Utah Wildlife Forum banner
1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,788 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,178 Posts
Brain fry...

There's more than I can digest in a single sitting. But at first reading, I think Utah sportsmen have cause for concern.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,788 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Western priorities has a write up on their opinion of it:

http://www.westernpriorities.org

My opinion is, I think we need to start moving towards collaborative plans for everywhere on these lands, but it needs to be a working relationship where everyone gives a little to achieve a lot. I think this plan does not adequately address conservation, wilderness, or wise use for the most part. I haven't looked at it long enough to really take it all in either yet.

Where does this plan go from here though? Will it be edited, has the federal government agreed to any of this yet?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,210 Posts
"Special management areas" Bye bye public land hunting!!!!!

Wilderness still isn't clearly defined in this plan. Can someone explain how on one side bishop is all in on public land transfer the states and the other hand is calling for wilderness expansion? To me he's talking out both sides of his mouth and out both his asses...the one between his hips and the other between his ears!!!! People had better wake up like I did! Otherwise, these guys we elected are going to take that cute map showing federal lands management vs private land management and make our state look just like Virginia.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,788 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
What sucks is this was the chance for Utah republicans to put their money where their mouth was and from what I see, they failed. It looks like they create wilderness and conservation areas that mandate current grazing levels no matter what kind of drought we get into. On top of that basically the lands not labeled as conservation areas or wilderness areas priority #1 is oil and gas. Also huge transfers of federal land to SITLA land to get richer energy land for the state.

This plan simply says to me, mineral development and grazers will get priority and the science, environmental, and wildlife issues be damned. Grazing should not be locked in at current levels in perpetuity. We have wet years and very dry years, I'm not for locking in grazing levels without land managers ability to adjust.

It also calls to take away the Feds ability to purchase any land within the areas, including monuments unless they do a transfer or have a willing property owner who just wants to give it away. (Bishops way of handicapping the land and water conservation fund in this bill)

I don't know, it's a frustrating result for something that could have really ensured a difference and new path within public land management. Sadly Bishop is not the man for that job, nor is he a man who is willing to compromise and consider science and the environment or wildlife.

It's a back door way to get lands energy rich he wants along with handicapping federal oversight of the land. I don't think this is going to happen, which will result in more complaining and bickering from Utah politicians. So any bets on how long before Obama uses his pen to declare the creation of Bears Ears National Monument?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,178 Posts
Okay...burp...I think I've got it.

The governor will appoint a commission including one sportsmen rep to determine what will happen to the Bookcliffs. We know how gubernatorial appointments work. No? Look at your Wildlife Board.

I've found a bunch of crap to get worried about. But bottom line is that Bishop has indeed found a way to end the bickering - y'all shut up! PLI provides for no public input ever again. Well, unless you count your sportsmen's rep...whoever might that be?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,178 Posts
We (a coalition of organizations) were willing to concede tar sands development in the Books in exchange for a new federal designation of "Sportsmen's Conservation Area" and preservation of the Bookcliffs roadless area. Bishop's proposal ensures neither. Reminds me of that story that ends, "You knew I was a snake when you picked me up."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,788 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 · (Edited)
Okay...burp...I think I've got it.

The governor will appoint a commission including one sportsmen rep to determine what will happen to the Bookcliffs. We know how gubernatorial appointments work. No? Look at your Wildlife Board.

I've found a bunch of crap to get worried about. But bottom line is that Bishop has indeed found a way to end the bickering - y'all shut up! PLI provides for no public input ever again. Well, unless you count your sportsmen's rep...whoever might that be?
And yet the BLM and Forest service are the ones who won't listen.I agree Fin, so Bishops solution to public lands, is to exclude the public from here on out. Only those who play the backdoor deal games get a say. There's a meeting in St. George Friday over the BLMs management plans for the district, speaking at the meeting is by invitation only. Tell me again how the BLM and Forest Service doesn't listen to public input Mr. Bishop.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,968 Posts
Just like Virginia?

So we're going to get 5 months of deer hunting and can harvest several deer a piece for just a few dollars?

Will this mean we can stop blaming all of wildlife's wows on weather and habitat? And SFW?

Sign me up.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,210 Posts
Just like Virginia?

So we're going to get 5 months of deer hunting and can harvest several deer a piece for just a few dollars?

Will this mean we can stop blaming all of wildlife's wows on weather and habitat? And SFW?

Sign me up.
Move then. Public land in Virginia to hunt those five months is non existent. Sure, for real cheap you can hunt half the year and have twenty deer tags, but good luck finding a spot to hunt them freely as we do in the West. Under Bishops plan, you can forget having ANY say in how wildlife is managed on certain lands because it isn't properly addressed. Like anything, he's setting up the system of management that works to fail so that he can pat the likes of Don Peay on the back with access to "special management areas". Prepare for tag prices to skyrocket in order to fund the division and you complain about kitty cat populations now? Try managing that with swaths of SITLA and private land owners.

OneI, that meeting already happened in St. George. He clearly is in favor of private land ownership over public land ownership. At this point, those who oppose public land transfer are doing so little in opposition that he isn't even hiding his intentions anymore.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,788 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,210 Posts
Well there's another one tomorrow, and it looks to be just your standard Utah right wing bash the BLM party:

https://www.stgeorgeutah.com/news/a...local-lands-issues-in-st-george/#.VqGJ4UVHanM
Well lookie there. You're right. More diarrhea of the mouth from Bishop and Stewart, not to mention Alan Gardner whom I've lost any and all respect for. I have to work, or I would personally go just to be that "one guy" who has no problem openly and vocally voicing opposition to their "plan". Having read the entire PLI, NO THANK YOU!!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,788 Posts
Well lookie there. You're right. More diarrhea of the mouth from Bishop and Stewart, not to mention Alan Gardner whom I've lost any and all respect for. I have to work, or I would personally go just to be that "one guy" who has no problem openly and vocally voicing opposition to their "plan". Having read the entire PLI, NO THANK YOU!!!!
I've spoken to Gardner. He tried to use the "green decoy" smear when I brought up all the sportsmen groups that oppose the land transfer. He had no beneficial information, facts, or arguments that would satisfy anyone with a brain. I honestly couldn't believe some of his defenses...................... As for being that one guy, speaking is by invitation only klbzdad. I just can't believe their hypocrisy, they only want to hear their side of the argument to further their egos, then they say the BLM doesn't listen to anyone and is tyrannical. I believe censoring speakers to those only in agreement with your argument and silencing everyone else is tyrannical.
 

·
senior member
Joined
·
760 Posts
I'm neither right or left, but my thought is they came up with this plan when everyone around Moab started to rally about they wanted another national monument made around Arches and Dead Horse and Canyon Lands to prevent them from drilling the shiz out of it. There is already one oil well right when you get to Dead Horse Point that is one of the most productive in the nation. I think its a ploy to steer Obama away from the Greater Canyon Lands National Monument. I don't know about you but I love those places.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,788 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
7MM I think they just sealed their fate on another monument. If they didn't want one they should have came out with a serious plan, not a gift to oil and gas.
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Top