UT's land grab rejected by Supreme Court

TurkeyReaper69

Lil-Rokslider
Joined
Dec 5, 2021
Messages
135
Utah would be better off pushing for better or revised management standards then wasting Tax payer money on this BS.
I sometimes suspected that was always the intention. Like someone else mentioned above "a flare in the night to alert R president and congress". What does Utah want? Increased royalty payments on O&G to the state? Higher PILT? The antiquities act to be repealed? Was this all a bargaining chip to achieve something?

Right after the election and around the time the Uintah and Ouray Rez filed suit against them they slightly changed course on this whole charade
 

TurkeyReaper69

Lil-Rokslider
Joined
Dec 5, 2021
Messages
135
As an Alaskan I’m extremely torn on this topic. State management likely leads to eventual sales and once it’s gone it’s gone. On the flip side, federal dictatorship about land use is reaching sky high levels.

If you had massive federal closures superseding your state fish and games management model like we do, you may not be as cheerful to keep the Feds in control. An overhaul of the department of interior would be epic but likely never to happen.
Not to hijack this thread, but Secretary Haaland was just able to quietly slip on additional members to the federal subsistence board (who will represent tribal interests in AK), I sure as hell hope the new administration is able to get representation from a hunting and angling group and the ADFG a permanent spot at that table.

 
Joined
Oct 13, 2023
Messages
67
Great news, but the fight is not over. Public lands will always have a target on them from wealthy folks who see the "vacant" land as an opportunity to line their friends' and their own pockets.
 

WRO

WKR
Joined
Nov 6, 2013
Messages
3,541
Location
Idaho
Republicans want to sell land to their friends, Dems want "costewardship" or "tribal management" of federal lands. Two sides of the same damn coin.

We, the public land owners get f**ked either way.
They’re flat giving it away and we get nothing for it, no tax base from the profits from extraction etc..

Same bull shit different instead of an elephant we have a donkey.
 

HNTR918

WKR
Joined
Dec 7, 2018
Messages
498
Location
Colorado
Grazing on state and blm lands is cheaper than any private lands, and is typically the best wintering grounds as well.
Most states land boards require that they take the highest revenue possible for the land.
We should get together and add a fee or additional cost to say the hunting license as a payment to the state land board to buy the land use back from the grazers.
Leaving more feed on the ground for winter herds, attracting more wildlife, and leading to better hunting.
 

WRO

WKR
Joined
Nov 6, 2013
Messages
3,541
Location
Idaho
Grazing on state and blm lands is cheaper than any private lands, and is typically the best wintering grounds as well.
Most states land boards require that they take the highest revenue possible for the land.
We should get together and add a fee or additional cost to say the hunting license as a payment to the state land board to buy the land use back from the grazers.
Leaving more feed on the ground for winter herds, attracting more wildlife, and leading to better hunting.

As a counter point, the grazers create and maintain water sources, do upkeep on fences, etc.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

HNTR918

WKR
Joined
Dec 7, 2018
Messages
498
Location
Colorado
As a counter point, the grazers create and maintain water sources, do upkeep on fences, etc.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Great point on water sources!
We as hunters should definitely be working to add more water sources on the land scape.

I would say the fence removal would actually help species like pronghorn in winter.
 

TurkeyReaper69

Lil-Rokslider
Joined
Dec 5, 2021
Messages
135
They’re flat giving it away and we get nothing for it, no tax base from the profits from extraction etc..

Same bull shit different instead of an elephant we have a donkey.

Check out this land exchange that was just completed. Incredibly unpopular in the local community, yes the BLM gained more surface estate, but at the detriment to angling opportunities.

Whenever you see "land transfer proposed by billionaire" its more than likely not a win for the public land user.
 
Top