# Need any more proof on Bishop?



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/04/05/3766697/puerto-rico-land-sale-proposal/

Do we need any more proof what Bishop would do with public lands?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

I can't help but believe that any of our state legislators or politicians who claim that they would not sell off public lands are being disingenuous...just where do they think the money would come from to fight litigation or fires?

Here is a link to an interesting article about what happens when states do take control:
http://www.idahostatesman.com/opinion/article69109917.html


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

Rob Bishop needs to go.

People of Utah, need to wake up.

"C'mon, this affects _all of us_, man! Our _basic freedoms_!" Walter Sobchak


----------



## hemionus (Aug 23, 2009)

Ha now he wants our National Wildlife Refuge System.........Go pound sand!


----------



## Idratherbehunting (Jul 17, 2013)

I haven't seen anyone discuss this wonderful piece of literature yet. Sure put a pretty absurd spin on this one.

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/3722187-155/op-ed-until-utah-controls-its-federal

These are our state representatives. But they definitely do not represent me in this situation.


----------



## Idratherbehunting (Jul 17, 2013)

Idratherbehunting said:


> I haven't seen anyone discuss this wonderful piece of literature yet. Sure put a pretty absurd spin on this one.
> 
> http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/3722187-155/op-ed-until-utah-controls-its-federal
> 
> These are our state representatives. But they definitely do not represent me in this situation.


I quick search shows that three of the authors of this op-ed are in real estate development, while David Hinkins Bio just says he's a businessman.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Idratherbehunting said:


> I haven't seen anyone discuss this wonderful piece of literature yet. Sure put a pretty absurd spin on this one.
> 
> http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/3722187-155/op-ed-until-utah-controls-its-federal
> 
> These are our state representatives. But they definitely do not represent me in this situation.


Strange, I feel privileged to live in a state where I can walk freely among hundreds of thousands of acres without asking anyone for permission. I feel we have a much better quality of life because of our public lands.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Public lands are what make the West so great; sadly, if you listen to many of our politicians (as I did last night at our county convention), you would think that public land is the scourge of the West.

I want to know how these politicians plan on paying for things like fire fighting and litigation once these federal lands are "taken back". For example, if a fire were to start on Monroe Mountain, currently federal tax dollars are used to fight it. If we take back those lands and they are managed by the state, we lose those federal tax dollars (and all the tax money from those hated folks in New York and California) and are forced to pay out of Utah tax money (and we still pay our federal taxes). So, either we will be taxed much higher by the state, or the state sells the lands to pay for things like fighting fires and litigation tied to the ESA or whatever else.

I keep hearing how we can manage those public lands locally so much better, but I never hear how....or, where we are going to get the money to do it. One candidate talked about how Utah's 70% public land is higher than any other state and that we lose property taxes because of it. He never came out and said it, but it was definitely implied that we needed to increase our state tax revenue by selling that land to private interests....

....I hate to say it, but I may have to become a democrat! And, sadly, when compared to guys like Ted Cruz, Hillary doesn't sound so bad when it comes down to public lands (I can't believe I am even saying that...but, it is true!)!


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

wyoming2utah said:


> I keep hearing how we can manage those public lands locally so much better, but I never hear how....or, where we are going to get the money to do it. One candidate talked about how Utah's 70% public land is higher than any other state and that we lose property taxes because of it. He never came out and said it, but it was definitely implied that we needed to increase our state tax revenue by selling that land to private interests....
> 
> ....I hate to say it, but I may have to become a democrat! And, sadly, when compared to guys like Ted Cruz, Hillary doesn't sound so bad when it comes down to public lands (I can't believe I am even saying that...but, it is true!)!


Great point. The politicians often are reluctant to come out and say in speeches to the "average Joe" that they will sell off the land, but in reading their plans for it if they have a successful takeover, they are quite clear that selling is the objective.

As for the political party comment, I hear you. The "R"s still more closely represent some of my sentiments the best on some issues, but definitely do not in the environmental and land use policy areas. Also, the local "R" party in Utah is now so powerful that they are about as responsive to the citizens needs as the old Soviet Pilotburo.


----------



## Packfish (Oct 30, 2007)

....I hate to say it, but I may have to become a democrat! And, sadly, when compared to guys like Ted Cruz, Hillary doesn't sound so bad when it comes down to public lands (I can't believe I am even saying that...but, it is true!)! SORRY SOME MORAL ISSUES THERE I JUST CAN'T GET BY be the public land issue or not !


As for the political party comment, I hear you. The "R"s still more closely represent some of my sentiments the best on some issues, but definitely do not in the environmental and land use policy areas. Also, the local "R" party in Utah is now so powerful that they are about as responsive to the citizens needs as the old Soviet Pilotburo AND THIS I AGREE WITH.

Sure puts us in a world of hurt doesn't it. 
Fed have too many regs- State politicians talk out of both sides of the mouth. I do think there are parcels of land that the state should have control over just not to the extent they want.
Wyo2 - I think we could get a collection going to get enough mouth wash to clean what you said there but even if everyone pitched in 5 spot it might not buy enough.


----------



## Idratherbehunting (Jul 17, 2013)

wyoming2utah said:


> Public lands are what make the West so great; sadly, if you listen to many of our politicians (as I did last night at our county convention), you would think that public land is the scourge of the West.
> 
> I want to know how these politicians plan on paying for things like fire fighting and litigation once these federal lands are "taken back". For example, if a fire were to start on Monroe Mountain, currently federal tax dollars are used to fight it. If we take back those lands and they are managed by the state, we lose those federal tax dollars (and all the tax money from those hated folks in New York and California) and are forced to pay out of Utah tax money (and we still pay our federal taxes). So, either we will be taxed much higher by the state, or the state sells the lands to pay for things like fighting fires and litigation tied to the ESA or whatever else.
> 
> ...


I may have to become a democrat as well, or at least vote for someone other than our two Republican front runners. The attempt to transfer public lands to the states' control is not an acceptable option, as far as I'm concerned. State land trusts have the responsibility of maximizing returns for the state. It's not going to take someone very long to realize that the state doesn't want the exposure to the risks you identified with fire fighting and litigation, and they will be obligated to sell it off, because the trust's responsibility is to maximize return. State Trusts have no incentive to ensure multi-use access (ie. truly public land) but both the BLM and the National Forest Service are obligated to maximize multi-use access, not returns.


----------



## The Naturalist (Oct 13, 2007)

You don't have to be a democrat to vote for a democrat. I've never voted a straight party ticket. You just have to do a little research to see who is bought and paid for.


----------



## Airborne (May 29, 2009)

A Utah democrat is pretty much a moderate republican once you cross state lines. Utah republicans are dang near secessionists, they only lack a cool looking flag and a rebel yell. ;-)


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

The Naturalist said:


> You don't have to be a democrat to vote for a democrat. I've never voted a straight party ticket. You just have to do a little research to see who is bought and paid for.


Right, and this is what I have always done. But, combine the public lands issues with education issues and I am finding I side with state democrats more than republicans. Sitting in that convention the other night, though, was like being a Ute fan in the BYU student body section. I felt really out of place and alone in my views.


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

wyoming2utah said:


> Right, and this is what I have always done. But, combine the public lands issues with education issues and I am finding I side with state democrats more than republicans. Sitting in that convention the other night, though, was like being a Ute fan in the BYU student body section. I felt really out of place and alone in my views.


I've heard from several that attended local R Caucus meetings that the public lands issue was discussed heavily....and with pretty strong support for Utah controlling the land. I'm registered as an independent so couldn't attend the R Caucus, but I imagine I would've felt a similar feeling of despair.

It's amazing to me that Utah doesn't embrace the awesomeness that is our public land. Most are apparently oblivious to how many opportunities there are for ANYONE to enjoy. My mother was telling me how the guy leading the discussion at the caucus referred to the federally managed land in Utah as a wasteland. As one who tries to utilize the public land as frequently as possible, that couldn't be further from the truth.


----------



## Idratherbehunting (Jul 17, 2013)

Kwalk3 said:


> I've heard from several that attended local R Caucus meetings that the public lands issue was discussed heavily....and with pretty strong support for Utah controlling the land. I'm registered as an independent so couldn't attend the R Caucus, but I imagine I would've felt a similar feeling of despair.
> 
> It's amazing to me that Utah doesn't embrace the awesomeness that is our public land. Most are apparently oblivious to how many opportunities there are for ANYONE to enjoy. My mother was telling me how the guy leading the discussion at the caucus referred to the federally managed land in Utah as a wasteland. As one who tries to utilize the public land as frequently as possible, that couldn't be further from the truth.


I'm a registered independent as well. I am amazed by how many people buy the absurd story lines people are feeding them. I don't feel like Utah is this oppressed, second class state because of federal politicians keeping us down and suppressing our economy.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> Right, and this is what I have always done. But, combine the public lands issues with education issues and I am finding I side with state democrats more than republicans. Sitting in that convention the other night, though, was like being a Ute fan in the BYU student body section. I felt really out of place and alone in my views.


Now begs the question how do we change these people minds and get it across how bad this idea is?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

That's the million dollar question. I don't think most people have thought it through. I look at their central argument and believe it sounds good too...I mean, who wouldn't want to have more control of what happens in their backyards? But, I don't think most people have heard the other side of the argument or are even willing to listen to it. I think that we just need to make our voices heard through whatever avenues we have available to us. Right now, I keep sharing news articles on Facebook of why such a transfer is so bad, every time the issue is brought up I try to explain my stance, and I am certainly voting according to who I feel is most reasonable on the issue (though it isn't going to be easy nor has it been). I am open to any other ideas as well....


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

wyoming2utah said:


> That's the million dollar question. I don't think most people have thought it through. I look at their central argument and believe it sounds good too...I mean, who wouldn't want to have more control of what happens in their backyards? But, I don't think most people have heard the other side of the argument or are even willing to listen to it. I think that we just need to make our voices heard through whatever avenues we have available to us. Right now, I keep sharing news articles on Facebook of why such a transfer is so bad, every time the issue is brought up I try to explain my stance, and I am certainly voting according to who I feel is most reasonable on the issue (though it isn't going to be easy nor has it been). I am open to any other ideas as well....


I wonder how much of that was regional. At my caucus meeting, TPL didn't even come up, nor was it specifically mentioned in the County platform. Most of the discussion was on education/common core and the gubernatorial and presidential races.

I was nominated to be a state delegate but had to decline due to work commitments. I do have to wonder what would have happened if I got up there to do my 3 minute speech for the delegate election and came out against TPL and the land grab. My first impression was that my house would have been subsequently egged. I'm also highly doubtful that I would have been picked when against all those that were trying to impress everyone how conservative they are. ;-)


----------



## Packfish (Oct 30, 2007)

There is a pretty good list of reasons why every day Utahans want the state to take the land. Many of the reasons seem very legitimate to them. We have all grown up with them and in many areas they hold water- Govt- waste- too many Govt regs- Govt needs to be as small as it can be. The trouble is they never see the other side of the story and the reasons why it will hurt them in the in the long run and it is never presented to them . And one of the reasons why it won't be is unless you physically confront them or nail it to their door is that we don't have a great avenue of getting to them. If we didn't hike, hunt and fish not so sure many of us would have seen the problem.


----------



## Idratherbehunting (Jul 17, 2013)

My biggest concern is that it will be managed the same way that the state Land Trust land is managed, ie. to turn a profit, rather than to facilitate multi-use and multi-access. USU, U of U and WSU did a study that claimed that the revenue realized from Utah lands (mostly from mineral leases) was significant enough to offset the costs of managing and wildfire suppression. However, I wasn't clear on how they derived their data, and I just don't see the state maintaining the multi-use permissions. As soon as maintaining access becomes more expensive than the revenue generated (realistically from day one) there is nothing that requires them to maintain the public access. Has someone already discussed the Universities study about this?


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

I did a little Google search and found the following data:

http://www.backcountrychronicles.com/public-hunting-land/

It is not comprehensive of total public acres broken down state-by-state, but only includes the "huntable" acres. I find it interesting that Utah ranks #6 and the top 12 states are all found in the west. I believe a lot of us haven't really taken advantage of all the public land we have available to recreate in.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

This isn't a partisan issue, but making it appear to be so is a clever strategy on the part of the organizers, gaining them considerable support that would otherwise not exist.

Grabbing our public lands isn't really Republican, as evidenced by the many Republican politicians who have supported and protected public lands through history since Roosevelt's day. In the Republican paradigm, decisions are made by representative government. These guys have put a twist on that so that rather than acting at the will of the People, they busy themselves about the business of trying to tell us what our will is, or should be.

Grabbing our public lands isn't conservative, either. It's a radical proposal that departs from long-standing tradition and if successful, will affect the lives of every citizen in the state.

So it's completely understandable when folks have trouble reconciling this massive con with conservative Republican values. Me, I never was much for partisan politics. So I'm praying that something big happens at either party's convention because right now, there's not a presidential candidate on either side that I can vote for. As for Utah's gaggle of political geese, I'm voting a straight ticket for the first time ever - voting against every incumbent.


----------

