# The DON Defines SOCIALISM



## wileywapati

Don strikes again:

http://www.adn.com/2012/03/03/2350508/p ... rylink=cpy#storylink=cpyhttp://www.adn.com/2012/03/03/235050...#storylink=cpy

"Peay, who stressed that the Utah chapter isn't trying to push its view in Alaska or even with the Alaska chapter, said it's time to revisit the widely accepted principle in the United States and Canada that game is a public resource. Peay described that egalitarian doctrine, found in Alaska's state constitution and laws throughout the West, as "socialism." It offers no economic incentive for landowners to kill predators, improve big game habitat and even provide food and water for target species."


----------



## GaryFish

Well, forget for a second the stigma attached to socialism in this country, I'd have to say that the Don is correct. Socialism is the concept that something belongs to all, that all are entitled to it, regardless of wealth or economic station. So historically, yes - big game is socialistic. And he is also correct - when it is held in the public ownership, there really is no economic incentive for land owners to manage for them. Only when the land owner can profit from the harvest of the animals is there an economic incentive. 

So while I may not like the move to privitization of our game, I don't think the view that big game is managed under socialistic concepts is inaccurate.


----------



## pheaz

But Gary, you cant see it that way its got Peays name in it. It just has to be bad right?


----------



## JERRY

What Don is saying is he does not want "We the People" in the constitution. He wants it to read "We the Privileged Few." 

If you like paying to hunt private property this doesn't matter. If you want to be able to go to the mountains and enjoy wildlife and hunt open spaces it does matter.

If you want to preserve our hunting heritage please email this link to all your friends who love the outdoors and hunting. Let them know that their hunting privileges are under attack. :shock: 

If Don Peay had his way he would have all Big Game and Small Game privatized. Long live the King. :O•-:


----------



## Iron Bear

Oil, Gas, Timber?


----------



## svmoose

Wildlife should not be privatized. Private land should be. Let the landowners "incentive" to manage game be tresspass fees. That's how it should work.


----------



## bwhntr

Oh boy The Anchorage Daily News has posted another non-bias article on SFW and now the sky is falling. :roll: 

Sheesh, some of you people are too easy.


----------



## proutdoors

horsesma said:


> What Don is saying is he does not want "We the People" in the constitution. He wants it to read "We the Privileged Few."
> 
> If you like paying to hunt private property this doesn't matter. If you want to be able to go to the mountains and enjoy wildlife and hunt open spaces it does matter.
> 
> If you want to preserve our hunting heritage please email this link to all your friends who love the outdoors and hunting. Let them know that their hunting privileges are under attack. :shock:
> 
> If Don Peay had his way he would have all Big Game and Small Game privatized. Long live the King. :O•-:


Sorry, but I strongly disagree with you on this, and as you know I am NOT a Peay fan! We have gone over this, many times, but there is NOTHING in the Constitution that gives the federal government ownership over land, let alone the resources in/on the land....and that includes wildlife!

Please don't lower yourself to SFW levels, scaring the people with Chicken Little "Sky Is Falling' hyperbole, stating that calling a spade a spade is an attack on 'our hunting heritage'! Public land is, as Gary pointed out....who is not exactly a bastion of individual rights......a socialist policy. Like it or not, having 70% of the State of Utah and 100% of the wildlife owned and controlled by the government is as socialist as it gets.


----------



## wileywapati

Alright maybe I should have clarified the Subject line of the post. 

Maybe it should read "WELFARE QUEENS BLAST SOCIALISM".

I find it ironic that a Special interest group that is subsidized by what has been held 
in the public trust, going all the way back to the Romans, doesn't like sharing control, management or any type of input that differs from their own.

PRO and I can get in to what the Constitution spells out as far as who owns wildlife and public lands and it will just make my head hurt and make me want to choke him.

I also find it ironic that this argument would take place over a public domain
( the internet ) while his PC was plugged in to Municipal Power and his home is kept safe by state county or local law enforcement. Don't forget that several million of our brothers and sisters fought and died for his right to make his flawed arguments. Society, the public trust and collective efforts are nothing but crap right?? 

Rant on Constitutional scholars!!! Just don't use any means to do it that is provided by the society we all live in.

I honestly fear for our children's future.


----------



## proutdoors

Self-smarted people.........


----------



## Catherder

I know that when "the Don" is involved, the tension and rhetoric go up by about 50 %, but there are several things worth discussing here. Which means another long lunchtime discourse that will tick most of you off at some point. 

1. Lets start here; (from the article)

Quote"We understand the North American model where wildlife belongs to the people, but we're also seeing dramatic reductions in game populations in the western United States under that model," he said. Population pressure, habitat loss from development and the rise of environmental organizations opposed to predator control have put pressure on game herds that weren't envisioned when the laws were written a century or more ago, he said."

So, he appears to blame the venerable North American model for declines in our game herds. Well, so much for buck overharvest and coyotes. First, are our game populations dramatically lower? Mule deer are, but what about elk? Moose? Moose are in a bit of decline right now, but I remember the first time anyone saw a moose in Big Cottonwood canyon. It wasn't that long ago. They had been expanding nicely up until recently and the reasons for a short term decline (transplants, elaeophora) are not necessarily permanent. Some of our other species have been reintroduced to previously unpopulated historic ranges also. If we compare ALL species in the West to populations present at the turn of the last century (1900) I would bet most or all are higher now. So I guess I don't accept that our game management is hurt by the North American model. What about environmental organizations? He may have a point about that, but the tools enviros use to protect wolves for instance, via the ESA, apply to both public and private land. So I don't accept that premise either that privatization would neutralize this movement. I would say overall the North American model has largely been and continues to be a success IMO. What do you think?

2. There is an argument that privatizing wildlife will make landowners "care" more for the wild animals. Maybe, maybe not. I would argue that this could be done without privatization. Our CWMU program, for whatever faults it may have, is an example. Also on the fishing side, the walk in access program. I have no problems at all for private property owners with huntable game on their lands to profit from the game. As has been noted in other recent threads, they often DO care about their game animals. However, I do not believe it *requires* privatization to insure this level of care. Additionally, if the game is privatized, and say some problem deer are in the proverbial "pumpkin patch" then they get whacked by the landowner and the overall herd goes down. I would see as much of this from farmers as those that converted their lands to ideal game habitat.
With that in mind, 


svmoose said:


> Wildlife should not be privatized. Private land should be. Let the landowners "incentive" to manage game be tresspass fees. That's how it should work.


+1.

3.


GaryFish said:


> So historically, yes - big game is socialistic.


OK, no big argument. But it is a public asset and resource, like the public water supply. It is not without precedent to have things this way.



GaryFish said:


> And he is also correct - when it is held in the public ownership, there really is no economic incentive for land owners to manage for them. Only when the land owner can profit from the harvest of the animals is there an economic incentive.


As was discussed above, I believe the private property owner can receive such incentives without having the game and fish themselves taken away from the public trust. I am no doubt naive (and dumb) but I guess I do drink the kool-aid that a cooperative effort is possible between private property owners and the state game agencies.

4.


proutdoors said:


> there is NOTHING in the Constitution that gives the federal government ownership over land, let alone the resources in/on the land....and that includes wildlife!


Small point, but the State owns the wildlife, not the Feds.

5. What effect would there be if big game animals were privatized? Landowners could no longer receive compensation from the State for wildlife related damages. Some landowners would profit from it, as would the game in their control. Others would not and would likely harm overall population numbers.  Since our game species roam so much, what happens with ownership when animals go from public to private land? It is a legal mess. There is a reason that the game is public from a legal standpoint. I don't see us changing things any time soon. Of course with our legislature, who knows.


----------



## USMARINEhuntinfool

^^^Couldn't agree more, all good points Catherder, well put...


----------



## bullsnot

svmoose said:


> Wildlife should not be privatized. Private land should be. Let the landowners "incentive" to manage game be tresspass fees. That's how it should work.


+1

Reading the "Monroe Collar Study" thread (link below) it looks like there are some very good ways to incentivize landowners to care about wildlife. This is just another "angle" to get an agenda accomplished IMHO.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=41177&start=60


----------



## GaryFish

Privitization of hunting is Texas. Purely pay to play. And people do hunt there, and have a heck of a great time doing it. But it costs. Funny when I think about it. The best hunting I've ever experienced has been on private lands, for public game, and I've never paid a fee, other than a pan of fresh cinnamon rolls and promise to close the gates that were closed, leave open the ones that were open, and not shoot the cows. I've always followed those hunts up with a letter expressing how much I appreciated the privilege.


----------



## JERRY

The gap between more and enough never closes.


----------



## bigred

If a population in a given area is growing, all nearby land is FAR more valuable as a subdivision or a supermarket than to be managed for wild game, regardless of who owns the wildlife. There are many many folks out there who would rather make a quick buck selling their land than have to work their tails off to manage that same land. I can't say that I blame them, and I respect the landowners who leave the land empty. The problem with our game herds is people, too darn many of them, and we don't show signs of stopping. 7 billion and counting.


----------



## Kevin D

Don Peay is truly a modern day Robin Hood except with a twist, he steals from the poor to give to the rich!


----------



## BPturkeys

"We the people" is the government Pro. 
Anarchy is the opposite to socialism Pro, if you take away all that belongs to "We the People" and put it in the hands of individuals...all "We the people" ends!
All you folks out there that are buying into this "individualism" as an answer to some perceived danger just remember, our great country came about because a few "individuals" had complete control over "We the people". Our constitution established "We the people" as the group to have the control. 
"We the People"...that is what our government is!


----------



## TopofUtahArcher

GaryFish said:


> Well, forget for a second the stigma attached to socialism in this country, I'd have to say that the Don is correct. Socialism is the concept that something belongs to all, that all are entitled to it, regardless of wealth or economic station.In the case in point, the game actually belongs to "you and me" as it benefits us indivifually as sportsmen who pay for and help in the management of said game. So historically, yes - big game is socialistic. And he is also correct - when it is held in the public ownership, there really is no economic incentive for land owners to manage for themwhen there is economic benefit to one person or group simply because his/their ancestors homesteaded some forsaken piece of wildlife-void land, and then decades later profit from the public's efforts to grow and prosper wildlife through "public management" that has spilled onto the private land you have a monarchy. Only when the land owner can profit from the harvest of the animals is there an economic incentive. only when the public truely receive benefits worthy of their investment will they fight to keep public opportunity available... if the incentive is shut off to them, or made to high price for them to participate, you again create a "monarchial" or "dictatorship" rule as to who can participate in the sport of hunting... as the Don wants it.
> 
> So while I may not like the move to privitization of our game, I don't think the view that big game is managed under socialistic concepts is inaccurate.


Socialistic management would not be done via a hunting permit system such as we have, but would instead hunting permits would be proportionately given to all, whether they wanted/needed it or not. What we have is a system where those who participate benefit, and those who don't participate benefit as well, while those who were lucky enough to have ancestors preceed others' gobbled up property for a very different purpose and are now benefitting from public resource management and funding for their private gain...


----------



## ridgetop

I see this article as nothing more than a guy wanting Alaska to have some sort of CWMU program and someone else asking DP what his thoughts are about the issue. Nothing more than that. I guess if you want another reason to bag on DP and SFW, then go ahead. I have better things to do with my time and to worry about.


----------



## bwhntr

ridgetop said:


> I see this article as nothing more than a guy wanting Alaska to have some sort of CWMU program and someone else asking DP what his thoughts are about the issue. Nothing more than that. I guess if you want another reason to bag on DP and SFW, then go ahead. I have better things to do with my time and to worry about.


Thats what I see too...however for the rest of the conspiracy theorists, THE SKY IS FALLING, THE SKY IS FALLING!!!


----------



## PBH

bwhntr said:


> Thats what I see too...however for the rest of the conspiracy theorists, THE SKY IS FALLING, THE SKY IS FALLING!!!


sounds very much like the whole wolf campaign going around southern utah. Remind me, who started all that conspiracy? Oh, that's right: SFW.


----------



## JERRY

Allowing people to take game with little to no regulation is akin to a falling sky. Even in Alaska. Keep giving little bites to other controlling interests and there will be no sky left.
Just ask those who live in Texas. One of the biggest states in the nation and ask them how much of their state is controlled by privatization. Some may argue that the hunting there is good, but you have to pay to hunt in some guys high fenced area with bait. :roll: Little by little big game hunting is headed the way of the high roller. Those that can afford to buy land and those who already own it, and those who can afford to pay to hunt said lands.

I would like to see traditional hunting preserved for my kids and theirs. 8) That's all!!!


----------



## bwhntr

PBH said:


> bwhntr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats what I see too...however for the rest of the conspiracy theorists, THE SKY IS FALLING, THE SKY IS FALLING!!!
> 
> 
> 
> sounds very much like the whole wolf campaign going around southern utah. Remind me, who started all that conspiracy? Oh, that's right: SFW.
Click to expand...

Similar, maybe.


----------



## bwhntr

horsesma said:


> I would like to see traditional hunting preserved for my kids and theirs. 8) That's all!!!


100% agree!


----------



## Iron Bear

PBH said:


> sounds very much like the whole wolf campaign going around southern utah. Remind me, who started all that conspiracy? Oh, that's right: SFW.


Minutes from the WB meeting August 2011.

"4) DWR Update (Information)
Jim Karpowitz, DWR Director presented this agenda item. We are going to run a bill to 
change the classification of wolves to be treated the same as bears and cougars, rather 
than under furbearer. The only part of Utah that we have authority over wolves is a small 
piece of land in northeastern Utah, east of I-84. This will establish a wolf hunting permit. 
They have asked Senator Christensen to run this bill. 
*Also on the status of Mexican wolves, they are on a fast track for determination of listing. 
We have been participating in discussions with the Service and other states involved. 
Our position is Mexican wolves are not native to Utah. The DWR's approach in these 
meetings is to impress on the Fish and Wildlife Service that this never was historic 
Mexican wolf habitat and we don't want them here. That determination will be made in 
2012 so it is on a fast track.*

Does Karpowitz represent SFW? :lol:


----------



## bullsnot

bwhntr said:


> ridgetop said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see this article as nothing more than a guy wanting Alaska to have some sort of CWMU program and someone else asking DP what his thoughts are about the issue. Nothing more than that. I guess if you want another reason to bag on DP and SFW, then go ahead. I have better things to do with my time and to worry about.
> 
> 
> 
> Thats what I see too...however for the rest of the conspiracy theorists, THE SKY IS FALLING, THE SKY IS FALLING!!!
Click to expand...

I agree that the sky is not falling. However if we aren't careful we will be the frog in the pan with the warm water that is starting to boil.

I tend to think that we all want strong game populations, I doubt there are many of us that don't but the exchange of wildlife for dollars is big business and could have deterimental effects to the average citizen. It's already happened to some degree. To dismiss that and not be suspicious and ask questions I think is naive at best.


----------



## PBH

Iron Bear said:


> Our position is Mexican wolves are not native to Utah. The DWR's approach in these
> meetings is to impress on the Fish and Wildlife Service that this never was historic
> Mexican wolf habitat and we don't want them here. That determination will be made in
> 2012 so it is on a fast track.[/b]
> 
> Does Karpowitz represent SFW? :lol:


Exactly!! Why is it that so many southern Utahn's believe that the mexican wolves have already been introduced into southern utah by the UDWR? Remember the SFW meetings being held all across the state in the name of "predator control"? Yep -- here in Cedar City, that meeting was the "300 wolves introduced into Zion National Park by the UDWR " meeting...

It's still scare tactics. SFW uses these "the sky is falling" techniques as much as anyone else. It's not limited to just Anchorage Daily News media.


----------



## bwhntr

PBH said:


> Iron Bear said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our position is Mexican wolves are not native to Utah. The DWR's approach in these
> meetings is to impress on the Fish and Wildlife Service that this never was historic
> Mexican wolf habitat and we don't want them here. That determination will be made in
> 2012 so it is on a fast track.[/b]
> 
> Does Karpowitz represent SFW? :lol:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly!! Why is it that so many southern Utahn's believe that the mexican wolves have already been introduced into southern utah by the UDWR? Remember the SFW meetings being held all across the state in the name of "predator control"? Yep -- here in Cedar City, that meeting was the "300 wolves introduced into Zion National Park by the UDWR " meeting...
> 
> It's still scare tactics. SFW uses these "the sky is falling" techniques as much as anyone else. It's not limited to just Anchorage Daily News media.
Click to expand...

This little quote has as been quite effective for addressing these issues on other topics...


> if we aren't careful we will be the frog in the pan with the warm water that is starting to boil.


This could be used in the Mexican Wolf argument as well.


----------



## bullsnot

bwhntr said:


> if we aren't careful we will be the frog in the pot with the warm water that is starting to boil.
> 
> 
> 
> This could be used in the Mexican Wolf argument as well.
Click to expand...

True. History tells us the wolf has been shoved down hunters throats so I understand why people would be nervous.

The only issue with the Mexican wolf is someone isn't telling the whole story. Some are telling us it is imminent in Southern Utah and the feds are saying even a serious discussion about it is years away.


----------



## bwhntr

I understand Bullsnot. I appreciate your comments. I guess that is somewhat how I feel about Don's comments. Of course I think the context has been somewhat twisted. Nonetheless...Someone isn't telling the whole story. Some are telling us it is imminent in Alaska. A serious discussion isn't even on the horizon...


----------



## wileywapati

Look, the SFW Koolaid drinkers are going to need the foundation to crumble before they get a clue.
Alaska, Arizona and Idaho are all under attack in one form or another from SFW. Alaska has a proposal 
to go the way of Utah and they ain't digging it. Arizona had legislation run to have a tag grab support 
an Expo in the state, They ain't digging it either. Idaho has a Bill in session right now that would bring Conservation Tags to that state and they actually may be digging it.

All the Constitutional individual vs collectivist dividing hunter garbage needs to stop. We as Human being living on the North American Continent have treaties to manage wildlife in one way and only one way. It's called the North American Wildlife Conservation Model. When the market hunters, who were driven by profit, almost exterminated some species hunters stood up and said enough is enough. Now some are happy to turn over more control to groups that have done very little since 1994. Taken thousands of hunting opportunities away from hunters to turn a profit. While watching our numbers drop every year. 

You ask me if the sky is falling?? In five years under this agenda there won't be enough of us left to even give a **** or defend our hunting heritage.


----------



## wyoming2utah

bingo +1...

....When Don blasts that North American Model for not working, maybe he should check his facts and the history of both the american bison and the white tail deer...

....if we head down his preferred trail, most of us won't be hunting anymore and mule deer will be the "king's deer"! The thing that bugs me the most about his comments and the direction SFW pushes is that both Don and SFW have economic motivation to make it that way!


----------



## bwhntr

wileywapati said:


> Look, the SFW Koolaid drinkers are going to need the foundation to crumble before they get a clue.


Lol, this just goes to show you really don't know me. Not even a little bit.



wileywapati said:


> Alaska, Arizona and Idaho are all under attack in one form or another from SFW. Alaska has a proposal
> to go the way of Utah and they ain't digging it. Arizona had legislation run to have a tag grab support
> an Expo in the state, They ain't digging it either. Idaho has a Bill in session right now that would bring Conservation Tags to that state and they actually may be digging it.


How do you know if "they" are "digging it" or not? Who are you talking to in Alaska, Idaho, Arizona? How do you know what the majority wants? Because you read a bias article out of Alaska? I am really interested in hearing what the majority wants. I am pretty sure we don't know what the majority of the people here in Utah wants. If your assumptions are coming from what you are hearing on a couple of internet forums then you might be in for a surprise. Maybe not.

I really want to know what the majority of the people want. Also, I am pretty sure MOST people don't even know the facts.


----------



## Dannyboy

I think that is the biggest problem, People don't know the facts. Most people don't even know that there is a problem. They don't understand the conservation tags or even know they are there. I know 2 years ago i didn't know any of this stuff, but when i heard about the changes to the units and the options i started learning fast because something didn't sound right to me. I understand a little from both sides but i learn toward the side that doesn't take my opportunity away and give it to someone with more money then me. I will never make that kind of money and just because someone has it doesn't make them better then me or more deserving of a natural resource more then me.


----------



## hossblur

So in 2010 SFW spent 1.1million of conventions and expos, and 1.4 on habitat. Hope you didn't all miss that.

Second, I find it interesting that when SFW (Byron Bateman) talks about the sucess of the CWMU program in Utah, they talk to Byron Bateman, that sure is an unbiased opinion. 

YEAH THE SKY IS FALLING. Every one of you coolaid drinkers who want to defend SFW, I want you name and number. I personally will call you all on June 1 when you don't draw any tag(including a deer tag), and we can discuss how you will be sitting home, because you didn't have 20 points to draw an elk, but it is good for wildlife that Denny Austad bought another one. Or you guys that are on waiting periods, lets discuss how wonderful it is that Denny hunts elk in Utah every year, while you sit on a 5 year period.

ANY CLOWN that thinks DON represents them, is clueless. Don represents Don. What is good for Don is all he cares about. And whats good for Don is SFW dominating the landscape. Afterall where does Dons money and power come from?

Lastly, if we are going down this road then all aid, all farm welfare, all subsidies, all public grazing better disapear. If landowners want to PRETEND they are private and don't want the pesky government in there buisness, then government should grant their wish. First on the plate, no more greenbelt, feel free to scratch that tax check for what your ground is worth based on it being a commercial entity!!

Get real, most ranchers want to be left alone. Do we really think THEY are the push behind any bill like this? This is EXACTLY what it is, rich connected guys pushing for special consideration, cloaking it with "its good for wildlife" to confuse those who don't pay attention!!!


----------



## scott_rn

I thought the byron bateman comment was ironic. do you guys really feel like you get more opportunities to hunt lands that you wouldn't otherwise because of the cwmu program. is it pretty easy to get a tag in utah right now?

a lot of guys in alaska are outraged by this right now. access is already a huge issue because there are fewer road and huge amounts of land owned by native corporations. I can understand controlling access and charging for it. Giving landowners control of the tags is a whole other beast.


----------



## Muley73

bwhntr said:


> wileywapati said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look, the SFW Koolaid drinkers are going to need the foundation to crumble before they get a clue.
> 
> 
> 
> Lol, this just goes to show you really don't know me. Not even a little bit.
> 
> 
> 
> wileywapati said:
> 
> 
> 
> Alaska, Arizona and Idaho are all under attack in one form or another from SFW. Alaska has a proposal
> to go the way of Utah and they ain't digging it. Arizona had legislation run to have a tag grab support
> an Expo in the state, They ain't digging it either. Idaho has a Bill in session right now that would bring Conservation Tags to that state and they actually may be digging it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do you know if "they" are "digging it" or not? Who are you talking to in Alaska, Idaho, Arizona? How do you know what the majority wants? Because you read a bias article out of Alaska? I am really interested in hearing what the majority wants. I am pretty sure we don't know what the majority of the people here in Utah wants. If your assumptions are coming from what you are hearing on a couple of internet forums then you might be in for a surprise. Maybe not.
> 
> I really want to know what the majority of the people want. Also, I am pretty sure MOST people don't even know the facts.
Click to expand...

bwhntr,

THANK YOU for being able to look outside the bubble of the internet forums. You are 100% correct in your comments. None of us actually know what 95% want!


----------



## Kevin D

scott_rn said:


> I thought the byron bateman comment was ironic. do you guys really feel like you get more opportunities to hunt lands that you wouldn't otherwise because of the cwmu program. is it pretty easy to get a tag in utah right now?


Of the 3 CWMU's in southern Cache County, back in the day I used to hunt them all. Some charged a modest trespass fee, but a lot of the time asking permission or having a connection was all that was needed to gain access. So what Byron says may be true on some properties, it is certainly not the case historically on the ones I'm most familiar with.


----------



## PBH

bwhntr said:


> How do you know if "they" are "digging it" or not? Who are you talking to in Alaska... How do you know what the majority wants? Because you read a bias article out of Alaska? I am really interested in hearing what the majority wants.





scott_rn said:


> a lot of guys in alaska are outraged by this right now. access is already a huge issue because there are fewer road and huge amounts of land owned by native corporations. I can understand controlling access and charging for it. Giving landowners control of the tags is a whole other beast.


I believe that Scott is in Palmer (or somewhere near Palmer) Alaska. So, does his comments help you out bwhntr? Or is he biased as well? maybe he's just uneducated, and doesn't know any facts? Obviously, he's not the majority, but I since we don't have anyone else from AK commenting, I think we'll just have to use the best info we have. Sounds to me like AK is against the SFW movement.


----------



## bwhntr

No that is not good enough for me. I wasn't being a smartass with my question. I really would like to know what the MAJORITY wants. This little internet site, which is full of misinformation, is a poor scale to judge what people actually want.


----------



## JuddCT

bwhntr said:


> No that is not good enough for me. I wasn't being a smartass with my question. I really would like to know what the MAJORITY wants. This little internet site, which is full of misinformation, is a poor scale to judge what people actually want.


Not to be a too cynical, but you are never going to find that out just like here in Utah. Good luck. Until then, that is why we have this site to spread OPINIONS!

I've seen it go both ways. Just look at how Option 2 passed and how some claimed it to be what the majority wanted. I really wish we could have seen a true majority opinion first before making that decision. I think some of us have finally figured out what other groups have been doing since the 90's. The squeaky wheel gets heard. We are just playing the game now.


----------



## PBH

bwhntr said:


> No that is not good enough for me. I wasn't being a smartass with my question. I really would like to know what the MAJORITY wants.


What majority? How 'bout the majority on this site?



bwhntr said:


> This little internet site, which is full of misinformation, is a poor scale to judge what people actually want.


then why come here and discuss it?

If it really came down to it, do you honestly think that the MAJORITY would be in favor of turning wildlife in North America over to private property owners? That's a laugh.


----------



## bwhntr

PBH...Turning wildlife over to private property owners is not whats happening, nor is it whats going to happen. The fact that you really think that is what I find laughable. Working towards a CWMU program is acceptable and offers more opportunity.

Why come here and discuss it? Good question, because these are RARELY actual "discussions".


----------



## JuddCT

bwhntr said:


> Why come here and discuss it? Good question, because these are RARELY actual "discussions".


But that is just YOUR OPINION 

Which is why you posted it in the first place.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr

In all fairness, I think we are talking about 2 separate things. One is turning corporate and private lands in Alaska into some sort of CWMU program, another is a bout Don's remarks about the NAMWC and the "Time to re-examine wildlife as a public resource comment". The CWMU type debate is well, debatable. 

The other is what I would consider radically progressive thinking and I am still dumbfounded that he would come out and say it. Our forefathers saw first hand the results of these types of things and saw a need. This has served us well for generations and now, because pandering to constituents (Landowners, corporations and $) has become commonplace, it shouldn't be critiqued? I am personally in awe at the balls displayed with such a statement and not in a good way.


----------



## bwhntr

Treehugnhuntr said:


> In all fairness, I think we are talking about 2 separate things. One is turning corporate and private lands in Alaska into some sort of CWMU program, another is a bout Don's remarks about the NAMWC and the "Time to re-examine wildlife as a public resource comment". The CWMU type debate is well, debatable.
> 
> The other is what I would consider radically progressive thinking and I am still dumbfounded that he would come out and say it. Our forefathers saw first hand the results of these types of things and saw a need. This has served us well for generations and now, because pandering to constituents (Landowners, corporations and $) has become commonplace, it shouldn't be critiqued? I am personally in awe at the balls displayed with such a statement and not in a good way.


Don's remarks do seem a little over the top. However, I question the source and context of the quotes. Lets see if he responds to my latest email...


----------



## Packout

Bwhntr- I think Tree explained it well. The article quotes Don as saying "We understand the North American model where wildlife belongs to the people, but we're also seeing dramatic reductions in game populations in the western United States under that model," he said. 

These words worry me-- "We understand the North American model where wildlife belongs to the people, but..." To me there should be no "But". The point is, I interpret his statement as he has reservations against the Model which has brought us what we have today and what we have had for the past 100 years. 

Are wildlife numbers plummeting across the board in the West, as he claimed? Elk numbers plummeting? Antelope herds decimated (and we are not talking the Plateau herd exclusively)? Bighorn herds better today than 20 years ago? Mtn goats better today than 20 years ago? Bison? Western whitetails? The answer in most cases is these herds are better today than they were 10, 20, or 30 years ago. Of course there are predation issues in Wolf Country, which were brought to us outside of the Model.

Mule deer and moose are in decline. Moose because of disease and other issues. Mule deer decline, no one knows for sure-- no matter how smart they claim to be.

You and I have both enjoyed the "Socialism" of our wildlife, public lands, and roadways to get us there and back. I understand his "socialism" remark to be negative. As in "socialism" is a bad thing = our wildlife management is a bad thing. Do you read his "socialism" comment different?

Now, I believe that landowners should receive incentives to maintain healthy herds on their lands. I also believe that hunters should band together to address the predator issues we have. I do not believe the idea of "Public Wildlife" should be abandoned. It appears from the statement above that some believe the NA Model of wildlife management should be less important than it has been. Going down that road scares me-- even as a private landowner.....


----------



## bwhntr

I understand the concern, believe me I get it. Rather than speculate, I would rather get my answers from the source. I will let you know what those answers may be...if any.


----------



## proutdoors

Treehugnhuntr said:


> Our forefathers saw first hand the results of these types of things and saw a need. This has served us well for generations and now, because pandering to constituents (Landowners, corporations and $) has become commonplace, it shouldn't be critiqued? I am personally in awe at the balls displayed with such a statement and not in a good way.


Which forefathers are you referring to? It most certainly was NOT the Founders of this nation! They were adamant about the federal government NOT retaining large masses of land long term.


----------



## wyoming2utah

Maybe not...but they were wise enough to put provisions into our government that allowed for the creation of new laws as times changed. They were smart enough to know that they could not and should not try to create all-encompassing laws that should not be revised as times and circumstances changed... For that I am very thankful!


----------



## bigred

proutdoors said:


> Treehugnhuntr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our forefathers saw first hand the results of these types of things and saw a need. This has served us well for generations and now, because pandering to constituents (Landowners, corporations and $) has become commonplace, it shouldn't be critiqued? I am personally in awe at the balls displayed with such a statement and not in a good way.
> 
> 
> 
> Which forefathers are you referring to? It most certainly was NOT the Founders of this nation! They were adamant about the federal government NOT retaining large masses of land long term.
Click to expand...

Pro, I have been reading many many of your posts because I find them to be interesting. I agree with many of the things you say and I'd love to chat with you sometime. That being said I just cant get on board with getting rid of federal lands. When the Constitution was ratified there were less than five million people in the U.S. The most recent census counted over 300 million. There is no way our forefathers foresaw that kind of population living here. I agree that there is nothing in the constitution that gives the feds the right to the land, but right now I'm glad they have it, I enjoy wild places and I've seen all too often them disappearing, even in my short life. I have read the constitution in its entirety, and I think we have strayed far and often from what it says, and most of the time we'd be far better sticking it. In this case however, I honestly wish there was more federal land, not less, more wilderness areas, not fewer, and more empty space. I'm not trying to start an argument, as I said I respect your views and agree with many of them, and can see where you're coming from on this issue.


----------



## proutdoors

wyoming2utah said:


> Maybe not...but they were wise enough to put provisions into our government that allowed for the creation of new laws as times changed. They were smart enough to know that they could not and should not try to create all-encompassing laws that should not be revised as times and circumstances changed... For that I am very thankful!


Aw......but they warned us about letting the government grow, and to restrain it and keep it SMALL. They formed the greatest nation in human history for ONE purpose: To protect life, liberty, and property. Anything beyond that results in loss of the three key purposes, in varying degrees.


----------



## proutdoors

bigred said:


> Pro, I have been reading many many of your posts because I find them to be interesting. I agree with many of the things you say and I'd love to chat with you sometime..................................I'm not trying to start an argument, as I said I respect your views and agree with many of them, and can see where you're coming from on this issue.


Come on down, shoot some pot guts, and we'll chat. 8)


----------



## hossblur

bwhntr said:


> Treehugnhuntr said:
> 
> 
> 
> In all fairness, I think we are talking about 2 separate things. One is turning corporate and private lands in Alaska into some sort of CWMU program, another is a bout Don's remarks about the NAMWC and the "Time to re-examine wildlife as a public resource comment". The CWMU type debate is well, debatable.
> 
> The other is what I would consider radically progressive thinking and I am still dumbfounded that he would come out and say it. Our forefathers saw first hand the results of these types of things and saw a need. This has served us well for generations and now, because pandering to constituents (Landowners, corporations and $) has become commonplace, it shouldn't be critiqued? I am personally in awe at the balls displayed with such a statement and not in a good way.
> 
> 
> 
> Don's remarks do seem a little over the top. However, I question the source and context of the quotes. Lets see if he responds to my latest email...
Click to expand...

Perhaps THE DON should talk to Byron. In the same article Byron explains how they have increased populations. So which is it?


----------



## Treehugnhuntr

bwhntr said:


> Treehugnhuntr said:
> 
> 
> 
> In all fairness, I think we are talking about 2 separate things. One is turning corporate and private lands in Alaska into some sort of CWMU program, another is a bout Don's remarks about the NAMWC and the "Time to re-examine wildlife as a public resource comment". The CWMU type debate is well, debatable.
> 
> The other is what I would consider radically progressive thinking and I am still dumbfounded that he would come out and say it. Our forefathers saw first hand the results of these types of things and saw a need. This has served us well for generations and now, because pandering to constituents (Landowners, corporations and $) has become commonplace, it shouldn't be critiqued? I am personally in awe at the balls displayed with such a statement and not in a good way.
> 
> 
> 
> Don's remarks do seem a little over the top. However, I question the source and context of the quotes. Lets see if he responds to my latest email...
Click to expand...

Let us know if you get an answer.


----------



## USMARINEhuntinfool

Pro- Curious about this statement "It most certainly was NOT the Founders of this nation! They were adamant about the federal government NOT retaining large masses of land long term." Where you coming up with that? I can't find anything to back that statement, maybe you can enlighten us?


----------



## proutdoors

USMARINEhuntinfool said:


> Pro- Curious about this statement "It most certainly was NOT the Founders of this nation! They were adamant about the federal government NOT retaining large masses of land long term." Where you coming up with that? I can't find anything to back that statement, maybe you can enlighten us?


 Virginia's Cession of Western Lands to the United States, 1783: Set the example for all states to cede land in western holdings to the federal government for *immediate sale* to pay war debts and deed land to officers and soldiers of the Revolutionary War in payment for their services. It also established the Equal Footing Doctrine whereby new states will have *equal rights* as the old ones.

Northwest Ordinance of 1787: Created the Northwest Territories north of the Ohio River and east of the Mississippi River. It codified the Equal Footing Doctrine and *required* that federal land should be sold as quickly as possible to pay war debts. It provided the basis for settling what became the states surrounding the lake states. It provided a legal foundation for *all* future states east of the Rocky Mountains to enter the Union.

There was also the PreEmption Acts of 1803 and 1841....they were repealed in 1891 (right before Utah was permitted to join the Union....) There is the Homestead Act of 1862. The Act of 1866 (The 1866 is still in effect today).

It wasn't until 1891, more than 100 years after this nation was Founded, that policies/Acts were put into motion. Now, we have 'progressed' so far that the agenda is driven by the U.N.'s Agenda 21, which is NOT in any of our (sportsmen) best interests!


----------



## scott_rn

There's an Alaska forum where I would say most folks are against a CWMU system. 
http://forums.outdoorsdirectory.com/sho ... 0009f6df87

In alaska you can essentially hunt everything with an over the counter tag every year except for bison, elk and musk ox. The biggest issue here is access. The state is huge, with very few roads. A good portion of those roads are restricted because they are owned by native corporations, national parks, etc. There aren't a lot of ranchers like in Utah, also there is less concern abut habitat loss. One of the biggest management issues is predator control.


----------



## bigred

scott_rn said:


> In alaska you can essentially hunt everything with an over the counter tag every year except for bison, elk and musk ox. The biggest issue here is access. The state is huge, with very few roads. A good portion of those roads are restricted because they are owned by native corporations, national parks, etc. There aren't a lot of ranchers like in Utah, also there is less concern abut habitat loss. One of the biggest management issues is predator control.


What I would do for OTC tags.


----------



## JuddCT

bigred said:


> scott_rn said:
> 
> 
> 
> In alaska you can essentially hunt everything with an over the counter tag every year except for bison, elk and musk ox. The biggest issue here is access. The state is huge, with very few roads. A good portion of those roads are restricted because they are owned by native corporations, national parks, etc. There aren't a lot of ranchers like in Utah, also there is less concern abut habitat loss. One of the biggest management issues is predator control.
> 
> 
> 
> What I would do for OTC tags.
Click to expand...

Move to Alaska?


----------



## bigred

JuddCT said:


> bigred said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> scott_rn said:
> 
> 
> 
> In alaska you can essentially hunt everything with an over the counter tag every year except for bison, elk and musk ox. The biggest issue here is access. The state is huge, with very few roads. A good portion of those roads are restricted because they are owned by native corporations, national parks, etc. There aren't a lot of ranchers like in Utah, also there is less concern abut habitat loss. One of the biggest management issues is predator control.
> 
> 
> 
> What I would do for OTC tags.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Move to Alaska?
Click to expand...

I totally would, but I have shared custody of my daughter with my ex. I couldn't leave that little girl. Maybe when she turns 18


----------



## wyoming2utah

proutdoors said:


> wyoming2utah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe not...but they were wise enough to put provisions into our government that allowed for the creation of new laws as times changed. They were smart enough to know that they could not and should not try to create all-encompassing laws that should not be revised as times and circumstances changed... For that I am very thankful!
> 
> 
> 
> Aw......but they warned us about letting the government grow, and to restrain it and keep it SMALL.
Click to expand...

Hmmm....why, though? Did they warn us of big government because of the tyranny they faced in the Old World? The way I see it, unregulated private business is just as scary and tyrannical as the big government threat that our founding fathers saw a couple hundred years ago. Think about it...just recently we have had two very glowing examples of how the the government's failure to regulate big business and private enterprise can be exceptionally damaging--the oil rig explosion in the Gulf and the collapse of credit in 2008 are perfect examples. The private sector is becoming so powerful that we have epidemics of fraudulent mortgages and nothing is done. But we should have a "SMALL" government that deregulates Wall Street, doesn't expect private companies to follow established safety protocol, that doesn't stand up for the many against the few, or for the less powerful against the powerful. You see, I believe the government has a duty of getting involved the keep the private economy running smoothly and protecting us from fraud, shady dealings by powerful wealthy businessmen...in the economic realm, government has been so small that we are experiencing a different form of tyranny...a type that I would wager our founding fathers also would warn us against. So, I would say we are in danger of government being too "SMALL" to do the very job it was created to do...protect our pursuit of life, liberty, and property!


----------



## Iron Bear

This is a great discussion about big game. :mrgreen:


----------



## wyoming2utah

Maybe not, but it is fitting....Don Peay and SFW have become/are becoming tyrannical with our wildlife management...and it appears as though they are pushing a very business-centered/economical approach to wildlife management that doesn't necessarily benefit the masses nor the wildlife!


----------



## rjefre

When our publicly owned wildlife becomes intertwined with private enterprise, then a discussion on socialism is always in order. It is a bit of a paradox. Our history here in America shows many examples of capitalism run amuck due to the failure of government to implement and enforce rules. The same will happen to our public wildlife if it is allowed to be overtaken by unrestrained private enterprise. Private sector is normally the best direction to take, but not when you mix it with public wildlife that should be enjoyed by all of our citizens regardles of their economic stature in society. Like I said it is a bit of a paradox. Smarter people than me will need to figure it out in order to save us from ourselves.
R


----------



## scott_rn

Probably not the first time I've been called a socialist.

Bart, maybe you already addressed it, do you think there should be public land (open to hunting)? Should it be state owned, and not federal?


----------



## stillhunterman

rjefre said:


> When our publicly owned wildlife becomes intertwined with private enterprise, then a discussion on socialism is always in order. It is a bit of a paradox. Our history here in America shows many examples of capitalism run amuck due to the failure of government to implement and enforce rules. The same will happen to our public wildlife if it is allowed to be overtaken by unrestrained private enterprise. Private sector is normally the best direction to take, but not when you mix it with public wildlife that should be enjoyed by all of our citizens regardles of their economic stature in society. Like I said it is a bit of a paradox. _*Smarter people than me will need to figure it out in order to save us from ourselves.*_R


Smart people have already figured it out, a long time ago! It's called the North American Wildlife Conservation Model. The seven tenets which are the models backbone have and will continue to serve us and our wildlife just fine. The continuation of the sale of our wildlife through "conservation tags" will only get worse unless hunters step to the forefront once again (as those did who founded the NAWCM principles!) and put an end to this madness. The public sale of our wildlife is NOT the ONLY way to fund conservation! Let's figure it out and do it! :evil:


----------



## Catherder

stillhunterman said:


> Smart people have already figured it out, a long time ago! It's called the North American Wildlife Conservation Model. The seven tenets which are the models backbone have and will continue to serve us and our wildlife just fine.


Thank you :O||: for bringing us back to talking about the North American model! How the heck did we get back on this land thing again?



scott_rn said:


> Bart, maybe you already addressed it, do you think there should be public land (open to hunting)? Should it be state owned, and not federal?


We beat this subject to death on 2 separate threads last week. They have been moved to the "Great Outdoors" section. But I'm sure Pro will be happy to answer you again. 

Several of us have already talked about the North American Model, and some of us have pointed out that virtually all Big game species have benefited since its origins in the early 1900's. Looking back, do you know how many mule deer we had in the State 100 years ago? Not many at all. They may be declining some now, but the North American model helped mule deer populations really take off during the middle of the last century. It has been the same for other big game species also. In spite of what some think, there have been flashes of inspired government after 1789. I do think the model is worth fighting for. Carry on.


----------



## proutdoors

wyoming2utah said:


> Hmmm....why, though? Did they warn us of big government because of the tyranny they faced in the Old World? The way I see it, unregulated private business is just as scary and tyrannical as the big government threat that our founding fathers saw a couple hundred years ago. Care to give *ONE* example of 'unregulated private business"? I'll save you the trouble of looking for one, there are *NONE*!!!!!!Think about it...just recently we have had two very glowing examples of how the the government's failure to regulate big business and private enterprise can be exceptionally damaging--the oil rig explosion in the Gulf and the collapse of credit in 2008 are perfect examples. Two bogus examples! First, the off-shoring drilling industry is heavily regulated by the federal government. The mess in the Gulf was a perfect example of how/why government over-sight does NOT ensure perfection/safety. Crony-capitalism...or state capitalism is NOT the private sector working on its own. It always has the aid of the government. The oil mess highlighted how those who were supposed to keeping them in line where profiting from the shortcuts and ignored safety measures. As for the credit collapse of 2008, that was 99.99999999999999999% the result of centralized planning and government mandates/policies. The government created the bubble, caused the burst, and then showed up at the scene of the crime offering to 'clean up the mess'. Neither example you offer would have been possible in the private sector without the direct assistance of the government. No matter how badly you revise the facts, the facts still remain! The private sector is becoming so powerful that we have epidemics of fraudulent mortgages and nothing is done. What made these fraudulent mortgages possible? You act as if the private sector did it in secret, and on their own. When the fact is, they were directed....check that....mandated to approve the toxic loans by the federal government. The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) was put into motion originally under Carter, but revamped and MANDATED by William Jefferson Clinton. With the aid of two Government Secured Entities (GSE'S)...Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.....billions were made on this scam. The Federal Reserve keep interest rates artificially low to keep the burst going. Then we had pinheads like George W Bush, and Bernanke, and the Treasury Secretary along with those on the Finance Committee in Congress keep telling us all was well, and buying the toxic mortgage bundles was wise and 'safe'. But hey, blaming it on the private sector is the SOP of progressives everywhere.....!  But we should have a "SMALL" government that deregulates Wall Street when was Wall Street deregulated, exactly?, doesn't expect private companies to follow established safety protocol again, when did safety regulations get removed?, that doesn't stand up for the many against the few that is what happens when you get the government involved in issues it has NO business being in!, or for the less powerful against the powerful. You see, I believe the government has a duty of getting involved the keep the private economy running smoothly and protecting us from fraud They have been involved in 'protecting us from fraud for the last 100+ years...how has that worked out so far?, shady dealings by powerful wealthy businessmen...in the economic realm You mean like the ones writing policies in the current regime occupying the Oval Office, or just the ones the previous regime had doing the same? , government has been so small that we are experiencing a different form of tyranny The government is bigger today than ever...last year more than 40,000 new laws were put into play by the federal government...again that was in ONE YEAR.....How does that equate to 'small government' of any kind?a type that I would wager our founding fathers also would warn us against. So, I would say we are in danger of government being too "SMALL" to do the very job it was created to do...protect our pursuit of life, liberty, and property!


How has the government with thousands upon thousand of regulations (nothing more than taxes on the many for the benefit of the few) helped 'protect' life, liberty, and property? It is harder to start a small business today than ever. Especially in the 'progressive' cities. You have to jump through a hundred hoops, pay all kinds of fees, get all kinds of licenses, to be approved by suits to provide service/products to your neighbors. I can offer up mountains (pun intended) of examples of how property has been outright stolen by the government from tax paying citizens.


----------



## proutdoors

scott_rn said:


> Probably not the first time I've been called a socialist.
> 
> Bart, maybe you already addressed it, do you think there should be public land (open to hunting)? Should it be state owned, and not federal?


99.99% of it should be private!


----------



## scott_rn

proutdoors said:


> scott_rn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Probably not the first time I've been called a socialist.
> 
> Bart, maybe you already addressed it, do you think there should be public land (open to hunting)? Should it be state owned, and not federal?
> 
> 
> 
> 99.99% of it should be private!
Click to expand...

Yup, I'm a socialist.

How many of us could hunt if 99.99% of this country was private? I'm not opposed to private property or the right to put up no tresspassing signs. I also believe there should be public land we can utilize as outdoorsmen.


----------



## scott_rn

JUNEAU -- State Rep. Mike Hawker said Monday that the idea of creating special hunting rights for private landowners is terrible policy, and he would oppose anything like that if it materialized in the Legislature.

Read more here: http://www.adn.com/2012/03/05/2353562/h ... rylink=cpy


----------



## wileywapati

http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/con ... m%E2%80%9D


----------



## USMARINEhuntinfool

That's all good information and quite intriguing Pro.

However, I don't see any of that as the founders of this nation taking the stance that the Federal Government should NOT keep land. My interpretation is that these are merely examples of what has been done in allowance for the Federal Government to sale land to pay debts, or allow the addition of states into the Union. Which was necessary at the times mentioned. More recently, the Federal Government has asserted that it does indeed have right and claim to said lands, citing- Article 4 Section 3 of the Constitution which says "The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State." And that it is the supreme law maker of the land again citing- Article 6 of the constitution which says "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." Which they infer under both means they have the right to determine what is right and fair when referring to the dissemination of said lands.

It has yet to have been ruled otherwise, even after attempts by states to assert claim to said lands during what is referred to as the "Sagebrush Rebellion". Currently the states own lawyers have asserted that the state will not win this battle, implying that the Federal Government does indeed have claim to the lands. 

Similar claims have and will be made about the resources, including the wildlife. 

In my opinion the NAMWC is one of the best things that ever happened to wildlife, albeit a "Socialist" agenda it has worked to date. It is also my opinion that straying from this concept will be to the detriment of the American Outdoorsman. 

But, I digress, I find this all very interesting and am sure with the current push that it will be determined one way or the other on both accounts of the land and the animals there on. Most of this stuff just goes in circles and is left to matter of personal opinion, which then goes to court opinion, and gives us all a headache. 

I am a firm believer that government has gotten too big for its own britches, and has far exceeded the implications of the Founding Fathers.


----------



## JERRY

I am a firm believer that government has gotten too big for its own britches, and has far exceeded the implications of the Founding Fathers.[/quote]

Agreed!


----------



## bigbr

wyoming2utah said:


> Hmmm....why, though? Did they warn us of big government because of the tyranny they faced in the Old World? The way I see it, unregulated private business is just as scary and tyrannical as the big government threat that our founding fathers saw a couple hundred years ago. Think about it...just recently we have had two very glowing examples of how the the government's failure to regulate big business and private enterprise can be exceptionally damaging--the oil rig explosion in the Gulf and the collapse of credit in 2008 are perfect examples. The private sector is becoming so powerful that we have epidemics of fraudulent mortgages and nothing is done. But we should have a "SMALL" government that deregulates Wall Street, doesn't expect private companies to follow established safety protocol, that doesn't stand up for the many against the few, or for the less powerful against the powerful. You see, I believe the government has a duty of getting involved the keep the private economy running smoothly and protecting us from fraud, shady dealings by powerful wealthy businessmen...in the economic realm, government has been so small that we are experiencing a different form of tyranny...a type that I would wager our founding fathers also would warn us against. So, I would say we are in danger of government being too "SMALL" to do the very job it was created to do...protect our pursuit of life, liberty, and property!


WY2UT, 
Let me say that I think Pro gave very compelling argument in his response to this assertion and I can only add some historical references to his comments. Most of the argument you make is address in the Sherman Anti Trust act; commonly referred to as the monopoly breaker. TARP and the stimulus 1,2,3 and soon to be 4, violate some many state and federal laws that it virtually gutted bankruptcy laws of country which puts any and all contracts in grave danger.

As with the laws Pro mentioned, and the land policies here being discussed I would also refer you to the Pacific Railroad Act, The Mining Act, Taylor Grassing Act, Township act and the Enabling act; Which called for the disposal and or distribution of raw federally held ground. 


USMARINEhuntinfool said:


> That's all good information and quite intriguing Pro.
> 
> However, I don't see any of that as the founders of this nation taking the stance that the Federal Government should NOT keep land. My interpretation is that these are merely examples of what has been done in allowance for the Federal Government to sale land to pay debts, or allow the addition of states into the Union. Which was necessary at the times mentioned. More recently, the Federal Government has asserted that it does indeed have right and claim to said lands, citing- Article 4 Section 3 of the Constitution which says "The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State." And that it is the supreme law maker of the land again citing- Article 6 of the constitution which says "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." Which they infer under both means they have the right to determine what is right and fair when referring to the dissemination of said lands.
> 
> It has yet to have been ruled otherwise, even after attempts by states to assert claim to said lands during what is referred to as the "Sagebrush Rebellion". Currently the states own lawyers have asserted that the state will not win this battle, implying that the Federal Government does indeed have claim to the lands.
> 
> Similar claims have and will be made about the resources, including the wildlife.
> 
> In my opinion the NAMWC is one of the best things that ever happened to wildlife, albeit a "Socialist" agenda it has worked to date. It is also my opinion that straying from this concept will be to the detriment of the American Outdoorsman.
> 
> But, I digress, I find this all very interesting and am sure with the current push that it will be determined one way or the other on both accounts of the land and the animals there on. Most of this stuff just goes in circles and is left to matter of personal opinion, which then goes to court opinion, and gives us all a headache.
> 
> I am a firm believer that government has gotten too big for its own britches, and has far exceeded the implications of the Founding Fathers.


USMarine,

May I point out that the only constitutional reference to the Federal government owning land is contained in Article 1 section 8 whereby CONGRESS has a duty to establish post offices and post roads, Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, doc- yards and other needful buildings, such as those erected in the District of Colombia.!

Your assertion that the Supremacy clause gives the Federal Government total and complete power over all matters now and in the future is the very ideology that has this country on the verge of total and complete collapse. Any person who has taken the time to read the federalist papers soon finds that the role of the federal government is defined and limited. And those who have read the Constitution realize that the major scope of the Supremacy clause applies directly to international and Interstate commerce with again limited authority as the slave trade was withheld from federal control and issued under state rights&#8230;.
Big


----------



## USMARINEhuntinfool

Bigbr, I mostly agree with what you have said. Like I said before these are the arguments being used and have yet to fail the "Fed" from what little research I have done. I am not a huge fan of the "Fed" and as I said, think that it has well outgrown its own britches. I think there is some merit to what they have to say, not a terribly large amount, but some. I also see the side of the private citizen/corporation/state, which I feel has a little more clout, yet have not seen it come to fruition. Like I said this stuff tends to circle and circle with 100 different opinions rulings doctrine etc etc etc. I find it interesting and like to learn as much as I can about it, as knowledge is power. It isn't "My" assertion that the Supremacy Clause grants the Federal Government complete and total power, and hope that it would never grant that. My only implication was that these are the means by which they are defending their claim to the land. I should have punctuated my previous statements as more of a question than a statement. It is going to be very interesting to see this go through the judicial cycle. Like I said before I think this will have huge implications towards our wildlife and will have far reaching affects on how things are allocated in the future. Thanks again for the reply, more information to digest while attempting to avoid a headache.


----------



## bigbr

USMarine,
No pointing fingers on this issue, because we all have a dog in the hunt. Also my grammar was very poor in my last post as I do not have a spell or grammar checker.

The major point the people have forgotten is that all powers and authority granted in the constitution are VESTED form the individual rights of “We the People.” (Article 1 Sec. 1) And that all rights are bestowed upon man by his creator. Government cannot control or govern a right that it does not possess individually or collectively and thereby it cannot nor should it have the power to redistribute the rights or possessions of another. The biblical equivalent of the golden rule very much applies in this argument. My rights end at the point they infringe on the rights of another or at the end of my nose whatever comes first. The argument therefore in this case becomes who created the Federal Government? The Chicken or the egg? Instead of us looking at this as all powers are contained in the federal government we should understand the pecking order. Individuals with rights created local and state government and state governments created the Federal government. So individuals have all vested powers bestowed collectively to local government too, number one, and protect their individual God given rights from those who would trespass on those rights. Local governments vest some rights to the state government and the states establish a federal government to promote and protect the greater good. 

Now that we have established the pecking order, how should this apply to property? Was the federal Government ever intended to be superior? Was the Federal Government ever granted the dominion of all land contained within the borders of the union? Why is it that the States established before 1860 have almost no federal land within their borders compared to those states who established after that date? How is it that all states are to be equal?
Just my 2….Big


----------



## USMARINEhuntinfool

Now that's some info to chew on. Thanks, Big. Very, very interesting when put into that context. Again, it makes me wonder what the courts will see. If they look at it this way it should be fairly cut and dry. Unfortunately, knowing how the courts work, you just never know. Again, I appreciate the info and the analogy. 

Out of curiosity, with all this in mind, do you think land should be privatized, how bout game?

Thanks again, very informative.


On a side note, I was stationed back east, Maryland in specific, while serving in the USMC. I did some hunting while back there, and I must say it really made me miss Utah. There is very little, and I mean LITTLE, "public" land back there. To do any kind of hunting you have to get on the good side of a landowner to hunt. With the exception of us in the military who could hunt on base. It was very difficult to get access to land. I was lucky and made friends with a farmer that had a nice tract of land with soy beans, corn, and woods. I would hate to see us lose access to the lands we currently have access to, as the "public".


----------



## Catherder

bigbr said:


> Your assertion that the Supremacy clause gives the Federal Government total and complete power over all matters now and in the future is the very ideology that has this country on the verge of total and complete collapse


The supremacy clause does not give total and complete power to the Federal government, as you (rightly) stated, but it *does* dictate that an outside entity like a state legislature cannot establish action or law to tell the Federal Government what to do. If a state feels that they are aggrieved by an unconstitutional Federal action, they are able to seek redress through the courts, not waste money on dumb state legislation. That is how the check and balance works.

Back to the North American model? 

Bwhntr, have we heard yet from Don? :O•-:


----------



## bwhntr

Catherder said:


> Bwhntr, have we heard yet from Don? :O•-:


No, we haven't heard from Don or Byron. Yet.


----------



## proutdoors

bigbr, you sound as if you have read The Law by Frederic Bastiat. I wish every U.S. citizen would read this insightful work. Understanding the proper role(s) of ALL government, and as you correctly pointed out, the pecking order of the existing governments, is the ONLY way we will survive as a Republic.


----------



## proutdoors

Now, the reason why I keep going back to the 'political' instead of arguing about the sincerity of the Don: Anything short of a return to sound and PROVEN principles is a waste of time,, IMHO. Discussing whether or not certain policies work/fail can't be complete by ignoring the 800 lb gorilla sitting in the middle of the room!


----------



## proutdoors

And, people actually asserting that the federal government is "too small" is an ensured way to fail in any endeavor.


----------



## elkfromabove

proutdoors said:


> Now, the reason why I keep going back to the 'political' instead of arguing about the sincerity of the Don: Anything short of a return to sound and PROVEN principles is a waste of time,, IMHO. Discussing whether or not certain policies work/fail can't be complete by ignoring the 800 lb gorilla sitting in the middle of the room!


What's the difference whether our hunting heritage is threatened by one 800 lb gorilla, fifty 100 lb baboons or several million 10 lb monkeys? Any scenerio means the end of affordable, accessible big game hunting as now constituted (pun intended).


----------



## proutdoors

Yes, because people east of the Rockies, unless they are super wealthy, can't hunt.................. :roll:


----------



## hossblur

Just for the topic of conservation, I wonder since THE DON believes that if you own the acres you own the game, does that mean this summer I can fill the freezer with beef feeding on public land? I mean if the owner of the land owns the animal, shouldn't it be true across the board? My bet is most landowners are probably getting a little nervous about king DON starting this fight. I live in Utah, I am an ardent supporter of public grazing, its part of my heritage, but so is hunting. 

I am shocked though, THE DON usually is a closed door kind of operator, I am shocked he was dumb enough to comment on the record. He already is so beloved in UTAH, I am suprised he would push it.


----------



## Iron Bear

Supply and demand dictates market prices for the most part. Speculation isn't a big factor in the pricing of hunts. 

The reason a CWMU gets $10,000 or more for the opportunity at a 200" buck is because of the limited supply of 200" bucks. And unless you are willing to wait 16+ yrs to get your OIL deer hunt on Henry's or Pauns. There are a limited number of places your going to get that huge buck. Especially on a 5 day hunt. 

It's incorrect to assume if the entire state was privatized then it would cost $10,000 to hunt a deer. Actually if the case were that Utah went totally private. Nobody would be getting $10,000 for a deer anymore. They get that kind of money because you cant get it on public ground. A trophy deer hunt commands more money today then a trophy elk hunt. Because of supply and demand. Same goes with conservation tags. Generally the great deer tags command more money then the elk tags. Again supply and demand.

Way back in the day. A private landowner couldn't get a $100 trespass fee because you could get as good or better hunt on public ground for free. Now that the public ground has been mismanaged so badly people are scrambling to get off it and hunt private and are willing to pay top dollar for it.

This is the biggest conflict of interest I see with conservation groups and the auctioned tags. Not their accounting or how they profit from them. But they have little incentive to actually improve our hunting prospects because if they did their auctioned tag prices would decrease. Not to mention the notion that our hunting sucks and they will improve it is excellent for recruitment.

Carry on with your political debate. :roll:


----------



## bwhntr

Iron Bear said:


> Supply and demand dictates market prices for the most part. Speculation isn't a big factor in the pricing of hunts.
> 
> The reason a CWMU gets $10,000 or more for the opportunity at a 200" buck is because of the limited supply of 200" bucks. And unless you are willing to wait 16+ yrs to get your OIL deer hunt on Henry's or Pauns. There are a limited number of places your going to get that huge buck. Especially on a 5 day hunt.
> 
> It's incorrect to assume if the entire state was privatized then it would cost $10,000 to hunt a deer. Actually if the case were that Utah went totally private. Nobody would be getting $10,000 for a deer anymore. They get that kind of money because you cant get it on public ground. A trophy deer hunt commands more money today then a trophy elk hunt. Because of supply and demand. Same goes with conservation tags. Generally the great deer tags command more money then the elk tags. Again supply and demand.
> 
> Way back in the day. A private landowner couldn't get a $100 trespass fee because you could get as good or better hunt on public ground for free. Now that the public ground has been mismanaged so badly people are scrambling to get off it and hunt private and are willing to pay top dollar for it.
> 
> This is the biggest conflict of interest I see with conservation groups and the auctioned tags. Not their accounting or how they profit from them. But they have little incentive to actually improve our hunting prospects because if they did their auctioned tag prices would decrease. Not to mention the notion that our hunting sucks and they will improve it is excellent for recruitment.
> 
> Carry on with your political debate. :roll:


 I completely agree! The interesting thing about your post is I was just having this very discussion. You pretty much summed up what I was explaining to someone else.


----------



## hossblur

I find it funny that SFW, on their website trumpets the increase in trophy animals, then THE DON comes out with their new vision. Did I miss something, but wasn't Spidey taken on the Monroe? Where is the Pahvant, Henries? Aren't they public ground? Where are they failing? What THE DON wants is for Denny(for example) to be able to hunt with Doyle all fall, then he can hunt the rest of the year on private ground, because as we all know, private owners are far superior, just look at Rulon Jones and his PhD in biology at work year after year.

The reason you can ask 10k is limited numbers, however there would be almost no market place if it wasn't for the 3 month season and guaranteed tags. If it was solely a draw with tresspass fees I would support it, and the money wouldn't be there. The money is in the guaranteed tag, not the access.


----------



## Packout

Iron Bear said:


> Supply and demand dictates market prices for the most part. Speculation isn't a big factor in the pricing of hunts.
> 
> The reason a CWMU gets $10,000 or more for the opportunity at a 200" buck is because of the limited supply of 200" bucks. And unless you are willing to wait 16+ yrs to get your OIL deer hunt on Henry's or Pauns. There are a limited number of places your going to get that huge buck. Especially on a 5 day hunt.
> 
> It's incorrect to assume if the entire state was privatized then it would cost $10,000 to hunt a deer. Actually if the case were that Utah went totally private. Nobody would be getting $10,000 for a deer anymore. They get that kind of money because you cant get it on public ground. A trophy deer hunt commands more money today then a trophy elk hunt. Because of supply and demand. Same goes with conservation tags. Generally the great deer tags command more money then the elk tags. Again supply and demand.
> 
> Way back in the day. A private landowner couldn't get a $100 trespass fee because you could get as good or better hunt on public ground for free. Now that the public ground has been mismanaged so badly people are scrambling to get off it and hunt private and are willing to pay top dollar for it.
> 
> This is the biggest conflict of interest I see with conservation groups and the auctioned tags. Not their accounting or how they profit from them. But they have little incentive to actually improve our hunting prospects because if they did their auctioned tag prices would decrease. Not to mention the notion that our hunting sucks and they will improve it is excellent for recruitment.
> 
> Carry on with your political debate. :roll:


I guess I would have to disagree in the overall premise. For 200" deer, the big $$$ would always be there for big bucks. It is incorrect to say it costs $10,000 today to hunt deer when the Average CWMU tag sells for $2,500-5,000. If the wildlife was privatized and the hunters were forced to pay to hunt I'd wager the cost would be the same or HIGHER. You are throwing 100,000 deer hunters into the game of paying to hunt. Wait that is 100,000 UTAH deer hunters (of course many would/could never pay such), we must also add in the hundreds of thousands who live outside of Utah, now able to purchase their mule deer hunts in "Privatized" Utah. It actually increases the demand, which in turn will increase the price.

Look at whitetails. The most common, most prolific species in NA and there is still high cost demand to hunt them. In TX it costs $2,500 to shoot small bucks. In Kansas the cost runs over $4,000+. In Canada, put up $6,000+ for a decent hunt.

Sure, I get the statements were made concerning the CWMU topic, yet why did they go down the road of "socialism" and throwing out the NA Model? We should always do what is best for the herds, yet keep in mind the citizenry who owns them.

All this talk of privatization of our public lands and our public animals makes me want to stop taking my kids hunting. I see no reason to raise my kids to enjoy hunting if their only option to do so revolves around the whims of out-of-touch policies, politicians, and lobbyists. And we own a ranch- so I would benefit from this folly of an idea, yet I want nothing to do with it.

Privatization and landowner incentives are 2 very different things.....


----------



## hossblur

You know I sure hope this sudden push to sue the feds for control of land in utah, and THE DON's new vision aren't connected, because if it is, THE DON has WAYYYYY more influence then I thought. It is too bad. I saw a show that was about nothing more than whitetail ranching, I see them about how to farm for whitetails, I see all the special foods, special feeders, etc... and I guess I just figured that was back east. Really I think my opposition is fueled more by the loss of what hunting is, more than the loss of private land I will never hunt(I don't put in for CWMU, I'm no hypocrite). It has gotten so twisted that meat hunters are laughed at, kids aren't invited, and beautiful, regal animals are just given a score. I am 38, started going with when I was 3, the old guys wanted to kill 4 points, but would PUKE at what it is now, and that has happened in 30+ years, in another 30 years it will be a memory for all but the wealthiest among us, and that is just sad, not envy of money, just sad!


----------



## elkfromabove

proutdoors said:


> Yes, because people east of the Rockies, unless they are super wealthy, can't hunt.................. :roll:


"east of the Rockies"? Whitetails vs. mule deer, elk and pronghorn. Most whitetails are able to live in a one (640 acres) or two (1280 acres) square mile area ALL their lives, but mule deer, elk and pronghorn can't. Elk were originally a plains animal that couldn't adjust to the fences and fragmentation of the plains and ended up in the mountains; the public Rocky Mountains, not the private Alleghanys. Pronghorn are generally hated by farmers and ranchers because they eat the flatland forage and crops that should go to livestock, they're hard to kill due to their eyesight and speed and they stink and taste nasty. And they were nearly wiped out by settlers and "sport" hunters. And they're still hated! "East of the Rockies" ain't "The Rockies" or "West of the Rockies".

"super wealthy"? I never said anything about having to be super wealthy. I only said it wouldn't be as it is now. Define "super"! Define "wealthy"! Let's see how the hunting community reacts to next year's measly $5 increase in permits to kill coyotes.

You and I may view wildlife as a valuable lifestyle asset, but we're in a very small minority and the other 90%-95% of America's citizens aren't so enamored. They have other views and priorities and their private ownership of now public lands (and wildlife) will reflect that should your political goals be implemented. We'll be way outvoted and so will hunting and wildlife.


----------



## proutdoors

Packout said:


> I guess I would have to disagree in the overall premise. For 200" deer, the big $$$ would always be there for big bucks. It is incorrect to say it costs $10,000 today to hunt deer when the Average CWMU tag sells for $2,500-5,000. If the wildlife was privatized and the hunters were forced to pay to hunt I'd wager the cost would be the same or HIGHER. You are throwing 100,000 deer hunters into the game of paying to hunt. Wait that is 100,000 UTAH deer hunters (of course many would/could never pay such), we must also add in the hundreds of thousands who live outside of Utah, now able to purchase their mule deer hunts in "Privatized" Utah. It actually increases the demand, which in turn will increase the price. You are ignoring many factors. For starters, private managers would manage for maximum profits, which could be done several ways, the most likely way would be to have more products to sell. Profits by volume is the SOP of most businesses. Only a few would manage for 'trophy' animals, because most would realize that would eliminate 90+% of their potential customer base. Increased demand will only occur if the supply is limited, or the quality is greatly increased...a win for the consumer either way! You also need to look at what this would do for local revenue, meaning people from many sectors would benefit financially.
> 
> Look at whitetails. The most common, most prolific species in NA and there is still high cost demand to hunt them. In TX it costs $2,500 to shoot small bucks. In Kansas the cost runs over $4,000+. In Canada, put up $6,000+ for a decent hunt. You are using extremes, not the norms. A resident of Texas can join a hunting club for about the same amount a resident of Utah is likely to pay to belong to a sportsman group, when you add in the costs of 1-3 banquets, the raffle tickets bought at said event(s), etc. A hunter in Kansas, even if he isn't a "lucky" landowner, has amble opportunities to hunt at prices he can afford. If things were anywhere near as bad as you imply, hunting would be a thing of the past in every state east of the Rockies....when reality shows rural Americans in the east hunt at every bit as high percentages as us westerners.
> 
> Sure, I get the statements were made concerning the CWMU topic, yet why did they go down the road of "socialism" and throwing out the NA Model? We should always do what is best for the herds, yet keep in mind the citizenry who owns them. Using your line of thinking, all livestock should be turned over to the feds, I am sure they could come up with a model far better than what the greedy private sector uses....................
> 
> All this talk of privatization of our public lands and our public animals makes me want to stop taking my kids hunting. I see no reason to raise my kids to enjoy hunting if their only option to do so revolves around the whims of out-of-touch policies, politicians, and lobbyists. And we own a ranch- so I would benefit from this folly of an idea, yet I want nothing to do with it. I own a ranch, and I would NOT benefit from this....at least not as a farmer/rancher, yet I want 99.999999% of all public land turned over to the rightful owners....the INDIVIDUALS! Good hell, by having 70% of the land in Utah owned by the feds, and another 15+% owned by the state, you are completely beholden on the whims of the very people you fear!! We most likely have wolves in your County, and the people in Utah County have NO, ZERO,NADA, say in what happens to those wolves. The residents of Utah, are at the mercy....WHIMS.....of out-of-touch policies/politicians/lobbyists......oh the irony.
> 
> Privatization and landowner incentives are 2 very different things.....I agree, one means liberty, the other means being coddled and manipulated by the government.......


----------



## proutdoors

elkfromabove said:


> "east of the Rockies"? Whitetails vs. mule deer, elk and pronghorn. Most whitetails are able to live in a one (640 acres) or two (1280 acres) square mile area ALL their lives, but mule deer, elk and pronghorn can't. Elk were originally a plains animal that couldn't adjust to the fences and fragmentation of the plains and ended up in the mountains; the public Rocky Mountains, not the private Alleghanys. Pronghorn are generally hated by farmers and ranchers because they eat the flatland forage and crops that should go to livestock, they're hard to kill due to their eyesight and speed and they stink and taste nasty. And they were nearly wiped out by settlers and "sport" hunters. And they're still hated! "East of the Rockies" ain't "The Rockies" or "West of the Rockies". I don't need a biology lessen on the differences between whitetails, mule deer, and elk........ :roll:
> 
> "super wealthy"? I never said anything about having to be super wealthy. I only said it wouldn't be as it is now. Define "super"! Define "wealthy"! Let's see how the hunting community reacts to next year's measly $5 increase in permits to kill coyotes. It was YOU that implied hunting will become a 'rich man's sport' if God forbid this country were ran as intended by the Founders, not me.
> 
> You and I may view wildlife as a valuable lifestyle asset, but we're in a very small minority and the other 90%-95% of America's citizens aren't so enamored. They have other views and priorities and their private ownership of now public lands (and wildlife) will reflect that should your political goals be implemented. We'll be way outvoted and so will hunting and wildlife. Like I have repeatedly stated, you guys use possibilities, I use REALITIES. Hunting is alive and well in states that are almost completely made up of privately owned land. Possibilities don't hold as much weight with this cowboy, as reality does....


----------



## Catherder

1.


proutdoors said:


> We most likely have wolves in your County, and the people in Utah County have NO, ZERO,NADA, say in what happens to those wolves.


The ESA is written and enforced such that the same problem would exist if the county was 100% private land. Rail against the ESA if you wish, but with regards to wolves, we are in the same boat regardless of the percentage of public vs private land.

2.


proutdoors said:


> .when reality shows rural Americans in the east hunt at every bit as high percentages as us westerners.





proutdoors said:


> I don't need a biology lessen on the differences between whitetails, mule deer, and elk........ :roll:


Rural Easterners hunt some, but as a percentage of the whole population they are an increasingly small minority. And they have a game species that is amenable to hunting on small land parcels. (whitetails) Here in the Intermountain West, hunters come from both rural, suburban, and urban populations. As for the game, If you don't need the lesson, why do you seemingly ignore that Western big game animals tend to range widely, and successful hunting often involves finding them over a fairly large area. Privatized Western hunting would be much different than a hunt on a small farming tract in Pennsylvania.

3. To think that many longtime Utah hunters (often going as families) that are kicked out of their traditional hunting areas, that they and their forefathers have hunted for generations, will continue to hunt at the same levels is delusional. Hunter recruitment *will* suffer and hunter political clout will decline. Sure, hunting may persist, and you may even call it "alive and well", but the overall numbers and new hunter recruitment will fall. The rich will continue to hunt where they want and when they want, the "landed" folks will do their thing, (Although the biggest cries as land is locked up by big corporations will be from rural Utah citizens), the hardcore will find a way to keep in it, and a whole bunch of the rest of us will find something else to do with our time and money. Sounds like a perfect SFW dream. So much for fighting for more hunting opportunity now though.

4. So, I am to gather that, even though the North American model has been wildly successful as a management tool for all big game, you view it a failure because you don't like the fact that there is lots of public land in the West? Whatever. :roll:

5. Thank goodness that these discussions are merely hypothetical and the State of Utah and their silly laws will get their smackdown in court, if they ever have the cojones to try and act on it.


----------



## bigbr

Catherder said:


> The supremacy clause does not give total and complete power to the Federal government, as you (rightly) stated, but it *does* dictate that an outside entity like a state legislature cannot establish action or law to tell the Federal Government what to do. If a state feels that they are aggrieved by an unconstitutional Federal action, they are able to seek redress through the courts, not waste money on dumb state legislation. That is how the check and balance works.


However, just as it takes an invitation from the state legislature or Governor of a state to petition federal troops to help in matters of domestic violence, federal troops can also be expelled as was the case in South Carolina just prior to the civil war. It could also be argued that if a state can remove troops, they can also remove any other enforcement agencies from within their borders. This is unlikely to happen today now that most all states are on the federal tit and as depended on handouts for much of their state programs, including Utah. As long as "We the People" continue to accept federal carrots our freedoms will continue to be weaned away from us under the promise of security and protection of which we will have neither.



USMARINEhuntinfool said:


> Now that's some info to chew on. Thanks, Big. Very, very interesting when put into that context. Again, it makes me wonder what the courts will see. If they look at it this way it should be fairly cut and dry. Unfortunately, knowing how the courts work, you just never know. Again, I appreciate the info and the analogy.
> 
> Out of curiosity, with all this in mind, do you think land should be privatized, how bout game?
> 
> Thanks again, very informative.


USMarine, 
Let me answer the wildlife question first; Under the ninth and tenth amendments we once again establish the pecking order and move the power away from the federal government and back to the states and finally the people. Paraphrasing here: All rights not contained in the constitution shall become the rights and affairs of the State and we the People. As such wildlife becomes a right of the state in which it resides to have only Federal protection and limited control after 1905 with migratory birds such as ducks and geese that fly across interstate and international borders. Of course we gained many new mandates since then, including the Endangered Species Act, but as a general guideline Wildlife is the property of the state and can be disposed of as said state sees fit.

In discussing property rights let me start by saying that many species of North American wildlife would not be here today had it not been for conservation minded private property owners. Bison, Pronghorn and ferrets come to mind this second, but I know this is just the short list.

As mentioned and cited in the above laws and examples, the Federal government was never intended to be land barrens under the constitution or any other founding documents. Federal property of the United States expanded mainly through wars and purchases over the past 200 years. The Acts Cited were mandates by congress in which federal land was to be disperse to the states and then to the public. Territories which became states were mandated to gradually surrender federal property under the Enabling Act. Part of the Equal State doctrine cited. This is a major contention today as Utah, Nevada, Alaska etc are almost solely federal owned and controlled and the Federal lands have yet to be dispersed to those, and many other states.

The fears that many of you make about private ownership of property can and has happened to a greater extent on federal property even today. Remember now, that the rights of the people should come first, yet at a whim government can cease or make useless your right to use said property with little that the owner can do to be made whole. I guess as a matter of contract, the Federal Government is in default not only in dispersal of land to the states, but at present we stand in jeopardy of default to many different countries including China. Would it not make more sense to have it broken down a little more equitable once China calls in our debts? I mean at least Pro can grow crops and livestock on his farm can the rest of us?
Big


----------



## Packout

Whatever Bart. Arguing with you is like trying to milk a bull; all it does it turn-on the bull. You can keep reading the writings of a Frenchman who lived in the mid 1800's, 70 years after the Constitution was ratified, who had never been to our Country, nor could forsee the changes in humanity/ecology/technology today. No reason to continue arguing with you as you know far more than anyone about what the Founding Fathers really "want and thought". That darned Abraham Lincoln- screwing up the slave industry......

Equating my stance on wildlife to me wanting the Federal Gov't to take my cow herd. hahaha :roll: 

I'm out on this topic boys, carry on.


----------



## elkfromabove

proutdoors said:


> elkfromabove said:
> 
> 
> 
> "east of the Rockies"? Whitetails vs. mule deer, elk and pronghorn. Most whitetails are able to live in a one (640 acres) or two (1280 acres) square mile area ALL their lives, but mule deer, elk and pronghorn can't. Elk were originally a plains animal that couldn't adjust to the fences and fragmentation of the plains and ended up in the mountains; the public Rocky Mountains, not the private Alleghanys. Pronghorn are generally hated by farmers and ranchers because they eat the flatland forage and crops that should go to livestock, they're hard to kill due to their eyesight and speed and they stink and taste nasty. And they were nearly wiped out by settlers and "sport" hunters. And they're still hated! "East of the Rockies" ain't "The Rockies" or "West of the Rockies". I don't need a biology lessen on the differences between whitetails, mule deer, and elk........ :roll:
> A biology lesson? Is that what you thought that was? Re-read my last sentence.
> 
> "super wealthy"? I never said anything about having to be super wealthy. I only said it wouldn't be as it is now. Define "super"! Define "wealthy"! Let's see how the hunting community reacts to next year's measly $5 increase in permits to kill coyotes. It was YOU that implied hunting will become a 'rich man's sport' if God forbid this country were ran as intended by the Founders, not me.
> Implied? Intended? You ought to consider a career change and become a professional mind reader. You not only can read my mind, but you seem to be able to read the minds of men long dead! I only "implied" hunting as we now know it would change, and though the costs would undoubtedly increase, the mule deer, elk and pronghorn populations, the number of permits, the number of hunters, and access to places to hunt would decrease. And even if we could afford it, we couldn't and/or wouldn't want to. I have a cell phone that doesn't text, take or send pictures, go on the internet, tweet, twitter, calculate, blog, play music, show movies, or GPS my location. I can TALK and LISTEN to others talk on it. I bought it and pay for service so I could use it in an emergency and while I'm on the road (actually off the road). I can easily afford a fancier one, but I don't have that other stuff high enough on my priority list to want one and it's too much trouble to me to mess around with it. Money is a non-factor.
> 
> You and I may view wildlife as a valuable lifestyle asset, but we're in a very small minority and the other 90%-95% of America's citizens aren't so enamored. They have other views and priorities and their private ownership of now public lands (and wildlife) will reflect that should your political goals be implemented. We'll be way outvoted and so will hunting and wildlife. Like I have repeatedly stated, you guys use possibilities, I use REALITIES. Hunting is alive and well in states that are almost completely made up of privately owned land. Possibilities don't hold as much weight with this cowboy, as reality does....
> The REALITY is that hunting is as alive and well in this state made up of 30% privately owned land as it is in any other and your possibilities with your proposed changes in land ownership don't hold much weight with this janitor. You're trying to fix a situation that ain't broke with an idealistic solution that carries questionable results!
Click to expand...


----------



## Catherder

bigbr said:


> just as it takes an invitation from the state legislature or Governor of a state to petition federal troops to help in matters of domestic violence, federal troops can also be expelled as was the case in South Carolina just prior to the civil war. It could also be argued that if a state can remove troops, they can also remove any other enforcement agencies from within their borders.


Prior to the civil war? I believe that action started the civil war. And we know how that ended and what it proved. You guys continue to preach your secessionism, I'm done with this thread too. Have a great weekend all.


----------



## JERRY

This discussion has mainly covered what will happen to big game if land is privatized, but not what will happen to a persons ability to have access to freedom. To be able to hunt small game. To go for a hike just to enjoy the outdoors, or to just go camping. 

If someone owns the said lands I will have to get permission just to set foot there. As it stands now in National Parks there is a small fee and I can have access. In most public places there is no fee and I can be free to hike, camp, and even hunt certain unprotected animals. All those things will be out the window if it is privatized. 

Some land owners would give public access, but most if not all of our freedoms on said lands would be lost forever. Freedom!!!!!!!!!!! Remember that word?


----------



## USMARINEhuntinfool

Pro- this statement "You also need to look at what this would do for local revenue, meaning people from many sectors would benefit financially." is inaccurate, well lets just say not completely accurate. Yes you would get some revenue but the state in general would not benefit. Lets take you east coast for example, since thats what you like to compare it to. Here in the west some of the big economical "sectors" as you call them are recreational. Out here in the west a huge portion of society purchases camp trailers, ATV's, UTV's, dirt bikes, and many many other "toys", and if you buy these you buy a truck to tow them to where you want to go. Now if you go back east, I happen to have spent some time out there, people don't hardly buy any of the above. I tried to find trucks, trailers, atv's etc while out there, there is no market, they don't have dealers "everywhere" like we do out here. They have very little selection, and make very little economic impact. They can't take a camp trailer almost anywhere in their state and set it up to go camping. They can't throw their ATV in the back of their truck run up the hill and go ride for the day. We in the West have a very unique set of opportunities. Because of that our recreational economy is HUGE. So it stands to say if you privatize it all and make it like the east coast the same will follow. Just my observation, not sure the trade off, if you want to talk about local business, is worth it. Just my opinion.


----------



## elkfromabove

horsesma said:


> This discussion has mainly covered what will happen to big game if land is privatized, but not what will happen to a persons ability to have access to freedom. To be able to hunt small game. To go for a hike just to enjoy the outdoors, or to just go camping.
> 
> If someone owns the said lands I will have to get permission just to set foot there. As it stands now in National Parks there is a small fee and I can have access. In most public places there is no fee and I can be free to hike, camp, and even hunt certain unprotected animals. All those things will be out the window if it is privatized.
> 
> Some land owners would give public access, but most if not all of our freedoms on said lands would be lost forever. Freedom!!!!!!!!!!! Remember that word?


Spot on! Thus the reason the folks back east are fighting so hard to keep our section of the country public. They're trying to push it to the extreme and way beyond necessity, but they already know how this private vs public land turns out and want no part of it. Hint! Hint!


----------



## wileywapati

What we are dealing with, specifically in Utah,
Is the political mindset that if the free market
Hasn't attached a dollar figure to something 
It theoretically doesn't exist. SITLA tried this
Tactic the last time the agreement expired
For hunter access to their lands. They wanted their
New agreement negotiated on the value of deer
And elk conservation tag sales. 

Under local Govt. management a place
Like Antelope Island State Park is being funded
By wealth tags. We are well on our way and have
A pretty good example of how federal lands
Would be managed. Unfortunately our Legislature
And many can't see any farther than the per
Acre value of these lands. Can't see any farther
Than the value of an inch of antler because the market
Has put a price tag on these things. My issue is having 
These people put a value on what I consider my personal
Liberty. I can jump in my old Ford and be chasing bucks
And bulls 20 minutes from my home. What is the value 
Of that?? Does that asset not exist or provide liberty and
Freedom?? What about the clean air and water our public
Land provide, ya gonna put a price on a breath of fresh air??
Some things DO provide personal liberty and personal freedom
Without being held by an individual or an entity.


----------



## bigbr

Catherder said:


> You guys continue to preach your secessionism, I'm done with this thread too.


Catherder,
Not at all! No one has talked about seceding from the union&#8230; In fact Utah Constitution will not allow Utah to secede! What this thread has turned into is a "who do you trust with public land and the personal privilege to hunt?"

I have posed very little opinion in my post. But I have provided historical evidence to support individual freedom and the limited role that the Federal government has been mandated to uphold. The Constitution of the United States does not give hunters the right to hunt, either expressed or implied. The only RIGHTS that it affords a hunter/individual are the RIGHT "to bear arms!" In fact nowhere in the constitution will you find a right for the public to trespass on federal property. Why? Because it was never the intent of the founders for the federal government to have raw property.

If history somehow turns your stomach; then be all means stop reading this thread. For goodness sakes no one in DC has ever studied history; why should we start now!

Federal land policies have never been stellar, at their best, and contracts by the federal government, dealing with land, have rarely been honored. Take a look at the energy leases that had been put in place in Utah and how fast they were pulled under the Obama administration. Should you care for personal reference please contact the many Native American Nations for a credit reference? In my life time I have seen much of the public property go from multiple use to stay the hell off. At least under State control we have a hunting privilege statute.

Many of you may realize that William J. Clinton stood on the South Rim of the Grand Canyon and with a stroke of a pen change approximately 11% of the land status in Utah. The only, _*and hear me now *_, reason that you have the ability to hunt in this federal land closure called the Escalante Grand Staircase National Monument is because Don Peay, and Lee Howard were sick and tired of transplanting wild sheep into areas that become included in to national parks and monuments and the Park Service would never up holding contracts to let us take surplus sheep for relocation, that Don and Lee petitioned Congressman James Hansen of Utah's first congressional district to help write the mandate for the monument.

How many of you still reading believe that you will have the privilege to hunt in the next federal land closure that will be announced once Obama leaves office? Remember Utah no longer chairs that committee in congress and we will see most likely three areas of Utah put in to the national monument status or worse.

So who do you trust and why?


----------



## JERRY

That is a lot to take in. But, if I had a choice of someone buying the land and making it private and leaving it under Gov. control where I can still go and view these unaltered lands, and the wildlife on them, but could not hunt them? I am cool with that.

Kind of what Antelope Island was like until they started pimping tags there. :roll:


----------



## proutdoors

Here is my final entry on this......I should know better than even share my views on the proper roles of government on here. I get myself in trouble EVERY time. Apparently my views/opinions have offended some, people I STILL respect and consider friends. I have NO DESIRE to lose friends over my political views. So, I am sorry for offending any/all, I have shared my views, and most disagree with them....so be it. I will ALWAYS choose individual liberty over collective 'liberty', ALWAYS! And now, I will take the liberty and leave this discussion.


----------



## wileywapati

Ha Ha PRO maybe your views are the reason
We are friends!!!

You can't offend me by sticking up for
Your beliefs. We'd all be in a pretty deep rut
If we all thought the same.


----------



## bwhntr

Even though there are times I think you LOST your mind, you never offended me old buddy!


----------



## JERRY

wileywapati said:


> Ha Ha PRO maybe your views are the reason
> We are friends!!!
> 
> You can't offend me by sticking up for
> Your beliefs. We'd all be in a pretty deep rut
> If we all thought the same.


Ditto!


----------

