Utah- what the hell?

[ddd-shooter]

Oh, you’re a civil engineer?

Convincing a civil engineer we’re shouldn’t develop is like convincing the govt to stop spending money, or convincing a movie star to stop acting.


It is ASTOUNDING the hubris to think that because YOU don’t see the value in the wild places the way they are, no one else can/should. I suppose anywhere you go and you don’t see megafauna is a barren, useless, uninhabited place for you engineers to have your way with.

 

[cck311]

Why not let the free market do it?
Because the free market never produces wilderness, open country, hunting properties, or untouched land.
The free market produces concrete jungles, subdivisions for Karen’s, and strip malls for consumers.

The entitlement of posts like this always get me. I'm sure you live in a subdivision (or a house on an acreage or something) as well as consuming things. But it's not you that is the problem, is it? It's everybody else. All those darn Karens. I'll bet you get mad when people hunt "your spot" on public lands too, huh?

 

[Drenalin]

If we develop all these apparently otherwise useless lands (which I don't believe actually exist on our continent), where will we put all the solar arrays and wind farms needed to power what's already existing? Or does this scenario bring the green energy movement to a stop? And if these lands are developed for green energy, where is the land that's going to be developed for all this housing we think we need?

Canada. Take Canada. Or hold off a handful of years and see what happens with the boomer generation (whom I have no ill will toward, but you guys won't live forever).

 

[ddd-shooter]

The entitlement of posts like this always get me. I'm sure you live in a subdivision (or a house on an acreage or something) as well as consuming things. But it's not you that is the problem, is it? It's everybody else. All those darn Karens. I'll bet you get mad when people hunt "your spot" on public lands too, huh?

It’s not a difficult concept to grasp.
I think we have enough “developed land” in America.
My point is that, left unchecked, the market has no incentive to stop developing until every cent is milked out of the landscape.
Currently, the best check against developing is the government owning the land.

If you want another glimpse of entitlement, look at anyone who hunts public and wants to sell it off.
Go ahead and boycott the federal government owning those lands and stay off.

 

[cck311]

It’s not a difficult concept to grasp.
I think we have enough “developed land” in America.
My point is that, left unchecked, the market has no incentive to stop developing until every cent is milked out of the landscape.
Currently, the best check against developing is the government owning the land.

If you want another glimpse of entitlement, look at anyone who hunts public and wants to sell it off.
Go ahead and boycott the federal government owning those lands and stay off.

To be clear, I'm on the same side of the public lands argument as you are. I'm simply stating that we all take up space on the landscape and require resources. We are all a burden, not just some of us.

 

[Hnthrdr]

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

We definitely won’t reach agreement on this, but it baffles me how someone who is on a niche hunting forum would want “common use land ie hunting land” sold off. I could think of a lot of scenarios where people outside the western U.S. would absolutely want to buy our natural beauty and lock it away. I guess call me crazy but in my 30 some years on the planet I have continued to see slippery slope arguments fulfilled be it anti hunters, anti gun advocates, or developers. I’m probably more biased being born and raised in the west and seeing my states population double in my lifetime and being able to recognize it hasn’t been all rainbows and unicorns, more people in the west will 100% mean reduced opportunity either by competition or by newcomers being convinced that “we don’t need to hunt anymore” or that all that development will just chip away at viable habitat until populations decline and we shouldn’t hunt them. I’m gonna bow out now

 

[Ucsdryder]

We definitely won’t reach agreement on this, but it baffles me how someone who is on a niche hunting forum would want “common use land ie hunting land” sold off. I could think of a lot of scenarios where people outside the western U.S. would absolutely want to buy our natural beauty and lock it away. I guess call me crazy but in my 30 some years on the planet I have continued to see slippery slope arguments fulfilled be it anti hunters, anti gun advocates, or developers. I’m probably more biased being born and raised in the west and seeing my states population double in my lifetime and being able to recognize it hasn’t been all rainbows and unicorns, more people in the west will 100% mean reduced opportunity either by competition or by newcomers being convinced that “we don’t need to hunt anymore” or that all that development will just chip away at viable habitat until populations decline and we shouldn’t hunt them. I’m gonna bow out now

What I’ve noticed about rokslide in the 10 plus years here. No matter how asinine an argument and no matter how obvious an answer, there’s always that one guy that will be on the side of stupid.

 

[Hnthrdr]

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.

For sure and I am not against any legal migrant, but it is naive to think that unfettered illegal immigration hasn’t caused a housing issue. Yes they will have a big family in one house many of the times I see them they are renting or will have a legal relative who will own the house. These homes are often in what I would describe as starter home areas. Just what I have observed here around the metro area in Co.

 

[Hnthrdr]

What I’ve noticed about rokslide in the 10 plus years here. No matter how asinine an argument and no matter how obvious an answer, there’s always that one guy that will be on the side of stupid.

I get it I’m wrong, I’ll shut up now

 

[molliesmaster]

Greed ruins a lot of things.

 

[Pacific_Fork]

Do we deport the transplant progressive @IdahoBeav in this thread or start a new one?

Jesus, the stupidity is strong. Glad to the rest of the members here agree on one very important thing to all of us. Development kills wild places and wildlife. And one man’s barren land is another’s treasure.

 

[3forks]

What I’ve noticed about rokslide in the 10 plus years here. No matter how asinine an argument and no matter how obvious an answer, there’s always that one guy that will be on the side of stupid.

And that one guy always seems to think they’re more enlightened than everyone else that disagrees with them, and their posts always have a condescending tone.

 

[Hnthrdr]

And that one guy always seems to think they’re more enlightened than everyone else that disagrees with them, and their posts always have a condescending tone.

Truth… I’ve fought tooth and nail against some guy who was saying we should just let the cat hunting ban happen in Co, or offer to stop using hounds, since then they would “leave us alone” hahahaha I should just not engage and stick to reading about tactics and watching the classifieds

 

[IdahoBeav]

Do we deport the transplant progressive @IdahoBeav in this thread or start a new one?

Jesus, the stupidity is strong. Glad to the rest of the members here agree on one very important thing to all of us. Development kills wild places and wildlife. And one man’s barren land is another’s treasure.

Progressive? Haha, the progressives agree with you. Allowing land to be owned by a centralized government without giving up another acre to private ownership is a left wing position.

The way Bernie Sanders convinced millions of young people to foolishly support terrible big gov policies is very similar to the way Backcountry Hunters and Anglers brainwashed millions of hunters into not giving an inch on federally owned land.

Sent from my SM-G981V using Tapatalk

 

[CorbLand]

What I’ve noticed about rokslide in the 10 plus years here. No matter how asinine an argument and no matter how obvious an answer, there’s always that one guy that will be on the side of stupid.

Rokslide has taught me a lot of things. One I just learned yesterday is if you don’t like baseball, apparently your not smart.

 

[Drenalin]

Truth… I’ve fought tooth and nail against some guy who was saying we should just let the cat hunting ban happen in Co, or offer to stop using hounds, since then they would “leave us alone” hahahaha I should just not engage and stick to reading about tactics and watching the classifieds

You must have a knack for getting wrapped up in special conversations around here. Better you than me. I can't imagine WTH kind of logic leads to the conclusion that we should voluntarily give up lion hunting or hunting with dogs.

 

[WRO]

Is land only valuable if it’s used by animals? Can it not serve other purposes?

I mean, we could open up a lot of land dozing golf courses. You ever watched a baseball game? What a waste of space that stadium is. Soccer? Holy shit, you could fit a hundred apartments in one of those stadiums.

Allot of it currently is homeless camps. Reno, slc, and other western cities are out of land to build on because of blm in holdings etc. it makes sense to sell those and purchase land that can be used by all.

 

[HighUintas]

To be clear, I'm on the same side of the public lands argument as you are. I'm simply stating that we all take up space on the landscape and require resources. We are all a burden, not just some of us.

Some are a bigger burden than others. Salt lake and Park City are a great example. Salt lake valley is primed for building upward instead of outward. However, every spec of privately owned foothill land is being sold off to developers to build townhouses, subdivisions and McMansions. There is an absolutely insane amount of winter habitat that's been developed outside of Park City in the last 5 years.

Yes, we all use resources and are a burden on the earth, but some of us are willing to live in pre-existing housing or high density housing and not participate in the perpetual sprawl. Guess what is not being built on the edges of cities that creep into animal habitat... High density housing.

 

[CorbLand]

Allot of it currently is homeless camps. Reno, slc, and other western cities are out of land to build on because of blm in holdings etc. it makes sense to sell those and purchase land that can be used by all.

I am not opposed to land swaps.

 

[molliesmaster]

Why does this have to be a political thing? Or why can't I agree with conservative policies and practices on most things but disagree with others?

It would seem to me that even though the federal govt (big brother) gets a lot wrong, having the land in their hands means that a lot more voices have a vested interest in what happens to said land. Sell it to the state and the number of people with a seat at the table goes down. And when the state inevitably sells it to a private entity/corporation (Bill Gates or the Chinese most likely), then there is only one seat at the table and it really won't care about you, the animals, or anything in between. Then it becomes all about dollars and cents.

There's enough development happening in the country already, the conservationist side of me says let's hedge our bet even if .gov doesn't always get it perfect.