# Recreational angling survey



## nishikant (Nov 14, 2013)

Dear All,

I am a PhD student at the Geography Department of King's College London, UK.

In collaboration with the Mahseer Trust, UK (www.mahseertrust.org), I am trying to understand the level of environmental awareness and conservation support within the recreational fishing community, for which I have developed an online questionnaire.

The questionnaire takes no more than five minutes to complete and all respondents will be contributing to an international drive to raise awareness of the conservation benefits of sustainable sport angling worldwide.

The link to the questionnaire is: http://goo.gl/pSYxQ0

Would it be possible for you to please assist me by participating in this study?


----------



## Dodger (Oct 20, 2009)

nishikant said:


> Dear All,
> I am trying to understand the level of environmental awareness and conservation support within the recreational fishing community, for which I have developed an online questionnaire.


That sounds loaded to me.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Loaded? How? Because of the words "environmental" and "conservation"? I don't see anything loaded about it. I took it.

I fear that the idea of being an environmentalist or conservationist these days has become a dirty word for too many people that call themselves outdoorsmen. To me, that is sad. As hunters or fishermen, we should all be "environmentalists" or "conservationists"!


----------



## Packfish (Oct 30, 2007)

Not always and I agree with your thinking Wyo2- but sometimes it is


----------



## Dodger (Oct 20, 2009)

wyoming2utah said:


> Loaded? How? Because of the words "environmental" and "conservation"? I don't see anything loaded about it. I took it.
> 
> I fear that the idea of being an environmentalist or conservationist these days has become a dirty word for too many people that call themselves outdoorsmen. To me, that is sad. As hunters or fishermen, we should all be "environmentalists" or "conservationists"!


I think hunters and fishermen in general are the greatest conservationists on the earth today. We pay more for environment, habitat, and conservation than any other group. We do more good for the environment, habitat, and conservation than any hippie with a sign or politician that turns half of our state into a national monument with a signature.

It's not a dirty word and I don't consider it such. What I object to is those whose intentions are more "pure" than mine -i.e., people that have never been west of the Mississippi telling me that they feel better forests they will never see or never walk through exist. Those aren't conservationists, those are pie in the sky theorists. They aren't environmentalists, they are obstructionists.

I'm skeptical when those people come to me and ask me to participate in their surveys. More often than not, I've found, those people are not my friend. They don't share my interests. Their idea of conservation is make it so I can't use the animals/land/forests/whatever. I'm not going to help them take away my right to hunt and fish, which is what some of these groups are after.

When you say you want to gauge the "level of awareness" of recreational fishing community, that "feels" loaded to me. It feels like the hope of the survey is to show that recreational anglers are a bunch of illiterate yokels that go out and put worms on hooks on saturday.

It may not be loaded. But it sure feels that way.


----------



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

It's good to set "some" land aside. I wonder what Yellowstone Park, Yosemite, Zion, Grand Canyon would be like had someone not had the foresight to preserve and protect it. Probably all be private property with signs saying "KEEP OUT!" What would most of our National Forests look like if we didn't have ways of preserving and protecting?

What would you prefer: Sell it all off to the highest bidder and have them lock it up?

And your use of the term "THOSE PEOPLE" is very telling. They are human beings with the right to breathe, think, and decide what is important to them, just like you. 

Not all hunters and fishers are saints. Sometimes their narrow-mindedness and "it's my way or the highway" attitudes cause great harm. I always point out that I rarely see a no trespass sign that is not all shot up. There are very disrespectful hunters and fishers among the many that are good just like any other segment of the population.


----------



## Dodger (Oct 20, 2009)

HighNDry said:


> It's good to set "some" land aside. I wonder what Yellowstone Park, Yosemite, Zion, Grand Canyon would be like had someone not had the foresight to preserve and protect it. Probably all be private property with signs saying "KEEP OUT!" What would most of our National Forests look like if we didn't have ways of preserving and protecting?
> 
> What would you prefer: Sell it all off to the highest bidder and have them lock it up?
> 
> ...


Honestly, I don't know what you're talking about. Where did I say I don't want land protected? Where did I say I was against National Parks? Where did I say I don't want public land?

I said nothing of the sort. What I did say is that the traditional "conservationist/environmentalist" crowd does not have the same goals and intentions to use land as hunters and fishermen. I think that's true.

"Those people" is not derogatory. I'm using it as a normal construction of the English language, not how Archie Bunker would use it. It identifies another set of conservationists and environmentalists with different aims for land use. Their goal, as I see it, is to lock it up from the public so no one can enjoy it as the only means to preserve it for the future. I think that's wrong and as such I don't consider them friendly to my point of view. And I can disagree with real, feeling, thinking people, but that doesn't mean I can't separate people into groups based on their intended land uses.

Not all hunters and anglers are saints, we agree on that. But, I would bet that every one of them have given more to conservation and the environment out of their licenses, permits, stamps, and etc. than your average traditional "conservationist/environmentalist."

I'm not opposed to having discussions about how to protect, preserve, conserve, and use our environment on the battlefield of ideas. But, I'm not going to give people who want to make me look a fool ammo to do so.


----------



## brookieguy1 (Oct 14, 2008)

Conservationist, OK.
Environmentalist? Bunch of tree-huggin' do gooders that truly believe that global warming is caused by man an can be changed. Making profits off instilling fear into fools. Greedy selfrighteous idiots. 
Probably driving hybrids!


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

I constantly catch myself taking peoples words out of context on this forum. Sure is bringing to light how often mine probably have been.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

I read this thread and the very last thing I thought of was labels affixed to the original poster or us respondents. 

The first thing I thought of in answering a survey from a foreign country was if my computer would be spammed with malware if I clicked on the reply.-Ov-


How's your computer working, W2U?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

No computer problems here...


----------



## gmanhunter (Dec 27, 2007)

Seems kinda fishy that the person that put up the survey has only posted 1 time. Doesnt that throw up a red flag. I know it does for me. Out of the country? Why would he want to know about the people in utah, instead of there? I got on out of the country check you can cash too. Just a thought.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Dodger said:


> But, I would bet that every one of them have given more to conservation and the environment out of their licenses, permits, stamps, and etc. than your average traditional "conservationist/environmentalist."


How many of those license carrying hunters owns an ATV that's driven off the trail in an area that requires you to stay on the trail?

I recall coming across a group driving their ATV into a grove of aspens I was hunting to "recover" their deer they had just shot. It was a nice deer. The kid that shot it was deservedly excited and proud. I was happy for him. I asked them if they knew that the area was closed to cross-country vehicle travel and they answered "We're retrieving downed game!". My response was "that doesn't make it OK to drive off approved roads and trails". Things went downhill from there.

Just because our license dollars go towards protecting the very habitat we recreate on does NOT mean that we are good stewards of that habitat.



brookieguy1 said:


> Conservationist, OK.
> Environmentalist? Bunch of tree-huggin' do gooders that truly believe that global warming is caused by man an can be changed. Making profits off instilling fear into fools. Greedy selfrighteous idiots.
> Probably driving hybrids!


I drive a chevy 1500 crew cab with a V8. I also understand that man certainly plays a role in "climate change". As stewards of this great land that we live in we hold a responsibility to take care of it. There is nothing wrong with caring for the environment. Like in anything, there are extremes at both ends of any issue. More of us need to find that middle ground.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

I would not be surprised to learn that the survey was posted as a tool to learn more about a group by the discussion that followed.


----------



## fishsnoop (Apr 3, 2009)

http://www.forbes.com/sites/montebu...onmentalists-work-together-on-climate-change/


----------



## Dodger (Oct 20, 2009)

PBH said:


> How many of those license carrying hunters owns an ATV that's driven off the trail in an area that requires you to stay on the trail?


Please. I suppose the Pioneers weren't interested in conservation because we can still see the ruts from their wagon wheels.

I'm not saying sportsmen aren't universally responsible. But absolutely nothing would get done conservation wise without them.

Look at the Center for Biological Diversity and their ilk. They get the government to try to take opportunities away. Without sportsmen, it would be left to groups like them, and politicians, and private groups that could not have NEARLY the effect on conservation as sportsmen as a group.

Sportsmen contribute the money to fix the "damage" caused by people driving ATVs into an aspen grove. They even pay for cops to come in and give them tickets. Busybodies work for free.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Dodger said:


> I suppose the Pioneers weren't interested in conservation because we can still see the ruts from their wagon wheels.


Sorry, but I don't think the pioneers were too interested in conservation. Look at what some of our early "hunters" did to the buffalo herds....


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

Catherder said:


> I read this thread and the very last thing I thought of was labels affixed to the original poster or us respondents.
> 
> The first thing I thought of in answering a survey from a foreign country was if my computer would be spammed with malware if I clicked on the reply.-Ov-
> 
> How's your computer working, W2U?


Just completed the survey from my work computer in the office...LOL

By the way I let him know that I also had a BS degree in Wildlife Biology...that ought to get his panties wadded up but good.


----------



## Dodger (Oct 20, 2009)

wyoming2utah said:


> Sorry, but I don't think the pioneers were too interested in conservation. Look at what some of our early "hunters" did to the buffalo herds....


That's my point. The fact we can see their wagon wheel ruts isn't evidence they weren't conservationists. You can't say they weren't based solely on their wagon wheel ruts. Just like you can't say that some dude on the mountain isn't a conservationist because he drove his ATV into an aspen grove to pick up a deer.

And, as far as I know, the buffalo herds were fine until the railroad went through and people shot them from the trains. That was well after the Pioneers.


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

Dodger said:


> That's my point. The fact we can see their wagon wheel ruts isn't evidence they weren't conservationists. You can't say they weren't based solely on their wagon wheel ruts. Just like you can't say that some dude on the mountain isn't a conservationist because he drove his ATV into an aspen grove to pick up a deer.
> 
> And, as far as I know, the buffalo herds were fine until the railroad went through and people shot them from the trains. That was well after the Pioneers.


Dodger you're correct about the Bison herds. That was done on purpose for two reasons. 1) provide food for the railroad workers and 2) to decimate the primary food source of the plains Indians to be able to control them easier and move them to reservations.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Dodger said:


> That's my point. The fact we can see their wagon wheel ruts isn't evidence they weren't conservationists. You can't say they weren't based solely on their wagon wheel ruts. Just like you can't say that some dude on the mountain isn't a conservationist because he drove his ATV into an aspen grove to pick up a deer.
> 
> And, as far as I know, the buffalo herds were fine until the railroad went through and people shot them from the trains. That was well after the Pioneers.


Sorry, but a guy that drives his ATV illegally on "protected" wildlands is NOT a conservationist...also, what is a pioneer? I would consider those that came across with the railroads pioneers as well...! My point, though, was that those "hunters" are far from "conservationists" just like the guy on the ATV is.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Dodger said:


> I'm not saying sportsmen aren't universally responsible. But absolutely nothing would get done conservation wise without them.


Agreed. But, my point is that just because you are a hunter and you pay for a license does NOT make you a conservationist!! There are MANY hunters that do far more harm than they ever do good for our sport. That's too bad -- because the very group (hunters) that should be taking the BEST care of our land are very often then group that does the most destruction.



Dodger said:


> Look at the Center for Biological Diversity and their ilk. They get the government to try to take opportunities away.


That's true. I would categorize them as an extreme left conservation group. Like I mentioned before, there are always those that on the extreme ends of any issue. We need more that are somewhere in the middle. Heck, even SFW is a bit extreme (to the right). They also (like the CBD) take opportunities away.



Dodger said:


> Without sportsmen, it would be left to groups like them, and politicians, and private groups that could not have NEARLY the effect on conservation as sportsmen as a group.
> 
> Sportsmen contribute the money to fix the "damage" caused by people driving ATVs into an aspen grove. They even pay for cops to come in and give them tickets. Busybodies work for free.


Exactly. Sportsemen are the key. Nobody is arguing against that. But not all "hunters" are sportsmen. And not all "hunters" are conservationists. Some are exactly opposite.

What's the opposite of conservation?

ignorance
negligence
destruction
waste
squander

Are there instances where licensed hunters fall into the realm of one of those words above? Certainly. Too often.


----------



## Dodger (Oct 20, 2009)

wyoming2utah said:


> Sorry, but a guy that drives his ATV illegally on "protected" wildlands is NOT a conservationist...also, what is a pioneer? I would consider those that came across with the railroads pioneers as well...! My point, though, was that those "hunters" are far from "conservationists" just like the guy on the ATV is.


Then we agree to disagree.

A "protected" wildland is nothing more than a restriction on where people can use ATVs and where they can't. Merely driving on a few sage brush plants to get to an animal isn't non-conservatory in my opinion. Conservation to me means that we are using our resources in a way that will conserve them for future use. In other words, driving over a sage brush plant doesn't mean you aren't interested in preserving the land as a wild place for years into the future.

Pioneers may well have come on the railroads. But, those who did didn't leave wagon wheel ruts.

What about leaving rail road tracks all over our wild lands? By your definition, that's not conservation either.

I make a distinction between "using" wild lands and "conserving" wild lands. They aren't mutually exclusive.


----------



## Dodger (Oct 20, 2009)

PBH said:


> Agreed. But, my point is that just because you are a hunter and you pay for a license does NOT make you a conservationist!! There are MANY hunters that do far more harm than they ever do good for our sport. That's too bad -- because the very group (hunters) that should be taking the BEST care of our land are very often then group that does the most destruction.
> 
> Agreed. Just being a hunter does not make you a conservationist. But, being a hunter DOES mean you contribute to conservation. And while individual hunters do more harm than good, my point is that hunters AS A GROUP do more good for conservation than any other group. I agree that we should be the best care takers and there are those who are not.
> 
> ...


I'm uncomfortable defining conservationists by what they aren't. I do think that hunters are the driving force behind conservation in this country though because we are the ones that open up our pocket books for us. Maybe that makes some feel entitled to drive their ATVs wherever they want. It shouldn't. While I think a lot of the ATV rules are silly from a conservation perspective, they are the rules and they should be followed.

But I maintain that as a group we do more good than harm.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Dodger said:


> What about leaving rail road tracks all over our wild lands? By your definition, that's not conservation either.


Actually, one could argue that it is. The single railroad track made it possible for more people to come West without having to bring their own wagons, leaving even more wagon tracks and more roads. Sometimes we conserve by building a road. The problem comes when people decide that they don't need to stay on the established road.

Further, when an ATV drives cross country across sage brush, it damages the sage brush. Even that single time will damage the sage brush. Is it something to worry about? Certainly. What about the next guy that comes along and sees that faint two-track across the sage brush flat into that grove of trees? "hmmm....I wonder where that goes...". Next thing you know, there is a new road going through that grove of trees.

Illegal ATV trails are a HUGE problem on many of our National Forests. Boulder mountain has a plethora of illegal trails. You can argue until you are blue in the face -- ATV's driving off of established roads and trails in areas where cross-country travel is restricted is a major problem.

FWIW -- I agree with most of your last post.



Dodger said:


> But I maintain that as a group we do more good than harm.


True. I agree again. But remember that old saying? It only takes 1 bad apple to spoil the bunch. That's OUR problem, as a group of hunters and sportsmen. That's the battle we continue to fight against those extreme "environmental" groups. It's the 1-off "hunter" that screws things up for all of us. That's why education and conservation awareness is so important. The semantics often get in the way -- definitions and stereotypes.


----------



## Dodger (Oct 20, 2009)

I think we agree on most everything PBH.

I think we might disagree on how big a problem illegal trails are with ATVs but that's another discussion. 

If an illegal road is non-conservatory, how can a legal one be conservatory? Being legal or illegal doesn't make one road more conservationist than another. I don't have enough trust in the people making the laws to be able to distinguish a good conservation minded road from a bad illegal destructive ATV trail.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Dodger said:


> I think we might disagree on how big a problem illegal trails are with ATVs but that's another discussion.
> 
> If an illegal road is non-conservatory, how can a legal one be conservatory? Being legal or illegal doesn't make one road more conservationist than another. I don't have enough trust in the people making the laws to be able to distinguish a good conservation minded road from a bad illegal destructive ATV trail.


I think a simple Google search would show it's bigger than you might think.
http://www.sublettecountyjournal.com/v5n11/v5n11s2.htm
http://www.hcn.org/wotr/17317
http://www.ecprogress.com/index.php?tier=1&article_id=6905

How can a legal road be conservative, and an illegal be destructive? That's easy. You sacrifice 1 in the place of many. You provide a single route to a destination, and close other routes to the same destination (how many roads into Purple Lake on the Boulder do you need??). That's conserving, by defiintion. You don't need multiple routes (illegal roads) when you have 1 good route. Further, that 1 good route is most likely maintained, and designed with some kind of erosion control. The illegal roads? Nope. And don't even begin to think that erosion isn't an issue with illegal ATV trails!


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

Erosion is an issue with all trails whether made by atv, foot, or horse. But for some reason giving a person a $200 fine for cutting a trail just does not happen very often.......

And I am for staying on legal trails, but I would like to see at least once in my life time somebody on the mountain enforcing the existing regulations.


----------



## Dodger (Oct 20, 2009)

I guess my point is that I don't believe that conservation is in the minds of the people deciding where legal railroad tracks and legal roads go.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

PBH said:


> That's true. I would categorize them as an extreme left conservation group. Like I mentioned before, there are always those that on the extreme ends of any issue. We need more that are somewhere in the middle. Heck, even SFW is a bit extreme (to the right). They also (like the CBD) take opportunities away.


Interesting discussion. One of the things that has always frustrated me since I was young enough to form political opinions and vote was the fact that I considered myself relatively conservative overall, yet was also very "green" towards the environment. There is no question that this ethic was formed in large part by my love of fishing, hunting and outdoor recreation and the relationship between quality wildlife populations and a healthy environment. However, it has and continues to be a fact that the political "left" has commandeered environmentalism into its "own" issue and the "right" has largely taken a stance that if you are the least bit green, you aren't a "real" conservative. I get to deal with this ad nauseum when I get to rub shoulders with fellow Utah county republicans at caucus time. :roll: A green conservative has nobody to represent them. The result IMO is a lack of what PBH is asking for in reasonable "centrist" environmental policy and an abundance of extremism. And that is both sad and the main reason we never get anything done on environmental issues except make lawyers rich.

I can support some tenets of what SUWA wants to do, but not all the extremism, and sure, some of what the SFW crowd espouses, like state control of potential wolf populations, I can support but definitely not all the crazy paranoid BS we get a steady diet of. Nobody is in the middle.


----------



## gmanhunter (Dec 27, 2007)

Im lost. Where does railroad tracks and the pioneers play into an atv riding off the road to retrieve game. I know, I get the point. Im an atv owner myself. I hate seeing roads or trails made with them too. I also have seen much worse created by trucks (rutted up roads and detours around mud holes) and hate seeing the garbage and trash left behind from all.


----------



## Dodger (Oct 20, 2009)

Catherder said:


> Interesting discussion. One of the things that has always frustrated me since I was young enough to form political opinions and vote was the fact that I considered myself relatively conservative overall, yet was also very "green" towards the environment. There is no question that this ethic was formed in large part by my love of fishing, hunting and outdoor recreation and the relationship between quality wildlife populations and a healthy environment. However, it has and continues to be a fact that the political "left" has commandeered environmentalism into its "own" issue and the "right" has largely taken a stance that if you are the least bit green, you aren't a "real" conservative. I get to deal with this ad nauseum when I get to rub shoulders with fellow Utah county republicans at caucus time. :roll: A green conservative has nobody to represent them. The result IMO is a lack of what PBH is asking for in reasonable "centrist" environmental policy and an abundance of extremism. And that is both sad and the main reason we never get anything done on environmental issues except make lawyers rich.
> 
> I can support some tenets of what SUWA wants to do, but not all the extremism, and sure, some of what the SFW crowd espouses, like state control of potential wolf populations, I can support but definitely not all the crazy paranoid BS we get a steady diet of. Nobody is in the middle.


That's an interesting thought Catherder. What do you mean when you say you are a green conservative? Are you for or against using the land? I assume your for but against drilling/fracking/etc? How do you feel unrepresented? What tenets of conservatism abandon you when it comes to the environment?

My thought is that the conservative movement doesn't go against the green movement but we have fundamental disagreements in how the land is to be used, or not used, as the case may be.

When I go to a national park, I feel like the Rangers treat me as if it is "their" park, not my park. I personally think that National Parks severely limit the ability of the public to use the park. Sure, they do the walking tours for everyone from back east and Europe and Asia and whatever. But that's just sightseeing. It's a lot harder to go to Yellowstone with a backpacking permit and a float permit and a parks fishing permit and every other **** permit than it is to walk up into the Uintas and do the same thing. I think that's intentional to minimize use and I'm against that.

I'm interested to hear your point of view.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Dodger said:


> That's an interesting thought Catherder. What do you mean when you say you are a green conservative? Are you for or against using the land? I assume your for but against drilling/fracking/etc? How do you feel unrepresented? What tenets of conservatism abandon you when it comes to the environment?
> 
> My thought is that the conservative movement doesn't go against the green movement but we have fundamental disagreements in how the land is to be used, or not used, as the case may be.
> 
> I'm interested to hear your point of view.


OK, I'll use a few examples to answer your question. Also, keep in mind that I do view myself as conservative, but measure my opinions against what I see as the typical "Utah conservative" response I see and hear among Utah (county) conservatives.

1. You and I participated in a thread about bison on public land recently. Your response, which I agree with, was that cattlemen may indeed graze on national forest and BLM land, but they cannot dictate the rules on this land to the rest of us. The typical "Utah conservative" response is to let the ranchers not be fettered by excessive Federal regs and let them have at it with their stock. The Utah legislature would even take it further and say lets *sell* the land to the rancher or other highest bidders and screw the public rights on it.

2. Greenhouse gases, pollution, global warming: While I do not buy some of the "sky is falling" fears promulgated by the extreme enviros, I do accept as fact that release of airborne pollutants does cause environmental damage and some level of global warming with potential negative effects. I thus favor standards for cleaner air. The typical UC response (almost a conservative litmus test) is that these measures are a waste of money, global warming and acid rain are a 100% fraud.

3. Water regs, stream access and private property; I believe that water regulation needs to be in place to insure clean water that we all drink and for the fish and game we like to catch and sometimes eat. Private property does not give you license to pollute water. It is unacceptable to dump a row of rusty Ford Pintos streamside to stabilize the bank. I also support the Utah stream access movement spawned by the Conatser decision. The typical UC response that a private landowner has the right to dump those Pintos wherever he wants. Strict water regulations are not needed. While we did get some help with stream access from some R's, as a rule, we weren't warmly embraced by R's. (We also got stabbed in the back by some D's too.)

4. While I do not support turning the entire state into a wilderness area, as SUWA seems to want to do, I do support use of reasonable wilderness areas. As the regs currently are, I do support the Grand Staircase, for instance. We can still fish, hunt, and recreate down there. I do believe that wilderness areas enhance our fishing and hunting quality, even in areas away from the protected sites. For the typical UC, wilderness land and designation is an anathema. Even places like the Uintas or our spectacular Southern Utah areas have to be open to every d*%* OHV that they can get there.

I could go on for some time with more examples, but that will suffice. You asked how I feel "unrepresented" politically. Well, who in Washington would most likely support what I favor in environmental regs/actions? The answer is pretty much rather liberal Democrats. And supporting these types means also supporting Obamacare, fiscal liberalism, social programs and legislation I cannot support and a host of other things I don't favor. Or, I could support "R"s that are more in line with me fiscally and socially, but are opposed to my views on the environment.


----------



## brookieguy1 (Oct 14, 2008)

wyoming2utah said:


> Sorry, but I don't think the pioneers were too interested in conservation. Look at what some of our early "hunters" did to the buffalo herds....


And look what the early settlers did to Utah Lake.....


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> Sorry, but I don't think the pioneers were too interested in conservation. Look at what some of our early "hunters" did to the buffalo herds....


And Passenger Pigeons; 3.5 billion, all gone.


----------



## Dodger (Oct 20, 2009)

Sorry for the late reply, I had a busy weekend. In general, I agree with you. But, I think an important distinction is between what the state can do and what the Feds do with the land.

I don't necessarily think that this is an R/D thing for the most part although that can certainly play into it. Rs tend to be a lot more protective of private property owner rights while Ds tend to be in favor of more regulations.



Catherder said:


> OK, I'll use a few examples to answer your question. Also, keep in mind that I do view myself as conservative, but measure my opinions against what I see as the typical "Utah conservative" response I see and hear among Utah (county) conservatives.
> 
> 1. You and I participated in a thread about bison on public land recently. Your response, which I agree with, was that cattlemen may indeed graze on national forest and BLM land, but they cannot dictate the rules on this land to the rest of us. The typical "Utah conservative" response is to let the ranchers not be fettered by excessive Federal regs and let them have at it with their stock. The Utah legislature would even take it further and say lets *sell* the land to the rancher or other highest bidders and screw the public rights on it.
> 
> ...


I understand why you feel "unrepresented" politically. Between the state and the feds, it is hard to find a group large enough to get the support you need to get any political traction. I don't know that it's really an R or a D thing in most cases, it's more that no one is mad enough to really do anything about it. Or, there are so many other important issues like Obamacare, fiscal liberalism, social programs and legislation that everything else gets lost in the wash.

I actually think you'd find a lot of support in Utah for some of the things I mentioned. You'd certainly get pushback from the land owners but if there were reasonable propositions, I think you could even get a lot of them on your side. A better stream, for example, only makes their property more valuable.


----------



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

I can give you several examples of how hunters and fishers have ruined access for me. I will not name the creek or river but most would be able to guess.

One creek has summer cabins along it. I used to fish it all the time and the cabin owners were friendly and allowed access. Then someone with a gun, or several people with guns decided that shooting at the cabins would be fun. It got blamed on the hunters and fishermen. (I have a feeling it could have been local kids from the adjacent small towns.) Anyway, it was determined that it was high powered rifles used for deer hunting and pistols. The no trespass signs started going up and the landowners became less friendly. I soon had to have verbal permission to fish. Then the trespass signs had bullet holes all through them. I then had to have written permission to fish. Then all the cabin owners got together and decided to lock the place up for good.

I had permission to fish a river and the landowner asked me to not block his gate so he could get his tractor and trailer with feed down to the cows. On one trip I got back to the gate and there was a truck blocking it. I saw two fisherman upstream from the gate. I noticed a note on the windshield and read it. It was a polite note from the landowner asking the owner of the vehicle to not block the gate. A week or two later I went to fish that area and there was a no trespass sign on the gate. I walked over to the owners house and knocked on the door. I asked him if it was still okay for me to fish and he said he couldn't give permission anymore. I asked what happened and he said he left a note to not block the gate and when he went back the fishermen had written a vulgar nasty note telling him where to stick his gate and hooked it to his gate.

Maybe all the big talk, I hear from hunters is just that, but I think the big man syndrome of what ya'all are going to do to environmentalists with your guns is not far off from some school kids talk about how he's going to blow all his classmates away because he doesn't feel he's being treated right or getting his way.

STOP shooting all the cabins, signs, and fence posts!


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

A couple of "housecleaning" thoughts on this discussion.

1. RE: 
"I think you are right in that the Legislature would prefer to just sell off all the land the State owns but I don't necessarily see that as an R/D thing."

The legislature doesn't want to just sell off our State land, such as SITLA packets, it wants to commandeer most or all of the *Federal *land as well and sell it off. That is what the "land grab" and all of the silly laws that have been passed to that end, such as HB143, intend to do. If you look into who is pushing this, it is very much a R/D thing, with the states "D"'s being fairly uniform in voting against it and far too many "R"s for my liking pushing for it.

2. RE ; I can't, in good conscience, require the land owner to do anything beyond leave the water in it's natural state. In other words, I can't place a requirement on the land owner to maintain or stabilize the bank of the stream bed in anything other than its natural state. If the stream bank has a problem, we own the water, the stream bank is eroding and polluting the water, and we should be responsible to pay to fix it. *We can't have both sides on that.* We can't say to the land owner that it is our water and you can't mess it up but then require him to fix the natural stream bank because it is messing up our water.

 We can't have it both ways, but of course, neither can the landowners. After HB141, we had a lot of flooding during the spring. Far too many landowners were quite happy to have all the public help (dole?) they could get, yet were equally eager to keep the public out of the streams once their moment of crisis was over. 

3. I feel like the designation of a "wilderness area" is a tool that the extreme left tries to use to prevent anyone from getting in and using a piece of land.

I actually agree with you here. I do strongly believe the Left has tried to abuse wilderness designation at times. However, the Right provides little help in the matter by digging in their heels just as ferociously to not allow *any *wilderness designation. Sadly, both SUWA/enviro extremist types and Mike Noel types are equally bad for good wilderness policy.

​4. RE:the only other issue I have is that once the Feds take over, it's a whole can of worms. They can prevent access to the land as easily as the created the whole monument, with a stroke of a pen. It doesn't have any impact on people in Washington when they do that. It affects us. And, turning into a monument or "wilderness" is one step away from making it the east side of Yellowstone Lake. No one can go there, ever.

Getting back to the land grab issue, the above sentiment is interesting. You have great fear of overarching government, which is understandable in light of some things we've seen in the administration recently. However, with land use policy, what do you fear more? The above scenario, or the State land grab? If our States "R"s have their way, and all of the public land, both state and federal are sold off, then I can kiss goodbye *any *rights, use, or access that I currently enjoy. With Federal land management, administrations change, directors cange, public opinion changes. If a given administration is acting out of line, it is possible that things can change, especially at the ballot box. Once public land is sold off, it is gone forever. I consider that the worst potential disaster as a user of public lands.

Good discussion!


----------



## Dodger (Oct 20, 2009)

On the land grab - I look at a 17 trillion dollar federal debt that is still growing and I ask myself how we are ever going to pay that money back. I ask myself what assets the government even has that it could sell. And the only thing I can come up with is land. 

I fear that in the next 30 years as these bonds start coming due, the government is going to have to sell large chunks of BLM, National Forest, and other lands to get the money it needs to pay some of this debt back. For the tradition of hunting, that's a scary thought. 

I would rather see the State own the land because I think local control is always better than Federal control. If someone on a state level screws the public, the public in the state has more control and more interest in what happens because they are the ones that suffer the effects of bad decisions. They are the ones that get mad and they are the ones who can change it. If the secretary of the interior shows up and says "no hunting" in San Juan County, Utah, people in Maine aren't going to care and there won't be enough public pressure to fix it. But, there would be substantial uproar if the Governor did that.

The state may try to sell the land they grab but you'd sure have a much bigger voice if you were arguing with the state than with the Feds. I don't want to see public lands get sold off but I'd rather deal with the state officials if I had a choice.

On helping land owners with their stream banks - public help shouldn't be free. If you want the state to come in and fix your stream banks, you are going to have to cough up some public access. If I was Governor, things would be different. Imagine sending them a bill for the work. :grin:


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Dodger said:


> I would rather see the State own the land because I think local control is always better than Federal control. If someone on a state level screws the public, the public in the state has more control and more interest in what happens because they are the ones that suffer the effects of bad decisions. They are the ones that get mad and they are the ones who can change it. If the secretary of the interior shows up and says "no hunting" in San Juan County, Utah, people in Maine aren't going to care and there won't be enough public pressure to fix it. But, there would be substantial uproar if the Governor did that.
> 
> The state may try to sell the land they grab but you'd sure have a much bigger voice if you were arguing with the state than with the Feds. I don't want to see public lands get sold off but I'd rather deal with the state officials if I had a choice.


One more on this. While it certainly is possible that the Feds could sell off public lands to pay creditors at some point, they have at no time stated they would do so. (I wonder how it would be if the Chinese owned the BLM land? -Ov-) However, the State has exclaimed from the outset that that is *exactly *what they intend to do if the land grab were successful. One is comparing a "what if" remote possibility to a "stone cold lead pipe lock" certainty.

You may have a bigger voice with the State than you do with the Feds on land policy up until the time the land is sold and it becomes private property. Then you have *no *voice at all on what happens there.


----------



## Packfish (Oct 30, 2007)

wyogoob said:


> And Passenger Pigeons; 3.5 billion, all gone.


 I think they found one on a trail cam


----------

