# Rob Bishop on Steven Rinella's "Meateater Podcast"



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

Anyone with an hour and a half of commute or office time should listen to this podcast. Hoping this generates some reasonable discussion and we can avoid the strictly partisan talking points.

http://www.themeateater.com/podcasts/ep-105-chairman-rob-bishop/

You can find it on itunes, google play, and podbean/stitcher as well

Much of the below has been discussed at great length on this forum. However, I think that a long form conversation with the Chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee merits some discussion of his specifics and their possible effects on sportsmen in Utah and across the country.

Steve Rinella is very respectful of the congressman's viewpoints throughout the interview and allows him to give his reasoning and explanation of:

-The LWCF(Land and Water Conservation Fund)

-The Antiquities Act

-National Monuments

-Bishop's Public Land Initiative

-Funding for National Parks

-Federal Land Transfer to State Ownership

-Outdoor Industry Association and the OR show leaving Utah(brief)

-Endangered Species Act

-What Public Access Means

My personal disagreements with the congressman aside, this was a pretty informative interview. Rinella held back from overt confrontation, and was generally pretty respectful of the congressman and allowed him to express his reasoning on each of the issues.

To avoid this thread getting too convoluted with the myriad of topics discussed, I think it may be helpful to specifically reference the individual subjects at the beginning of a post.


----------



## one4fishing (Jul 2, 2015)

I’m a habitual podcast listener totally gave up on radio and actually look forward to commute time now. Steve Rinella puts on a great discussion every episode. I haven’t listened to this one yet but look forward to it.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Thx, listening to it right now.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Wow! What an awesome, respectful conversation between folks with different ideas. 
I actually gained respect for Bishop for his candor and willingness to chat. I don't have to agree with him to recognize that's an important quality.


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

backcountry said:


> Wow! What an awesome, respectful conversation between folks with different ideas.
> I actually gained respect for Bishop for his candor and willingness to chat. I don't have to agree with him to recognize that's an important quality.


Agreed. I strongly disagree with much of Bishop's reasoning(and the corresponding conclusions), but am very appreciative that Rinella and the congressman were willing to have a respectful discussion.

I've seen a few places where people were disappointed that Steve Rinella wasn't more willing to challenge the congressman on individual issues. However, I appreciated that he kept it courteous and didn't stifle the later parts of the conversation with hostility.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

I've always disliked Rep Bishop and how he expressed his stances. After listening to this podcast, I tend to agree more than disagree with much of what he stated. He made a lot of sense in his reasoning on many of the issues. And that is hard for me to say.

This is how men should interact. Props to both Rinella and Bishop. And thanks for the link.

..


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

I have watched Bishop for many years, and I don't recall ever agreeing with what he does, what he says or how he says it. If I had an hour and a half with nothing else to do, I might listen to it. I'd rather watch welding videos on youtube.


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

paddler said:


> I have watched Bishop for many years, and I don't recall ever agreeing with what he does, what he says or how he says it. If I had an hour and a half with nothing else to do, I might listen to it. I'd rather watch welding videos on youtube.


Fair enough. I also rarely agree with the congressman, but I still think that it was a good conversation. Any recommendations on exciting welding videos? Looking to diversify my youtube playlists.


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

http://themeateater.com/2018/theodo...rinellas-interview-of-congressman-rob-bishop/

I think this is a good critique of some of Bishop's talking points in the interview. I still think everyone should listen to the discussion with an open mind, then read the response.

I do think it is relevant to realize that some of what the congressman was advocating for doesn't necessarily have improved hunting and fishing access at it's core.

This is the type of discussion I was hoping to engage in. It's good to listen, and discuss where the congressman is right or wrong, and how the things he's advocating for _may_ directly impact us as hunters and fishermen on public lands.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

Kwalk3 said:


> Fair enough. I also rarely agree with the congressman, but I still think that it was a good conversation. Any recommendations on exciting welding videos? Looking to diversify my youtube playlists.


There's a guy in Canada who's pretty funny. Google "Don't Buy Mig". His other videos are good, too. Saw one video of a guy making a small aluminum gas tank using TIG, excellent workmanship. I need to build a decent trailer for my canoe as the Paddle Boy unit I bought is junk. Taking up welding in the off season. Just got a Makita metal cutting chop saw, it's nicely made and very precise.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I listened to the podcast on my commute and also while I was doing some other things around the office this morning, so I know I did not pick up everything that was said. It was an interesting discussion. My problem is I don't fully trust Representative Bishop to accurately explain the current standing of things, because I know he'd like to see public lands go away. He claims that that this is not the case, but his prior actions and voting record sure seem to suggest he values business over public access. 

You noticed when they were talking about the federal land being held for a "public purpose" he was very careful to differentiate between "public purpose" and "public access" or "public use." He may not be entirely trustworthy on this topic, but he's not dumb. There was an intent and purpose behind the distinction he very carefully used. 

Interesting that in the response posted above that they call him out on that public purpose language. I also did a search for "public purpose" and it does not show up in that form a single time in the entire legislation. He was very specific to frame the claim around those two words: "public purpose." So I'd love to see what he is referring to, since those words don't exist in the legislation he was responsible for.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Kwalk3 said:


> http://themeateater.com/2018/theodo...rinellas-interview-of-congressman-rob-bishop/
> 
> I think this is a good critique of some of Bishop's talking points in the interview. I still think everyone should listen to the discussion with an open mind, then read the response.
> 
> ...


Thoughtful response.

One caveat, is it true that Utah "state lands are required to be managed for maximum profit"? I know that is the case of SITLA lands but even then we are allowed to most. But Utah owns alot more than SITLA lands, correct? And aren't those managed for different purpose?

I also think its important to remain skeptical and curious about Bishop's statements but I am still impressed with the decorum and respect each one showed each other.


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

Vanilla said:


> I listened to the podcast on my commute and also while I was doing some other things around the office this morning, so I know I did not pick up everything that was said. It was an interesting discussion. My problem is I don't fully trust Representative Bishop to accurately explain the current standing of things, because I know he'd like to see public lands go away. He claims that that this is not the case, but his prior actions and voting record sure seem to suggest he values business over public access.
> 
> You noticed when they were talking about the federal land being held for a "public purpose" he was very careful to differentiate between "public purpose" and "public access" or "public use." He may not be entirely trustworthy on this topic, but he's not dumb. There was an intent and purpose behind the distinction he very carefully used.
> 
> Interesting that in the response posted above that they call him out on that public purpose language. I also did a search for "public purpose" and it does not show up in that form a single time in the entire legislation. He was very specific to frame the claim around those two words: "public purpose." So I'd love to see what he is referring to, since those words don't exist in the legislation he was responsible for.


I had the very same thought regarding his insistence on using the "public purpose" verbiage. It was one of the biggest red flags for me in the interview. It definitely seemed that "public purpose", and "helping people" were ways to justify increased development of public lands.

While I agree that extraction is an important piece of multiple use, there are many other activities that may fall under the umbrella of "public purpose" that may not be in the best interest of those who recreate on public land. Public purpose could mean managing the lands as SITLA does, or even a sale of the lands if it was deemed by those in charge to be in the best interest of the public at large.


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

backcountry said:


> Thoughtful response.
> 
> One caveat, is it true that Utah "state lands are required to be managed for maximum profit"? I know that is the case of SITLA lands but even then we are allowed to most. But Utah owns alot more than SITLA lands, correct? And aren't those managed for different purpose?
> 
> I also think its important to remain skeptical and curious about Bishop's statements but I am still impressed with the decorum and respect each one showed each other.


I believe you are correct about the maximization of profits mandate being specific to SITLA lands. It's an important distinction to make.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

It's nice to have civil discussions, but I don't trust Bishop enough to listen to him. The next time I listen to him will be when he gives a concession speech to someone who listens to me and shares my views on public lands, conservation, etc.


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

paddler said:


> It's nice to have civil discussions, but I don't trust Bishop enough to listen to him. The next time I listen to him will be when he gives a concession speech to someone who listens to me and shares my views on public lands, conservation, etc.


Fair enough.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Yes, the state owns more lands than just SITLA lands. No, they do not have the same constitutional mandate to maximize profits on non-SITLA lands. 

It's one of the issues I have with the response posted to the podcast. Anyone paying attention knows how strongly I oppose the transfer of federal lands to the state, and that is simply because I know what the state will do with it. That said, we need to quit referencing SITLA lands in these discussions. Those lands are simply not applicable to the discussion at hand. The response references how over time Utah has sold off 55% of its land holdings. How much of that 55% was SITLA lands? (That's a legitimate question, not a rhetorical one. I do not know the answer to that.) I suspect a good chunk of that is SITLA lands, and therefore, not applicable to the discussion public land transfer in any way. Now, if it is 55% of the non-SITLA lands, that is a different discussion, and indicative of the future.


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

I agree with that assessment Vanilla. I think that the statement in the rebuttal probably misinforms the argument a bit. While technically true, I believe that most of the land that has been sold off has been SITLA land.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Vanilla said:


> Yes, the state owns more lands than just SITLA lands. No, they do not have the same constitutional mandate to maximize profits on non-SITLA lands.
> 
> It's one of the issues I have with the response posted to the podcast. Anyone paying attention knows how strongly I oppose the transfer of federal lands to the state, and that is simply because I know what the state will do with it. That said, we need to quit referencing SITLA lands in these discussions. Those lands are simply not applicable to the discussion at hand. The response references how over time Utah has sold off 55% of its land holdings. How much of that 55% was SITLA lands? (That's a legitimate question, not a rhetorical one. I do not know the answer to that.) I suspect a good chunk of that is SITLA lands, and therefore, not applicable to the discussion public land transfer in any way. Now, if it is 55% of the non-SITLA lands, that is a different discussion, and indicative of the future.


The response definitely had it's own problems even if overlaps with my own general sentiments.

I also wish the conversation would get past the simple comparison to SITLA. Its definitely part of the equation but definitely not the only variable in state owned lands. I'm also not sure about exact figures.

I also found Bishop's take on the naming differences rather ironic given the general mood of the tribal perspective. I actually think a native name is great but I don't think its the meat of the issue. And I never saw the name Bear's Ears as cuddly advertising.

All very interesting. The phrase "public purpose" is curious.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

backcountry said:


> I also found Bishop's take on the naming differences rather ironic given the general mood of the tribal perspective. I actually think a native name is great but I don't think its the meat of the issue. And I never saw the name Bear's Ears as cuddly advertising.


Agreed, I never viewed it this way either. But the allegation did not surprise me in the least, and believe this is very possible. Politics can get cute and cuddly, at the same time nasty.


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

backcountry said:


> The response definitely had it's own problems even if overlaps with my own general sentiments.


You summed this up well. I had a much harder time poking holes in TRCP's rebuttal, largely because I feel TRCP is on "my team" as a hunter a little more than the congressman. That doesn't mean that there weren't problems with it, but perhaps, I'm a little less willing to find fault with them because of the intent.

Definitely something to consider for reasonable discussion. This is partly why I tried not to post some scathing rebuke of the congressman's talking points when I originally posted the podcast. Sometimes it's important to step back and consider more than one viewpoint, while simultaneously reviewing and reasoning out my own opinion on each issue.


----------



## grizzly (Jun 3, 2012)

Double posted TRCP response.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Vanilla said:


> That said, we need to quit referencing SITLA lands in these discussions. Those lands are simply not applicable to the discussion at hand.


I disagree with this to some extent. Governor Herbert is on record as saying that he would favor managing newly acquired lands from a successful TPL attempt after the SITLA model. Therefore, looking at what SITLA has done with their holdings is illustrative for what we could expect from the state in the future with TPL acquisitions.

Nevertheless, you are right that comparing *current* SITLA lands to other public lands is looking at apples and oranges.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Catherder said:


> Nevertheless, you are right that comparing *current* SITLA lands to other public lands is looking at apples and oranges.


So we actually agree? :grin:


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Vanilla said:


> So we actually agree? :grin:


Yes, as far as I can tell. ;-)


----------



## grizzly (Jun 3, 2012)

I agree that SITLA lands are separate from State lands, but there is a correlation here inasmuch as the Transfer of Public Lands Act declares that 5% of the proceeds from the sale of public land will be deposited into the SITLA account.

Also, the push for TPLA often is referenced as "for education" which means either SITLA funds or property tax revenue from the selling of public land.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

I agree its an important variable I just think its important to highlight its not the only one that affects state lands. We can still garner money for schools at certain rates of the sales while implementing policy standards beyond the mandate of "maximum profit."

My principle concern is that these conversations are often framed with language that benefits a organization's or persons values or goals and that often comes at the expense of nuance. Its part of the us vs them mentality that is driving much of our national conversation. I still land on the side of the TRCP and think their response was very compelling but I'm willing to constructively criticize their overly simplistic language.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I'll just point to the Utah legislature removing public use from ~2,000 miles of public water in Utah in favor of a very small minority special interest group to illustrate my distrust for them looking out for the public or for my ability to recreate on public lands. 

I don't really need to bring SITLA lands and how they have been sold off in the past into the conversation to show that Utah's current elected leadership sucks for hunters and fishermen. And yes, Utah's current elected leadership sucks for hunters and fishermen.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

Bishop's war on public lands is over. He will be out as chairman of the Natural Resources committee, relegated to the back bench for this, his last, term in office. Good news for Utah's outdoorsmen. His bill to codify the monument reductions won't see the light of day. That's a good thing


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

Simply don't trust Bishop! For example, he stated(in the podcast) that most of the off-shore oil workers are old men ready to retire so we need to give money to the oil companies to train new workers so they can keep pumping oil. So we got a bunch of old men running the oil rigs?..yeah, right, what a lie! He says it will create jobs for Americans...look, first off, if a company needs to train a new worker, it needs to train a new worker, period. Giving them tax dollars to do this is nothing more than a subsidy for the oil companies, and in the end, the oil companies will just go ahead and hire and train foreign workers anyway. 
I know it's only a small point, but oh so typical of Bishop's continuing efforts to take care of his benefactors...the extraction industries!


----------



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

paddler said:


> Bishop's war on public lands is over. He will be out as chairman of the Natural Resources committee, relegated to the back bench for this, his last, term in office. Good news for Utah's outdoorsmen. His bill to codify the monument reductions won't see the light of day. That's a good thing


Not good, great.....he and Mike Lee are some of the worst opponents of public lands in Congress.


----------

