Land transfer a little at a time. - 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 Tree11Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 04-08-2017, 07:58 AM   #11 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,342
Default

I don't trust Hatch, and this bill smells fishy. No surprise, really. Anybody who gets large donations from the supplement industry and argues against their regulation is acting against the public interest.
__________________
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   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 04-08-2017, 09:02 AM   #12 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Breaking mud motors one brand at a time
Posts: 1,062
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BPturkeys View Post
Call me stupid but I just don't see the need to turn the land over to the County. Why, to what end? There has been no talk of stopping OHV use, no loss of local jobs by Federal management plans, no crazy restrictions in any way. So why. If preservation of the land in it's current use patterns is what THEY want, then simply have Hatch and the other land grabbers introduce federal legislation setting aside the land for this use. Isn't that what the legislators are always claiming should be done...isn't that what they said should have been done with Bear's Ear area..." I think they call it legislative solution! You hear the land grabbers screaming this all the time. Now they have a chance to actually legislate control over a piece of property and what do they propose...well, you guest it...TRANSFER THE LAND FROM FEDERAL TO LOCAL OWNERSHIP!
Could be just simply be a pilot program for hatch and fellow land grabbers to set a precedent for further action.
If they transfer to the county and the management is successful then they would have their presedent for future land grabs.
One fault is this is a pay to play recreation area. So It could be profitable. Unlike the milllions of acres of public lands they cannot make money with so would be sold
__________________
Boom Boom Boom Music to my ears.

Last edited by Hoopermat; 04-08-2017 at 09:27 AM.
Hoopermat is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 04-08-2017, 09:25 AM   #13 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 114
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by #1DEER 1-I View Post
I actually agree with you here. The problem is, the state already underfunds our state parks farther than the Feds underfund our federal parks. Have you seen the parks budget? Have you seen how many fewer rangers that are employed for state parks year in and year out? State park budgets are also underfunded. If the state could walk the walk instead of just talking the talk I'd trust them. They also can't afford the land or parks they manage. They charge 5-10 times what the Feds do for several fees, and don't have the pockets the Feds do. I enjoy our state parks but also think they deserve better funding as well. There's no good reason for the bill other than to further the agenda of the polticians who don't like or public lands in the way they exist today.

As I said every American currently owns this land and if Washington County wants it, they can purchase it from the American people.
Do you realize how bad you contradict yourself? Mullah level rant about ZERO tolerance for any land transfer and now you are ok with it? Really should figure it out.

The condition and amenities at most state parks are better than federal. There is a reason the Forest Service contracted management of the campgrounds years ago is because they don't manage well. Funny how if you commit to have someone (old people in a RV) onsite to collect money, clean the pottie, and call cops if hippies (Do Gooders) show up you have a nice experience and the feds get $$$.

Transfer select areas to state, local control makes sense if there is a clear plan to protect public access and develop those areas for our growing population. Local interests are more vested and reactive.
OriginalOscar is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 04-08-2017, 09:39 AM   #14 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Salt Lake City
Posts: 2,282
Default

This area should be reclassified by congress...by law this is how it is supposed to be done..to a National Recreation area. It should be modeled after the Oregon Dunes National Recreations area with tweaks specific to this area. By law and definition, these areas are intended to be used with guaranteed public access.

Why, if for not some hidden local agenda, would Hatch and the land grabbers choose to turn the land over to a government agency(local) that has little or no experience in land management, little or no money for management, and proven vulnerability to local narrow objectives instead of using the National Recreation Area pathway that is already well established and legal to protect and enhance this area's recreational potential?
wyogoob, rjefre and Hoopermat like this.
BPturkeys is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 04-08-2017, 10:27 AM   #15 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,342
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BPturkeys View Post
This area should be reclassified by congress...by law this is how it is supposed to be done..to a National Recreation area. It should be modeled after the Oregon Dunes National Recreations area with tweaks specific to this area. By law and definition, these areas are intended to be used with guaranteed public access.

Why, if for not some hidden local agenda, would Hatch and the land grabbers choose to turn the land over to a government agency(local) that has little or no experience in land management, little or no money for management, and proven vulnerability to local narrow objectives instead of using the National Recreation Area pathway that is already well established and legal to protect and enhance this area's recreational potential?
Precisely. Very fishy. And, the solution to the maintenance backlog in our national parks and recreation areas is increased funding, not transferring land to local profiteers.
Hoopermat and twall13 like 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

Last edited by paddler; 04-08-2017 at 10:29 AM.
paddler is online now   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 04-08-2017, 11:49 AM   #16 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
#1DEER 1-I's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,929
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OriginalOscar View Post
Do you realize how bad you contradict yourself? Mullah level rant about ZERO tolerance for any land transfer and now you are ok with it? Really should figure it out.

The condition and amenities at most state parks are better than federal. There is a reason the Forest Service contracted management of the campgrounds years ago is because they don't manage well. Funny how if you commit to have someone (old people in a RV) onsite to collect money, clean the pottie, and call cops if hippies (Do Gooders) show up you have a nice experience and the feds get $$$.

Transfer select areas to state, local control makes sense if there is a clear plan to protect public access and develop those areas for our growing population. Local interests are more vested and reactive.
Let me be perfectly clear then. I am 100% against this transfer or any wide scale transfer of federal land to a state government who has neither the resources or funding to manage it. I do not support the agenda the sponsors of this bill are pursuing. I also do not support the theft of property owned by the entire country for free to a local government just because they want it. I want a lot of things, I don't get them for free. Transfer ends in sale. The state has proven with over half its SITLA land the only way they can afford to "manage it" or gain a profit from it is by selling it. I don't support this transfer or any transfer not because I don't agree with you on more local input but because fiscally it will not work in the long run, period.
paddler likes this.
__________________
Keep Public lands, in public hands. Sign the petition:
https://secure3.convio.net/trcp/site...rAction&id=415
Join BHA: http://www.backcountryhunters.org
#1DEER 1-I is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 04-08-2017, 12:43 PM   #17 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Salt Lake City
Posts: 2,282
Default

Federal mangers have no personal, vested interest in some piece of property in Utah. They have nothing to gain or lose personally except their jobs if it isn't managed right. Therefore they are not susceptible to temptation for personal gain or pressure from those who would gain personally by private ownership. Locals, these so-called vested, are exactly that...they are personally vested...they have nothing to lose but everything to gain by transfers to local/state ownership. Gee, I wonder how unbiased they will be when management decisions are being made?
You will never, ever convince me that the land grabbers are doing this for the betterment of the general public or some other altruistic reason. They are doing it for one reason...MONEY! Money for themselves or money from persons/corporations that will profit and have/will use this blood money to help them get re-elected.
#1DEER 1-I and Hoopermat like this.
BPturkeys is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 04-08-2017, 10:32 PM   #18 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Where I can see those Rocky Mountains
Posts: 2,163
Default

While we sit on this forum and laud the Feds, let me point out that the ONLY way the state gets any control of federal public lands is if the Feds give it to them. Utah can waste all the money in the world suing for control...they will lose every time. So if the Feds are willing to give the land away to states, who says in the future they won't sell it off too? We talk about budget concerns, well, our federal government has not been the model for fiscal responsibility.

Bears Ears is a popular topic for many on this issue right now. Well, the national monument designation has more potential to restrict and interfere with my access and use of that land than when it was kept regular BLM land under "30 year old" policies we've "stepped back" to these days. Something to think about, maybe?

So we can bang the #keepitpublic drum and demand federal ownership, all the while getting stabbed in the back in the same way by the Feds. Or, we can do more than just post on the internet to the same 7 people that read this sub-forum by actually going and doing something about the issue. How many people have sat face to face with their elected officials and talked public access? How many days have you spent lobbying at the Capitol? How much money and/or time have you donated to organizations that fight for public access? Post on forums to educate and inform, not with the idea you're making a change. And generally, people don't take well to being talked down to by those trying to educate and inform.

Someone like rjefre...you guys ought to know how much time he spends fighting the good fight! It's unreal. When he posts, I listen. He's earned his street cred, because I know for every post he makes, he's had 5 face to face conversations, meetings, or took an elected official out to the field to SHOW what the issues are. We'd all do well to follow R on this.

Just my 7 cents on the issue.
Vanilla is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 04-09-2017, 12:34 AM   #19 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,342
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vanilla View Post
While we sit on this forum and laud the Feds, let me point out that the ONLY way the state gets any control of federal public lands is if the Feds give it to them. Utah can waste all the money in the world suing for control...they will lose every time. So if the Feds are willing to give the land away to states, who says in the future they won't sell it off too? We talk about budget concerns, well, our federal government has not been the model for fiscal responsibility.

Are the feds giving land to the states? Are they selling land off? Is there precedent for your hypotheticals?

Bears Ears is a popular topic for many on this issue right now. Well, the national monument designation has more potential to restrict and interfere with my access and use of that land than when it was kept regular BLM land under "30 year old" policies we've "stepped back" to these days. Something to think about, maybe?

Do you feel like your access will be restricted? I didn't see that in the synopsis. Is there something in the complete act, which I assume you've read, that gives you that impression? Can you elaborate? Do you agree or disagree with the designation?

So we can bang the #keepitpublic drum and demand federal ownership, all the while getting stabbed in the back in the same way by the Feds.

Have the feds ever stabbed you in the back on issues related to public lands? I've never felt that way, and have a great deal of respect for the state and federal employees charged with protecting our public lands. Please be specific about the back stabbings you've suffered.

Or, we can do more than just post on the internet to the same 7 people that read this sub-forum by actually going and doing something about the issue. How many people have sat face to face with their elected officials and talked public access? How many days have you spent lobbying at the Capitol? How much money and/or time have you donated to organizations that fight for public access?

Good questions. Perhaps even a better one is, "Are you aware of where your elected representatives stand on these issues, and how did you vote?" Did you vote for anybody who is in favor of TPL? Regarding the current thread, did you vote for Hatch?

Post on forums to educate and inform, not with the idea you're making a change. And generally, people don't take well to being talked down to by those trying to educate and inform.

I think posting here is helpful in airing out issues that affect outdoorsmen. Maybe we can increase awareness, educate people, maybe even change some minds, or motivate people to become more involved. After all, these threads attract more views than most. Or maybe not, as some people are impervious to facts.

Someone like rjefre...you guys ought to know how much time he spends fighting the good fight! It's unreal. When he posts, I listen. He's earned his street cred, because I know for every post he makes, he's had 5 face to face conversations, meetings, or took an elected official out to the field to SHOW what the issues are. We'd all do well to follow R on this.

I agree that R has long been a champion for waterfowlers. Nothing but respect for his efforts. But, not everybody can put the time and effort into these issues that he does. The good news is that not everybody needs to do so. Numbers matter, too, and if every waterfowler, big game hunter, fisherman, birder, etc, could contact their elected representatives, maybe we could be an agent for change. If you don't mind being a Do Gooder, that is. Oh, and VOTE in your best interests. Your vote is the most powerful tool you have to protect our public lands.

Just my 7 cents on the issue.
I'll see your 7 cents, and raise you $0.02.
__________________
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   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 04-09-2017, 11:38 AM   #20 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 114
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by #1DEER 1-I View Post
The state has proven with over half its SITLA land the only way they can afford to "manage it" or gain a profit from it is by selling it. I don't support this transfer or any transfer not because I don't agree with you on more local input but because fiscally it will not work in the long run, period.
You do know SITLA land does not belong to the public; it belongs to SITLA for one purpose; generate revenue to public schools.

Feel fortunate the vast majority of SITLA lands are available to the public for use. Do Gooder squawking when parcels are leased or sold is laughable.

Also over 60% of SITLA land is still retained.
OriginalOscar is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Reply

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
Land Transfer Discussion:Rob Bishop's $50M budget request for land transfer. Kwalk3 The great outdoors 8 03-09-2017 09:16 AM
Opposition to Public Land Transfer Idratherbehunting The great outdoors 23 04-22-2016 06:48 AM
Land transfer issue more possible than ever #1DEER 1-I Everything else 21 04-01-2015 05:26 AM
More wasted money on this land transfer BS #1DEER 1-I Everything else 6 03-11-2015 08:49 PM
Utah Public Land Transfer RandomElk16 The great outdoors 133 12-20-2014 07:54 AM

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.