Utah- what the hell?

[IdahoBeav]

You mentioned moving in recently and tradesmen having to move out of the area, who exactly do you think you priced out of the market when you bought your place?

My house appreciated 60% in the two years before I bought it. This was a lot of money. Had the economy kept on pace. I would no longer be able to afford if I were to buy it today. I and others priced out anyone that wanted to live in Idaho and could not afford a $0.5 million+ house, which is a lot of people.

Do you think they loved the area for the public lands (that can be for recreation, not just wildlife)?

Do you think your opinion is shared amongst the community in which you reside?

Or did you just move there and go "ah hell man this is great, we should sell a slice to everyone so no one has a good view"?

These are all irrelevant whataboutism questions.

Have you ever thought about what human population a landscape can tolerate, and if your area has reached (or breached) that point?

Yes, I'm a civil engineer. It's part of my job.

Also you can speak for yourself on playing mountain man every fall, some of us actually live in & make our livings in the mountains. Your opinion that "barren lands" should be sold off is a joke. No one wants to move to actual barren lands like what exists in BFE SoCal/NV. They will move in to critical winter habitat that has drillable water and views of the mountains.

Not very many are making a living in the mountains, but I suppose you're living near the mountains if you're making a living there. Who else should be able to live near the mountains? Just you? No one else should be allowed to build a house there?

Yes, a lot of people want to live in barren lands. See Corona, CA, Vegas, South Boise, etc. Much of these areas border federal lands that are not critical to wildlife.

 

[Customweld]

A lot of people. Check out the subdivisions going in South Boise.

The desert between MH and Boise isn't a barren wasteland. There are elk, deer and pronghorn that not only winter there but there are quite few resident year round animals as well.

 

[IdahoBeav]

The desert between MH and Boise isn't a barren wasteland. There are elk, deer and pronghorn that not only winter there but there are quite few resident year round animals as well.

Around I-84 is not critical mule deer and elk habitat. There are a few that wonder out there, but the wintering grounds are further out toward the foothills. There are pronghorn around I-84, but there is plenty of space. Pushing them out and away from the freeway would be a good thing.

 

[WTFJohn]

My house appreciated 60% in the two years before I bought it. This was a lot of money. Had the economy kept on pace. I would no longer be able to afford if I were to buy it today. I and others priced out anyone that wanted to live in Idaho and could not afford a $0.5 million+ house, which is a lot of people.

Do you know what the land your house/neighborhood is on has lost in wildlife over that period? The 4 mule deer that winter in your neighborhood used to be 40.

These are all irrelevant whataboutism questions.

I can tell you're popular in Idaho, thanks for avoiding those questions.

Yes, I'm a civil engineer. It's part of my job.

Not very many are making a living in the mountains, but I suppose you're living near the mountains if you're making a living there. Who else should be able to live near the mountains? Just you? No one else should be allowed to build a house there?

....You realize there are actual towns, ranches, and just flat out people that can make their money while living in the mountains, right? They moved out here for the vast open spaces, easy access to wilderness, and clean skylines, should opinions like yours take away actual quality of life for them?

Yes, a lot of people want to live in barren lands. See Corona, CA, Vegas, South Boise, etc. Much of these areas border federal lands that are not critical to wildlife.

Once again, those aren't barren lands. They are adjacent to large population centers, and in winter habitat for wildlife. Just because you don't see the value in that land (other than $), doesn't mean it's not there.

 

[Afhunter1]

You can't stop growth or the laws of economics.

Since you are an economist what do you think will happen in 30 years when all the baby boomers are pushing up daisy’s and the US goes into a long period of population decline. We may need housing in the short term but probably not in the long term. If people want to stay in UT they should just make more money, we print more everyday. People also could have extended families living in single houses. Parents could finish basements / split houses for kids. Just throwing in the towel and saying I’m priced out so I’m moving sounds like someone needs more motivation.

My suggestion is they drain that stupid lake and build house there. lol

 

[Jason Snyder]

Denver has over 50k Venezuelans id bet there are 100k plus in the state, they live somewhere, ie making housing more scarce, driving up prices ect…

The immigrants I see typically live in tiny houses with multiple families in the home. By far, in the areas I’m familiar with, the cost of middle class housing has been driven up by work from home and second home/trust fund purchasers.

Work from home and high speed internet, coupled with trust fund money has forever changed the Gallatin and Madison valleys in MT.

And, that’s not even taking into consideration the boomers that are retiring, selling their million dollar mansions and moving to the western states.

That, back to the topic at hand. Utah is completely idiotic. I hope their lawsuit fails miserably. Maybe they need to stop and reflect on the agreement. They signed when they were granted statehood that relinquished all unclaimed land to the federal government.

Also, they may want to consider different zoning restrictions. Maybe they should not have so many 40 acre plots going up the foothills of the mountains? Maybe they need to focus more on high density housing and already developed urban areas? I think a little more thought needs to go into this other than just selling public land so you can develop more 5 acre ranch across the desert. Lastly, draining the lake is ridiculous. It’s a hugely productive waterfall wetland area and there is no rational reason to drain it.

 

[IdahoBeav]

Do you know what the land your house/neighborhood is on has lost in wildlife over that period? The 4 mule deer that winter in your neighborhood used to be 40.



I can tell you're popular in Idaho, thanks for avoiding those questions.







....You realize there are actual towns, ranches, and just flat out people that can make their money while living in the mountains, right? They moved out here for the vast open spaces, easy access to wilderness, and clean skylines, should opinions like yours take away actual quality of life for them?



Once again, those aren't barren lands. They are adjacent to large population centers, and in winter habitat for wildlife. Just because you don't see the value in that land (other than $), doesn't mean it's not there.

My house was rural residential before it was developed. It has been 70+ years since it was untamed wildlife habitat. Today, we must work to solve problems with the current parameters. Crying about the sins of yesterday (which include the establishment of your ranch and the small nearby towns) is useless. Protect the critical areas. Develop the otherwise useless.

I like how you're directly implying that those that live near the wild spaces can only be those that were grandfathered in. No new neighbors.

The common whine is that development is all about the money, but the truth is that on the other side of that is many a family owning a home.

Sent from my SM-G981V using Tapatalk

 

[Beendare]

As a CA resident....you ain't seen nothing yet.

We are soon to see CA politics at a national level. If sportsmen don't start getting involved....we are doomed.

 

[WTFJohn]

My house was rural residential before it was developed. It has been 70+ years since it was untamed wildlife habitat. Today, we must work to solve problems with the current parameters. Crying about the sins of yesterday (which include the establishment of your ranch and the small nearby towns) is useless. Protect the critical areas. Develop the otherwise useless.

I like how you're directly implying that those that live near the wild spaces can only be those that were grandfathered in. No new neighbors.

The common whine is that development is all about the money, but the truth is that on the other side of that is many a family owning a home.

Sent from my SM-G981V using Tapatalk

Mine was homesteaded in the 1880s. Nearest town is sub 500 people. We understand what we have and actively fight to keep it that way, despite newcomers calling it worthless. What if what you're after is recreating the sins of yesterday?

Who are you to call an area otherwise useless? Who are you to judge the value of the land for animals vs people? I would feel arrogant moving somewhere and immediately telling the people there to do things different.

No one is saying they are grandfathered in, or that all development is bad. My area struggles with affordable housing, but engineering/bulldozers/excavators/construction crews don't care because their costs are the same regardless of the price tag on the sign.

 

[mtwarden]

Sounds like it’s time to get the t-shirts rolling

Let’s Put Public Lands in Politicians Hands

Or

Take the Public Out of Public Lands

Or

I Used to Hunt Here and But All They Gave Me Was This Crummy T-Shirt

Should sell pretty well in parts of Utah (and even possibly a neighborhood in Idaho)

 

[WTFJohn]

Sounds like it’s time to get the t-shirts rolling

Let’s Put Public Lands in Politicians Hands

Or

Take the Public Out of Public Lands

Or

I Used to Hunt Here and But All They Gave Me Was This Crummy T-Shirt

Should sell pretty well in parts of Utah (and even possibly a neighborhood in Idaho)

"I just moved here and you should too"

"That beautiful hill is for you to look at and me to live on"

"The life here was better before I sold it out to everyone else"

Oh wait, saving the last one for next year.

 

[IdahoBeav]

Mine was homesteaded in the 1880s. Nearest town is sub 500 people. We understand what we have and actively fight to keep it that way, despite newcomers calling it worthless. What if what you're after is recreating the sins of yesterday?

Who are you to call an area otherwise useless? Who are you to judge the value of the land for animals vs people? I would feel arrogant moving somewhere and immediately telling the people there to do things different.

No one is saying they are grandfathered in, or that all development is bad. My area struggles with affordable housing, but engineering/bulldozers/excavators/construction crews don't care because their costs are the same regardless of the price tag on the sign.

Your ranch was still an infringement upon wildlife compared to the land's previous condition.

Your ranch is also private land due to the fact that it was there for the taking. Now, you're saying that others cannot even buy a sliver of the unowned adjacent land, or any federal land anywhere.

You say that not all development is bad, but you're ignoring the fact that my argument is to develop land that will not remove wildlife habit? So, what development do you think is not bad?

"I would feel arrogant moving somewhere and immediately telling the people there to do things different."

What do you think happened when your ranch was homesteaded?

Sent from my SM-G981V using Tapatalk

 

[CorbLand]

Sounds like it’s time to get the t-shirts rolling

Let’s Put Public Lands in Politicians Hands

Or

Take the Public Out of Public Lands

Or

I Used to Hunt Here and But All They Gave Me Was This Crummy T-Shirt

Should sell pretty well in parts of Utah (and even possibly a neighborhood in Idaho)

Central and Southern Utah would be your market.

 

[IdahoBeav]

Sounds like it’s time to get the t-shirts rolling

Let’s Put Public Lands in Politicians Hands

Or

Take the Public Out of Public Lands

Or

I Used to Hunt Here and But All They Gave Me Was This Crummy T-Shirt

Should sell pretty well in parts of Utah (and even possibly a neighborhood in Idaho)

We won't have any anti gunners like Tawney and Busse on board. Do you think we will still be successful?

Sent from my SM-G981V using Tapatalk

 

[Hnthrdr]

Your ranch was still an infringement upon wildlife compared to the land's previous condition.

Your ranch is also private land due to the fact that it was there for the taking. Now, you're saying that others cannot even buy a sliver of the unowned adjacent land, or any federal land anywhere.

You say that not all development is bad, but you're ignoring the fact that my argument is to develop land that will not remove wildlife habit? So, what development do you think is not bad?

"I would feel arrogant moving somewhere and immediately telling the people there to do things different."

What do you think happened when your ranch was homesteaded?

Sent from my SM-G981V using Tapatalk

Man, ranching is about as minimal infringing as you can get. Also they are invested in ensuring habitat is good, and actively involved in management.

You proved my point. His ranch is private. How will we hunt if all of a sudden it is mostly private or it closes off access to public?

Also married into a ranching family that homesteaded in AZ in 1870. There was no one there except a few other ranches, Apache where nomadic, and the yavapi tribe was friendly with them and got along when they passed through

 

[IdahoBeav]

Also married into a ranching family that homesteaded in AZ in 1870. There was no one there except a few other ranches, Apache where nomadic, and the yavapi tribe was friendly with them and got along when they passed through

That scenario is still far more imposing on the natives than development of some select public lands is and would be to wildlife today.

Sent from my SM-G981V using Tapatalk

 

[Hnthrdr]

That scenario is still far more imposing on the natives than development of some select public lands is and would be to wildlife today.

Sent from my SM-G981V using Tapatalk

How so? They provided the yavapi beef yearly to help them out. Not sure how that is far more imposing than large scale development on critical wintering habitat today

 

[IdahoBeav]

How so? They provided the yavapi beef yearly to help them out. Not sure how that is far more imposing than large scale development on critical wintering habitat today

Cmon man, ya gotta stop with the strawman arguments. Nowhere have I argued for development of critical wildlife habitat.

Are the Apache and Yavapi still freely traveling through your family ranch?

Sent from my SM-G981V using Tapatalk

 

[Hnthrdr]

Cmon man, ya gotta stop with the strawman arguments. Nowhere have I argued for development of critical wildlife habitat.

Are the Apache and Yavapi still freely traveling through your family ranch?

Sent from my SM-G981V using Tapatalk

You complain about strawman and then strawman right back hahaha. What do you think those legislators will do with the land? You think they will keep it in the public trust? It’s as good as gone once they get it.

There are still yavapi in the area around Prescott they have res there, the thing with the natives is that is a whole different ball of wax. Good luck unraveling it. The public land thing isn’t perfect but it’s as good as we got for now. Start messing with it and it will be gone forever, no matter solar panels or homes, that land is lost and never coming back. I trust those developer politicians in Utah about as much as I trust the new green dealers in D.C. I do know D.C. would have more red tape to try and change things. Get the land in Utah developers hands and it will be ruined. Brush up on the sagebrush rebellion which spawned from Utah in the 70’s and 80’s

 

[IdahoBeav]

You complain about strawman and then strawman right back hahaha. What do you think those legislators will do with the land? You think they will keep it in the public trust? It’s as good as gone once they get it.

There are still yavapi in the area around Prescott they have res there, the thing with the natives is that is a whole different ball of wax. Good luck unraveling it. The public land thing isn’t perfect but it’s as good as we got for now. Start messing with it and it will be gone forever, no matter solar panels or homes, that land is lost and never coming back. I trust those developer politicians in Utah about as much as I trust the new green dealers in D.C. I do know D.C. would have more red tape to try and change things. Get the land in Utah developers hands and it will be ruined. Brush up on the sagebrush rebellion which spawned from Utah in the 70’s and 80’s

I'm not exaggerating your argument. History shows that European homesteading was not great for the natives, but land and people are conquered. There is no rectifying that. I'm pointing out that it is hypocritical to claim that ideas unpopular with the locals is automatically a bad idea when the only reason the current locals reside where they do is because of ideas years ago that were unpopular to the old locals, especially when selling off of public land is a very complex operation. It's not all or nothing.

The feds have a lot of land locked up that would serve better in private hands than it does now, land that is essential already "gone forever".

The folks in DC that you don't trust, they are among those currently in control of federal lands. There is no sense in letting them hold onto millions of acres that wildlife don't use, especially when they're taxing us to "manage" it.

Sent from my SM-G981V using Tapatalk