Utah at it again?

[Billinsd]

We can all learn a little bit myself included that thing aren’t as black and white as we make them out to be. Also we have to sometimes look at not only where someone stands but why they are standing there, it isn’t always as cut and dried as we make it out to be.

When it comes to politics like this issue it is not black and white and there is a lot of emotion involved, because it is perceived that there is a lot to lose, which could be the case....or not.
Bill

 

[elkduds]

The federal lands belong to all American citizens, not just those in the state where the lands are found. Not consistent w the Kingdom of Deseret.

 

[Billinsd]

I'm willing to vote utah out of the union and let it function as its own country. Maybe that's where we should actually build the border wall.

Mfllood, keep working on the studying up on the public land issue. Lots more than just rmef on the side of keeping things federally managed with BHA and TRCP being a couple of the biggies. I can't see why any hunter would be an SFW fan unless they like watching a few rich people kill big things every year while they wait years for the scraps.

I'm a hunter that doesn't like the federal government and believes the states "should" have more control of federal land in their states. I believe doing this would be better for the local economies, local people at the expense, big or hopefully small to hunters. Google conservative. The vast majority of hunters are conservatives. Some are abandoning their conservative principals on this issue and that is fine. I absolutely do not hate rich people, I don't like government. I'll take rich people any day of the week over big government. I'd like to go back to the days before Theodore Roosevelt who ushered in modern American Big Government. Yes, he was a hunter, yes he was a conservationist, yes he did a lot for hunters, however, he is partly to blame, with Woodrow and his cousin Franklin with the gigantic federal government we have today.

 

[sneaky]

I'm a hunter that doesn't like the federal government and believes the states "should" have more control of federal land in their states. I believe doing this would be better for the local economies, local people at the expense, big or hopefully small to hunters. Google conservative. The vast majority of hunters are conservatives. Some are abandoning their conservative principals on this issue and that is fine. I absolutely do not hate rich people, I don't like government. I'll take rich people any day of the week over big government. I'd like to go back to the days before Theodore Roosevelt who ushered in modern American Big Government. Yes, he was a hunter, yes he was a conservationist, yes he did a lot for hunters, however, he is partly to blame, with Woodrow and his cousin Franklin with the gigantic federal government we have today.

Have you lost your mind? The states can't afford to control those lands. You want Utah to sell off those federal lands and enjoy the rest the state has to offer? Newsflash for you, there wouldn't be anything else to offer. Literally the best parts of the state are under federal ownership. Are you an SFW supporter? You certainly come across as one on this issue. If you want the west to be all privatized, move to the east coast, they are well versed in the private ownership model with limited public land access.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[Trial153]

I think even in the east you will find the majority of sportsman and people in general support the North American model of conservation.
The monetization of our wildlife unfortunately is not limited to any one geographical area. In the NE for example leasing land for hunting is the exception not the rule.
I think the Utah model is about the most abhorrent example of greed and monetization you can find.

 

[Billinsd]

Have you lost your mind?

Absolutely!!!! I don't believe it will be as bad as some of you think. I think the states and local communities should decide what to do with their land. The people in the state elect the politicians who decide.

Are you an SFW supporter? You certainly come across as one on this issue?

I think you mean I don't come across as an SFW supporter. They are opposed to the sale of ANY public land. Of course I am against that, however, I am against the sale of certain public land, but I will defer that to the states to decide. Otherwise they sound great!!

If you want the west to be all privatized, move to the east coast.

"There you go again Jimmy Carter" No that is not want I want, I want the states to decide. No I don't want to move to the east coast. I live in liberal California and want to get out. I really want to move to one of these horribly conservative states like Utah or Idaho. Please don't boogger them up, please.

 

[mfllood3800]

Y'all better keep it friendly or Muleyfever will be ticked I even brought it up.

I am trying to figure this out, and it seems pretty simple, but obviously isn't.

I wonder if Calif hunters wish the Fed Gov would've had control of their land and that so much of it wouldn't have been shut off to hunting by the Liberal groups.?

Pretty sure I don't trust any of the elected officials, whether they are on a Fed or State payroll, conservative or liberal.
The shake up with Trump has really opened some eyes to who in their party is really not for their party, but rather for a special group and self motivated agendas.

Utah is very greedy, always wants to do it's own thing, and has a huge Mormon influence driving "individualism"

*Edit
I don't want it to come across I am anti Mormon.
But in the community I live, it is dominated and controlled by Mormons, and rarely does anyone get city jobs, official political roles unless you are affiliated with Mormon church- that's just the fact here in our town. This town also refuses to grow. They want the same small town feel they have always had- I am ok with that for the most part.

I believe the capitol and larger cities are operated the same way as far as preference and affiliation. Utah has always been a state that will bend to enough pressure if special interest groups create a scene and offer a black eye to the LDS church, which greatly influences all aspects of the states gov.

Good news is , most LDS folks love to hunt. If they can run the state Gov w/o getting blinded by greed, hunting should be ok.
But the $$ from hunting is huge here, so that greed is already bedded in many major decisions.

 

[bigdesert10]

I think the one thing we can all agree on is access, access, access! Regardless of who owns what and who's managing where, we want access. I think that very strong arguments have been made with regard to the individual states being able to afford taking ownership of the DOI lands (meaning they can't afford it).

I'm a fan of keeping the land in federal control mostly as a matter of dealing with the devil you know vs. the one you don't. I think that most of the impetus for the land transfer movement is due to horrible management practices by previous administrations. Those who live closest to these lands have watched them suffer and deteriorate over the years and have lost faith in the federal government's ability to manage.

All of these efforts to hamstring the BLM and FS are throwing the baby out with the bathwater, though. The people who are on the ground, doing the work are our neighbors for the most part. They care a lot and want the things we want. The problems arise when some big-brain in DC makes decisions based on politics more than sound, reliable data and observations. If we can keep those guys at the top honest and let the local field offices have more control of their respective dominions, I think the drive to transfer land goes away.

Organizations like BHA, TRCP and others are leading the charge to keep those folks at the top honest, and I think we have some folks in our corner for the most part in the current administration. We all just need to remain vigilant.

 

[TheTone]

One of the things I have read repeatedly about state management is the local control aspect. To those that harp on that point which politician do you think is easiest to buy off for special interest, your national elected representatives or your state legislators and/or county commissioners? The locals will chase the dollar (and sell you out) for much less than your national reps will. Also those people managing the land working for federal agencies live in and contribute to your communities they aren't some faceless boogie man behind the curtain.

 

[backcountry_hunter]

Pride is not a terrible thing either, however, being Pride foolish or having too much pride is not a good thing. The opposite of pride is shame. I'll take being a tad wee bit on the pride side of the spectrum thank you very much.

I guess I've always assumed the opposite of being prideful is being humble which I try to be much more than a tad wee bit on that side

Ironically the only times in life I've felt shame has been the direct result of pride

 

[wapitibob]

Take a few minutes and read up on your access to state trust lands. It should be obvious to anyone who uses those lands that transfer is a bad idea.

 

[airlocksniffer]

I think the states and local communities should decide what to do with their land.

Except federal land is not just their land, it's my land and every other US citizens. Hell even non-citizens can recreate on it.

 

[CrzyTrekker]

Except federal land is not just their land, it's my land and every other US citizens. Hell even non-citizens can recreate on it.

I like visiting my land in Utah.

Seriously, I grew up on the Wasatch Front and, while the land is beautiful, by the time I was 17 I'd had enough and volunteered to jump from airplanes to get out. My dad was a college professor and advisor to a Utah Governor in the 1970s, and I learned that the state will spend millions of dollars on campaigns it knows it will lose (i.e. in court) but presses on anyway. Because church... Good hard working people, but come on.

 

[Billinsd]

Except federal land is not just their land, it's my land and every other US citizens. Hell even non-citizens can recreate on it.

That's the point of the whole argument. They live there and people like me think they should have much more influence through there elected officials in managing it. Not people from California or New York that never step more than 50 feet of the paved highway.

 

[Billinsd]

I like visiting my land in Utah.

Seriously, I grew up on the Wasatch Front and, while the land is beautiful, by the time I was 17 I'd had enough and volunteered to jump from airplanes to get out. My dad was a college professor and advisor to a Utah Governor in the 1970s, and I learned that the state will spend millions of dollars on campaigns it knows it will lose (i.e. in court) but presses on anyway. Because church... Good hard working people, but come on.

Sounds like the Church has a big say in politics? I don't like that, not at all, but I LOVE the conservative values of the people. I'm so damn sick and tired of liberals in California that any place with Conservatives sounds so dreamy. If I'd grown up in Utah, I'd probably feel differently. Everything has got to be so damn complicated.

 

[Jebuwh]

Anyone from Rokslide want to run for office? Stuff like this makes me want to start down that path. We need some people with half a brain in there.

 

[Billinsd]

Anyone from Rokslide want to run for office? Stuff like this makes me want to start down that path. We need some people with half a brain in there.

Brains got very little to do with politics sadly.

 

[CrzyTrekker]

Sounds like the Church has a big say in politics? I don't like that, not at all, but I LOVE the conservative values of the people. I'm so damn sick and tired of liberals in California that any place with Conservatives sounds so dreamy. If I'd grown up in Utah, I'd probably feel differently. Everything has got to be so damn complicated.

Yes, absolutely great people and good moral values. My mother still lives there and I'm out there quite often. But, it has been said that the people are - due to certain religious influences - collectively rather naive. Which is why a lot of people might prefer to have a larger voting group decide the fate of public lands. But yeah, I can also see the merits of an argument in favor of local control.

 

[tipsntails7]

Absolutely!!!! I don't believe it will be as bad as some of you think. I think the states and local communities should decide what to do with their land.

I am going to make this super simple for you. Its not "Their" land. Its mine, its yours, its my children's one day. Just because i dont live there doesn't mean I don't have a stake in it.

I think you mean I don't come across as an SFW supporter. They are opposed to the sale of ANY public land. Of course I am against that, however, I am against the sale of certain public land, but I will defer that to the states to decide.

Again, its not the State of Utah's land, and SFW is not against the sale of any public land. They are for the transfer of federal land to the state of utah, which basically means they are for the sale of that land.

. Otherwise they sound great!!"There you go again Jimmy Carter" No that is not want I want, I want the states to decide.

Here is the thing. The states really don't get to decide. I cant remember for Utah, but most states constitutions explicitly state that if the balance sheet is red at the end of the fiscal year, assets need to be sold to balance the deficit. Guess what the biggest money assets are to states? Feds don't have that mandate. Feds also do not have the mandate that lands must be managed in order to maximize profitability, most state lands do. so, in order to maximize profit its leased if it has anything of value on or in it. Ever try to access state land that is being drilled or mined? I can tell you from experience they are not to keen to let you recreate on it.

So, the state of Utah doesn't actually get to decide anything. these guys are not dummies, they understand land management is a money pit, and one fire season would flip the entire state of Utah's budget on its ear if it was a bad one. they know they will never have to actually make a decision, they will be forced into one by legislative mandates.

 

[Billinsd]

One of the things I have read repeatedly about state management is the local control aspect. To those that harp on that point which politician do you think is easiest to buy off for special interest, your national elected representatives or your state legislators and/or county commissioners? The locals will chase the dollar (and sell you out) for much less than your national reps will. Also those people managing the land working for federal agencies live in and contribute to your communities they aren't some faceless boogie man behind the curtain.

My way of thinking that state and local control is better than federal is mostly for local econonies in small towns. Examples are federal land closed off to mining, oil and gas exploration, timber industry, etc. that can provides jobs and help local economies.

Those federal agency workers seem a whole lot better in states other than California!! I just about drove off the road reading a BLM sign welcoming people to "your land" on BLM land in Utah. I stopped and took a photo and stared for about twenty minutes. It AIN'T like that at all in California. Our Forest Circus and BLM dopes are nothing like the ones I've seen in other states. Here in California the feds make accessing federal land especially for hunting as hard as possible. They post signs with huge letters NO SHOOTING and in teeny tiny print, unless while in lawful pursuit of game animals. The feds in California that I have seen, seem to have been completely hijacked by anti hunters.