dynamic. Nothing has impacted it like humans. After Ice age humans with spears appeared there have been many animal extinctions and impacts on the earth. No one really knows what's going to happen and I don't believe driving a battery operated car and using non fossil fuels or living in a cave is going to make a difference. I try not to waste and try to conserve. That's my view.

 

[vdeal]

Muddydogs, thats the way I see it as well. As long as the land is still forest service land I see no negative. What is the advantage to the average outdoorsman of a designated NM vs simple FS or BLM land ?

National Monument designation is a protection against future development. FS & BLM lands can be developed for extractive uses. But, NM does not wipe out existing uses. National monuments protect “existing rights,” meaning, whatever you did there before it was protected as a national monument, you can probably still do after it is designated. This includes previously-existing: Oil and gas leases, Access to private property, Valid mining claims, Roads and utility infrastructure and Livestock grazing. There could be specific exemptions but you get the general idea.

 

[blackpowderhunter]

Correct me if I'm wrong or off base here.
But one of the main issues with turning lands over to the state, is that in many cases, the state doesn't have the resources to manage it properly, thus turning around to sell it to the highest bidder.
So, while the land remains public now, it is now FAR more probable that it won't be int he near future.

 

[nexus]

National Monument designation is a protection against future development. FS & BLM lands can be developed for extractive uses. But, NM does not wipe out existing uses. National monuments protect “existing rights,” meaning, whatever you did there before it was protected as a national monument, you can probably still do after it is designated. This includes previously-existing: Oil and gas leases, Access to private property, Valid mining claims, Roads and utility infrastructure and Livestock grazing. There could be specific exemptions but you get the general idea.

If I am not mistaken, the creation of a NM also provides a source of funding for the maintenance of the lands and resources. These same funds may not be specifically required under general BLM and Forestry Service budgets. At least that was the discussion when the San Gabriel Mountain NM was being debated here in southern California.

 

[JWP58]

I think most are losing sight that the land is not being handed over to private holders. It is still public land, just not under the monument designation.

This is not the end of the world.

And if I were to play devils advocate, which I will, I didn't see anyone crying about precedence when a cattle ranch was designated a Wilderness Area in New Mexico just months ago. Where was the outrage then? Or was that new precedence seen as "good for the cause" so its ok?

And seriously? "Denier"? Lets try and not stoop to the level of identity politics and refrain from throwing around such terms as "denier", as if to equate if you don't believe in a THEORY you're tantamount to a holocaust denier.

 

[mlevimadden]

Correct me if I'm wrong or off base here.
But one of the main issues with turning lands over to the state, is that in many cases, the state doesn't have the resources to manage it properly, thus turning around to sell it to the highest bidder.
So, while the land remains public now, it is now FAR more probable that it won't be int he near future.

You are correct. But don't worry, Utah has only sold off 54% of its state lands to private owners, so they can totally be trusted with all of the public lands in the state (insert tongue in cheek).

 

[vdeal]

And if I were to play devils advocate, which I will, I didn't see anyone crying about precedence when a cattle ranch was designated a Wilderness Area in New Mexico just months ago. Where was the outrage then? Or was that new precedence seen as "good for the cause" so its ok?

JWP58, not sure what your precedent is. I assume (since you didn't give details) that you're referring to the Sabinoso Wilderness. If so, that was the only landlocked wilderness in the US. The Wilderness Land Trust purchased the Rimrock Rose Ranch for the purpose of donating it to the public as an addition to Sabinoso to make it accessible. No precedent there. Wilderness areas have been added to in the past. No taking on the part of the government - just a purchase by another party that donated the land.

 

[muddydogs]

You are correct. But don't worry, Utah has only sold off 54% of its state lands to private owners, so they can totally be trusted with all of the public lands in the state (insert tongue in cheek).

Yes but once again this isn't about states selling land or taking over public lands it's about reducing the size of a NM. That is the problem with this debate, people can't separate the two debates. I'm not sure why it's so hard.

 

[nexus]

I think most are losing sight that the land is not being handed over to private holders. It is still public land, just not under the monument designation.

This is not the end of the world.

And if I were to play devils advocate, which I will, I didn't see anyone crying about precedence when a cattle ranch was designated a Wilderness Area in New Mexico just months ago. Where was the outrage then? Or was that new precedence seen as "good for the cause" so its ok?

And seriously? "Denier"? Lets try and not stoop to the level of identity politics and refrain from throwing around such terms as "denier", as if to equate if you don't believe in a THEORY you're tantamount to a holocaust denier.

Do you have a link to the specific wilderness taking that you are discussing? I would like to learn more about it and the context of the issue. Was the property acquired from the Rancher? Did he receive compensation under the 5th Amendment? I would truly like to learn the details before addressing your question as to whether this was an injustice or a good thing for the cause. Maybe there needs to be some outrage as you say. But all too often today, a statement is made to induce a gut reaction instead of presenting a complete argument and set of dependable facts.

 

[durangobrad]

Yes but once again this isn't about states selling land or taking over public lands it's about reducing the size of a NM. That is the problem with this debate, people can't separate the two debates. I'm not sure why it's so hard.

I totally agree that those are separate issues. It just so happens that it goes down in a state whose representatives are the ones advocating for federal land transfer to the states.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

 

[JWP58]

Do you have a link to the specific wilderness taking that you are discussing? I would like to learn more about it and the context of the issue. Was the property acquired from the Rancher? Did he receive compensation under the 5th Amendment? I would truly like to learn the details before addressing your question as to whether this was an injustice or a good thing for the cause. Maybe there needs to be some outrage as you say. But all too often today, a statement is made to induce a gut reaction instead of presenting a complete argument and set of dependable facts.

Interestingly enough it was "donated" with the stipulation it had to be designated a Wilderness Area. If it wasn't included in the Sabinoso Wilderness Area it wouldn't be donated to the Feds (as far as I can tell, I could be totally wrong but I believe that was the situation). Which I find interesting people would be ok with a private property owner dictating to the D.O.I. what will and wont be designated Wilderness Area. Of course it provided access to a previously land locked Wilderness Area so all was well..

You can look up the details for yourself. It was kinda big news when it happened.