# Petersen's Hunting Takes on Utah Land Transfer Issue



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

http://www.petersenshunting.com/outfitter/push-to-sell-off-federal-lands/

Thoughts?

I found the article interesting. Some good info that discusses some of the issues, realized or not, that face the public lands debate, including the monument creation, etc.

I thought this was a pretty fair assessment of what challenges we have here in UT. I think it's important to acknowledge the concerns of rural UT as well.

SFW's commentary in the article may be of interest to some:

_"A deep frustration and mistrust of big government shades every political discussion in Utah. Troy Justensen, president of the Utah-based Sportsmen for Fish & Wildlife (SFW), echoed this in a recent phone call. While nearly every other group in the hunting industry has said federal land transfer would be a disaster for hunters, his organization has hedged. Justensen said he wants to see change, and if that means more state control, or total state control, it's worth exploring-economics be damned."

How that would work he couldn't say, but in SFW's view the devil Utah knows is worse."_

I think SFW is probably too deep in the sheets with the state politicians to say otherwise, but I think that this position is nothing more than wishful thinking and ignores key factors that would absolutely have to be considered to be ensured that there was no net loss of land or access. "Economics be damned," isn't a phrase that really works in this discussion. Then again, maybe that's just my Econ degree talking.

To be fair, SFW's CEO did say they support whatever is best for hunters, and they want net zero loss of hunting and fishing, which we can all agree on. However, the support for state control ignores several key factors, including those damned economics.

History in the state, as well as knowledge of many of our representatives past actions and future intentions certainly paints an unpleasant picture of what state transfer or control could look like.


----------



## Bucksnort (Nov 15, 2007)

"I think SFW is probably too deep in the sheets with the state politicians to say otherwise..."

This x100. They aren't going to bite the udder they suckle off.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

That was a nice article, thanks for sharing it. There are also several pages in May 2017 Field & Stream about the land grab attempts on America's lands by western legislatures. 
R


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

rjefre said:


> That was a nice article, thanks for sharing it. There are also several pages in May 2017 Field & Stream about the land grab attempts on America's lands by western legislatures.
> R


Outdoor life also recently ran a piece about the public lands issue. Good to see the issue get exposure to an audience that may not be as acutely aware of the debate surrounding public lands.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Kwalk3 said:


> I think SFW is probably too deep in the sheets with the state politicians to say otherwise, but I think that this position is nothing more than wishful thinking and ignores key factors that would absolutely have to be considered to be ensured that there was no net loss of land or access.


I believe SFW is probably too deeply in love with the money it can gain from big game tags. And, by eliminating public land and increasing the demand for good big game tags, they can do just that. SFW stands to benefit from less public land and more demand on hunting tags...


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

There is also the issue of all the taxpayer money that goes to BGF. They're not going to bite the hand that feeds them. There needs to be a serious audit of all that money and an investigation into whether individual legislators benefit in any way from both entities.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I liked this article. I think it fairly and accurately captures a lot of issues we face with public lands.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

Kwalk3 said:


> History in the state, as well as knowledge of many of our representatives past actions and future intentions certainly paints an unpleasant picture of what state transfer or control could look like.


It could end up even worse than that. The state's management plans are structured around gubernatorial appointees exactly like the appointees who already regulate hunting and fishing. I'm not excited about the idea of similar appointees regulating habitat and my access to it.


----------

