# New National Monument.....



## klbzdad

This should get some panties in a wad..... regardless of who you do or don't want in the oral office (that was intentional), the dude that is there now might be so inclined to grant them this request. What are your thoughts? Oh, and if you want the rediculous proposal that talks about wolves and grizzley bear in this monument, pm your email address and I'll send it to you in all its future malfeasance.
:O>>:

http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=148&si ... id=queue-2

UPDATE: TEXT OF PROPOSAL
http://www.arizonaelksociety.org/PDF%20 ... MR3339.pdf

http://www.unitedwildlifecooperative.org


----------



## goofy elk

I'm still PIZZed about the Paunsaugunt and Escalante staircase!!

Now they want to take the Kaibab and the strip,,, monuments there too..

Only a matter of time, hunting in these areas will be outlawed..

Really sucks!


----------



## elkfromabove

goofy elk said:


> I'm still PIZZed about the Paunsaugunt and Escalante staircase!!
> 
> Now they want to take the Kaibab and the strip,,, monuments there too..
> 
> Only a matter of time, hunting in these areas will be outlawed..
> 
> Really sucks!


But the fewer the hunters, the bigger, better the herds, don't you know? And with no hunters, all of the animal populations will explode.


----------



## goofy elk

elkfromabove said:


> goofy elk said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still PIZZed about the Paunsaugunt and Escalante staircase!!
> 
> Now they want to take the Kaibab and the strip,,, monuments there too..
> 
> Only a matter of time, hunting in these areas will be outlawed..
> 
> Really sucks!
> 
> 
> 
> But the fewer the hunters, the bigger, better the herds, don't you know? And with no hunters, all of the animal populations will explode.
Click to expand...

Nope EFA,,
Their plan is to use Mexican grey wolves ...
NO human hunting necessary in their 'Disney land' monuments..

Once again,,,,,,,,,,,,,REALY SUCKs!!!


----------



## Huge29

It is the kind of thing I can see him doing as he leaves office in about 9 months on his last day along with pardoning several terrorists of some kind.


----------



## klbzdad

Time to write a letter, or a song that John Denver could have sang.....just sayin'


----------



## proutdoors

goofy elk said:


> I'm still PIZZed about the Paunsaugunt and Escalante staircase!!
> 
> Now they want to take the Kaibab and the strip,,, monuments there too..
> 
> Only a matter of time, hunting in these areas will be outlawed..
> 
> Really sucks!


+1

Of course I am pretty sure we disagree on how to remedy such actions... 8)


----------



## Dukes_Daddy

goofy elk said:


> I'm still PIZZed about the Paunsaugunt and Escalante staircase!!
> 
> Now they want to take the Kaibab and the strip,,, monuments there too..
> 
> Only a matter of time, hunting in these areas will be outlawed..
> 
> Really sucks!


I see no downside to Grand Staircase. Tourism increased. No coal mine. Area protected. I find it amazing that sportsmen oppose protecting wild areas.


----------



## Huge29

Dukes_Daddy said:


> I see no downside to Grand Staircase. Tourism increased. No coal mine. Area protected. I find it amazing that sportsmen oppose protecting wild areas.


So, once the slippery slope has been created and then the campers, ATVers, bikers, ranchers, loggers, miners and the hunters get banned will you care about this protection then? Will the end justify the means again in how it was initiated in back rooms and with zero local input again or really any input from anyone, but the white house? Can you imagine the uproar if such a law were passed to open mining or gas exploration with zero input but one as Grand Staircase did? I just can't believe such a back door approach even exists to circumvent the entire congressional system in place. :evil:


----------



## cacherinthewry

Kind of a knee jerk reaction. Why would the creation of a new monument end use of the area for the most part? Other than extractive industry, what changed in Escalante? You can't say that nothing is allowed there, even new use is being allowed...

http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/ ... REVIEW.pdf

http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/ ... REVIEW.pdf

You also can't say that management of a new or existing monument isn't done without partnership with the surrounding communities or users...

http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/ ... tFinal.pdf


----------



## Huge29

cacherinthewry said:


> You also can't say that management of a new or existing monument isn't done without partnership with the surrounding communities or users...
> 
> http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/ ... tFinal.pdf


Are you certain about that? Many of the potential issues are just that--only potential, but to say that the communities were involved is blatant misinformation. Please provide the timeline of how this was approved...


----------



## klbzdad

cacherinthewry said:


> You also can't say that management of a new or existing monument isn't done without partnership with the surrounding communities or users...
> 
> http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/ ... tFinal.pdf


Based on the BLM's review alone there's no way they should institute another monument! They can't even properly manage the ones that currently exist now! And to top it all off, the one they are proposing would have several boarders which seams to be the big issue that caused issues with GSNM and remains a thorn in their side today. What a joke!

www.unitedwildlifecooperative.org


----------



## Hunter Tom

One change is you will need a "Mother may I" permit to camp even for a single night. With BLM and USFS we could camp permit free. Now , even in remote areas of the Staircase/Esc. like out Burr Trail you have to hunt up a permit office and fill out a form before you can camp. There is no charge and you wont be denied but you still require their permission. You can be sure they will add a fee later. They also impose other stupid government control issues-like probably no hunting and no 4 wheelers on previously open dirt roads that still allow jeeps.


----------



## Bax*

goofy elk said:


> I'm still PIZZed about the Paunsaugunt and Escalante staircase!!
> 
> Now they want to take the Kaibab and the strip,,, monuments there too..
> 
> Only a matter of time, hunting in these areas will be outlawed..
> 
> Really sucks!


My family is from Escalante and this is such a sore topic for the town / county. They felt like they had no say in what happened to the land that they live on, but instead President Clinton decided to tell them how to manage their land and didnt have the decency to come to Utah to dedicate the monument and instead dedicated the monument from Arizona.

Now that this whole mess has been created, SUWA makes them continually justify their actions and they even had people from their organization move to Escalante to continually force their ideals upon the townspeople.

My thoughts: You cant be a plumber and tell an electrician how to do his job. And you cant be a politician from Washington and tell someone in Utah how to handle their land. And that is just what I see happening to this new National Monument


----------



## Dukes_Daddy

> Now that this whole mess has been created, SUWA makes them continually justify their actions and they even had people from their organization move to Escalante to continually force their ideals upon the townspeople.
> 
> My thoughts: You cant be a plumber and tell an electrician how to do his job. And you cant be a politician from Washington and tell someone in Utah how to handle their land. And that is just what I see happening to this new National Monument


Their land? It is "our" land.

The hysteria of federal management is laughable. Grand Staircase is a jewel with a reasonable balance of protection and multiple uses allowed.


----------



## Bax*

Dukes_Daddy said:


> Now that this whole mess has been created, SUWA makes them continually justify their actions and they even had people from their organization move to Escalante to continually force their ideals upon the townspeople.
> 
> My thoughts: You cant be a plumber and tell an electrician how to do his job. And you cant be a politician from Washington and tell someone in Utah how to handle their land. And that is just what I see happening to this new National Monument
> 
> 
> 
> Their land? It is "our" land.
> 
> The hysteria of federal management is laughable. Grand Staircase is a jewel with a reasonable balance of protection and multiple uses allowed.
Click to expand...

I think you read too deeply into that statement


----------



## cacherinthewry

I posted in response to comments above mine.

Goofy Elk - "Only a matter of time, hunting in these areas will be outlawed&#8230;"

Huge29 - "So, once the slippery slope has been created and then the campers, ATVers, bikers, ranchers, loggers, miners and the hunters get banned&#8230;"

I'm well aware that the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument was created without local input. I wasn't referring to that, and I feel that the initial outrage over that was well deserved (as well as the offsite dedication). I was addressing that the feared loss of opportunity and access is incorrect and an irrational fear based response, and not a response based on any facts. Also that current management of the Monument does, in fact, utilize community input. The feds have not taken away access or eliminated multiple use (except for killing the proposed mines when the GSENM was created). In fact, if you read the report I linked previously, you'll see that Monument officials stated that they felt no need to close any of the spur roads in the Monument. Also, grazing permits have been unaffected since the Monument was established. To address a post after mine, in the Monument's management plan document, they say that the biggest roadblocks they've had in Park management have not come from the local communities or environmental groups. Rather, it is the State of Utah that causes most problems. That doesn't really surprise me. Does it you?

Hunting & fishing banned? If that were to happen, it wouldn't be the doing of the Federal government. In National Monuments, fish & game management is deferred to the prevailing State agency&#8230;Utah DWR in the case of the GSENM. And in reality, any change by the DWR would have to be dictated by the Wildlife Board or the Legislature. No blaming Clinton, Obama, SUWA or any other treehuggers if that happens.

Hunter Tom - "One change is you will need a "Mother may I" permit to camp even for a single night. With BLM and USFS we could camp permit free. Now , even in remote areas of the Staircase/Esc. like out Burr Trail you have to hunt up a permit office and fill out a form before you can camp. There is no charge and you wont be denied but you still require their permission. You can be sure they will add a fee later. They also impose other stupid government control issues-like probably no hunting and no 4 wheelers on previously open dirt roads that still allow jeeps."

Yes, you need a permit, but big deal. It's free, and there are 7 different buildings you can go to to get one. You'll also get free literature on where you're going, and can ask for further info if you need it. You can also get the permits at posted trailheads. You actually can't be sure that they'll add fees or close roads, and like I said above, they don't control hunting policies. Think of the permit as a way for them to know who's in the monument and where thay say they'll be. If someone gets lost, it speeds up the search process. Having to get a free use pass is a small price to pay via a minor personal inconvenience for the protection of the resource and the economic gains of the surrounding area.

Here's another link to what the GSENM has done for Southern Utah, and a new monument could do for the surrounding areas.
http://headwaterseconomics.org/apps-pub ... alante.pdf

From 1996 to 2008
•	30% increase in per capita income
•	38% increase in jobs
•	Only 8% increase in population

The only lost hunting opportunity came at the hands of our own fearless leaders, and at the hands that are up their a** as the puppetmasters.


----------



## klbzdad

+1 cacherinthewry

However, while I don't agree that the new plan is a healthy one for the environment/habitat there is no doubt that some federal agencies on a state level have been poorly managed and fragmented. This audit posted by "cacherinthewry" isn't unique to GSNM by any means but spells it out very clearly right here in our own back yard.

One also needs to read the entire proposal in depth to understand some of the subtle agendas hidden through out the thing. Its cites successes using animals where there are no successes to suggest reintroduction of other animals where biologists are still uncertain they ever existed to begin with (wolves and grizzly bear). It wouldn't surprise me if they tried to expand range for wild horses into this area as well.

Not being a conspiracy theorists, I can't fathom what these enviro-crazies will do, but all you have to do is look at who's proposing it and look at what they've tried to do in regards to land use and eliminating it in the past to know that they would be more than happy to shutting it all down just to save the cryptobiotic soil.

http://www.unitedwildlifecooperative.org


----------



## wyoming2utah

cacherinthewry said:


> I posted in response to comments above mine.
> 
> Goofy Elk - "Only a matter of time, hunting in these areas will be outlawed&#8230;"
> 
> Huge29 - "So, once the slippery slope has been created and then the campers, ATVers, bikers, ranchers, loggers, miners and the hunters get banned&#8230;"
> 
> I'm well aware that the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument was created without local input. I wasn't referring to that, and I feel that the initial outrage over that was well deserved (as well as the offsite dedication). I was addressing that the feared loss of opportunity and access is incorrect and an irrational fear based response, and not a response based on any facts. Also that current management of the Monument does, in fact, utilize community input. The feds have not taken away access or eliminated multiple use (except for killing the proposed mines when the GSENM was created). In fact, if you read the report I linked previously, you'll see that Monument officials stated that they felt no need to close any of the spur roads in the Monument. Also, grazing permits have been unaffected since the Monument was established. To address a post after mine, in the Monument's management plan document, they say that the biggest roadblocks they've had in Park management have not come from the local communities or environmental groups. Rather, it is the State of Utah that causes most problems. That doesn't really surprise me. Does it you?
> 
> Hunting & fishing banned? If that were to happen, it wouldn't be the doing of the Federal government. In National Monuments, fish & game management is deferred to the prevailing State agency&#8230;Utah DWR in the case of the GSENM. And in reality, any change by the DWR would have to be dictated by the Wildlife Board or the Legislature. No blaming Clinton, Obama, SUWA or any other treehuggers if that happens.
> 
> Hunter Tom - "One change is you will need a "Mother may I" permit to camp even for a single night. With BLM and USFS we could camp permit free. Now , even in remote areas of the Staircase/Esc. like out Burr Trail you have to hunt up a permit office and fill out a form before you can camp. There is no charge and you wont be denied but you still require their permission. You can be sure they will add a fee later. They also impose other stupid government control issues-like probably no hunting and no 4 wheelers on previously open dirt roads that still allow jeeps."
> 
> Yes, you need a permit, but big deal. It's free, and there are 7 different buildings you can go to to get one. You'll also get free literature on where you're going, and can ask for further info if you need it. You can also get the permits at posted trailheads. You actually can't be sure that they'll add fees or close roads, and like I said above, they don't control hunting policies. Think of the permit as a way for them to know who's in the monument and where thay say they'll be. If someone gets lost, it speeds up the search process. Having to get a free use pass is a small price to pay via a minor personal inconvenience for the protection of the resource and the economic gains of the surrounding area.
> 
> Here's another link to what the GSENM has done for Southern Utah, and a new monument could do for the surrounding areas.
> http://headwaterseconomics.org/apps-pub ... alante.pdf
> 
> From 1996 to 2008
> •	30% increase in per capita income
> •	38% increase in jobs
> •	Only 8% increase in population
> 
> The only lost hunting opportunity came at the hands of our own fearless leaders, and at the hands that are up their a** as the puppetmasters.


Good post...the way the Grand Staircase was formed was wrong. But, the fact that it was formed is good!


----------



## proutdoors

Anyone who actually thinks the feds are better qualified to protect local land is someone who has drank the Statist kool-aid!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Critter

There are a lot of other ways that you can protect the land from development than making it a national park or monument. A swipe of the pen to take it away from the general public and making it a park or monument takes years to undo even if they can. 
Just look at what happens when they create a wilderness area. The common man is locked out of it, that is unless he can afford to hire a outfitter to pack him into it or is physically fit to hike into it. There was a great deer hunting area out of Westwater Canyon on the Colorado River that is now in the Deloris Triangle deer hunt unit. There was one road in and one road out. It is now a wilderness area and is locked out for most of us forever. You can't even land a power assisted boat on the shore of the river to gain access because of the wilderness designation.


----------



## wyoming2utah

Isn't that awesome? Knowing that we have areas in the country where power boats, atvs, and/or trucks can't come motoring in? I love the fact that we have these "wild" areas out there....and that they are really difficult to access and require some work!


----------



## Critter

wyoming2utah said:


> Isn't that awesome? Knowing that we have areas in the country where power boats, atvs, and/or trucks can't come motoring in? I love the fact that we have these "wild" areas out there....and that they are really difficult to access and require some work!


It is not that it is not nice to have these type of areas but except for a few that either can afford it or are physically fit to hike into it it is locked out for the rest of us. The area that I mentioned has jet boats running up and down the Colorado River but they can not touch the wilderness side of it. Another interesting fact of this area is that the property owner that has farm land on the wilderness side of the river was granted access by vehicle and given a key to the lock on the gate to get into their fields.

I am glad that if you are capable of hiking into a area such as this or can afford a team of horses to pack you into it, but what about the rest of the people. Those with bad knees or hips or who due to medical reasons can no longer get into these type of areas are they suppose to just sit down into their rocking chairs and die? A number of these areas were open to vehicle traffic but with a sweep of the mighty pen the common person was locked out of it.


----------



## wyoming2utah

Critter said:


> I am glad that if you are capable of hiking into a area such as this or can afford a team of horses to pack you into it, but what about the rest of the people. Those with bad knees or hips or who due to medical reasons can no longer get into these type of areas are they suppose to just sit down into their rocking chairs and die? A number of these areas were open to vehicle traffic but with a sweep of the mighty pen the common person was locked out of it.


It sucks to get old...believe me I know. But, keeping those places wild is still more important to me...!

When my knees are so bad that I can't hike like I do now, I will be locked out of some really neat places. But, my kids won't...and hopefully, by then, I will have taught them to love those places for the "wilderness" areas that they are. What would be a bigger shame is if those places get used so much that they are no longer wild...I look at the road from Johnson Reservoir across to I-70 over the Thousand Lakes Mountain, for example as a crying shame. Not that people won't get to enjoy that area more...but that that area will have more people in it to make it less "wild". And, my kids will never see that area as I did when I was young...

...I am glad that we have these wilderness designations and road closures! Even if I can't enjoy them some day...


----------



## Critter

I have traveled that road from Fremont Junction many times and the first time that I remember being on it was back in the 60's. But with that mentality why don't we do away with I-70 through Salina Canyon also. And while we are doing away with roads how about I-80 across the Salt Flats. I am sure that there is someone out there that thinks that the whole Great Salt Lake Desert should be a wilderness area also.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

I'm with you wyoming2utah. There was a day that I could get back into those places on foot no problem. I can't do it anymore so we bought some mules. I wish we could shut down a ton of roads. We can scrap most cell phone towers too while we are at it.


----------



## Bax*

Mr Muleskinner said:


> We can scrap most cell phone towers too while we are at it.


I used to really enjoy going to Southern Utah and not having cell phone service. But now I can get cell phone service in places that were previously unserviceable. It stinks not being able to get away any more.... not saying cell phone service is bad. But it takes away that magic in my eyes


----------



## Dukes_Daddy

proutdoors said:


> Anyone who actually thinks the feds are better qualified to protect local land is someone who has drank the Statist kool-aid!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Federal or state I will take federal. Unfortunately the state agencies are under the thumb of legislators who have demonstrated hostility towards reason and who are willing to prostitute themselves to special interest groups.

Remember the Leavitt clan fish farm cluster#&%@


----------



## Bax*

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=960&sid=200...arizona-strip-national-monument&s_cid=queue-1


----------



## proutdoors

Dukes_Daddy said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who actually thinks the feds are better qualified to protect local land is someone who has drank the Statist kool-aid!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> Federal or state I will take federal. Unfortunately the state agencies are under the thumb of legislators who have demonstrated hostility towards reason and who are willing to prostitute themselves to special interest groups.
> 
> Remember the Leavitt clan fish farm cluster#&%@
Click to expand...

Do I need to list a few HUNDRED of the THOUSANDS of examples of federal government screw-ups? Or, a few HUNDRED of the THOUSANDS of examples of open hostility toward individuals/states? Do I need to post a few examples of special interest groups getting their way at the federal level? Seriously? :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:


----------



## Dukes_Daddy

proutdoors said:


> Dukes_Daddy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who actually thinks the feds are better qualified to protect local land is someone who has drank the Statist kool-aid!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> Federal or state I will take federal. Unfortunately the state agencies are under the thumb of legislators who have demonstrated hostility towards reason and who are willing to prostitute themselves to special interest groups.
> 
> Remember the Leavitt clan fish farm cluster#&%@
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do I need to list a few HUNDRED of the THOUSANDS of examples of federal government screw-ups? Or, a few HUNDRED of the THOUSANDS of examples of open hostility toward individuals/states? Do I need to post a few examples of special interest groups getting their way at the federal level? Seriously? :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:
Click to expand...

Yes you do. The original allegation of restrictions in Grand Staircase was never proven so start there.


----------



## InvaderZim

Hey Pro, how about HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of examples of the pirvate sector raping and pillaging monther nature?

Let me think, they won't be able to mine there, drill there, and put in a pipeline...sounds good to me!

"oh but think of all the jobs..."...greedy politicians make me sick!


----------



## Dukes_Daddy

Pro, tick tock waiting for examples.


----------



## provider

http://jobs.utah.gov/jsp/wi/utalmis/countyprofile.do

duke & cache,

Saying the economy in Garfield has improved is deceptive. If you guys want some credible information about the Garfield County economy see the website above. Unemployment was reported at 10.8% in 1994 and it was 11% last year. It had some lower years in between like everyone else. The avereage income is $2000/mo. Locals will not agree that the economy has improved from the monument. A few more struggling businesses have moved in and a few have left.

I studied at USU's College of NR in the 90's. I heard all the ecotourism theories and the they sounded pretty great. Since then I've graduated, and I feel like a sucker. I see the financials of a number of small businesses in that area. The "jobs" ecotourism generates are seasonal and lucky if they exceed $12/hr. In fact they don't pay $12/hr. Business owners can't find good help. If you want to make more money, plan on borrowing $300,000+ for a run down motel or $150,000 for a run down restaurant. You will work like crazy for 5 months and wonder how to pay your loan the other 7. With all your capital and hard work, you will be lucky to clear $50,000/yr. Might as well teach school and get the benefits with no financial risk.

Real estate is less affordable in the area now. Everyone holds out for the occasional out of town buyer. The monument is way bigger than it needs to be. It protected nothing more on the surface, no development was threatening. It was federal land before and is federal land after. The coal would have been extracted from a small area, underground area at that. Coal mines would have brought considerably more money to the local economy. If you can debate that, you're are crazy. The monument was nothing more than an affront on grazing and mining. So much for multiple use (as mandated to the BLM) There are no new tourist hotspots. Everyone still goes to Calf Creek, Bryce, Kodochrome.

I'm not trying to advocate for coal here, but I can't stand hearing people say ecotourism is so wonderful and can even come close to replacing mining. It is a lie generated by people with an agenda that does not include economics.

The only places ecotourism really works well is in areas where thay can attract people all year. Park City, Jackson, Sun Valley, & possibly Washington County and Moab.

If you hate coal, fine. Just don't go around thinking ecotourism is a great money maker in all places, especially when comparing minining.


----------



## provider

Also,

How do all you federal advocates feel about the way the bark beetle was handled? How do you feel about all the carbon emissions put off by controlled burns? 

I've concluded that some people think humans can do nothing good and nature can do nothing bad. They say wolves in yellowstone have brought back balance. If people would have culled the elk herd with rifles from 20,000 to 5,000 you can bet the enviros would be weeping and wailing, we would not have heard about all the new grass and frogs. Same outcome but completely different reaction. 

The Yellowstone fires of '88 renewed the forest and flowers. We never hear about the massive erosion. If a logging company would have done the same with a clear cut, we would only have heard about the erosion, not flowers and new growth.


----------



## InvaderZim

I don't think a single person is saying that we LIKE federal control of lands. They do a piss poor job, there is no doubt about it. Fact is, it really makes me just sick to see the way our federal lands are handled. It aint perfect thats for sure.

The only thing I hate worse than see federal lands mismanaged is the way large, greedy corporations treat our mother earth. They rape and pillage her. They build strip malls & ranchetts, and dig, mine, and plunder.

In the black and white world the Pro's of this forum view things in, federal control is the lesser of two evils.


----------



## Cooky

InvaderZim said:


> In the black and white world the Pro's of this forum view things in, federal control is the lesser of two evils.


I think in Pro's world he would own it all and we would do what he tells us.


----------



## InvaderZim

Cooky said:


> InvaderZim said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the black and white world the Pro's of this forum view things in, federal control is the lesser of two evils.
> 
> 
> 
> I think in Pro's world he would own it all and we would do what he tells us.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but he'd do it better! 

I kid, I kid!


----------



## proutdoors

InvaderZim said:


> In the black and white world the Pro's of this forum view things in, federal control is the lesser of two evils.


 How does the fed control the land without also controlling the citizens? How does the fed control the land, is it not PEOPLE making the decisions/policies? Why does anyone trust pinheads in Washington more than people in Utah?


----------



## proutdoors

Cooky said:


> I think in Pro's world he would own it all and we would do what he tells us.


 Yes, because I am such a huge advocate of telling others what to do....that is why I am a libertarian.....to 'control' people. After all, libertarians are all about control..... :roll:

And, where/when/how have I ever even hinted at wanting to own more land than I already have? Just curious where you came up with this silly/childish comment.... :?


----------



## proutdoors

Dukes_Daddy said:


> The original allegation of restrictions in Grand Staircase was never proven so start there.


If there are no restrictions, what was the purpose of making the Monument? Isn't the feds taking 1.7 million acres out of the grasp of Utahans, essentially a mis-use of the resources?


----------



## proutdoors

Dukes_Daddy said:


> Pro, tick tock waiting for examples.


I've been extremely busy, but I will be sure to put you on the top of my to-do list.....meanwhile, take some Ritalin or something! :twisted:


----------



## Huge29

provider said:


> http://jobs.utah.gov/jsp/wi/utalmis/countyprofile.do
> duke & cache,
> Saying the economy in Garfield has improved is deceptive.


You shouldn't do that! Adding logic and reality into such a discussion really ruins all of the fun! Tourism is a very narrow industry; who benefits locally more than the gas station, restaurant and the motel? It is not as if they are making major purchases at the retailers; they bring most of their stuff with them. What really helps an industry, like it or not due to whatever political persuasion, is from industrial work. That is the real basis of a growing economy. I am amazed every time I go back and visit Price. Dang near every state and county building has been replaced in the last 5 years or so, why? Mineral royalties. Not that every inch or even half of the areas should be used for exploration, but it is what begins economy expansion; the energy industry is great at that, look at Vernal as a second example. Economy has gone crazy there.


----------



## Cooky

proutdoors said:


> Cooky said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think in Pro's world he would own it all and we would do what he tells us.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, because I am such a huge advocate of telling others what to do....that is why I am a libertarian.....to 'control' people. After all, libertarians are all about control..... :roll:
> 
> And, where/when/how have I ever even hinted at wanting to own more land than I already have? Just curious where you came up with this silly/childish comment.... :?
Click to expand...

You have been vocal in your support of the privatization of all of the currently public land in Utah... If not you, then what other individual would you have own and manage it?
Not such a childish question if you think for a moment.


----------



## Huge29

Cooky said:


> I think in Pro's world he would own it all and we would do what he tells us.
> 
> ....
> 
> If not you, then what other individual would you have own and manage it?
> Not such a childish question if you think for a moment.


You really think your post wasn't childish? I think we now see why it is difficult to have an intelligent discussion here in this thread if you can't even realize that the ridiculous posts are taken for what they really are... :roll: 
Can you not imagine someone wanting freedom or ownership for others, someone not acting solely in their own interests? I certainly do see the roles of the govt in providing some socialistic facets for the public, but the more I see of the USPS, FDIC and USFS in action... :?


----------



## proutdoors

Cooky said:


> You have been vocal in your support of the privatization of all of the currently public land in Utah... If not you, then what other individual would you have own and manage it?
> Not such a childish question if you think for a moment.


 Maybe your mistake is your thinking I am like you, and I only think of myself.......... 

I advocate LIBERTY, and liberty is only possible through PRIVATE property ownership. I have absolutely NO desire to own so much as one square foot of land down in the Grand Staircase area. I merely want the Federal government to follow the Constitution, crazy I know! :roll:


----------



## klbzdad

Just a thought.....since when does the federal government making this a monument constitute a guarantee of our freedoms? THAT is a childish and very frail minded statement. The federal government was NEVER supposed to have the authority to do what Clinton or what Obama may do before he leaves office the end of January 2013. That is the sad part of this discussion. Speaking of discussion, have any of you actually read the proposal for the new monument? Doesn't appear that any of you have or you'd be a little more upset no matter what side of the isle you ride your four wheeler or mountain bike on.

I happen to know Pro isn't interested in making another acre of land in this country available to anyone who will abuse it. He is one of the most honest patriots you will ever meet even if you don't agree with his politics. So, how about reading the proposal and then scratching your head and wanting to know who you can write to to make sure THIS particular "monument" doesn't happen? FOCUS, or I'll have to agree with Pro on the Ritalin....sheesh. Be nice to each other, already.

http://www.unitedwildlifecooperative.org


----------



## Dukes_Daddy

Provider, Good points made and I respect your opinion

Pro, 11,900 posts yes you are busy.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

Hmmmm.......Pro would you be for making all national forests, protected wilderness areas, Yellowstone, The Grand Canyon, etc... all private? Where is it that you draw the line? Maybe we should include all highways as well. We can have a toll instead of tax. Everywhere we travel we can pay to use the road before we pay to hunt on private land, that is if we are granted any access in the first place.

Sorry, I don't get it..


----------



## klbzdad

I would have to say that provider nailed it! So what about the new monument proposal is good? I've read it....nothing! Not one **** thing is good about it because there are better ways of managing the land and it starts with letting the individual states manage their own chunk. It will be managed that way anyway as we've all seen how boarders create management issues (GSNM).

www.unitedwildlifecooperative.org


----------



## proutdoors

Dukes_Daddy said:


> Provider, Good points made and I respect your opinion
> 
> Pro, 11,900 posts yes you are busy.


I love it when people make things personal, it lets me know they have no substance..... I will gladly let you spend a day with me.....if you can keep up!


----------



## proutdoors

Mr Muleskinner said:


> Hmmmm.......Pro would you be for making all national forests, protected wilderness areas, Yellowstone, The Grand Canyon, etc... all private? Where is it that you draw the line? Maybe we should include all highways as well. We can have a toll instead of tax. Everywhere we travel we can pay to use the road before we pay to hunt on private land, that is if we are granted any access in the first place.
> 
> Sorry, I don't get it..


I draw the line right where the Constitution drew it, and NOT one inch further! What I don't get is why people are so willing to ignore this Document, and actually call for the federal government to be tyrannical. The Constitution is NOT a limit on individual liberty, but rather it defines the SPECIFIC and NARROW role of the federal government. EVERYTHING else is supposed to be left to the states and the INDIVIDUALS to sort out. No where in the Constitution will you find the approval of the federal government to own large chunks of real estate, I encourage all to read Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution if they doubt me. I realize many on here.....nonsensically.......actually think the Constitution is 'dated' and that we have 'progressed' well beyond its limited scope, but I DO NOT! :evil:


----------



## proutdoors

Dukes_Daddy said:


> Provider, Good points made and I respect your opinion
> 
> Pro, 11,900 posts yes you are busy.


I got 2 1/2 hrs of sleep, I came in for 10 minutes for breakfast, went back out and I finally called it a day at 8:30 tonight. I have three heifers likely calving tonight, so I will be lucky to get more than 2-3 hrs of shuteye tonight. Is that busy enough for you, or should I take a few hours off to answer your inane questions that a 3rd grader should be able to answer? :?


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

I have read Article 1 Section 8 and have also read Article 4 Section 3 Clause 2 (the Property Clause)

Which states:

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.

The Supreme Court ruled that the federal government's authority to regulate its property within states derives from this clause and has been described by the Supreme Court as "without limitation." 

I'll side with the Supreme Court.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

BTW.....we had another mule last night. Our second since Friday. I know how the sleepless nights go. We slept in our Butler Bags on the barn floor last night. Good times but loooonnnggg nights.


----------



## klbzdad

How about a lesson on ownership of that property within the states? And how that came about and what was supposed to happen when the federal government took hold that didn't? So how about we side with the Constitution and let the states decide what to do with the property? Isn't that ultimately where this should be decided? Pro, yeah?


----------



## Cooky

You know back when T.J. started all this federal ownership of land thing (Louisiana Purchase) I thought about getting on the internet and complaining, but since Al (Gore) wouldn’t invent the internet for a couple hundred more years I let it ride. Ben’s post office thing was slow. Then they did it again with the whole California deal, I still think that was a bad idea. Then Alaska, then some island clear out hell and gone. It’s about time we stood up and told them to quit. I'm sleepy, g’night.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

http://opencrs.com/document/RL34267/2007-12-03/

for those that are interested in the full history. Download the document and read it.


----------



## klbzdad

Again, the example is made that we gave something to the federal government that they abused. Why would we want them to then forcefully, "swipe of a pen", take away something that belongs now to the states and then tell us what we can or can't do there when they clearly abused the power that the original "13" states gave or "ceded" to them. I clearly don't think each of us want to own an acre of sand or a cedar juniper covered ridge but shouldn't the states be the ones to decide what to do with what land becomes what in their territory especially when the federal government didn't do what they were supposed to do with "ownership" of that land?

thanks for the link mule....very easy to read.

www.unitedwildlifecooperative.org


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

Amazing how people can read the same thing and read something entirely different at the same time.

"I do not have much patience with a thing of beauty that must be explained to be understood. If it does need additional interpretation by someone other than the creator, then I question whether it has fulfilled its purpose."


----------



## klbzdad

We read the same thing. The federal government changed the purpose of owning land to meet its needs and not that of the original purpose of it holding the western land to begin with, right? The Stupreme Court's job is to interpret the constitution when challenged. While it can be argued by some that their interpretations are, interesting, nonetheless you are correct that they upheld that the federal government can hold property. Where the interpretation is fuzzy, for me (thus the confusion) is the purpose for holding that property. If you read the report, presidents over time suddenly were given power to take land in the federal coffers and make it into something be it a national forest or preserve and then build a bureaucracy to manage it. That management hasn't been so great (per their own internal audit). So why now would we want to federal government to hand more land over to those same bureaucracies when it could likely be managed better by either private citizens or states as it was intended (in the same report in regards to western land as the Constitution was drafted)? Or did I click on the wrong link?

I don't mean to test your patience, I'm just asking so that I better understand. The same as you trying to understand what SFW is all about. I appreciate any input or dialogue. I really do.

www.unitedwildlifecooperative.org


----------



## klbzdad

I was just sent a response from a friendly US Senator who I then called. Yeah, I'm connected like that only because of high school). He explained to me the situation in regard to the lawsuits in Utah and one previously filed by Arizona. He said that while it is likely the president would sign a knee jerk reactionary request for a monument like the one I asked about, the one signed by Clinton was different. In that its intent was to preserve federal land and to preserve what the president had witnessed as "open and beautiful". The new proposal has never been seen by this sitting president and likely never will. With that said, he explained that Congress has the only authority to give back ownership of the land held by the federal government back to Utah. That as a condition of statehood in 1896, that land was basically forfeit to the federal government. He suggested that the bills passed by our lawmakers and signed by our governor are nothing more that political rancor and won't past legal fluff. It will be a waste of taxpayer time and money all to motivate and drive voter confidence and response in an election year. OUCH! So, I kind of get it. He ended by reminding me where the 3 million dollars came from to wage a legal war against the constitutionality fight of our new laws in Utah knowing that my wife is a school teacher. And now I'm not very happy with this proposed monument OR those who signed off on the legislation. I'm all for states deciding state issues and I would like for citizens to have more authority to decide if this monument should happen than a wacko president but the more I learn about politics, the more I'd rather go hunting or fishing even if I don't catch or kill anything.

www.unitedwildlifecooperative.org


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

You don't test my patience. It is the Constitution that is the thing of beauty that I refer to. Other than the Bible and the Declaration of Independence I consider it to be the most important historical piece of literature ever. That said, it has been shown time and time again that it must be interpreted by someone other than the creator. It is not me that does the interpreting..........I do it only for myself. Everybody else has to form their own opinion.

Personally, I really see no way that the private sector or the state would do a better job. I have seen the private sector and states treat land far worse than anything I have seen the government do aside from nuclear testing years ago.

Kennecott, Nucor, Magcorp, Geneva Steel the list goes on and on. Endless superfund sites as well, public money to clean up private messes.......When money is involved, and this is ALL about money, people throw a blind eye to the environment. About the only people that don't turn away from mess are those that are profiting. If this were actually about taking care of the land, preserving what we have and leaving it in better shape, the state and private entities would have nothing to gain and would not waste an ounce of ink fighting for it.

Here is part of the Enabling Act (the act that enabled the people of Utah to form a Constitution and a State Government). Read it and form your own opinion on what it says:

Second. *That the people inhabiting said proposed State do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within the boundaries thereof*; and to all lands lying within said limits owned or held by any Indian or Indian tribes; and that until the title thereto shall have been extinguished by the United States, the same shall be and remain subject to the disposition of the United States, and said Indian lands shall remain under the absolute jurisdiction and control of the Congress of the United States; that the lands belonging to citizens of the United States residing without the said State shall never be taxed at a higher rate than the lands belonging to residents thereof; that no taxes shall be imposed by the State on lands or property therein belonging to or which may hereafter be purchased by the United States or reserved for its use; but nothing herein, or in the ordinance herein provided for, shall preclude the said State from taxing, as other lands are taxed, any lands owned or held by any Indian who has severed his tribal relations and has obtained from the United States or from any person a title thereto by patent or other grant, save and except such lands as have been or may be granted to any Indian or Indians under any act of Congress containing a provision exempting the lands thus granted from taxation; but said ordinance shall provide that all such lands shall be exempt from taxation by said State so long and to such extent as such act of Congress may prescribe.

http://archives.utah.gov/research/exhib ... 94text.htm

People are looking at one line in the Constitution of the United States and using it for an argument. One problem lies in the fact that they consistently refer to the wrong line in the Constitution. I have directed readers to the Property Clause for a reason. It has held up in every court decision ever and has stood the test of time. It is the line forever provides for Congress to control the land without limitations.

I fully understand that when Utah became a state it was "understood" by many that the territories would be transferred to the states. However, it was written to make it clear that the power would always reside with Congress. The fact of the matter is all land "public" or "private" is still under the final control of Congress and it always will be.

I understand the argument of big government vs small government. Local vs Non-local. I get that too. 100%. I also believe that there are some things that the states should not have control over. Final say over land is one of them. The highly populated parts of the U.S. suck for a reason. There is no room to do much of anything. Everything has a price, if you are granted access. I guarantee you if I could buy....let say the San Juan unit, I would figure out a way to make money on my investment. That or I would not let anybody use it. It's just the way things are.

Everybody has always stuck their flag in a big pile of manure saying that "it can be done better locally".

Hogwash.

What they really mean to say is "we can profit from it". (We being the local politicians) can sell the land to who we see fit, and we can then tax them on that land, we can create more money, build more jobs, build more infrastructure, become more industrialized, we sell the land to the highest bidder, they can then rape and pillage the land, dump waste into the soil, poison our streams, strip our land of soil and mine for metals, more coal or anything else of value. It will be great. We will all get re-elected and the companies that we sell the land to will fly us out of state so we can hunt and fish there......... because it sure will suck here in Utah"

Fact is though, they are fighting for land to sell to others that is not theirs to sell. It is YOURS. Now go use it and leave it in better shape when you leave.


----------



## klbzdad

Mr Muleskinner said:


> Fact is though, they are fighting for land to sell to others that is not theirs to sell. It is YOURS. Now go use it and leave it in better shape when you leave.


Hard in written forums to communicate entirely our thoughts but that is pretty good, muley! With regard to this proposal for a new national monument, my concerns are buried within its language as well. Mexican grey wolves have never been proven to have existed North of the Grand Canyon so why are they being discussed in this proposal? The same I believe can be said of the grizzly bear. I am a naysayer to the "here comes the wolf to Southern Utah" crowd but after reading this and the history of how enviro-loonies effect decisions back east that rain hard on us in the west with never setting foot in our back yards, I can't help but now be a little bit worried myself. Grasping for straws using state's rights? Maybe, just maybe....even if it is a poor attempt

www.unitedwildlifecooperative.org


----------



## provider

Mule,

I seriously disagree with this quote.

"Personally, I really see no way that the private sector or the state would do a better job. I have seen the private sector and states treat land far worse than anything I have seen the government do aside from nuclear testing years ago."

I think the feds do an awful job compared to Utah State Trustlands. Utah State Trustlands make money for the state. I know of no Superfund sites caused by them. On the other hand, the Forest Service and BLM COST taxpayers money. With all their resources they cannot turn a profit. How much money could you make if you had 1 million acres? Could you make a profit and provide rec opportunities? The feds can't.

I look at the massive waste on the fire program. We will not log it because that is irresponsible, so we burn it or give it to the beetles. Plenty of funds go into burning and reseeding. Reseeding just sounds better than superfund and enviros pay no attention to it. Fire budgets are enormous.

Additionally, BLM was set up to manage mining and grazing. I'm amazed that Congress has passed multiple use sustainable yield laws and then the Executive Branch can completely ignore and dismiss the laws and mandate a different management plan. So much for the President being the enforcer of laws. How does that fit with the form of government set forth by the Constitution? Too many Americans want the President to be a King.


----------



## Cooky

I think the Utah boys are upset ‘cause they already had a buyer lined up.
:O—–-:


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

I am not in favor the grey wolves being introduced anywhere or the grizzly for that matter and I am not going to pretend to have all of the answers. If I did I would read as much as I do and would have not sought out this website because I would have know it all already.

As far as the state own lands and superfunds I agree but I would bet money that most superfund areas were once owned by the states and then sold to a private entity that ruined it. Prior to that at some point it was owned by the feds and at one pint was in a pristine, natural condition.

Does the forest service and BLM turn a profit? NO. Do federal highways? No. Does the Navy? No. Many services don't turn profits. Freedom isn't free and that goes for more than just spilling blood. It requires tax dollars. My problem isn't with the Utah State Trustlands. For every good example I could probably give you a bad one. I am not interested in the national forest service making enough money on the use of the forest to turn a profit. That would require huge use fees. Do any of us want that. Could I turn a profit on a million acres? Easy. Is that what our parks and national monuments should be for? I would bet there is a bundle of gold in the Grand Canyon. Lets go mine it! I think not. Same goes for existing BLM land as far as I am concerned. I find beauty in it. It's my choice and it suits me, it doesn't have to suit anybody else.


----------



## Cooky

I’m being rotten on purpose. I don’t like the severe use restrictions that a National Monument comes with. Nor do I like the possibility that our native sons will sell it off to the highest bidder (which is worse?). The really bad part of anything like this is that so many of the players have motives that have nothing to do with the common good. A hearty debate with plenty of knowledgeable input helps a lot, how do we make our wishes and concerns known to someone who can make an impact?


----------



## provider

The Forest Service sits on huge reserves of timber. Its not about profit as much as why do they need subsidies from the Federal Treasurey. Why does a campsite cost $10? There is no reason the agency should cost the taxpayers a dime. They provided low cost rec opportunities for decades and helped local economies in a sustainable way. The problem is they no longer manage for sustainable yield. They manage for no yield. They let our timber burn or get destroyed by beetles and then the turn to the taxpayers for some additional funding when their "controlled burns" get out of control. If I owned large tracts of land free and clear I certainly could manage it sustainably, provide great rec opportunities, and not have to ask for subsidies. 

I just can't see how anyone can conclude the F.S./BLM has the best management around.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

points taken provider. I can see good and bad on both sides of the coin.

Cooky your question about finding out how/whom to make the best impact is easily the biggest concern.


----------



## klbzdad

Cooky said:


> I think the Utah boys are upset 'cause they already had a buyer lined up.
> :O---:


There is one "Utah boy" who would love for the federal lands to be made available to the public. His first name starts with a "D" and his last name starts with a "P" and he would love to be able to control many of the lands in Utah where trophy big game tags are associated with whoever is in control of that property.

On another note, provider does have some strong arguments, muley. Great discussion here. It would be nice to know where the perfect catalyst is that would benefit everyone. I know that Cedar Breaks National Monument looks horrific due to that beetle infestation and many acres of lumber through out the Dixie National Forest could have been thinned and new conifers started by now had liberal policies not been in place restricting lumber production. Instead, we have an old forest with dead standing wood that is not only worthless but hard to look at and dangerous not only to those who want to enjoy the forests, but it also becomes fuel for fires. Yes, the arguments can go both ways.


----------



## Trooper

cacherinthewry said:


> Kind of a knee jerk reaction. Why would the creation of a new monument end use of the area for the most part? Other than extractive industry, what changed in Escalante? You can't say that nothing is allowed there, even new use is being allowed...
> 
> http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/ ... REVIEW.pdf
> 
> http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/ ... REVIEW.pdf
> 
> You also can't say that management of a new or existing monument isn't done without partnership with the surrounding communities or users...
> 
> http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/ ... tFinal.pdf


Awesome post.


----------



## Trooper

wyoming2utah said:


> Critter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am glad that if you are capable of hiking into a area such as this or can afford a team of horses to pack you into it, but what about the rest of the people. Those with bad knees or hips or who due to medical reasons can no longer get into these type of areas are they suppose to just sit down into their rocking chairs and die? A number of these areas were open to vehicle traffic but with a sweep of the mighty pen the common person was locked out of it.
> 
> 
> 
> It sucks to get old...believe me I know. But, keeping those places wild is still more important to me...!
> 
> When my knees are so bad that I can't hike like I do now, I will be locked out of some really neat places. But, my kids won't...and hopefully, by then, I will have taught them to love those places for the "wilderness" areas that they are. What would be a bigger shame is if those places get used so much that they are no longer wild...I look at the road from Johnson Reservoir across to I-70 over the Thousand Lakes Mountain, for example as a crying shame. Not that people won't get to enjoy that area more...but that that area will have more people in it to make it less "wild". And, my kids will never see that area as I did when I was young...
> 
> ...I am glad that we have these wilderness designations and road closures! Even if I can't enjoy them some day...
Click to expand...

This is a really great threat, with some really nice writing.


----------



## klbzdad

Is this where my parents quoted Bambi's mom? Muley was definitely right about how some can read the same thing and still read something totally different. Amen brother......off to new subjects and pasture. I have turkey to hunt!


----------



## mjschijf

proutdoors said:


> InvaderZim said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the black and white world the Pro's of this forum view things in, federal control is the lesser of two evils.
> 
> 
> 
> How does the fed control the land without also controlling the citizens? How does the fed control the land, is it not PEOPLE making the decisions/policies? Why does anyone trust pinheads in Washington more than people in Utah?
Click to expand...

Sorry I'm a bit late to the party here, but I just have to respond to this.

It's not that I trust the federal government more than the state, or citizens of our state. Instead, it has more to do with the differing philosophies about how the land should be managed. I completely TRUST that our citizens would do what they believe to be in their personal best interests if they seized control of federal land. Unfortunately, in most cases, it probably wouldn't be in my best interest, or in the best interest of the vast majority of others.

As some others have mentioned, I like having wild places...places that aren't easy to access...places that you can go visit without the eye sores of mining, logging, and development. I understand the economic need for these things on a certain level, but some special places should remain undisturbed for all of us to enjoy.

Again, I TRUST that citizens do what is best for the land, from their point of view. I recognize the right of land ownership, but most places should be available for all to enjoy. Private land ownership doesn't provide that.


----------



## klbzdad

So with all the discussion of who does what the best with who's land and why its owned by his or her uncle's next of kin's State and Federal National brother's country's...huh?

I know it can all get confusing for someone just joining the overall conversation and I'm delighted by what conversation we are having...but back on topic, here is the text of the proposal. Now maybe we can get back on topic here. I'm almost sure that those of us on different sides of the private vs state vs federal ownership can now come together and look at this and now agree that this isn't the proposal we all want to see come to fruition. This one kind of stinks to high Plateau, or Heaven, or Mars. Whatever you preference may be.

TEXT OF PROPOSAL:
http://www.arizonaelksociety.org/PDF%20 ... MR3339.pdf


----------



## proutdoors

Mr Muleskinner said:


> http://opencrs.com/document/RL34267/2007-12-03/
> 
> for those that are interested in the full history. Download the document and read it.


Full history? NO! Good spin on history? YES!

http://rangemagazine.com/specialreports ... ndlord.pdf

I like to read differing views, and then come to an educated conclusion. For the first 100 years of this nation, the federal government was NOT the largest landowner, since the progressives have taken over, the feds are far and away the largest landowner, they also happen to during this same time of 'progress' we have seen inflation <> were as before the progressives took over we had virtually NO inflation.....for 100 years, we have been in continually war that have eroded liberties and leading to hundreds of thousands of good young American lives...and millions of innocent civilian lives, we have seen the debt climb over $15 trillion and yet we have more people living in poverty than ever. Yes, the feds are great at running things...right into the ground!

Mr Muleskinner, you have asked for examples of how the feds have done a poor job with the land and wildlife. While I admit to still not taking the time to do a detailed search for you, I can think of a few examples off the top of my head: 1)The testing of nukes in Nevada/Utah. This lead to hundreds of thousands of dead livestock...not to mention how many humans.... Now, if this killed sheep/cattle, how many deer/elk/bighorn/birds do you think were killed? 2)Right here in Utah we have had the beetle problem, I can see some of the damage from my back window looking up 12 Mile. The local logging company offered to remove all the infested trees and replace them with new healthy trees. Alas, the 'great' federal government wouldn't allow it, so thousands of acres of trees have been needlessly killed. I don't know about you, but I don't find a whole lot of wildlife in dead forests. 3)The infamous Spotted Owl mess in the northeast. Not only did the actions of the feds NOT save the precious spotted owl, it made things WORSE. It also hurt many other wildlife, as well as devastated the economy in that area. 4)The Central Valley in California has been hurt by federal policies. The most fertile soil on the planet has in large part been destroyed all to save a fish smaller than my pinkie finger. If you think only farmers were hurt by this, and wildlife benefited you are sorely mistaken. I can easily come up with more, but the first example is far worse than ALL damage done by the private sector in the history of this nation....!


----------



## proutdoors

mjschijf said:


> It's not that I trust the federal government more than the state, or citizens of our state. Instead, it has more to do with the differing philosophies about how the land should be managed. I completely TRUST that our citizens would do what they believe to be in their personal best interests if they seized control of federal land. Unfortunately, in most cases, it probably wouldn't be in my best interest, or in the best interest of the vast majority of others. I will ALWAYS trust the individual over the collective! And, based on my extensive research of the Founders, so did they. I also know better than to think citizens have any real say in such matters. I am guessing you are a Occupy Wall Street supporter...or at a minimum a sympathizer....so the 1% should ring true for you. I contend it is the 1% who control what happens to the vast acreage owned/controlled by the federal government. How many people had a say it the Escalante Staircase issue? Out of 300 million people, how many had input/say on the matter? Same for this current issue, do you actually think your opinion matters to those making the decisions? Please tell me you know better than that! I find it ironic that you used the term "seized", since the ONLY entity that has ever seized land in regards to the parties involved......states/individuals/feds......in the feds.
> 
> As some others have mentioned, I like having wild places...places that aren't easy to access...places that you can go visit without the eye sores of mining, logging, and development. I understand the economic need for these things on a certain level, but some special places should remain undisturbed for all of us to enjoy. This is based on YOUR values, so explain why YOUR values take priority over another citizen? Do I get what I like, or do you? The easy solution is for the federal government to go back to doing what is one created....by the states......to do......protect individual/state liberty and NOTHING else! The federal government has no business, nor any right to 'protect' wild places for YOU to enjoy, any more than it has the right to 'protect' a business from failing, or a person from not being 'successful'. This growth of the size/scope/power of the federal government by the Laws of Nature mandate less liberty for the individual and the states. There is no way around it. Tyranny is tyranny, whether it is tyrannical enforcement of your values on me/others...or my values forced on you/others.
> 
> Again, I TRUST that citizens do what is best for the land, from their point of view. I recognize the right of land ownership, but most places should be available for all to enjoy. Private land ownership doesn't provide that. You base this on what part of the Constitution? Or, are you of the opinion the Constitution in antiquated and we have 'progressed' beyond such limits on the federal government?


----------



## proutdoors

Mr Muleskinner said:


> I have read Article 1 Section 8 and have also read Article 4 Section 3 Clause 2 (the Property Clause)
> 
> Which states:
> 
> 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.
> 
> The Supreme Court ruled that the federal government's authority to regulate its property within states derives from this clause and has been described by the Supreme Court as "without limitation."
> 
> I'll side with the Supreme Court.


Lets see what Article 1 Section 8 states, since you conveniently left it out of your post.....

It defines *ONLY * three forms of federal landownership and jurisdiction: To establish post offices and post roads: To exercise legislation.....over such District of Columbia (no more than 10 square miles).....and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the State....for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings."

There is also the Equal Standing Doctrine. which for the first 100 years of this country applied. Utah was NEVER given equal standing, and that is as clear as water in a 'protected' stream.....!


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

Apparently the fact that Utah willingly gave up all claims to federal land when it signed on as a state means nothing.

I am not going to argue with you Pro. I didn't conveniently leave anything out. I told you that I read it because you referred to it. The Supreme Court also took it into account when they ruled on the property clause.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr

I emailed several posters on this thread and all I got is a single response from Glenn Beck. Weird.

:mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:


----------



## klbzdad

Should I be insulted or feel stupid that I just checked my email looking for your message? HAHA!


----------

