# Ted Cruz--2% public land is too much



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

http://www.idahostatesman.com/news/local/environment/article64362377.html

Land should be returned to the people(sold),2% public land is too much, and public land happened by accident, I think Theodore Roosevelt and all the hard work he accomplished wouldn't call public land an "accident". A vote for Ted Cruz is a vote to sell public land and hurt hunting. Hunting is a very legitimate use of a firearm,to hurt hunting is another checkmate to take them away as well. Don't vote for this bought politician who is just a puppet of those who own him.


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

This guy. Just makes it too easy to dislike him


----------



## Bax* (Dec 14, 2008)

I can see this topic getting pretty out of hand about Ted's other philosophies outside of public lands. 

Just a reminder to keep it on One Eye's topic.


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

Public Land BS is about number 20 on the list of things I'm worried about right now so I personally won't even be considering this issue when I cast my ballot. As per Bax's request, I will refrain from discussing the real, substantive issues facing our country right now.-----SS


----------



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

SS, I'm sure Ted Cruz will fix all those problems for you and will listen to you instead of his donors. A politician never made my life easier... But they have made it worse. This transfer would definitely make it worse, so I believe they are capable of that, I don't believe they will fix the problems in this country for anyone but those who funded their campaign.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

If cruz or anyone else gets in that wants to sell of public lands, I'd like to find several other like minded people and pool money and get a few thousand acres of land somewhere, sortof like the BigHorn ranch operation in Sanpete.

-DallanC


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

Well One Eye, you seem to have done a lot of research on the subject so enlighten us as to who exactly is the best candidate for the public lands interest. 

Oh, and I never said anything about voting for Cruz.--------SS


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

DallanC said:


> If cruz or anyone else gets in that wants to sell of public lands, I'd like to find several other like minded people and pool money and get a few thousand acres of land somewhere, sortof like the BigHorn ranch operation in Sanpete.
> 
> -DallanC


I would vote for the Red Desert (Elk Area 100) Wyoming. We could get deer, antelope, and elk tags every year.


----------



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

Springville Shooter said:


> Well One Eye, you seem to have done a lot of research on the subject so enlighten us as to who exactly is the best candidate for the public lands interest.
> 
> Oh, and I never said anything about voting for Cruz.--------SS


SS, from what I've gained from you is that you are a very good person who sees the crappy things going on and I understand what you're saying as far as what is facing this country. I take exception to the amount of money Cruz has taken from oil and industry and how he pushes this public land argument he understands nothing about. I don't believe any of the candidates are qualified to be our president, but Trump is the only republican candidate(the party I tend to agree with on a lot of things) who has sided with the public land remaining public. I think the most honest candidate is Bernie Sanders, but his proposals I can't agree with. I actually don't mind Kasich, but he has no chance of winning. I'm down to the fact that, they all suck and Trump is the lesser of the evils as far as republicans to public land. If Cruz gets the White House, republicans are in a perfect situation to actually carry out this disposal of public lands. Keeping a president in office on our side or democratic keeps things even with the republican dominated congress. Voting for the lesser of two evils is still a devil. I don't want to vote for any of the candidates but I know for sure Cruz is not my guy and its the perfect situation to end the legacy of public lands if he gets in.


----------



## Cooky (Apr 25, 2011)

DallanC said:


> If cruz or anyone else gets in that wants to sell of public lands, I'd like to find several other like minded people and pool money and get a few thousand acres of land somewhere, sortof like the BigHorn ranch operation in Sanpete.
> 
> -DallanC


I want Delicate Arch, and a chunk of The City of Rocks.


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

I kinda have my doubts about the Trumpster and his record on property rights. It would seem that he has a history of putting special interest above PRIVATE property rights. How much easier would it be to cast public lands aside when the 'deal' seemed right? 

Not endorsing Trump either.....just throwing out a thought. 

One thing that I do like about Cruz is that he lays it on the line. This is a guy who went to Iowa and openly denounced ethanol subsadies. Like it or not, he is clearly stating his perspective regarding public land allowing people an easier time in making their decision as well as providing an opportunity for those who disagree to lobby him to reconsider his position. 

I feel like I understand where Ted and Bernie are. I can't make heads or tails of the rest of the pack.-----SS


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

I tend to believe the Public Lands issue is the one item on the docket that would impact my personal life more than any other issue. The economic, social, war, foreign, etc... issues are important, but they won't touch my life the same as if 1/2 or all of the public lands are sold. 

I'd wager that the lands will not be sold at a price most could afford-- rather corporations and business interests would be the major benefactors.

As for a guy like Cruz taking a stand on ethanol-- easy to do if you are receiving a check from ethanol's competition (oil). The dude is too slick for me. I am a Kasich guy, but he has no chance.


----------



## Hoopermat (Dec 17, 2010)

DallanC said:


> If cruz or anyone else gets in that wants to sell of public lands, I'd like to find several other like minded people and pool money and get a few thousand acres of land somewhere, sortof like the BigHorn ranch operation in Sanpete.
> 
> -DallanC


You can count me in.


----------



## Hoopermat (Dec 17, 2010)

Packout said:


> I tend to believe the Public Lands issue is the one item on the docket that would impact my personal life more than any other issue. The economic, social, war, foreign, etc... issues are important, but they won't touch my life the same as if 1/2 or all of the public lands are sold.
> 
> I'd wager that the lands will not be sold at a price most could afford-- rather corporations and business interests would be the major benefactors.
> 
> As for a guy like Cruz taking a stand on ethanol-- easy to do if you are receiving a check from ethanol's competition (oil). The dude is too slick for me. I am a Kasich guy, but he has no chance.


The land that the state sell is not over priced its acctully affordable. But the state sells off the mineral right so they are not included. It's a way for the to basically sell it twice. The oil and gas company purchases the mineral rights and then someone buys the land with a energy easement for the exploration of resources.


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

You are right on Packout. Ted made it clear on his stance on ethanol vs oil. That makes it easy for groups of voters to make a decision. My point was that he didn't pander to the ethanol crowd while in Iowa which is against the status quo for most politicians. Kinda like Bernie coming out and talking about free college and socialism. Makes it easy to figure out if you like them or not and make your choice. I kinda appreciate the simplicity in that.----SS


----------



## APD (Nov 16, 2008)

Springville Shooter said:


> Well One Eye, you seem to have done a lot of research on the subject so enlighten us as to who exactly is the best candidate for the public lands interest.
> 
> Oh, and I never said anything about voting for Cruz.--------SS


can't ever find a person to vote for that you'll agree with 100%. i'd settle for one that was reasonable that i could agree with 60% of the time. too bad there's no reasonable candidates in this election.


----------



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

The difference between Bernie and Cruz is, Bernie believes what he's saying, Cruz believes in what he's told to believe by the funds he's received. When big money doesn't own our candidates (another issue Bernie brings up) we might actually have some decent people to choose from.


----------



## Badin (Dec 18, 2015)

Let me see if I got this right. If I vote right of center, I lose any right to hunt public land as the goal is to sell it off? If I vote left of center, I lose any right to hunt as goal is to restrict firearm possession and protect innocent critters?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

If you are going to vote strictly as a sportsman, it's Trump or Sanders.

Here is a bit on Trump, Mike Schoby(interviewer) is a pretty good guy. We don't agree on every thing, but he has hollered pretty loud for me in the past, so...

Trump on public lands: http://www.petersenshunting.com/conservation-politics/why-sportsmen-should-vote-for-donald-trump/

Trump has held far more liberal positions on gun control in the past. Nothing like Clinton's though.

This gives some insight as to why Trump has the stance that he does, it is mostly because of his sons Eric and Don Jr. Without them he probably would not have the stance that he does. I believe that Jr. means well, and I can handle him better than the old man.

I had one hell of a Libertarian speel thrown at me making the case for Sanders, it certainly put an interesting perspective on him. Some of the key arguments were public lands, business, and firearms, so it had my attention.

Sanders on firearms: http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-gun-policy/

Hillary's position:.......Just kidding.......-O,-


----------



## riptheirlips (Jun 30, 2008)

I just wish it was a law to purchase the land you had to be a legal citizen of the US instead of them selling the land to China or some other country. I would hope they DO NOT sale but the politicians will do what their donors want.


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

From a strictly public lands perspective, I would deduce that Bernie Sanders would be the best candidate. His socialistic views on the size of Government would most likely facilitate the proliferation, or at least retainment of current government holdings and their related beurocricies. 'Public' lands would seem to fit in well with 'public' medical care, 'public' education, etc. Bernie's position of being tough on big business is also a factor to take into consideration regarding this issue. If there is a candidate that will not bend for the likes of big oil, big logging, big development, or any other big industry it is Bernie.

Unfortunately for me, I can't even come close to voting for the Bern based on my core beliefs on matters far beyond the scope of public lands.----SS


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Springville Shooter said:


> From a strictly public lands perspective, I would deduce that Bernie Sanders would be the best candidate. His socialistic views on the size of Government would most likely facilitate the proliferation, or at least retainment of current government holdings and their related beurocricies. 'Public' lands would seem to fit in well with 'public' medical care, 'public' education, etc. Bernie's position of being tough on big business is also a factor to take into consideration regarding this issue. If there is a candidate that will not bend for the likes of big oil, big logging, big development, or any other big industry it is Bernie.
> 
> Unfortunately for me, I can't even come close to voting for the Bern based on my core beliefs on matters far beyond the scope of public lands.----SS


I actually think the "big government" part of it that would preclude sale, could also be a big problem in it's management as well, which is a current problem with wildlife now.

It will be interesting to see where the gun issue moves to come the general election. Trump has come right, and Sanders left on their previous positions. Hillary sounds poised to double down on her well documented track record.

It gets kind of interesting if you look back at the '80s and '90. Trump was for the Brady bill, and Sanders was against it. Another key place where we have seen movement from both.

Come the general election the ABC rule may come into play on either side of this.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

Meanwhile, back at the ranch...

Who's the biggest private land owners in the state?

Yet has not a word to say? They had plenty to say about gay hate crimes (like they know anything about homosexuality) and marijuana (like they know anything about pot).

But not a word about privatizing our public lands?

I get it - I really do. Black man in the White house, likely followed by a woman...maybe with a woman vice. War on coal. War on public grazing. Gay marriage and nothing can prevent it. No more privateers for logs, minerals, etc. Good-bye to water rights and acre-feet.

This is Deseret. Majority of the state thinks so. Except that majority is shrinking, fast. Salt Lake county is already gone. Best defense against more of the same is...own the land.


----------



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

Edited and deleted: I have to agree, let's keep this issue on public lands. Frustrations beyond that can be discussed outside here.


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

Well, there went a halfway decent discussion.-----SS


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Cooky said:


> I want Delicate Arch, and a chunk of The City of Rocks.


As long as I get the Henry's and Huntington canyon over to Castle Valley Ridge, deal


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Finnegan said:


> Meanwhile, back at the ranch...
> 
> Who's the biggest private land owners in the state?
> 
> ...


And BHA still can't figure out why they have never been able to get a foot hold in this state, or expand beyond 6 members. Don't get me wrong folks, BHA is a really good national organization, you should send them money, you should support them, but you need to send that money and support to national, while letting them know how displeased you are with the representation that is being provided, or maybe I should say not provided to Utah BHA members. DO NOT purchase a state membership, do not support them on a state level.

As long as the likes of Jay Banta, and Micheal Anderson are Utah co-chairs, and we keep getting BS like this, Utah BHA will remain the Pariah that it and it's Utah members are.

Keep this in mind while reading this, I'm about as coarse and misanthropic as they come. So if I'm telling you that you have the wrong approach in winning hearts and minds, you may need to reevaluate where you are, and where you are coming from...........

Speaking of ranches...........how are those barbwire scars? :mrgreen: Yeah, yeah, I know spitting teeth, etc.......:mrgreen:

If anyone else, like myself, thought that Finn's post was out of line, especially from some one that is representing the views of a wildlife conservation org as one of their Co-Chairs, you can hit up the president of BHA about it here: [email protected] Land Tawney is a good guy, but we disagree about BHA's representation of sportsmen here in Utah. Maybe if Land hears it from some other people besides me, it will start to sink in, and BHA can make the needed changes for some much needed progress here in Utah.

I guess this was really the next logical step, proceed sharply and vigorously, from a touchy political conversation to religion....................WTF!


----------



## Bax* (Dec 14, 2008)

Reminder to stay on topic. Inferences beyond land use (i.e. marriage and religion) have no place here. 

Thanks.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

What does everyone think about Trump's multiple marriages? Reagan had multiple marriages, and it was not that big of deal back then.

Yeah,.....I think we are good wondering into marriage.

Let me try another one. Bernie says he is proud to be a Jew, yet he is against Wallstreet. I don't get it, we all know Jews like money, yet we never hear Bernie talk about how as a _JEW_ he likes money..........I'm just saying, Jews like money, kinda like Mormons own allot of land in the state that is predominantly Mormon, so they must like to to steal land too right.....right.....?

Oooohh, yeah,.......I think I see it right there, maybe you are right about the religion part.......?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Finnegan said:


> Meanwhile, back at the ranch...
> 
> Who's the biggest private land owners in the state?
> 
> ...


Does this count as not a word?:

_"While the disagreement occurring in Oregon about the use of federal lands is not a Church matter, Church leaders strongly condemn the armed seizure of the facility and are deeply troubled by the reports that those who have seized the facility suggest that they are doing so based on scriptural principles. This armed occupation can in no way be justified on a scriptural basis. We are privileged to live in a nation where conflicts with government or private groups can - and should - be settled using peaceful means, according to the laws of the land."

_So because the church has not come out publicly and supported the sell off or take over of our public lands, that means they must be all for it, and probably even behind this right? Oooohhhh, I see it now...........

You could make that claim about some other organizations in this state, but this one is a false equivalency, until you can show otherwise.

Kids, like Nancy use to say........well, OK, at least don't over do it.

What about the Jehovah Witness's? They are a minority land owner, and would benefit greatly if they could purchase more land, to keep up with the Jone's. Yet we have not heard a single word from them about this issue.............you know what that means?...............We have not heard a single word from them about this issue..........


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Is this closer to being on topic?: http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/07/politics/nra-bernie-sanders-spot-on-tweet/index.html

An excerpt from someone that sent me the link: "Socialism: The state take over and control of the firearms industry. Democratic socialism: The state protection of the firearms industry." There was more, but that was the jist of it. They send me lots of comparisons like that, not all of them make as good of sense as this one though.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

Bax* said:


> Reminder to stay on topic. Inferences beyond land use (i.e. marriage and religion) have no place here.


I sincerely apologize if my point was offensive to anyone.

As a 62 year old 4th generation native of Utah who is proud of his rich Mormon heritage, I fail to recognize an insult in my remark. Otherwise, I wouldn't have posted it. But I've never experienced such a reaction in the many live discussions across the state. Certainly haven't had anybody threaten to go tell on me. :grin:

Would it be off topic for me to suggest that federal land transfer is only one facet of a much bigger, complex issue and that a final resolution, if it ever comes, will be the result of informed (empathetic) discussion? Lacking the understanding that can only come from such discussion, a positive outcome isn't likely for anyone.


----------



## paddlehead (May 30, 2014)

I dont really like Trump, but I like the idea of losing our public lands even less. Under no condition would I be ok with the west turning into another Texas!! Everyone I know that lives/lived there, hated it!!! Mandatory "pay to play" just doesnt sound like a place I want to live!!


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

I guess I don't know some of you well enough to determine if you're joking or not. I would caution about anything socialism and Mr. Sanders. That in itself is way worse than any state being given land from the federal government. At a state level, you only have one voice, and that is the will of the majority and the state reps. - a very dangerous situation as most can agree. What Sanders brings to the table is the precursor to communism (if you disagree, research it out in the histories of economic thought).

The only way to make public land under the ownership of the state safe is to have the state constitution amended to protect the public land indefinitely from any form of privatization.

I am not certain who the right candidate is right now, but I'm not so sure that Mr. Trump is. He says a lot of things that people want to hear, but at the same time, I see him as being a 'my way or the highway' type guy. Mr. Cruz also says a lot of things that people like to hear. The tricky thing about politics is that you have to address everyone's concerns, needs, and wants. When you satisfy one group, you're sure to make the other mad.

I think the one issue that Ted Cruz is addressing about federal ownership of land is the feds ability to designate millions of acres of public land open to general all around use into a specific use piece of public land such as the creation of a national monument where NO hunting is allowed. Period. This is a danger in itself in that several special interest groups have the ear of the feds, who is always trying to satisfy their constituency.

In short, Mr. Cruz is speaking to a specific group (playing politics) addressing gov't overreach and the leviathan it has become. If one looks hard enough, you will find things about your favorite candidate that you do not like, but you may choose to ignore it because they satisfy your bigger wants and needs. I also thought I heard Mr. Cruz state that 2% public land owned by the fed was too much. I know that in the state of TX, you either have to own land or pay a higher price to hunt than you would in UT...


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

High Desert Elk said:


> I think the one issue that Ted Cruz is addressing about federal ownership of land is the feds ability to designate millions of acres of public land open to general all around use into a specific use piece of public land such as the creation of a national monument where NO hunting is allowed. Period.


Please. Stop! This is one of the biggest misconceptions about national monuments and future national monument designation....and it drives me nuts!
Hunting is allowed on many national monuments and just because land is set aside to be protected as a national monument does NOT mean that hunting, fishing, and even the use of ATVs must be discontinued (even grazing and mining are allowed on some national monuments). I hunt every year on the Grand Staircase National Monument and do it quite legally! I thank the FEDS and our old nemesis who designated that monument every year for doing so...!

True, they can designate land to eliminate it...but, it doesn't have to be done that way. But, we do know that privatizing that same land will for sure kick us off!


----------



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

HDE, ever been to the Pauns? It's a gem, forever protected by the evil Feds and turned into a national monument that has plenty of roads and hunting on it. Isn't it like one of the best mule deer units in the state and world even? National Monument isn't the swear word some make it out to be, ts all in how the monument is crafted as to what the restrictions will be. 

As for Bernie, in 4 years with a republican dominated congress, it's naive to think or country will turn socialist or Bernie will get any of the things done I don't agree with him on. He really has no chance at accomplishing what he is setting out to do in the 4 years he could be in office. If Cruz becomes president you'll have a republican dominated congress, a seat to fill on the Supreme Court, and a president who has this as a larger part of his platform than any other candidate. If Cruz is elected this becomes a real possibility. I'm picking my poison. If it did somehow come down to Bernie or Cruz, Bernie would get my vote. I feel he has much less chance of accomplishing the things I don't agree with him on, than Cruz accomplishing the things he wants.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Finn, I don't apologize for anything that I've said here. Besides, the whole I _apologize if _I offendedanyone, is one of the worst non apologies ever. Its not a matter of _if_, it _was_ offensive and out of line, period.

I am not threatening to tell on you. I've made my views on you and Utah BHA's complete lack of ethics and representation of hunters in this state known to national a long time ago. Along with monetary action to support that view. If national continues to stand by Utah BHA, and the BS that you it's Utah Co-Chairs continue to spew, they will at some point incur additional culpability in the matter as well. That is theirs and your choices to continue to make.

I have never seen Minnesota BHA expound upon the unique religious make up and differences within what is seen as some to be a split in that area of their states population to make cases related to public lands, wildlife, and hunting. They just don't do it. And it probably has allot to do with why they have more than 6 members, and get something accomplished while representing sportsmen.

I was warned about you, and that is my responsibility for not heeding that warning. As a result, I will try to help others from making the same mistake that I and others have made in regard to you.

And if you have never received such a reaction in your live discussions across the state, it was because you did not say the the things you wrote here, to the general public, and you were probably maintaining below .24 because you were in public.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

1-I, that is what ABC is, Anyone But C.........


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

paddlehead said:


> I dont really like Trump, but I like the idea of losing our public lands even less. Under no condition would I be ok with the west turning into another Texas!! Everyone I know that lives/lived there, hated it!!! Mandatory "pay to play" just doesnt sound like a place I want to live!!


I think most of us are in this same boat. Which begs a HUGE question:

WHY ARE WE ALLOWING OUR STATE LEGISLATION TO CONTINUE THEIR PLOY TO TAKE OVER LANDS?!

forget the Presidential election. It's our local elections that are scaring the hell out of me!! Just exactly who do these local legislatures actually represent??

and, for whatever it is worth: I absolutely LOVE, LOVE, LOVE, the Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument. I've killed numerous deer from the GSENM, not to mention coyotes, rabbits, bobcat trapping, ATV riding, hiking, camping......man, there is a ton of things I love to do out on the GSENM!


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

Wyoming and 1-I,

Not saying ALL National Monuments are off limits, but some are. All it takes is for the right bleeding heart group to quickly change things, regardless of how protected you think it is. Most recently, the Valles Caldera National Preserve was turned into the Valles Caldera National Park. It borders a local tribe that claims ancestral privilege to the grounds. Now, you cannot hunt certain parts of it. They have even made a proposal to purchase the grounds and not for religious use. It has killer elk hunting on it with typical bulls shot in the 360 - 400 class range.

Bandelier National Monument is basically across the road from the VCNP and is off limits to hunting. Killer elk and mule deer hunting opportunities and the recent reintroduction of Rocky Mountain Bighorns.

Let me be clear - although national monument status is meant to protect and preserve public lands indefinitely, by the stroke of a pen from the wrong president, hunting, fishing, trapping, etc. privileges can be lost on lands once used for that purpose. It is possible. They will always include language in these gestures to appease the minority who hunt and fish, and often use words such as 'may' and not 'shall'. May can be taken away, shall can't. I do agree, privatization is the quickest way to stop all outdoor activity as we know it.

Anyone who promotes socialism has a lot of money in their pocket because socialism costs a lot of money for Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer. Gov't is a non revenue generating entity. They don't make anything of practical use, just policy that costs money or reduces opportunity.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

PBH, That is absolutely the greater question.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

I understand what you are saying...I guess the point I was trying to make is that I would rather have that land designated as a national monument than have it sold to private interests. At least as a national monument I still maintain some level of use...


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

High Desert Elk said:


> Wyoming and 1-I,
> 
> Not saying ALL National Monuments are off limits, but some are. All it takes is for the right bleeding heart group to quickly change things, regardless of how protected you think it is. Most recently, the Valles Caldera National Preserve was turned into the Valles Caldera National Park. It borders a local tribe that claims ancestral privilege to the grounds. Now, you cannot hunt certain parts of it. They have even made a proposal to purchase the grounds and not for religious use. It has killer elk hunting on it with typical bulls shot in the 360 - 400 class range.
> 
> ...


Which is why sportsmen need to support wilderness status, it automatically protects hunting as a core use, and that can't be arbitrarily changed.

National monuments have come about because of grid lock on wilderness designation. And in those cases of NM designation sportsmen need to be involved, to get hunting included, rather than walking away. When the Wasatch was proposed for monument status, I had an easier time getting greeny groups to support and write in hunting protection than any hunting org. We had several green groups supporting hunting as a core use of that proposed NM, and ZERO hunting groups would chime in in support. We sleep in the bed that we make.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

Lonetree said:


> Which is why sportsmen need to support wilderness status, it automatically protects hunting as a core use, and that can't be arbitrarily changed.
> 
> National monuments have come about because of grid lock on wilderness designation. And in those cases of NM designation sportsmen need to be involved, to get hunting included, rather than walking away. When the Wasatch was proposed for monument status, I had an easier time getting greeny groups to support and write in hunting protection than any hunting org. We had several green groups supporting hunting as a core use of that proposed NM, and ZERO hunting groups would chime in in support. We sleep in the bed that we make.


NM has a tendency to be 15 years behind the game in most everything, communication on these issues being one. Things are improving to get the word out, but it is evident that non-hunting groups and the like are way more organized than most hunting groups, sad to say. Population density at the capital is another stumbling block. It's easy to write a representative, but the folks at the Round House like face to face on these kinds of issues, and the vast majority of NMcans live minimum of 150 miles from Santa Fe.

Granted, yes, it's all about desire, but there are real life limitations at times.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

High Desert Elk said:


> NM has a tendency to be 15 years behind the game in most everything, communication on these issues being one. Things are improving to get the word out, but it is evident that non-hunting groups and the like are way more organized than most hunting groups, sad to say. Population density at the capital is another stumbling block. It's easy to write a representative, but the folks at the Round House like face to face on these kinds of issues, and the vast majority of NMcans live minimum of 150 miles from Santa Fe.
> 
> Granted, yes, it's all about desire, but there are real life limitations at times.


I understand those limitations very well, I need to be in 5 places all the time. My specific complaint on the Wasatch is the work was done, hunting was written into the proposal. All that was asked of some "conservation orgs" was that they sign on in support of hunting as a use. One con-org that did support the National Monumment, behind the scenes albeit, still would not support the hunting part publicly. It is just silly, and ridiculous.

If it looks like hunters and the groups that represent them, don't support hunting as a core use in National Monuments, then that is the message that will be received. And that is a problem.


----------

