Utah- what the hell?

[Billinsd]

I’m highly educated; your comments on this thread are all over the place, very unorganized, and full of self contradictions.

I’m not trying to win a debate and can see your point. I often bite off far more than I can chew and get into the weeds sometimes. Definitely a lot of OCD, which is the core problem.

 

[IdahoBeav]

You don’t have to be highly educated to criticize my posts. What are you highly educated in? I’m an engineer. I’m not trying to win an argument for or against the Fed transferring lands to states. I’m jumping in here and there making comments as I see fit, all over the place, yes. This is an extremely complicated issue and the solutions complex and there are many pros and cons.

I was only mentioning education because you referenced it when you responded to Corb saying that he didn’t understand your comment.

I am also an engineer.

Yes, it is a complicated issue. It’s not black-and-white, all-or-nothing. Not all land is equal. Some of it would better serve to be privately owned and developed. A lot of it absolutely should not be. State owned land isn’t always a bad outcome. I killed a deer on state property this year. The land was no different than nearby NFS land. Land that is privately owned is not an automatic no-hunting or pay-to-play operation. Last year, I killed a buck on private timber company land that is managed far better than federal lands. Privately owned wintering ground is often better for the animals than public, where the animals are disturbed by atvs/sleds, shed hunters, etc. There are also a lot of ranches that do a much better job managing wildlife than state fish and game departments do.

In short, it’s not automatically a bad idea for the feds to sell/transfer some land.

 

[Szwampdonkey]

I was only mentioning education because you referenced it when you responded to Corb saying that he didn’t understand your comment.

I am also an engineer.

Yes, it is a complicated issue. It’s not black-and-white, all-or-nothing. Not all land is equal. Some of it would better serve to be privately owned and developed. A lot of it absolutely should not be. State owned land isn’t always a bad outcome. I killed a deer on state property this year. The land was no different than nearby NFS land. Land that is privately owned is not an automatic no-hunting or pay-to-play operation. Last year, I killed a buck on private timber company land that is managed far better than federal lands. Privately owned wintering ground is often better for the animals than public, where the animals are disturbed by atvs/sleds, shed hunters, etc. There are also a lot of ranches that do a much better job managing wildlife than state fish and game departments do.

In short, it’s not automatically a bad idea for the feds to sell/transfer some land.

Once the land is gone it’s gone forever. I’ve never seen “barren” public land as you state it there is always value to public land or someone who wants to enjoy it in some way.

But the idea that some land doesn’t have value in your eyes outside of developing it to increase the spread of urban sprawl ever further from urban wasteland epicenters just shows me you’re likely part of that problem. Cities are like cancers spreading ever outward destroying everything they touch. And that spread never wants to stop.

You mention land in close proximity to cities as being prime for development. But then once those lands are developed then the land surrounding those new developments becomes that “close proximity to cities” prime development land and the cycle continues. Those urban wastelands never stop growing and expanding.

It’s a crying shame when i drive by a spot that used to be wild and untouched to find subdivisions bracketed by Starbucks, strip malls, and fast food garbage.

That’s not progress brother. It benefits no one other than developers and urbanite hipsters that are causing the problems in the first place.

 

[LoH]

Build more cheap apartments UPWARD in scum cities run by Libs. Pack em in like roaches they all vote Lib so i say let em live like Libs in the big cities.

Wait, you mean “tradesmen, native Idahoans”?

 

[IdahoBeav]

Once the land is gone it’s gone forever. I’ve never seen “barren” public land as you state it there is always value to public land or someone who wants to enjoy it in some way.

But the idea that some land doesn’t have value in your eyes outside of developing it to increase the spread of urban sprawl ever further from urban wasteland epicenters just shows me you’re likely part of that problem. Cities are like cancers spreading ever outward destroying everything they touch. And that spread never wants to stop.

You mention land in close proximity to cities as being prime for development. But then once those lands are developed then the land surrounding those new developments becomes that “close proximity to cities” prime development land and the cycle continues. Those urban wastelands never stop growing and expanding.

It’s a crying shame when i drive by a spot that used to be wild and untouched to find subdivisions bracketed by Starbucks, strip malls, and fast food garbage.

That’s not progress brother. It benefits no one other than developers and urbanite hipsters that are causing the problems in the first place.

This is quite the exaggeration you have here, but this land that you think is useful to some, it isn’t being used by anyone, unless you count dumping garbage and spinning donuts, homeless camps in a few places.

FYI, your entire existence depends on land that was once developed.

 

[mtwarden]

State owned land isn’t always a bad outcome. I killed a deer on state property this year.

In short, it’s not automatically a bad idea for the feds to sell/transfer some land.

You probably wouldn’t shoot many deer on state land that was transferred and then sold.

Do you really think they want the additional cost of managing these lands so recreationists can continue to use them vs selling them off?
I think I posted how many acres of State Land Utah has sold off already; you think they’re done?

 

[Szwampdonkey]

Wait, you mean “tradesmen, native Idahoans”?

No, i mean Liberal Roaches.

As in build endless numbers of basic cheap apartments in cities so they can continue to live and procreate in the cities they cultivated and voted for. That way they don’t feel the need to flee these cities invading rural areas so those “tradesman, native Idahoans” aren’t priced out of homes in their native rural areas and small towns where they grew up.

 

[Szwampdonkey]

This is quite the exaggeration you have here, but this land that you think is useful to some, it isn’t being used by anyone, unless you count dumping garbage and spinning donuts, homeless camps in a few places.

FYI, your entire existence depends on land that was once developed.

“Quite an exagerration” Been to the Denver area any time recently???? How bout LA, Chicago, New York City???? The urban wasteland extends out a 100 miles from those places now. Definitely no exaggeration and it’s coming to a small western town near you soon.

And there is a big difference between “developed” and “OVER developed”. If you want to live like people do 50 miles outside of any major city in America (basically an urban sprawl wasteland of strip malls, fast food, and overpriced homes) you could always move there? No need to continue to spread it out further and further.

 

[Andrew12gauge]

It’s not an urban problem, and barren ground along a freeway, and especially adjacent to Boise/Vegas/SLC/etc. city limits, is not exactly “the countryside”.

I often wonder how many of these anti-development comments on Rokslide come from people living in rural residential subdivisions.

Yea you’re right it’s not exactly countryside, so let’s sell that off now(nevermind the fact that every year there is plenty of recreation done both hunting and non hunting on that “barren ground” adjacent to western city “x”). How much of that barren ground do we need to sell before we are into truly wild or the countryside as you call it? Let’s use Boise as an example, I’m most familiar with Boise so it seems simple enough to draw a line, everything to the west is already private and in process of being developed, sell everything between Eagle and Emmett and Horseshoe Bend, everything between Boise and Idaho City, and we will draw an arcing line all the way over to mountain home and follow the snake river back to Melba. There we just took care of all that “barren ground” outside of Boise. Hopefully the wilks brothers bought it because if it wasn’t them it was china, you also just sold off the premier military training center(BLM ground, publicly accessible save a small portion closed for live fire exercises) so let’s hope our military can still train effectively. Let’s fast forward 10-20 years. There will be no barren land in what used to be federal public lands just outside of Boise. But now there are more barren lands just outside of the new Boise city limits. How far do we go this time? Where does the sale and development of each cities “barren outskirts” end?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ddd-shooter]

The shortsightedness of humans never ceases to impress.
When everything has been developed and sold to highest bidder, then what? Where does it end?
Do you REALLY not see that economics cannot account for intrinsic value of experiences and natural lands?

 

[IdahoBeav]

Yea you’re right it’s not exactly countryside, so let’s sell that off now(nevermind the fact that every year there is plenty of recreation done both hunting and non hunting on that “barren ground” adjacent to western city “x”). How much of that barren ground do we need to sell before we are into truly wild or the countryside as you call it? Let’s use Boise as an example, I’m most familiar with Boise so it seems simple enough to draw a line, everything to the west is already private and in process of being developed, sell everything between Eagle and Emmett and Horseshoe Bend, everything between Boise and Idaho City, and we will draw an arcing line all the way over to mountain home and follow the snake river back to Melba. There we just took care of all that “barren ground” outside of Boise. Hopefully the wilks brothers bought it because if it wasn’t them it was china, you also just sold off the premier military training center(BLM ground, publicly accessible save a small portion closed for live fire exercises) so let’s hope our military can still train effectively. Let’s fast forward 10-20 years. There will be no barren land in what used to be federal public lands just outside of Boise. But now there are more barren lands just outside of the new Boise city limits. How far do we go this time? Where does the sale and development of each cities “barren outskirts” end?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

See slippery slope logical fallacy, strawman argument, and appeal to emotion logical fallacy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ddd-shooter]

See slippery slope logical fallacy, strawman argument, and appeal to emotion logical fallacy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No, he just took the argument to its logical end.
How about this:
How much land are you good with selling?
Who makes the determination of what land gets sold?
Who sets the price?
Who gets to buy the land?