Utah Wildlife Forum banner
1 - 20 of 37 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,376 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Ok I would like to hear from both sides on the public lands issue we currently have going on.
If your for the states rights to the land let's hear your argument.
If you for the Feds to keep it lets hear yours

Just a simple hopefully friendly debate.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,914 Posts
It's simple for me. The states are given the duty to manage the lands for economic value so it makes money. The Feds are dutied to manage the land for multiple use. Are there problems with federal management? Absolutely, but the states have a proven track record of selling and the Feds have a track record of retaining most of it. The Feds need to fix policies with management of many things.... Timber harvest, wild horses, and fire just to name a few. They also should allow more reasonable local public influence on management. The issue for the state is not management, the issue the state has is they want to economically exploit these lands on a short sighted basis. I am not completely happy with federal management either, but I believe we have a system to fix these problems without taking over a refuge, renouncing grazing contracts, or constantly beating up on local land managers. Congress needs to do their job and fix problems that exist. Maybe it's worth Utah suing the Feds for $14 million to get their ass handed to them and we can move on from the transfer or state rights issues and actually start working on management instead of selfish, short sighted agendas.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,123 Posts
I see advantages to both sides of the debate. I think the state could do a much better job of managing the lands than the feds, however, without federal funds, I don't think the state could make any money managing the lands and would probably run a deficit or sell the lands to make ends meet.

I also believe that if the state ever gets their hands on fed lands, they will sell off every good parcel to the highest bidder and they will then lock the gate forever changing hunting as we now know it. Despite any agreements might me made or guarantees put forth, I fear that with any state involvement, the mighty dollar will win out and we will loose access.

That puts me for the first time ever in my life on the side of federal land management. I almost can't believe I just typed that. I just wish the state (counties in particular) had more input on how, when, and where the land is used and a guarantee that existing roads and access can never be removed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
223 Posts
A rancher who relies on public land as part of their business model better watch what they ask for (obviously not all of them are asking for this) because if it was transferred to the state that would be the end of their lifestyle over the next several years. This is why:

1) As state controlled land they no longer will have the predictability that it will remain available for grazing long term. The threat of privatization or developed for gas, oil, minerals will be real. Under federal management there is a certain amount a predictability that it will remain available for grazing.

2) The State would need funds to manage the land so pieces will be sold and developed for different uses to fund management. If you don't believe this your dead wrong because it happens now. Plus the land sold is going to be those that bring the biggest profits which are the most productive lands that provide the greatest forage base for grazers...summer range. What won't be sold unless they have to is the least productive desert lands because quite simply they aren't worth that much.

3) What does a AUM cost on State lands? 7-10x's more than federally managed land. Private leases are 15-20x's more. That'll put most guys out of business right off the bat.

4) If you think some of the folks who oppose federal regulation are going to adhere to state regulation when they see it is putting them out of business is laughable. They will start turning out where they want and when they want and rangelands will deteriorate.

5) When environmental groups start seeing land being sold, developed, minerals extracted and grazing issues you'll see them bidding on allotments through the state bidding process and legally all they have to do is put 1 cow on it.

6) Now all that was geared toward the ranching community. This is for sportsman...If you think you'll have the same right to recreate on State land across the board like you did under federally manged land that is a pipe dream. Take the pieces sold and privatized. They're gone forever. The pieces developed will be useless to wildlife, sportsman, and recreationist alike. And not all State land is freely opened to the public. In Utah the DWR has to pay SITLA hundreds of thousands of dollars each year for sportsman access to SITLA land, and some of it is still off limits to sportsman. Most people don't realize this.

I hate hearing and reading the rehtoric that it is "federally owned land". It's not! It is owned by all of us; the public, "we the people"! Someone has to manage it and that falls to Public Land agencies. Is there problems yes. It's not perfect but it is much easier to work kinks out of an existing system then to build a whole new one. I also feel bad for the honest down to earth and hard working ranching community as a few sour apples in the group are ruining the ranching reputation for the rest of them.

Of course this is just my opinion and we all look at things from a different perspective.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,187 Posts
My grandmother gave me a set of books that were carried by my ancestors (push cart people) to Utah, to me. A couple decades ago, I researched the value of this mini library- handcrafted leather covers, hand stitched, one and only edition. Turned out, the collection is worth a lot of money. I was sorely tempted to sell, especially since I was in dire financial straits at the time. But I gave them to my son.

You can figure the rest for yourself.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,264 Posts
If the states get ahold of the ground............
You just have to look at what happen to most of the school sections.
SOLD to highest bidders and closed up. Has been stated already.
I really hate to say it, but it is the truth.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,376 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
I'm surprised by the lack of response.
Does anyone have an argument for state control?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,631 Posts
I'm relieved at the lack of response:mrgreen:
I think most of us have written so much on it the past couple years, we're simply burned out on discussing the topic yet again.

The OP can look through the archives and find a host of threads on the subject. Look for the threads that have 10+ pages and you'll find a few about the land grab.;-)

Top of page!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,998 Posts
As one who hunts on exclusively public land and fishes in public rivers, I truly don't think that there is a compelling argument FOR the state to own the land.

History has proven what the state intends to do with the land under its management . And while federal management is far from perfect, and there are decisions made that rub each of us wrong from time to time, the reality is that the public lands managed by the feds in our state are an amazing resource that we have great freedom to use in many different ways.

I understand the desire for more local input with federal management, and think there is a valid complaint there. However, while our input is limited with federal management in some instances, if the lands become private through sale, we would have zero input and zero access.

I think part of the reason for the lack of response here is due in large part to the fact that those who have explored the issue more than the lip service from politicians, have come to understand the danger to public access that a transfer would be.

Sent from my SM-G928T using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,856 Posts
I'm surprised by the lack of response.
Does anyone have an argument for state control?
I'll say there is a lack of responses because for most here it has been hashed out already. And anyone that thinks they have an argument for State control, knows deep down in their hearts and in the back of their minds they don't. Not morally, not legally, or by any other legitimate means. Just like the state and wingnut fringe that they are in agreement with, all they really have is empty wallets, and their empty entitled hands hanging out in the wind demanding things that do not belong to them. At it's core this is a property rights issue. And under any reasonable conservative(ideology and premise) argument the concept of handing federally controlled lands over to the states and individuals, is a basic and simple assault on the property rights of many, by the aggression of the few. It is a demand that people give up their property rights, plain and simple.

If anyone here is for state control, please tell me how giving up my property rights to all of the West can be justified from a conservative property rights point of view. Tell me how having Utah get the federal lands within it's borders, and supposedly conferring those rights to me as well(I already had that property right) is compensation for me(and every US citizen) giving up my property rights to the rest of the West? If you can make that claim without using South American Socialista ideology, then I might start to take your seriously.

And on side, but related note. When the UDWR can show me a sustainable increase in wildlife and hunting opportunity, or at a minimum the competency to implement policies that would lead to these things, I'll start to take you guys seriously as well.

For those that have paid any attention to this, you may have seen what came out of Boise Yesterday. The new narrative being pushed is that by making "improvements" to public grazing allotments, cattlemen are conferring a right to said property, because those "improvements" now qualify as private property. Well lets do the math on this, how do those "improvements" stack up against subsidized AUMs that are $1.69? How do these "improvements" stack up to other "improvements" made by other users? Look no further than what hunters have contributed in the way of "improvements" over the last 100 years.

Elkfromabove once asked what I thought about the biological impacts of state control. I did not have a lot of time to respond when he asked. I have a sort of partial answer now. In discussing some of the roots of this(as some of us were there when this effort was really getting under way 20 years ago) someone pointed me to this: http://www.wildwilderness.org/wi/wiseuse.htm They gleefully pointed out number 12, under "Agenda". I am already painfully aware of that part of this whole "movement", county weed boards, state legislation, and "constitutional sheriffs" are just other pieces of this agenda that ultimately seeks to privatize the West. The end result of that is the death of Western hunting, plain and simple. Western hunting not your thing? There are other message boards.

Some more context about line 12 in the before mentioned synopsis: For those that have heard me drone on about selenium deficiencies, you may have seen me make reference to this study: http://deerlab.org/Publ/pdfs/23.pdf where deer with selenium deficiencies were supplemented and their populations rebounded exponentially. Well you have to dig deeper and look at what went on in those areas just prior to these deer populations declining. Much of it starts here: http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/documents/psw_rn224/psw_rn224.pdf with the experimental use of silivicides(since banned because of how dangerous they are) in the area, which continued to be a test area for other experimental herbicide use into the '80s. There are allot of heads to this dragon, but they all appear to prefer to feed from public sources of revenue, like any proper welfare entity.

To bring some of this full circle to recent events, look no further than Malheur, Steens, and Hart mountain. http://westernwildlifeecology.org/education/ Over the last 20 years they have seen wildlife declines on a scale similar to other parts of the West, with the same build up and implementation of "land use policy". Which includes using these places as test grounds by corporate chemical interests aligned with the land grab concept that was evolving at the time(20-30 years ago). Ones like this: http://oregonstate.edu/dept/eoarc/sites/default/files/publication/408h.pdf These experimental tests conducted by Monsanto at Malheur were followed by declines in wildlife, and copper and selenium deficiencies in the said wildlfie. This has resulted in grazing restrictions, and helped drive much of the rhetoric we see today around this issue. Not to mention the vastly reduced hunting opportunities, and wildlife. And before someone tells me about quail at Malheur, tell me about the deer, antelope, and bighorn sheep on these refuges first.

This is not tinfoil hat conspiracy theory stuff, this is real documented on the ground reality. And the vast majority of public lands ranchers are being played as rubes, just like most public lands hunters. Not to mention all those with in the UDWR that are knowingly implementing these policies, and those that are unknowingly being sold these policies under the guise of "conservation".

A much shorter answer I guess would be, look at what the DWR and state have brought us in the way wildlife, hunting permit numbers, hunter recruitment, and access to public lands over the last 20 years. A note on access: We as hunters foot the bill for access to SITLA lands. It is the state again robbing Peter to pay Paul. In short, if you get hunters and public lands ranchers out of the way, the take over of public lands becomes much easier. We are seeing the escalation of more wedges being driven into these two key communities right now. This is the divide and conquer tactics being employed here. I'm fine with that, I'll gladly engage(on every level) the minorities in both camps that are for the sell out of the West.

If you are for state control, you are against public lands hunting. So you either have a lot of money, or you are just very misinformed on the entirety of the issue at hand, with a total disregard for our future. At a minimum, if you are for state control, please submit a proposal for the legal sale of federal property(owned by every American) to states and or individuals. This needs to include upfront payment terms, earnest money, and a collateralization of anything being borrowed against if the proposed purchase is not cash. Or by all means, put your empty hands back in your empty pockets.

Gotta go, my kids are having a tea party. These things always get out of hand and result in a big mess and costly clean up, when not properly supervised by adults...........
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,376 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
So if we are all against it. Why is bishop and the governor's plan getting so much support.
We need to educate the people that don't understand the real issue. Awareness is key.
Most people it talk to believe it is in the states best interest until I lay out the fact and change some minds.
Are you doing the same?
We have to spread the word if not we are going to lose our lands
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
10,476 Posts
I would say the reason that they are getting a lot of support for it is that the general public could care less of what happens to the public lands in Utah or anywhere else for that matter.

Even on this forum you are only seeing a very small segment of all the hunters and fishermen in the state of Utah. It is also a lot like gun control. How many hunters say that they can get rid of AR type rifles because they don't use one for hunting, I know quite a few hunters that feel that way and they feel like as long as it doesn't affect them directly then they are not going to care what happens.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,376 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 · (Edited)
Totally agree with you critter.
I am just as concerned about Herbert's and bishops plans. As I am of Hilliary getting elected.
So let's spread the word.
It might not be great party conversation. But if you can change one mind and they talk to others we can spread the word.
With all the current plans from the state this should be our number one topic. Once you have the facts on the table it's pretty hard to agrue for the state.
So challenge to all. Talk to someone about this get them involved. I don't care if they are a hunter or not. Blast it on social media get others thinking about the loss of their lands. The threat of taking away this land is real and must be stopped.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,856 Posts
It just looks like they are getting traction. The same guys that were selling this nonsense 20-30 years ago, are the same guys selling it today. It is unfortunately a war of attrition. The bight side being that they are rapidly aging.

From a hunters point of view, yes we need a bigger voice, and a better education platform. I won't mention any names because I don't play well with anyone, at least not publicly.

Perception is key to much of this. We had not seen even a frame work for Bishop's Grand Bargain in the 3 years since it was conceived. Then suddenly in the midst of a nutter tard fest at the Malheur wildlife refuge Bishop unveils the plan?

If anyone has ever played 6 degrees of separation, just shorten it to 2 and apply it to Utah anti hunting politics and the current narrative(people are working on this depth). Example: Shawna Cox, Malheur wildlife refuge "occupier". Has been involved in this thing since at least 2009 when she participated in the Paria canyon ride. She was at the Bundy welfare compound, and at the recapture canyon ride. From there start connecting the dots going forward and backwards in time, and by association to elected officials. Shawna Cox......Mike Noel(Utah legislator and personal friend).............Ken Ivory(Utah legislator, Noels bud, lands council)...........etc.

Bishop, Ivory, and Swallow all on the same page here: http://utahsfreedom.org/reclaim-western-lands.html I don't know about the rest of them, but Swallow is a stand up guy..........

This can be done with a lot of key Utah officials, both elected and appointed,especially the appointed ones. The games fun when you start tying the contracts and other hand outs that are give to the nutter tards to help carry out this agenda.

Here is the bitterest pill of all for some here. You are going to have to start voting on the bigger issue. It is the party line voters of this state that have brought us to this point. I have nothing against Conservatism or Liberalism. Ultimately they are just ideas, and frame works for accomplishing things. It is truly the people that claim to be either of these things, and claim to represent either of them, while telling you they are end all solutions, that are the problem. Like conservatives selling anti property rights agendas under the guise of property rights, or wildlife orgs and agencies selling anti hunting agendas under the guise of conservation. The proof is the reality and consequences on the ground that can't be cooked like numbers in a book, or pulled from the internet like data bases(that were already copied anyway).

Not to get too personal or political, but we have the same Congressman, Bishop. Did you vote for or support his pro public lands, veteran challenger? I'm not asking anyone to reply to the question, only making a statement about why and how we are where we are at.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,856 Posts
I would say the reason that they are getting a lot of support for it is that the general public could care less of what happens to the public lands in Utah or anywhere else for that matter.

Even on this forum you are only seeing a very small segment of all the hunters and fishermen in the state of Utah. It is also a lot like gun control. How many hunters say that they can get rid of AR type rifles because they don't use one for hunting, I know quite a few hunters that feel that way and they feel like as long as it doesn't affect them directly then they are not going to care what happens.
Wedge, just keep hammering.......
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,376 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
I think they are getting more traction than normal. If you read the comments the 90% of the uninformed agree with them. They blindly follow Herbert and bishop. It's scary.
I was one of them. Then randy Newberg got me thinking and after doing some research I changed my mind.
So for those that don't quite understand please start with Newberg then do some digging on your own. It will be a shock.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,376 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
Also for those that feel this has been hashed out. Your wrong. This is the most important fight for the sportsman you have right now.
It should be a sticky topic.
 
1 - 20 of 37 Posts
Top