Utah- what the hell?

[IdahoBeav]

Who defines undesirable?

I would rather stick my ding dong in a meat grinder than watch two pitches of a baseball game. You demolish all the baseball stadiums and build affordable housing on them. Then we can talk about all this other undesirable ground.

Who determines the "management" practices for federal lands? You seemingly trust them. Let them define undesirable land. It's an easy thing to identify.

If you want to question and be skeptical of government, I'm with you all day, but you can't do so and wrap one arm around the shoulder of the feds.

There is a popular meme about baseball being a smart person's game. I never thought much about it, but I was just reminded of it, and it made me chuckle. Nonetheless, private infrastructure is vital to the the economy, and a stadium falls under the definition of private infrastructure. The economy provides home production, ownership, etc. so on and so on. . .

 

[realunlucky]

No one needs to look further than the refurbishment of the Utah state prison and the land grap sanctioned by Utah legislators to make a quick buck.
Guess there wasn't a housing shortage back then.

Sent from my SM-S926U using Tapatalk

 

[IdahoBeav]

If it isn't desirable enough for the short nosed desert shrew to reside,who thinks a human would want to live there?

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

 

[CorbLand]

Who determines the "management" practices for federal lands? You seemingly trust them. Let them define undesirable land. It's an easy thing to identify.

If you want to question and be skeptical of government, I'm with you all day, but you can't do so and wrap one arm around the shoulder of the feds.

There is a popular meme about baseball being a smart person's game. I never thought much about it, but I was just reminded of it, and it made me chuckle. Nonetheless, private infrastructure is vital to the the economy, and a stadium falls under the definition of private infrastructure. The economy provides home production, ownership, etc. so on and so on. . .

I don’t trust the state anymore than I trust the feds. The only difference is I know what will happen if the states took control of the land. History has shown that.

It’s the lesser of two evils. No system is perfect, they all have there flaws. One can choose what flaws they want. In this case, I will let the feds keep it. At least with them, I can access it.

 

[Hnthrdr]

It's not the argument that is being had here, but supply lowers demand, which lowers cost.

However, I am curious as to what the average funds a Rokslider spent on nonres licenses and apps over the last decade. I always get a kick out of the guy that will scoff at the idea of spending thousands of dollars for a landowner tag hunt but will happily spend thousands with F&G depts to kill dinks.

Knowing what an elk hunt goes for in a marginal unit in Co, this multiply that number by 5-10, and I think it would be around the cost to join a “hunting club” for a year. I’ve seen it happen with waterfowl, decent clubs are 5-10k a season, you think guys wouldn’t pay more for an elk/ deer place? No one is talking about when the BLM is sold how those roads that generally go through the blm to access NF will become private only over night…

 

[IdahoBeav]

I don’t trust the state anymore than I trust the feds. The only difference is I know what will happen if the states took control of the land. History has shown that.

It’s the lesser of two evils. No system is perfect, they all have there flaws. One can choose what flaws they want. In this case, I will let the feds keep it. At least with them, I can access it.

We're not talking about the state owning the land. We're talking about it going to private citizens. No system is perfect. I'm sure there could be a better method of getting barren federal land (that you don't want to access) into private hands.

 

[Will_m]

How do you want to solve the housing crisis? Every government solution is a disaster. Why not let the free market do it? I'm fortunate enough that I can afford to live in a highly desirable location in the Mountain West. It doesn't seem right that a yuppie like me can move into a booming area while working class (and I don't mean burger flippers. I'm talking tradesmen) native Idahoans are priced out and have to move to GA, Upstate NY, SC, etc. where they can afford to live. Meanwhile, the feds have millions of acres of snake & rabbit land locked up, land that could be developed to increase the housing supply, in turn lowering the demand and cost.

Then move out. People could afford stuff until yuppies like you (your words, not mine) started moving in.

 

[IdahoBeav]

Knowing what an elk hunt goes for in a marginal unit in Co, this multiply that number by 5-10, and I think it would be around the cost to join a “hunting club” for a year. I’ve seen it happen with waterfowl, decent clubs are 5-10k a season, you think guys wouldn’t pay more for an elk/ deer place? No one is talking about when the BLM is sold how those roads that generally go through the blm to access NF will become private only over night…

Now image there are more hunting clubs, i.e. more supply and less demand.

Anyhow, this not the argument that was made. It's rabbit hole that came from the Land Tawney strawman argument you made.

 

[CorbLand]

We're not talking about the state owning the land. We're talking about it going to private citizens. No system is perfect. I'm sure there could be a better method of getting barren federal land (that you don't want to access) into private hands.

The state of utah getting the federal land is exactly what this thread is about. There’s two article in the first post about it.

Please tell me more how you know what land I do and do not want to access? Some of my favorite places on this earth are barren waste lands.

I think we have already established that what people find as desirable is different for everyone. Just because I don’t like it, doesn’t mean someone else doesn’t. It is truly astonishing how selfish of a society we have become.

Either way, we will never see eye to eye on this. Have a good one.

 

[IdahoBeav]

Then move out. People could afford stuff until yuppies like you (your words, not mine) started moving in.

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

 

[JohnB]

Now image there are more hunting clubs, i.e. more supply and less demand.

So we should sell the land that is free to access in order to make more private hunting clubs to reduce the demand so that private hunting clubs become cheaper than public land.......?

 

[IdahoBeav]

The state of utah getting the federal land is exactly what this thread is about. There’s two article in the first post about it.

Go read my first comment on the thread.

Please tell me more how you know what land I do and do not want to access? Some of my favorite places on this earth are barren waste lands.

I think we have already established that what people find as desirable is different for everyone. Just because I don’t like it, doesn’t mean someone else doesn’t. It is truly astonishing how selfish of a society we have become.

The popular position amongst Roksliders is that barren land should remain in federal hands instead of being developed into affordable housing. Roksliders want to hunt. The lower and middle class want to own homes. Who is selfish? And keep in mind that the Roksliders don't want to hunt barren land.

 

[WTFJohn]

There are many private ranches that provide outstanding wildlife habitat, natural areas, hunting opportunity, etc., but that's not the point. We're talking federal land that is not wildlife habitat.

Concrete jungles, subdivisions, strip malls, etc. are what allows Roksliders to play high tech mountain man every fall, as we all do.

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?

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?

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

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"?

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.

 

[IdahoBeav]

So we should sell the land that is free to access in order to make more private hunting clubs to reduce the demand so that private hunting clubs become cheaper than public land.......?

That's a tangent and not the argument at hand. Nonetheless, Imagine a piece of public land in Oregon, where state agency wildlife management, of course, is to the utmost highest level, is transferred to private ownership with an outfitter and management.

What provides better wildlife habitat? I hear that ODFW is doing an outstanding job managing the Steens, surely far better than a hunting club could.

And hunting federal land is not free. The taxpayers are paying it. It's like welfare for hunters.

 

[Hnthrdr]

Go read my first comment on the thread.


The popular position amongst Roksliders is that barren land should remain in federal hands instead of being developed into affordable housing. Roksliders want to hunt. The lower and middle class want to own homes. Who is selfish? And keep in mind that the Roksliders don't want to hunt barren land.

That land is often barren for a reason, not much in the way of infrastructure or jobs around it. Also last I checked the west especially high plains desert doesn’t have the water to support unlimited development. But sure let’s keep building crap all over, since everyone should have the right to live in the west right? Just like everyone has a right to beach front property on the coasts. Pave those houses and throw up 30 story multi family! Come one come all!

 

[WTFJohn]

That's a tangent and not the argument at hand. Nonetheless, Imagine a piece of public land in Oregon, where the wildlife management, of course, is to the utmost highest level is transferred to private ownership with an outfitter and management.

What provides better wildlife habitat? I hear that ODFW is doing an outstanding job managing the Steens, surely far better than a hunting club could.

We own XXX acres in the mountain west. Wildlife management does NOT happen at that scale out here. At a minimum, you are talking high tens of thousands of acres to actually be able to manage wildlife populations in a meaningful fashion, and even that is a stretch with predator pressures. Maybe you can manage some of your genetics by selective harvest, but I wouldn't count on it. Elk around here can migrate dozens if not hundred+ miles, mule deer around 40 miles, antelope maybe around 40 as well.

It's not about the state always being right in management, it's that when talking about a swath of landowners/managers it's easier to find them making wrong decisions on wildlife management (aka it's not their damn job).

 

[Hnthrdr]

also the affordability always cracks me up. I have yet to see “affordable” housing built by private developers on any land that is worth a squirt, and what is affordable? A 300k single family at 1.2 million dollar single family?

 

[Jason Snyder]

This thread is hilarious. I doubt the housing crisis in the western states is because of illegal immigrants.

 

[3forks]

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?

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?

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

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"?

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.

These are the points I would make.

“Barren” lands exist because it is not someplace anyone could or wanted to live due to lack of water and arable land.

There’s plenty of places that were barely feasible in terms of places to live that dried up. I can’t help but wonder about the perspective of someone who would even make the argument of putting a development in barren lands for housing today. Who would want to live there and what would they do to support themselves? May as well colonize the moon.

 

[Hnthrdr]

This thread is hilarious. I doubt the housing crisis in the western states is because of illegal immigrants.

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…