Utah- what the hell?

[tdhanses]

You're dreaming or ignorant of all the multiple different recreational users. Or your purposely putting your head in the sand because you see personal gain if states sold off land.

I see personal gain for everyone, just because lands become private doesn’t mean we can’t pay to access them.

Some would lose out but if we retain 10% of USFS land we could keep more then 50% of users happy, which would be a majority.

Dump all BLM land.

Also many owners would create business ventures off access to their land, creating jobs and growth.

 

[svivian]

I see personal gain for everyone, just because lands become private doesn’t mean we can’t pay to access them.

Some would lose out but if we retain 10% of USFS land we could keep more then 50% of users happy, which would be a majority.

Dump all BLM land.

I appreciate your consistent stance on this topic over the years Dotman.

Cheers

 

[tdhanses]

I appreciate your consistent stance on this topic over the years Dotman.

Cheers

Haha, have to stay consistent

 

[tdhanses]

I will say this, I see selling off public land as being no different as residents continuing to fight to reduce nonresident hunting opportunities for their own increased gain.

At some point federal lands won’t matter to those that can’t hunt them but once or twice in a lifetime without being a resident. Yes move there is what many will say, well my only response is then buy your own land to hunt.

I personally would tell my congressman to sell them as all I see is a dwindling opportunity to utilize these lands in a manner I’d like, yup greedy I am, no different then any resident in how they want all the wildlife to themselves other then to allow a few nonresidents to fund their wildlife departments so they can have cheap tags that cost less then a meal out.

I do see as federal lands become private, there will be way more opportunity to hunt if you want to pay the price to do it. Which for many that only do it a few times, that would be very appealing to have an easier chance at an opportunity.

 

[Hnthrdr]

I understand your points, but in my opinion, the vast swaths of public land that are available to EVERYONE to recreate on however they want, within boundaries, is one of our countries greatest assets.

Let the states own it, and I'd be willing to bet my life that all the above would change drastically for the worse.

Humans, especially Americans, have historically been fantastic at destroying wilderness through extraction or consumptive resource use, without anyone holding those parties' feet to the fire in restoration and damage mitigation. I believe that would be even worse under state and private ownership.

You are 100% correct. All these guys better have deep pockets, otherwise they won’t be hunting out west anymore. Mark my words…

 

[tdhanses]

You are 100% correct. All these guys better have deep pockets, otherwise they won’t be hunting out west anymore. Mark my words…

It’ll be interesting to see how deep you’ll need, if residents don’t have a place to hunt there will be thousands of tags available for land owners to sell, prices will not skyrocket for nonresidents, just everyone will pay the same price to hunt and many will not be willing to pay $5k -$10k to hunt but a large portion of nonresidents would as most already spend close to that annually.

 

[Customweld]

I certainly appreciate the 330 million folks contributing to my public land addiction. I'll finish the year out on a late cow tag. Start the first of the year upland and predator hunting. Move on to sheds later this spring. Then right into fungus, firewood and camping season.

 

[Billinsd]

I understand your points, but in my opinion, the vast swaths of public land that are available to EVERYONE to recreate on however they want, within boundaries, is one of our countries greatest assets.

Let the states own it, and I'd be willing to bet my life that all the above would change drastically for the worse.

Humans, especially Americans, have historically been fantastic at destroying wilderness through extraction or consumptive resource use, without anyone holding those parties' feet to the fire in restoration and damage mitigation. I believe that would be even worse under state and private ownership.

Absolutely, especially number 1!!! no disagreement from me!

 

[mtwarden]

I personally would tell my congressman to sell them as all I see is a dwindling opportunity to utilize these lands in a manner I’d like, yup greedy I am

Greedy—no really, I would have never guessed.

"I'll teach those SOB's in (insert western state) for not getting drawn in 2003"

 

[Hnthrdr]

It’ll be interesting to see how deep you’ll need, if residents don’t have a place to hunt there will be thousands of tags available for land owners to sell, prices will not skyrocket for nonresidents, just everyone will pay the same price to hunt and many will not be willing to pay $5k -$10k to hunt but a large portion of nonresidents would as most already spend close to that annually.

I think people over estimate that there will be that many people allowing folks to hunt. Many many landowners out here will never let anyone step foot on their property to hunt an animal anymore, guess we have to sell it all to find out, but guys who think it will be a bunch of hunting preserves and it will lower prices or stabilize them will have something else coming to them….

 

[tdhanses]

Greedy—no really, I would have never guessed.

"I'll teach those SOB's in (insert western state) for not getting drawn in 2003"

Haha, what’s wrong with hunting your own land? It’s easy to be greedy when you get a free resource others pay for and then push to reduce the other 49 states right to do the same as you because hey you live next to it and your state owns the wildlife, well the other 49 states do get a voice on the things they own. Yup I’m greedy and think the funds from selling could be used to better the majority.

If residents utilize federal lands to hunt it’s super greedy if they support restricting nonresidents, only reason they would do this is for their own gain.

 

[tdhanses]

I think people over estimate that there will be that many people allowing folks to hunt. Many many landowners out here will never let anyone step foot on their property to hunt an animal anymore, guess we have to sell it all to find out, but guys who think it will be a bunch of hunting preserves and it will lower prices or stabilize them will have something else coming to them….

I agree not all would, like Bill Gates, he would buy a big chunk as would a few others but there would still be plenty that would be available for a hunt lease or trespass fee or to go outfitted, pretty easy to make a bunch of money off your land to let a few utilize it.

 

[IdahoBeav]

I certainly appreciate the 330 million folks contributing to my public land addiction. I'll finish the year out on a late cow tag. Start the first of the year upland and predator hunting. Move on to sheds later this spring. Then right into fungus, firewood and camping season.

Welfare in the form of recreation, I, too, enjoy taking part, but I know there is a ton of land that is useless for recreation, and there is no need to spew slippery slope and strawman arguments rooted in emotion absent of facts and logic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Customweld]

Welfare in the form of recreation, I, too, enjoy taking part, but I know there is a ton of land that is useless for recreation, and there is no need to spew slippery slope and strawman arguments rooted in emotion absent of facts and logic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My favorite kind of welfare!
I know we disagree on that part, but that’s ok. I won’t change your mind and you probably won’t change mine.

 

[IdahoBeav]

My favorite kind of welfare!
I know we disagree on that part, but that’s ok. I won’t change your mind and you probably won’t change mine.

Minds aren’t changed overnight, and I don’t have to change your mind, anyhow. I love wild space public lands, but most Americans do not use them. I have a hard time believing that the populace should be forced to pay for something that is only used by the minority.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Phaseolus]

I will say this, I see selling off public land as being no different as residents continuing to fight to reduce nonresident hunting opportunities for their own increased gain.

At some point federal lands won’t matter to those that can’t hunt them but once or twice in a lifetime without being a resident. Yes move there is what many will say, well my only response is then buy your own land to hunt.

I personally would tell my congressman to sell them as all I see is a dwindling opportunity to utilize these lands in a manner I’d like, yup greedy I am, no different then any resident in how they want all the wildlife to themselves other then to allow a few nonresidents to fund their wildlife departments so they can have cheap tags that cost less then a meal out.

I do see as federal lands become private, there will be way more opportunity to hunt if you want to pay the price to do it. Which for many that only do it a few times, that would be very appealing to have an easier chance at an opportunity.

There’s a hell of a lot more happening on our public lands than a selfish man wanting to hunt.

 

[.204smokechaser]

If there’s mines on public land that are destroying the environment, sell that to the mines.

I 100% disagree with this mindset of let’s dismantle the federal land management agencies. It isn’t so much the people in charge of the BLM and Forest Service as it is Congress that enacts these ridiculous rules and regulations that federal employees have to follow. Make it easier to set up timber sales, grazing allotments, and deregulate. Dumb down NEPA for sure. I think following states forest practices would be the first step in turning our federal timber production ground around. You don’t hear of many profitable timber sales as all that money is eaten up with all sorts of B.S. besides road maintenance. Oh I forgot, pay the employees once they are able to be a forester instead of wonder why they work for the feds when it takes 3 plus years for a timber sale to be logged.

As far as fire goes, some of these folks that some of you may have voted for want to benefit getting rid of federal Wildland Fire Resources and going more private for their personal gain. I see more contracted resources on fires then federal resources and often times lots of the contractors sit in their engines and don’t do much. Fires will always exist and were meant to exist on Earth created by the powers that created Earth. The 10 AM policy helped us get to this point and now some members want to go back to the 10 AM policy and be more aggressive on Initial Attacks. I get aggressiveness, but what point do we want to go to risk someone’s life or families life and how many millions do we want to spend on air support? Tankers and helicopters aren’t cheap at all and drive up the cost. I’ve had a 1 acre fire that I IC’d cost close to 50k to put out and the majority of that money was from air support.

In reality, I believe there won’t be the positive change and if millions of acres of land is sold off (hopefully starting on the east coast with the usfs land) that people will get their heads out of their butts and realize we can have public lands that are sustainable for present and future generations like Gifford Pinchot wanted them to be. I feel like he’d be one of the first to be rolling over in his grave right now.

 

[3forks]

There’s a hell of a lot more happening on our public lands than a selfish man wanting to hunt.

The inability of some posters on this site to understand that there are others that recreate and use the land and resources differently than they do is astounding.

 

[.204smokechaser]

I think in 2025 we will see some cost analysis done by both sides of the voting spectrum, the small mountain town economies will take a hit when public lands get sold off in big chunks.

Small towns will be dismantled when there are no weekend Warriors headed to the BLM and Forest Service grounds with their toys when the roads are locked up by corporations. Those hikers with leashed dogs on trails that us hunters don’t like will no longer be stopping by the coffee stands and the gas station to fill their Subarus up or headed to the brewery after their Instagram hikes. Places like salmon and riggins in Idaho won’t have any revenue if the frank is sold off, sad times and it’s fear driven, but becoming a reality when money is at stake for certain elite individuals.

 

[CJ19]

The inability of some posters on this site to understand that there are others that recreate and use the land and resources differently than they do is astounding.

ROFL. The very people posting this type of thing about how valuable the public land is for timber, mining, ranching, ATV, outfitters etc are the exact people who talk about how bad those things are and how they needs to be brought in line blah blah blah in every other non land transfer thread. If all the residents truly believed what you are typing there would not be the NR tag issue that gets people mad.