# SFW Chapter supports transfer of public lands...



## stillhunterman

Wonder if the mother group does as well?

http://www.americanlandscouncil.org...ssed_resolution_of_support?recruiter_id=18379


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

of course they do. It would go against their business model if they didn't.


----------



## Vanilla

SFW has been bed partners with the legislature for a long time. These types of things are why. 

Here is what will be troubling about this---Anytime someone says "sportsman are against the transfer" the legislature will say, "No they aren't. Check out this resolution we have from this sportsman organization!" 

As long as the average joe continues to be silent, groups like SFW will continue to speak for them. Are they giving the message you want given? 

They are not for me, that's for sure.


----------



## GaryFish

Just wow. that might be the ONLY fishing/hunting organization that supports that idea. Just. Wow.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Further proving SFW doesn't have sportsmens future in mind. Shouldn't they feel stupid being the only organization for sportsmen supporting this?


----------



## DallanC

#1DEER 1-I said:


> ...organization for sportsmen...


That right there is the problem.

-DallanC


----------



## Catherder

The only additional thing I would say is that it is the *Dixie *chapter supporting this. IMO, this is not surprising. In some communities down there, they will come at you with torches and pitchforks if you are against the "land grab". 
(something I've always found ironic, because most folks in the 435 depend on public land for most of their recreational pursuits and would be too poor to buy land if it were sold off. These poor folks would be shut out of the things they love to do the most.)

I imagine "the Don" and his pals would be more circumspect in supporting the land grab Statewide and angering some of his Northern membership that is against the land grab. I also think a lot of hunters really have no clue about the issue and what it potentially means for their hunting access and opportunity. They just believe what they are told about the EEEEvil Feds and their land policies from the local politicians.


----------



## 2full

I am dead set against the state grabbing the land. They would just sell it off asap.
All you have to do is look at the record on the school district sections. Once that cleared almost all of them up on Cedar Mountain got sold off to the highest bidders.
As stated a couple of times in this thread, it would just end up with all the rich ****** and the oil and gas companies owning and/or controlling it.


----------



## cornerfinder

WOW! I can't believe anyone who ever appreciated hunting, fishing or just driving around public land would ever think about supporting something as stupid as that land grab. We put it in local hands and that's only people who will have. The local politician and his buddies!


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

If any of you can think for a second that something like that can become public knowledge prior to the Mothership knowing about you need to think again.

Something like that would have been squashed in a second IMO. Don't be surprised to see the higher ups either recant the story or try to distance themselves from it.

If they do in fact come out and publicly show support I think we may see some big changes ahead for the SFW. Maybe it will make a few people grow some brass and get involved a bit more and speak out against the land grab and the SFW and all of those like them.

For the record............when I speak of the SFW I speak of the organization and not many of the fine people I have met that are with them. I have worked in the field with sleeves rolled up with many of them that are trying to make a difference that is positive.


----------



## Catherder

Mr Muleskinner said:


> If any of you can think for a second that something like that can become public knowledge prior to the Mothership knowing about you need to think again.
> 
> Something like that would have been squashed in a second IMO. Don't be surprised to see the higher ups either recant the story or try to distance themselves from it.


I agree and like TS30 said, SFW has "been in the sack" with the legislature for some time. I suspect SFW is doing it as a favor to the legislators that push the land grab. What I do think might have happened here is that the leaders wanted a layer of "plausible deniability" in case of criticism, so they had the Southern chapter come out and say it instead of the main office.

As for the second part about people growing some brass and speaking out, we can only hope so.


----------



## utahgolf

this right here just shows that any sfw member or supporter truly doesn't care about hunting heritage and it's all about money and trophies to them. Biggest bunch snakes around. :-x


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

utahgolf said:


> this right here just shows that any sfw member or supporter truly doesn't care about hunting heritage and it's all about money and trophies to them. Biggest bunch snakes around. :-x


there are a bunch of them that just do not see the bigger picture and when you try to paint it for them they just can't believe their eyes. Some of them have been drinking the KoolAid for so long they are just brainwashed.

That said.............there are some UWC members that back the land grab as well last I knew. I haven't heard the official position on it from the UWC but personally..............if you aren't against it......well...........you aren't against it.


----------



## Iron Bear

Where is the LDS church on the land grab? 












Crickets
Lol


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Mr Muleskinner said:


> there are a bunch of them that just do not see the bigger picture and when you try to paint it for them they just can't believe their eyes. Some of them have been drinking the KoolAid for so long they are just brainwashed.
> 
> That said.............there are some UWC members that back the land grab as well last I knew. I haven't heard the official position on it from the UWC but personally..............if you aren't against it......well...........you aren't against it.


To me this is one of those things that make sportsmen look weak, and why we get shrugged off a lot of times. We either don't speak up or on something as big and important as this we can't all come together. I'm glad other groups stood up for the average sportsmen and are continuing to further their mission rather than political and economical appease. SFW should be ashes of this announcement .


----------



## Kwalk3

utahgolf said:


> this right here just shows that any sfw member or supporter truly doesn't care about hunting heritage and it's all about money and trophies to them. Biggest bunch snakes around. :-x


I understand the sentiment here, but I think the biggest problem lies with the higher ups in the org. Overall, I would wager a lot of guys are really just trying to help out and SFW is certainly the most pervasive and in a lot of instances organized group in Utah(i.e. easy to get involved with).

I really don't want to come off as an SFW apologist, because I'm certainly not and have little desire to be involved with them. I just think there are definitely some guys that are legitimately trying to help out that are part of the organization without espousing everything the higher ups spit out.

For myself, I would love to be involved in the conservation projects they carry out, but the long list of viewpoints including this latest support for a land grab is just too much for me to even want to be associated in any way. I'm even feeling a little guilty for going to the expo....:sad:


----------



## Kwalk3

Iron Bear said:


> Where is the LDS church on the land grab?
> 
> Crickets
> Lol


I've seen you bring this up a few times and were the LDS church purporting to be an organization standing up for sportsmen in Utah, then I can see how the church's view on this would be relevant to this particular discussion.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Send emails to SFW and let them know those who they depend on for support, are slowly going to see through their BS and this stand on this item is not what we as sportsmen support here in our state.
http://sfw.net/about/


----------



## Iron Bear

Gay marriage, alcohol consumption, education, political donations laws, just to name a few issues the LDS church has been quit vocal about not to mention the 100s of millions they have poured into lobbying for their cause in these issues. I'd say the LDS church has a stance on this land grab issue. And my guess is the states largest private land owner already and the coffers to be the "highest bidder". Might just be behind this land business anyway. I wouldn't be surprised to see them enjoy public support if and when they do want to "grab" some land. There were plenty of people in opposition to the Y mountain land sale. Hardly any from Utah and none were Mormons. Just sayin. 

As if SFW has any sway on this one way or the other.


----------



## quartz

"Conversely, Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, the Utah-based group that promotes private management and commercialization of wildlife, supports the bill, according to Bob Wharff, SFW's representative for Wyoming."

-- http://wypols.com/2015/01/28/senate-panel-oks-100000-public-lands-study/


----------



## Kwalk3

Iron Bear said:


> Gay marriage, alcohol consumption, education, political donations laws, just to name a few issues the LDS church has been quit vocal about not to mention the 100s of millions they have poured into lobbying for their cause in these issues. I'd say the LDS church has a stance on this land grab issue. And my guess is the states largest private land owner already and the coffers to be the "highest bidder". Might just be behind this land business anyway. I wouldn't be surprised to see them enjoy public support if and when they do want to "grab" some land. There were plenty of people in opposition to the Y mountain land sale. Hardly any from Utah and none were Mormons. Just sayin.
> 
> As if SFW has any sway on this one way or the other.


Hold on, I can't find my tin foil hat.....

Seems as if you're trying to fit a square peg in a round hole by attempting to drag something(church) irrelevant to this particular discussion(hunting) because you like to get overly focused on tangential aspects to much larger situations/problems.

Additionally, I think that SFW and the legislature are more tied together than most realize or would care to admit. Ex: Expo contract renewal, Wolf and Sage grouse delisting funding, etc.....They have more of a say in what happens to our wildlife than I think I am comfortable with. And at this juncture, are the only group "for Sportsmen" that have come out in written support of a state land grab.

Just Sayin......


----------



## gwailow

Iron Bear said:


> Gay marriage, alcohol consumption, education, political donations laws, just to name a few issues the LDS church has been quit vocal about not to mention the 100s of millions they have poured into lobbying for their cause in these issues. I'd say the LDS church has a stance on this land grab issue. And my guess is the states largest private land owner already and the coffers to be the "highest bidder". Might just be behind this land business anyway. I wouldn't be surprised to see them enjoy public support if and when they do want to "grab" some land. There were plenty of people in opposition to the Y mountain land sale. Hardly any from Utah and none were Mormons. Just sayin.
> 
> As if SFW has any sway on this one way or the other.


Give me a break


----------



## Iron Bear

Lol


----------



## Kwalk3

Iron Bear said:


> Lol


My thoughts exactly.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

While it is pulling another group into the conversation, it is not as if the church is not worthy of it's own thread on the matter. Church and State are not as separate as many would like others to think. Fact is if the church didn't want the land to pass hands they would have said so. Like I said......if you are not against it, you are not against it.

If the church can expand it's kingdom it will do so. In the name of God of course.

Anybody that denies that...............well.............actually right now is a good time for me to shut up.


----------



## Kwalk3

Also, the issue isn't whether SFW has sway on this issue, but more so the fact that in an already uphill battle against a legislature that obviously thinks this is the greatest thing since sliced bread, that one of the voices that is supposed to represent sportsmen's interests has done the exact opposite of that by endorsing this grab.

We already live in a political echo chamber. This makes it even more important for cause-specific organizations such as SFW to stand against a legitimate threat to the traditions of public land hunting in Utah. Any organization that is supposed to represent hunters and anglers in Utah that has not condemned or at the very least spoken out against the land grab is missing the boat as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## Iron Bear

Just for the record I'm not being critical of the church. I could really care less about the whole issue. I could care less if the church bought all the federal land in the state. I'm one of those small gov types.

Dispose me for this not asking or suggesting the church may want to grow. 

I'd support dissolving the DWR and forgoing the North American wildlife blah blah. And privatizing all game management. If the government wants to mismanage no game species they can have at it. 

This whole land swap thing is either going somewhere or it's not. And I hardly think the millions associated to wildlife will be the determining factor in this trillion dollar deal. 

Sorry to burst anyone's bubbles but wildlife is not even on the radar in Washington in concerns to the true realities of this happening.


----------



## Old Fudd

I'am a firm believer if the Money Grubbin Land ****s get the lands of Utah put into their pockets we people that call are selfs Hunters and Fisherman or a weekend campers. will be SCREWED over sooooo Bad we will never get it back.. I want you all to look back a few years when Jan Graham was the AG for the State. She fought the Tabaco Industry for money to help sickened or to be sick in the future. smokers. She got this State 180 mill. When it was put into STATE RAT HOLE FUND . She,, Jan Graham. The AG of the State gave up her office. WHY. U Ask? To increase the STATES MONEY SURPLUS..Point being. Turn the Public Lands over to these MONEY GRUBBERS.. Will make whats going on with the PRIME LAND at the POINT OF THE MOUNTAIN look like KIDS PLAY. if DON PLAY TO PEAY is one of em. .Well u all figure it out.. R WE ALL NUTS?


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

How many people would have turned away from the Expo if there were signs out there stating their stance?

People inside at the auctions talking about supporting our troops and acting all patriotic but actually wanting to take away the very rights that the troops think they are defending.

The SFW would rather have ALL of our troops have to go through them for a hunt. That is a fact. Especially if they can organize a few Wounded Warrior projects to shine their light on to help their cause.

Jeez............just found another good time for me to shut up


----------



## Kwalk3

Mr Muleskinner said:


> While it is pulling another group into the conversation, it is not as if the church is not worthy of it's own thread on the matter. Church and State are not as separate as many would like others to think. Fact is if the church didn't want the land to pass hands they would have said so. Like I said......if you are not against it, you are not against it.
> 
> If the church can expand it's kingdom it will do so. In the name of God of course.
> 
> Anybody that denies that...............well.............actually right now is a good time for me to shut up.


I agree. I am mainly pointing out the fact that this is an argument about a Sportsmen's organization failing to do what they should be doing. Private entities will always do what they can to further their respective causes, noble or otherwise. I'm also under no illusion that there is a separation here in Utah. I'm just trying to avoid worrying about who is going to buy the land the state sells, while looking past the fact that if the state never controls the land it is a non-issue. I think for the most part we agree on this issue.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Mr Muleskinner said:


> How many people would have turned away from the Expo if there were signs out there stating their stance?
> 
> People inside at the auctions talking about supporting our troops and acting all patriotic but actually wanting to take away the very rights that the troops think they are defending.
> 
> The SFW would rather have ALL of our troops have to go through them for a hunt. That is a fact. Especially if they can organize a few Wounded Warrior projects to shine their light on to help their cause.
> 
> Jeez............just found another good time for me to shut up


I would have never went to the expo or applied for any tags had they released this statement before the expo. I won't be going again either if SFW is a part of it or doesn't change there tune. This issue is an area where sportsmen should have stood all together as groups, instead the black sheep who is tightening it's grips on ruining hunting in our state further let us know why they are so easily discredited as a conservation organization. I sent an email just to apply a little pressure that this was a wrong move. Wildlife is why theyre in business, they better start standing behind sound wildlife science and management before everyone turns on them and they implode. It's just very frustrating, concerning , and disappointing that a FISH AND WILDLIFE conservation group just stood against the hunting and sportsmen they are supposed to be defending.


----------



## Kwalk3

Iron Bear said:


> This whole land swap thing is either going somewhere or it's not. And I hardly think the millions associated to wildlife will be the determining factor in this trillion dollar deal.
> 
> Sorry to burst anyone's bubbles but wildlife is not even on the radar in Washington in concerns to the true realities of this happening.


I agree that Wildlife is not on the radar for a vast majority of Utahns as well as the rest of the country. That's kinda my point in this whole thing. If the organizations that purport to represent my interests and preserving hunting traditions decide to join in on the political back patting and Atta-Boys thinking they are sticking it to the feds, then who is going to be the voice for something that is far more important to me than the average Utahn? The opportunity to hunt public lands with my family is very much ON my radar, and that's why I care what SFW has to say about this. They have sway(for better or worse), and instead of paddling up stream, chose to take a few pats on the back and ride the easy current(or in Utah rip-tide) taking us down a road I don't really care for.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

Kwalk3 said:


> I agree. I am mainly pointing out the fact that this is an argument about a Sportsmen's organization failing to do what they should be doing. Private entities will always do what they can to further their respective causes, noble or otherwise. I'm also under no illusion that there is a separation here in Utah. I'm just trying to avoid worrying about who is going to buy the land the state sells, while looking past the fact that if the state never controls the land it is a non-issue. I think for the most part we agree on this issue.


We definitely agree on the issue.

I was just supporting in part what IB was stating that was partially scoffed at IMO. Make no mistake if the land is to ever be transferred to the State the church would IMO have the biggest say in who would be buying what and where and it would be the church dollar setting many of the prices.

"State wide Church owned ranches that allow the SFW to run hunts" ring a bell? Go ahead and call me crazy.

Two "non-profit" orgs getting rich off the common man "in the name of God and Conservation".

Sounds like a marriage made in heaven to me.

Dang...........time to shut up again


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Mr Muleskinner said:


> We definitely agree on the issue.
> 
> I was just supporting in part what IB was stating that was partially scoffed at IMO. Make no mistake if the land is to ever be transferred to the State the church would IMO have the biggest say in who would be buying what and where and it would be the church dollar setting many of the prices.
> 
> "State wide Church owned ranches that allow the SFW to run hunts" ring a bell? Go ahead and call me crazy.
> 
> Two "non-profit" orgs getting rich off the common man "in the name of God and Conservation".
> 
> Sounds like a marriage made in heaven to me.
> 
> Dang...........time to shut up again


That would be very scary, but it's true. The way of the church is the way of our state, despite how "seperate" they may be.


----------



## Kwalk3

Mr Muleskinner said:


> We definitely agree on the issue.
> 
> I was just supporting in part what IB was stating that was partially scoffed at IMO. Make no mistake if the land is to ever be transferred to the State the church would IMO have the biggest say in who would be buying what and where and it would be the church dollar setting many of the prices.
> 
> "State wide Church owned ranches that allow the SFW to run hunts" ring a bell? Go ahead and call me crazy.
> 
> Two "non-profit" orgs getting rich off the common man "in the name of God and Conservation".
> 
> Sounds like a marriage made in heaven to me.
> 
> Dang...........time to shut up again


Haha. True. I probably shouldn't have been so dismissive. I was more referring to the assertion that the church was somehow behind this whole thing. I think every corporation and organization would do whatever they could to get their hands on this land and use it to further their causes if this was approved. From a company or church perspective I could even maybe understand why they would hope for this. The cause they are championing is not hunting, and I don't expect their interests to align with mine on this one. All the more reason to speak out against any kind of transfer while we have input in the process.

There are plenty of people in positions of power, whether it be political or corporate(one in the same I know) that think this is a good idea. It's definitely disheartening to see those with the power to make an impact for Sportsmen laugh in the face of those who support them with membership fees.


----------



## wileywapati

As much as I despise everything $FW 
Stands for at least they went public with
Their stance. 

Any other groups want to grow a pair and
Speak up??


----------



## RichardClarke

The single largest landowner in Utah is the United States Government. The second largest landowner in Utah is the LDS Church. Of course the Church has a vested interest in taking back public land. To think otherwise would be naive. Also consider the Church's history in regard to statehood in the context of the State of Deseret and later the creation of the Utah Territory. Bottom line; the church would love the opportunity to acquire public land...


----------



## Dukes_Daddy

I love these posts and all the bitchin and whinin. Answer these questions and if any are YES then shutup because you are the problem.

1) Did you vote for a Republican legislator (State or Federal office) last election?

2) Do you oppose SUWA, Nature Conservancy, RMEF or other organizations who seek to purchase land and/or conservation easements?

3) Do you support restricting access to public wading/floating across private property? 

It's time to destroy SFW and BGF by the same methods they used to form and grow. I need the following; lawyer, website developer, marketing, PR, labor/political organizer, non-profit experience, finance, investigator. 

PM me if interested and I will coordinate the first meeting. This crap needs to end and I know there are enough people not only in Utah but the west who would work to destroy SFW and BGF and the BS they foster.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

Dukes_Daddy said:


> I love these posts and all the bitchin and whinin. Answer these questions and if any are YES then shutup because you are the problem.
> 
> 1) Did you vote for a Republican legislator (State or Federal office) last election?
> 
> 2) Do you oppose SUWA, Nature Conservancy, RMEF or other organizations who seek to purchase land and/or conservation easements?
> 
> 3) Do you support restricting access to public wading/floating across private property?
> 
> It's time to destroy SFW and BGF by the same methods they used to form and grow. I need the following; lawyer, website developer, marketing, PR, labor/political organizer, non-profit experience, finance, investigator.
> 
> PM me if interested and I will coordinate the first meeting. This crap needs to end and I know there are enough people not only in Utah but the west who would work to destroy SFW and BGF and the BS they foster.


I am sure you do and don't think for a second that they are all democrats.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Dukes_Daddy said:


> I love these posts and all the bitchin and whinin. Answer these questions and if any are YES then shutup because you are the problem.
> 
> 1) Did you vote for a Republican legislator (State or Federal office) last election?
> 
> 2) Do you oppose SUWA, Nature Conservancy, RMEF or other organizations who seek to purchase land and/or conservation easements?
> 
> 3) Do you support restricting access to public wading/floating across private property?
> 
> It's time to destroy SFW and BGF by the same methods they used to form and grow. I need the following; lawyer, website developer, marketing, PR, labor/political organizer, non-profit experience, finance, investigator.
> 
> PM me if interested and I will coordinate the first meeting. This crap needs to end and I know there are enough people not only in Utah but the west who would work to destroy SFW and BGF and the BS they foster.


Amen, I may seem like an ass at times, but I can answer NO to all of those questions. I believe individual candidates are more important than a particular party, but each party has there usual pathways.


----------



## Vanilla

You guys are out of your friggin minds! You want to know why "the church" hasn't made public its stance on state vs federal control of public lands? Because "the church" doesn't have one. It's the same reason Olympus High School, Sunset View Elementary, or South Junior High haven't made their stance known publicly. I guess we should boycott them for being for it too. What about Tucanos Brazillian Grill? Buggers better speak up. Fast! 

Interesting that "the church" wants to buy up all the public land to keep the public out...yet it was "the church" that advocated all along for public use of community lands and waters from the beginning of statehood. Quotes by Brigham Young have been used in official proceedings regarding public stream access. Y mountain was mentioned. It was purchased by BYU (who sucks at football...GO UTES!) and specifically set apart for perpetual public access. On a trail they were already maintaining for the feds, mind you. 

"The church" is not behind the land grab. But don't let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy now. 

It takes something special to completely turn a thread about a sportsmen organization taking another anti-sportsmen stance into an anti-LDS church discussion.


----------



## Dukes_Daddy

Mr Muleskinner said:


> I am sure you do and don't think for a second that they are all democrats.


Show me one republican who votes right when it comes to sportsman issues? Money and votes gets their attention. Not all bad they just need to be confronted with the error of their views.


----------



## utahgolf

but hey, we got death by firing squad back! That sort of important stuff plays well with the tea party! :dance:


----------



## Iron Bear

In 2013 the church bought 382,000 acres in Florida for $565 million dollars. Im sure they have more interest in a land swap in Utah than Olympus high or sunset elementary. 

Deny much?


----------



## Iron Bear

It's more likely the church hasn't come out with a stance because they know it's not going to happen.


----------



## Vanilla

Iron Bear said:


> In 2013 the church bought 382,000 acres in Florida for $565 million dollars. I sure they have more interest in land swap in Utah than Olympus high or sunset elementary.
> 
> Deny much?


Deny what? That land was purchased by a tax paying (not 'non-profit' as was alleged above) subsidiary of the LDS church from another private party. How is that even remotely close to anything to do with SFW advocating the take over of Federal (IE-public) lands. Like I said...don't let FACTS get in the way now. Just keep going.

Deny....ha!


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

Dukes_Daddy said:


> Show me one republican who votes right when it comes to sportsman issues? Money and votes gets their attention. Not all bad they just need to be confronted with the error of their views.


I agree. Fact is though I was referring to the huge majority of sportsman that consider themselves republicans not the huge majority of republicans that call themselves sportsman. In other words I was not referring to politicians. Politicians will vote for whatever keeps themselves employed. If this state suddenly turned blue you would see these conservative politicians rolling a doobie and shopping for Tie Dyes.


----------



## Dukes_Daddy

Get off the church thing and back on SFW. Fact is the church owns property and has been one of the better landowners for access and management practices. Remember what a disaster Deseret Land was when the asians owned it. Now it's like Eden and they treat public CWMU hunters decent. 

Still waiting for someone to cowboy up on my SFW-BGF mitigation program. 







Bueller, bueller


----------



## RandomElk16

Dukes_Daddy said:


> Get off the church thing and back on SFW. Fact is the church owns property and has been one of the better landowners for access and management practices. Remember what a disaster Deseret Land was when the asians owned it. Now it's like Eden and they treat public CWMU hunters decent.
> 
> Still waiting for someone to cowboy up on my SFW-BGF mitigation program.
> 
> Bueller, bueller


Just to throw it out there... "The church" has nothing to do with how hunters are treated on Deseret. They don't handle any of that, just get their check... Also, as with most CWMU's, I am sure the "for access" part when it comes to Deseret is because ya know, to get that check they are required to allow public access. Via a lottery

As for the grab... Not a ton of opinion on it. Can say with confidence I bet it doesn't have access or better management in mind, and I am pretty sure it has something to do with someone making money... Who? Doesn't really matter.


----------



## wyogoob

Dukes_Daddy said:


> Get off the church thing and back on SFW. Fact is the church owns property and has been one of the better landowners for access and management practices. Remember what a disaster Deseret Land was when the asians owned it. Now it's like Eden and they treat public CWMU hunters decent.
> 
> Still waiting for someone to cowboy up on my SFW-BGF mitigation program.
> 
> Bueller, bueller


Let me cowboy up.

The UWN will be no part of any SFW-BGF mitigation. Love the SFW-BGF or hate the SFW-BGF that is not what the UWN does, sorry.

If you want to "mitigate" or destroy any organization you'll have to go somewhere else.

Consider this a formal warning.

What's the BGF?

.


----------



## RandomElk16

wyogoob said:


> What's the BGF?
> 
> .


The Big Gun Factory... Silly Goob.


----------



## wyogoob

RandomElk16 said:


> The Big Gun Factory... Silly Goob.


Yer just sayin' that to get to the top of the page.

Hey, the church thing is important, tied to the land grab issue I guess, but we've just had bad luck talkin' religion on the UWN so take it easy, stay on course.

.


----------



## Springville Shooter

That's it......I'm calling for an immediate napkin meeting at 1-I's house to get this hashed out once and for all. SFW Mormon Republicans?!?!? PANDEMONIUM!!--------SS


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Springville Shooter said:


> That's it......I'm calling for an immediate napkin meeting at 1-I's house to get this hashed out once and for all. SFW Mormon Republicans?!?!? PANDEMONIUM!!--------SS


Good to see you chime in SS, now what are your real opinions?


----------



## Dukes_Daddy

wyogoob said:


> Let me cowboy up.
> 
> The UWN will be no part of any SFW-BGF mitigation. Love the SFW-BGF or hate the SFW-BGF that is not what the UWN does, sorry.
> 
> If you want to "mitigate" or destroy any organization you'll have to go somewhere else.
> 
> Consider this a formal warning.
> 
> What's the BGF?
> 
> .


Noted! That's why I want a website developer.

Perhap UWN needs to take positions on issues like public land access. I see ads so someone is making money and I would like to know I'm supporting people who have views that promote ethics and access for sportsmen.


----------



## elkfromabove

Mr Muleskinner said:


> there are a bunch of them that just do not see the bigger picture and when you try to paint it for them they just can't believe their eyes. Some of them have been drinking the KoolAid for so long they are just brainwashed.
> 
> That said.............there are some UWC members that back the land grab as well last I knew. I haven't heard the official position on it from the UWC but personally..............if you aren't against it......well...........you aren't against it.


It may be true that there are a few UWC members that back the land grab, but the leadership does not! We did have two board members debate the issue on Facebook, but they resolved their differences and the board, President (myself), Vice President, and the majority of the current staff oppose the transfer of Federal public lands to the State of Utah! In fact, I and Gordy Bell (wileywapiti), a board member were at the rally and I made sure the other sportsmen (and SUWA) who were there knew our stance. UWC OPPOSES THE TRANSFER OF PUBLIC LANDS TO THE STATE OF UTAH!

I apologize for our current awkward technological situations on our website, Facebook page and mass mailing (they weren't renewed or maintained, but we're working on those.), and our inability to get the word out, but I can assure you that UWC will remain in the fight!

We oppose it for basically 4 reasons. (And they all boil down to money.)
1) Utah cannot afford to manage all that land without making major changes to the financial and political structures of the State government. The only ways to pay for it are to sell or lease most of it, raise taxes, or charge more for its use. And think of the costs of creating and maintaining replacements for the current federal employees, equipment, obligations and projects.
2) We currently are able to work with the Federal Agencies in a manner we have developed over the years because we know the people, the organization and their objectives. They are represented on the RAC's, Committees, and Wildlife Board and to restructure all of that could be risky and it's unlikely to get better given the fact that hunting and fishing only generate 5% of Utah's revenue.
3) Biologically, it could prove to be a disaster for wildlife! Fragmentation of habitat, clearing habitat for farming, open pit mining, large oil fields, increased grazing, more private roads, development, wells, and stream diversion are some of the issues we'll have to deal with. And when money comes into play, wildlife and hunting and fishing usually take a back seat.
4) The DWR is expected to be self-sustaining and has difficulty now getting funds from the legislature, but with the transfer the DWR will be pushed even further down the list. Additionally, the Pittman-Robertson funds are based on not only permits and licenses and state land mass, but the worthiness of the project in question and the Secretary of the Interior will surely look at the project more closely to see if the problem is caused or exacerbated by the landowner.

I know that the DWR management couldn't publically state their stance, but I suspect they may feel like the Nevada management did in 1980.
Per excerpts of a couple of letters between Utah's Chief, Game Management, Norman Han**** (Norm) and Nevada's Chief of Game, Glen Christensen (Chris) and Director, Joseph Greenly I found in the Utah State Archive Center:

"January 8, 1980"
"Dear Chris,"
"One other item, Chris--a "sagebrush rebellion" bill has already been prefiled in Utah Legislature. I understand it is identical the one passed in Nevada. We have been asked to assess the impact of the bill if it were enacted here in Utah. Do you have any similar analysis your department might have made regarding your bill? If so, I would appreciate a copy of it to aid me in this assignment."

"January 16, 1980"
"Dear Norm,"
"Concerning the "Sagebrush Rebellion" law we have not, as yet, assessed the total impact on wildlife. However, our preliminary thoughts are filled with great concern. The law has no safeguards at all relative to wildlife; and, if implemented without modification, could have far reaching deleterious effects. In fact, we could loose (sic) all of the current benefits such as those relating to wildlife fences, waters, critical areas, land use, etc. which are now built into the BLM management system. Further more, if implemented, the land use regulations are to be promulgated by a Board which is almost entirely livestock oriented, with no wildlife member.
There is also the very explicit and I believe realistic danger that following a short waiting period the spoils system would soon prevail relative to dividing the land up among special interest groups. It would then be lost forever."

Our Wildlife Board now contains wildlife members, but that certainly may change since the governor appoints them. In any case that about sums it up for UWC!


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

elkfromabove said:


> It may be true that there are a few UWC members that back the land grab, but the leadership does not! We did have two board members debate the issue on Facebook, but they resolved their differences and the board, President (myself), Vice President, and the majority of the current staff oppose the transfer of Federal public lands to the State of Utah! In fact, I and Gordy Bell (wileywapiti), a board member were at the rally and I made sure the other sportsmen (and SUWA) who were there knew our stance. UWC OPPOSES THE TRANSFER OF PUBLIC LANDS TO THE STATE OF UTAH!
> 
> I apologize for our current awkward technological situations on our website, Facebook page and mass mailing (they weren't renewed or maintained, but we're working on those.), and our inability to get the word out, but I can assure you that UWC will remain in the fight!
> 
> We oppose it for basically 4 reasons. (And they all boil down to money.)
> 1) Utah cannot afford to manage all that land without making major changes to the financial and political structures of the State government. The only ways to pay for it are to sell or lease most of it, raise taxes, or charge more for its use. And think of the costs of creating and maintaining replacements for the current federal employees, equipment, obligations and projects.
> 2) We currently are able to work with the Federal Agencies in a manner we have developed over the years because we know the people, the organization and their objectives. They are represented on the RAC's, Committees, and Wildlife Board and to restructure all of that could be risky and it's unlikely to get better given the fact that hunting and fishing only generate 5% of Utah's revenue.
> 3) Biologically, it could prove to be a disaster for wildlife! Fragmentation of habitat, clearing habitat for farming, open pit mining, large oil fields, increased grazing, more private roads, development, wells, and stream diversion are some of the issues we'll have to deal with. And when money comes into play, wildlife and hunting and fishing usually take a back seat.
> 4) The DWR is expected to be self-sustaining and has difficulty now getting funds from the legislature, but with the transfer the DWR will be pushed even further down the list. Additionally, the Pittman-Robertson funds are based on not only permits and licenses and state land mass, but the worthiness of the project in question and the Secretary of the Interior will surely look at the project more closely to see if the problem is caused or exacerbated by the landowner.
> 
> I know that the DWR management couldn't publically state their stance, but I suspect they may feel like the Nevada management did in 1980.
> Per excerpts of a couple of letters between Utah's Chief, Game Management, Norman Han**** (Norm) and Nevada's Chief of Game, Glen Christensen (Chris) and Director, Joseph Greenly I found in the Utah State Archive Center:
> 
> "January 8, 1980"
> "Dear Chris,"
> "One other item, Chris--a "sagebrush rebellion" bill has already been prefiled in Utah Legislature. I understand it is identical the one passed in Nevada. We have been asked to assess the impact of the bill if it were enacted here in Utah. Do you have any similar analysis your department might have made regarding your bill? If so, I would appreciate a copy of it to aid me in this assignment."
> 
> "January 16, 1980"
> "Dear Norm,"
> "Concerning the "Sagebrush Rebellion" law we have not, as yet, assessed the total impact on wildlife. However, our preliminary thoughts are filled with great concern. The law has no safeguards at all relative to wildlife; and, if implemented without modification, could have far reaching deleterious effects. In fact, we could loose (sic) all of the current benefits such as those relating to wildlife fences, waters, critical areas, land use, etc. which are now built into the BLM management system. Further more, if implemented, the land use regulations are to be promulgated by a Board which is almost entirely livestock oriented, with no wildlife member.
> There is also the very explicit and I believe realistic danger that following a short waiting period the spoils system would soon prevail relative to dividing the land up among special interest groups. It would then be lost forever."
> 
> Our Wildlife Board now contains wildlife members, but that certainly may change since the governor appoints them. In any case that about sums it up for UWC!


Glad to hear you announce this on here. I've actually tried using you guys website to become a member but it kept giving me error pages. UWC seems like a good organization and I'm glad to see they are standing by and up for sportsmen on this. It's much easier to know a position when it comes out on a website or Facebook page, it would be nice to see it there. Thanks for letting your stance be known, SFW has no support from me from here on out unless they can retract this stance as an organization and stand by sportsmen. Guess I will have a 0% chance on drawing those 200 tags now.


----------



## Iron Bear

TS30 said:


> Deny what? That land was purchased by a tax paying (not 'non-profit' as was alleged above) subsidiary of the LDS church from another private party. How is that even remotely close to anything to do with SFW advocating the take over of Federal (IE-public) lands. Like I said...don't let FACTS get in the way now. Just keep going.
> 
> Deny....ha!


The Y mountain land purchase was already public land. The public could use that trail already. The land purchase was shot down twice on its own merits by congress. It was finally approved by hiding it in a homeland security appropriation bill that could not fail. 
http://m.heraldextra.com/news/local...55ad-9212-c23a4783ed20.html?mobile_touch=true

Pretty much what you guys are all fretting over. The transfer of public lands into private.

I've read several threads here with comment after comment making it out like Don Peay is a player in this issue. And the facts are he may have a dog in the fight but he's not a mover and shaker when it comes to this land stuff. I'm pointing out the biggest player in the state in the real estate game is the LDS church. Maybe even the country.

I guess for some it matters who the public land transfers to.


----------



## Springville Shooter

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Good to see you chime in SS, now what are your real opinions?


Here are my real opinions:

I have worked for some of the largest private land owners in the nation (never the LDS church, oddly enough) and I have seen dozens of deals where public lands are turned private and vice versa. Some deals have been beneficial, some have not.

So I guess it's my opinion that each case needs to be looked at, scrutinized, and hashed out on an individual basis. I believe that there are some lands that are best suited to provide industry and necessities for society. I believe that there are some lands that are best suited to remain public for recreation, beautification, and enjoyment. I also believe that there are some lands that are so environmentally crutial that they should be completely protected and preserved.

It takes teams of professionals and an involved public to accomplish this in the best way possible.

So I am not fully against land transfers of any kind and I am not fully for land transfers of any kind. Its just not that simple. As far as any large scale take over of federal public lands by the state, I am adamently against it. In fact I am against any large scale land transfers either way. These things need thought, debate, and careful implementation.-----SS


----------



## Vanilla

Iron Bear said:


> I guess for some it matters who the public land transfers to.


Nope, not at all. We aren't talking about transfering public land to the LDS church. We are talking about transfering public land to the State of Utah. You're letting what appear to be personal feelings cloud the issue and distract from the actual discussion. But to address your red herring, I'll give you the following:

If all federal lands were transfered to the LDS church the way Y mountain was...with perpetual public access written into the transfer document (you understand what that means, right?) then I would support the transfer of the public land to the private ownership of the LDS church. Why?

My stance on the land grab revolves 100% around the fact that I know that Utah will do things with the land that will cut me off from using it. If a perpetual public easement to use the land for outdoor recreation was part of the transfer...I would soften my stance significantly, if not change my position entirely. For me it isn't about who owns it specifically. It is all about that I own it now and can use it. I never want my ability to use the land to change. I'm selfish like that.

What is Apple's or Microsoft's position on this topic? I wonder what Costco thinks about this? The University of Michigan? They better pipe up here. Or else we should picket on their properties.


----------



## Dukes_Daddy

elkfromabove said:


> It may be true that there are a few UWC members that back the land grab, but the leadership does not! We did have two board members debate the issue on Facebook, but they resolved their differences and the board, President (myself), Vice President, and the majority of the current staff oppose the transfer of Federal public lands to the State of Utah! In fact, I and Gordy Bell (wileywapiti), a board member were at the rally and I made sure the other sportsmen (and SUWA) who were there knew our stance. UWC OPPOSES THE TRANSFER OF PUBLIC LANDS TO THE STATE OF UTAH!
> 
> I apologize for our current awkward technological situations on our website, Facebook page and mass mailing (they weren't renewed or maintained, but we're working on those.), and our inability to get the word out, but I can assure you that UWC will remain in the fight!
> 
> We oppose it for basically 4 reasons. (And they all boil down to money.)
> 1) Utah cannot afford to manage all that land without making major changes to the financial and political structures of the State government. The only ways to pay for it are to sell or lease most of it, raise taxes, or charge more for its use. And think of the costs of creating and maintaining replacements for the current federal employees, equipment, obligations and projects.
> 2) We currently are able to work with the Federal Agencies in a manner we have developed over the years because we know the people, the organization and their objectives. They are represented on the RAC's, Committees, and Wildlife Board and to restructure all of that could be risky and it's unlikely to get better given the fact that hunting and fishing only generate 5% of Utah's revenue.
> 3) Biologically, it could prove to be a disaster for wildlife! Fragmentation of habitat, clearing habitat for farming, open pit mining, large oil fields, increased grazing, more private roads, development, wells, and stream diversion are some of the issues we'll have to deal with. And when money comes into play, wildlife and hunting and fishing usually take a back seat.
> 4) The DWR is expected to be self-sustaining and has difficulty now getting funds from the legislature, but with the transfer the DWR will be pushed even further down the list. Additionally, the Pittman-Robertson funds are based on not only permits and licenses and state land mass, but the worthiness of the project in question and the Secretary of the Interior will surely look at the project more closely to see if the problem is caused or exacerbated by the landowner.
> 
> I know that the DWR management couldn't publically state their stance, but I suspect they may feel like the Nevada management did in 1980.
> Per excerpts of a couple of letters between Utah's Chief, Game Management, Norman Han**** (Norm) and Nevada's Chief of Game, Glen Christensen (Chris) and Director, Joseph Greenly I found in the Utah State Archive Center:
> 
> "January 8, 1980"
> "Dear Chris,"
> "One other item, Chris--a "sagebrush rebellion" bill has already been prefiled in Utah Legislature. I understand it is identical the one passed in Nevada. We have been asked to assess the impact of the bill if it were enacted here in Utah. Do you have any similar analysis your department might have made regarding your bill? If so, I would appreciate a copy of it to aid me in this assignment."
> 
> "January 16, 1980"
> "Dear Norm,"
> "Concerning the "Sagebrush Rebellion" law we have not, as yet, assessed the total impact on wildlife. However, our preliminary thoughts are filled with great concern. The law has no safeguards at all relative to wildlife; and, if implemented without modification, could have far reaching deleterious effects. In fact, we could loose (sic) all of the current benefits such as those relating to wildlife fences, waters, critical areas, land use, etc. which are now built into the BLM management system. Further more, if implemented, the land use regulations are to be promulgated by a Board which is almost entirely livestock oriented, with no wildlife member.
> There is also the very explicit and I believe realistic danger that following a short waiting period the spoils system would soon prevail relative to dividing the land up among special interest groups. It would then be lost forever."
> 
> Our Wildlife Board now contains wildlife members, but that certainly may change since the governor appoints them. In any case that about sums it up for UWC!


Thank you for the position statement. I do feel you are missing the two most relevant points of this issue.

1) The unequivocal belief that federal lands belong to all Americans and the state attempt to seize lands they have no right or claim to is illegal.
2) The state has proven to be a poor steward of public lands and public access. ie. Can't wade/float a stream in Utah and the STLA lease of Book Cliffs.

Utahns have a weird passive aggressive tendency. My sincere hope is UWC leadership will get in the game. I don't accept the technology fault for failure to get word out! Simple post of position and call to rally the troops to contact their elected officials and dare say perhaps a napkin meeting. I'll bring the sodas and water!


----------



## goofy elk

Another little tid-bit,

This same Dixie chapter just had a banquit----OVER 700 went to this dinner..

Just'say'in, thats alot of support!


----------



## Kwalk3

goofy elk said:


> Another little tid-bit,
> 
> This same Dixie chapter just had a banquit----OVER 700 went to this dinner..
> 
> Just'say'in, thats alot of support!


That's why this is a bigger deal than some are making it out to be. I'm sure the Dixie chapter does a lot of beneficial things through conservation projects, etc., but no amount of habitat restoration can bring back access to public land if it is sold off. It just doesn't make sense to me why they would publicly support this


----------



## Iron Bear

Why is the implication that it will be sold off? And who do you think to?


----------



## Packout

I wonder where people really fall on this issue? Do they support the transfer of Federal Lands to the State, knowing the sponsors of this bill have already stated some of the lands will be liquidated? Will it be land on the Manti for another cabin community? Maybe a ski resort on Loafer or Provo Peak? Or how about a golf course on the current forest ground above Bountiful? A summer community on Browse? 

I wonder how many of those 700 attendees knew their SFW Chapter supported the land transfer, which comes with a liquidation of some portion of those Federal public lands? I have a friend who moved to St George and he attended the SFW banquet. I can guarantee with 100% certainty he opposes the land transfer to the State. 

My bet is the majority of sportsmen do not agree with the transfer and issues which will come from selling some/most of those lands. Problem is most people know little about the issue. They go to the events with the hopes of socializing, helping wildlife, winning a gun and getting out for the night. Very few have any idea of the organizations' stance on the issue-- be it RMEF, SFW, MDF, DU, DWF, etc..... However, a person's participation in an event IS used by the event organizer to further the group's lobbying position.


----------



## Packout

Iron Bear said:


> Why is the implication that it will be sold off? And who do you think to?


The Bill's sponsor said the State will have the power to decide what lands should be protected, what should be developed and what should be liquidated. There is no way the State can manage the Federal Lands if they were to gain control over them tomorrow. No way for the State to cover the funding pumped in by the Federal Lands Agencies to do projects, maintain roads, law enforcement, maintain permits, etc.... No way for the State to cover the PILT payments to counties. Common sense dictates the State will sell lands to cover cost associated with it. The Bill's sponsor has stated such.

Who would they sell the lands to? Those who can afford it.

I do not agree with the way the Land managers have done some things, but this is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.


----------



## gdog

Iron Bear said:


> Why is the implication that it will be sold off? And who do you think to?


http://law.utah.edu/news/federal-lands-takeover-would-harm-the-public/

"The Stegner Center's White Paper concludes that the TPLA hinders, rather than helps, efforts to advance public land management reform. *Statements by TPLA backers signal a profound shift towards commodity production if Utah secures these lands, and even if more moderate voices prevail, a recent legislatively-commissioned report reveals that economic realities will force Utah to dramatically increase oil and gas development in order to cover new management expenses. Utah will likely also be forced to increase the rates it charges to all who access what were formerly public lands - including grazing permittees, mineral developers, hunters, anglers, and other recreational users.* The public will also have less influence in land management decisions because federal planning and public input laws will not apply, and Utah has no comparable land planning or public participation requirements."


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

goofy elk said:


> Another little tid-bit,
> 
> This same Dixie chapter just had a banquit----OVER 700 went to this dinner..
> 
> Just'say'in, thats alot of support!


The Richfield banquet had almost 700. I don't get why SFW still retains such support in this state. It's still the biggest banquet by far. RMEF has good turnouts but I just don't get why sportsmen are okay with paying there way out of this game.


----------



## jahan

#1DEER 1-I said:


> The Richfield banquet had almost 700. I don't get why SFW still retains such support in this state. It's still the biggest banquet by far. RMEF has good turnouts but I just don't get why sportsmen are okay with paying there way out of this game.


$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


----------

