Public Lands - Page 2 - Utah Wildlife Network

» Site Navigation
» Home
»
 > Search
 > FAQ
» Stats
Members: 11,649
Threads: 57,225
Posts: 596,505
Welcome to our newest member, jarhead1229
Like Tree47Likes
Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 02-10-2017, 10:42 AM   #11 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
#1DEER 1-I's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,929
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by swampfox View Post
I made it inside, and the first maybe 15 minutes or so were about public land issues. He will not be backing down from 622, and when he was specifically asked about why he voted against the BLM Planning Rule 2.0, he deflected and did not answer. I don't think he is a friend of sportsmen at all. I can confirm that the meeting was packed and that it was certainly a left-leaning group. I never heard any black lives matter chants, just chants of "do your job", "let them in" (when there were a bunch of seats available in the back and the fire marshall wouldn't let anyone else in), and chants about public lands outside the building. It was frustrating that there was so much yelling so that it made it difficult to have an actual discussion/argument. But before we disparage the left too much, there were some very good public lands questions brought up by non-hunting outdoor recreation users (particularly by one guy who was a river guide and happened to run in to Chaffetz on the river last summer and had a good long chat with him then), and we are really going to need those left-leaning recreation users if this public lands fight continues to advance.
I agree we need them in this fight, but we also need them to act civil so we are able to convey our points properly. Truth is Chaffetz doesn't care about the people who despise him, he cares about the people that are republican that have voted for him and are upset. I really hope HR 622 can be stopped, it is just a further attack and dismantlement of our public land agencies. The only encouraging things I heard during the HR 622 discussion was people saying "fund them" in response to him saying they don't have proper resources. Well funding them so they do would be a great start.

As for Planning 2.0, after reading comments by the rep. from Wyoming that introduced this bill it is obvious they have no good answer. The answer is they don't want the BLM process to work and like it broken so they can complain about it and move toward transfer. The rep. who introduced the bill basically said the general public should not have a say in land use practices or planning at an equal level to industry and livestock users who operate on the land. That was a terrible answer IMO. I thought that's what we wanted was more involvement? Better planning strategies? And an easier process? Truth is they are going to kill Planning 2.0 for no reason other than they don't want the BLM to work properly. They are intentionally breaking these agencies to further their argument of mismanagement and the need to transfer these lands.

I really truly hope Trump Jr. or Trump will hear the concerns of sportsmen and veto some of the legislation that will likely cross his desk. None of the bills being proposed or passed do anything but undermine our public lands, the agencies that manage them, and the public in general. The left needs to quite shouting and be reasonable. Not everything the GOP does is wrong, and screaming bloody murder over everything just hurts every cause.
klbzdad likes this.
#1DEER 1-I is offline   Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 02-10-2017, 10:49 AM   #12 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: So. Weber, Utah
Posts: 1,126
Default

I'm just so darn disgusted with our local Utah elected officials nowadays. They certainly don't care about our public lands (except as far as what they can be sold for), last week they refused to even allow a vote on putting an emphasis on leasing our state lands instead of selling them off, they are gung-ho for oil and gas interests, but when fishermen want access to public waters they quickly go around the Supreme Court to make their own laws to keep fishers out. The list is very long...
R
rjefre is offline   Quick reply to this message
Old 02-10-2017, 11:00 AM   #13 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 89
Default

I absolutely agree 1-I, I guess I just didn't feel like most of the anger came from the recreation users. It came mostly from everybody else mad at Trump, mad about Education/DeVos, or mad about whatever else the right is doing. I guess I didn't really feel like OR folks were the ones not being civil. The question from the river guide was excellent and pointed, and he acted with respect while still expressing his frustration. Public lands were a pretty small part of the discussion/shouting match, and it seemed like most people there wanted to discuss other issues because we moved on pretty quick. Outside of my wife and myself, there only appeared to be one other obvious outdoor recreation user in my entire section. There did appear to be a good contingent of outdoor folks up front though. I do agree that the whole thing was out of hand and likely didn't accomplish much due to the emotion in there. If anything it probably just strengthened chaffetz, as I'm sure he knows most of those people aren't in his district anyway.
swampfox is offline   Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 02-10-2017, 11:10 AM   #14 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Bountiful, UT
Posts: 1,011
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vanilla View Post
Now maybe you understand my frustration on the other thread. Things are becoming flat out ridiculous. People need to figure it out.
This is absolutely true. Screaming, yelling, burning starbucks, etc. are not conducive to actual discourse and do nothing but further entrench people on either side of no-man's land.

I need to do a better job in not allowing myself to become so myopic that I'm not acknowledging positive steps taken by those who are on the opposite side of the public land issue.

That doesn't mean you can't be skeptical or critical about the future intentions of politicians and organizations. But it really is important to acknowledge and let these opponents know when they've done something right.

Hopefully that further encourages them to evolve their stances down the road instead of saying "nothing I do is ever going to satisfy these people, so screw it, I'm just gonna do what I want."
Kwalk3 is offline   Quick reply to this message
Old 02-10-2017, 11:29 AM   #15 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,342
Default

Here's the thing. I have written to Chaffetz multiple times. He feels secure in his office in that he thinks he will be reelected for as long as he chooses to run. He is no friend of outdoorsmen. Quite the contrary. He was trying to say the PLI was a collaborative effort, when it clearly favored development and extraction. Bears Ears is just one issue. I wrote him another email last night talking about many issues. Here's what I said about the monument:

Leave our public lands alone. They are federal. Period! If I recall correctly after reading several biographies of Theodore Roosevelt, his designation of the Grand Canyon National Monument was met with considerable local pushback by local developers who wished to despoil it for profit. His employment of the Antiquities Act seemed to have worked out pretty well.

I also criticized him for not investigating Trump's obvious conflicts of interests; his violation of the emoluments clause, his violation the lease agreement for his DC hotel, his own failure to investigate the Russian hack of our elections, etc. He is no friend of Utahns or anyone interested in transparency in government, civil rights, conservation, etc, etc, etc. He needs to be replaced. Some of you may think that's a far left view, and that the raucous crowd actually helped him. I disagree. Chaffetz is a lost cause, an arrogant far right political hack. He does not represent the interests of hunters or fishermen. Voting for him is a vote against public lands. Believe me.
Finnegan likes this.
__________________
The value of any trophy from the field depends not on its size
but on the magnitude of the effort expended in its pursuit. Aldo Leupold
paddler is online now   Quick reply to this message
Old 02-10-2017, 11:42 AM   #16 (permalink)
West side Utah Lake
 
LostLouisianian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 3,331
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rjefre View Post
I'm just so darn disgusted with our local Utah elected officials nowadays. They certainly don't care about our public lands (except as far as what they can be sold for), last week they refused to even allow a vote on putting an emphasis on leasing our state lands instead of selling them off, they are gung-ho for oil and gas interests, but when fishermen want access to public waters they quickly go around the Supreme Court to make their own laws to keep fishers out. The list is very long...
R
Welcome to politics all over the US. Why do you think my cousin, the only 4 term governor in Louisiana history finally ended up in Federal Prison...I can honestly say I've never met an honest politician yet, and I've known quite a few on a personal basis, including some now in the Utah legislature.
swampfox likes this.
__________________
Jambalaya and a crawfish pie and file' gumbo, Son of a gun we'll have big fun on the bayou, Thibodaux, Fontenot the place is buzzin'
LostLouisianian is online now   Quick reply to this message
Old 02-10-2017, 12:18 PM   #17 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,698
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by swampfox View Post
I made it inside, and the first maybe 15 minutes or so were about public land issues...........but before we disparage the left too much, there were some very good public lands questions brought up by non-hunting outdoor recreation users (particularly by one guy who was a river guide and happened to run in to Chaffetz on the river last summer and had a good long chat with him then), and we are really going to need those left-leaning recreation users if this public lands fight continues to advance.


It is good to hear that public lands questions were discussed. Channel 2 just showed the chanting and shrieking, and only discussed the "Trump" issues.

I like your comments about the "other" recreation users. The reason I have a bit more optimism long term on the public lands battle is that opposition to the issue attracts users/enthusiasts from both sides of the aisle, so to speak. An effective coalition can be made to support public lands if both the granola types and the right leaning hunters can look past other differences and fight together.

One last thing. What the heck was Chaffetz thinking in having that meeting in Salt Lake? Why didn't he have it down here in Happy Valley in front of,uh, his real constituents? Besides, there probably aren't a 1000 liburls in his entire district to disrupt the meeting.
swampfox likes this.
Catherder is offline   Quick reply to this message
Old 02-10-2017, 12:27 PM   #18 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
#1DEER 1-I's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,929
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Catherder View Post
It is good to hear that public lands questions were discussed. Channel 2 just showed the chanting and shrieking, and only discussed the "Trump" issues.

I like your comments about the "other" recreation users. The reason I have a bit more optimism long term on the public lands battle is that opposition to the issue attracts users/enthusiasts from both sides of the aisle, so to speak. An effective coalition can be made to support public lands if both the granola types and the right leaning hunters can look past other differences and fight together.

One last thing. What the heck was Chaffetz thinking in having that meeting in Salt Lake? Why didn't he have it down here in Happy Valley in front of,uh, his real constituents? Besides, there probably aren't a 1000 liburls in his entire district to disrupt the meeting.
I don't think it matters where he had his meeting, they will find him.
#1DEER 1-I is offline   Quick reply to this message
Old 02-10-2017, 12:34 PM   #19 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,087
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Catherder View Post
Based on the 10 PM news report, it appeared that the meeting was packed and dominated by folks from the "far left", with their accompanying chants and noise, and public lands issues weren't even a significant part of the discussion.
Wrong! It was the very first topic addressed and addressed far longer than anything else.
Trooper is offline   Quick reply to this message
Old 02-10-2017, 12:49 PM   #20 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,087
Default

Town Hall meetings are not really a place for a "discussion" with the politician. He/she is only going to reiterate their pre-planned talking points. The value of a town hall is in whipping up enthusiasm, maybe getting a good question quoted in the paper and generally fueling political action for "your" side. I was there last night and I know a lot of people were frustrated that the crowd wouldn't let JC "answer." But the crowd knew he was only going to evade and obfuscate- so what was the point? For instance, when someone asked him whether Trump should release his taxes he talked for five minutes about how Presidents and Vice-presidents should have to undergo a physical from the surgeon general... WTF? The funniest part of the night was when someone asked a very specific question about his support for ACA/Obamacare and instead of answering he started to tell an obviously pre-prepared story about his mother dying of cancer, complete with an immediate (and not very convincing) tear and the crowd shouted him down. Harsh... but he deserved that.
Trooper is offline   Quick reply to this message
Closed Thread

Quick Reply
Message:
Smilies
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Utah Wildlife Network forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:
Insurance
Please select your insurance company (Optional)

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Get out and vote for public lands Hoopermat The great outdoors 15 06-13-2016 12:16 AM
Public lands debate Hoopermat The great outdoors 36 02-12-2016 07:53 AM
Finding Public Lands jedi8541 Archery 4 09-05-2015 08:39 PM
Public lands petition #1DEER 1-I Big game 0 01-22-2015 01:13 PM
Access to Public lands?????? Tinez Everything else 46 01-18-2008 10:21 PM

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:56 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.1
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.