# It's time to oust Mr. Anti Public Land Mike Lee



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

Before Mike Lee first became our Senator, I remember him stating to many people asking as he ran, that he would only do 2 terms, and call it quits. Aside from the fact he lied about that, spends most his time concerned about things that aren't a benefit to Utah, and changing in a major way to cater to the extremists in his party, he has been one of the most anti-public land representatives in the entire nation. Trying to steal our American public lands, and make them vulnerable to sale. The man is as anti-conservation, and anti-public lands as it gets, and now, in 2022, it's time to get rid of him.

Now, admittedly Lee's 2 Republican primary challengers and I don't agree on some things, but we do agree Utah can do and be better than Mike Lee. The two main challengers are Becky Edwards and Ally Isom. Both reasonable, and more moderate voices for the state. I know not all decisions in life are based off public lands so here's the two primary challengers so those who want can't overview their campaigns. I have emailed both of them to get a more firm grasp on where they stand in regards to the transfer or sale of public lands in the state, I will post it here once I get a response.









Becky Edwards for U.S. Senate | Proactive, Productive, Inclusive


Utah deserves better leadership in the U.S. Senate. Becky Edwards is a proven Republican lawmaker that addresses issues that matter to Utah families.




beckyforutah.com













Ally For Utah


The voice Utah needs. The action Utah deserves.




allyforutah.com






The bottom line, is this is a real chance to get one of the most anti-conservation/anti-public land legislators in the country out of the United States Senate. If you are not a registered Republican, register as a Republican by March 2022 to vote in the Republican Primary. You can always switch back after if you are unaffiliated, independent etc.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

IBTL


----------



## 2full (Apr 8, 2010)

ILBT......


----------



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

backcountry said:


> IBTL


Mike Lee is one of the single most anti-conservation and anti-public land politicians in America. There are two alternatives that likely align more with some here than the options on the other side of the political isle. It is far beyond time sportsman made Mike Lee pay for his anti-public land/anti-conservation approach and this is a great time to do so without having to compromise on other issues. I’ve emailed them both on public land issues, and I’ll post both their replies here. If Mike Lee didn’t attack public lands and wildlife habitat at every turn he got a chance, maybe the issue could be avoided, but it shouldn’t be.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Here we go again!


----------



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

ridgetop said:


> Here we go again!


Let’s keep it information based. Lee’s record on conservation and public lands speak for themselves. I’ll await their replies and post them. Policy matters, and Mike Lee is nothing more than a middle finger to public lands and conservation.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Let’s keep it information based. Lee’s record on conservation and public lands speak for themselves. I’ll await their replies and post them. Policy matters, and Mike Lee is nothing more than a middle finger to public lands and conservation.


Ok, so how much actual land has been stolen from us in the past 12 years?


----------



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

ridgetop said:


> Ok, so how much actual land has been stolen from us in the past 12 years?


Ridge, I’m not going back and forth. Mikes record speaks for itself. Every vote on conservation or public lands Mike Lee has ever cast has been a middle finger to sportsmen and the public land lifestyle. Have a nice night.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Ridge, I’m not going back and forth. Mikes record speaks for itself. Every vote on conservation or public lands Mike Lee has ever cast has been a middle finger to sportsmen and the public land lifestyle. Have a nice night.


But how has that directly effected us? I sure haven't seen anything negative that has effected me or my family. Just a lot of words being thrown around.


----------



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

ridgetop said:


> But how has that directly effected us? I sure haven't seen anything negative that has effected me or my family. Just a lot of words being thrown around.


They weren’t words. They were literally his votes, and if he had the power his votes show plain as day he’d sale your public lands the second he got a chance and every bit of wildlife habitat he could to make a quick dollar. There have been many packages he’s voted on over his time in congress to deplete funds for conservation. Farm bills, trying to kill or gut the Land and Water Conservation fund. You can try and sit here and defend his anti-conservation anti-public land votes all you want. I know what Mike Lee stands for because I know what his votes say, and he stands against the things that both you and I love to enjoy. The other choices I’ve laid out here are also conservatives, why you want to cling so tightly to a guy who has voted against the things you love to do at every turn he’s able to is beyond me.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Mike Lee is one of the single most anti-conservation and anti-public land politicians in America. There are two alternatives that likely align more with some here than the options on the other side of the political isle. It is far beyond time sportsman made Mike Lee pay for his anti-public land/anti-conservation approach and this is a great time to do so without having to compromise on other issues. I’ve emailed them both on public land issues, and I’ll post both their replies here. If Mike Lee didn’t attack public lands and wildlife habitat at every turn he got a chance, maybe the issue could be avoided, but it shouldn’t be.


My short post was mostly a prediction. I have no problem critiquing public figures but the politics around Senator Lee are often a landmine in either direction. I'm just not going to put my foot on this one. 

The politics of congressional elections for 2022 are going to be some of the most heated and I fear hateful we've ever seen. I'm probably going to wait until next spring before I start really considering the options as I'm just tired of the multi-year campaigns as it is. I've already got local politics to consider this summer as it is.

Best of luck and maybe the thread will prove me wrong.


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

Did I ever mention I hate politics and political debates on a HUNTING & FISHING forum. 

Please, go bark up another tree in a different forest.


----------



## colorcountrygunner (Oct 6, 2009)

taxidermist said:


> Did I ever mention I hate politics and political debates on a HUNTING & FISHING forum.
> 
> Please, go bark up another tree in a different forest.


Hunting can be very political. You can always keep scrolling.


----------



## colorcountrygunner (Oct 6, 2009)

Seems like you're getting lit up in here, 1-I, but I'm with you on this one.


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

Gents - let's try and keep this all related to the public lands, and the issues therein. Please refrain from name calling, and the typical junk threads like this can morph into. 

We live in the greatest country in the world, and I appreciate the tenacity some forum members have toward certain issues. Let's keep this civil.


----------



## jewbacca (Jan 27, 2020)

colorcountrygunner said:


> Hunting can be very political. You can always keep scrolling.


Bingo. 

I would like to see some sources about Lee's votes on public land, though.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

I certainly have some opinions on this race, and will throw out a plug for Ally Isom, but my reasoning has little to do with the "stuff we talk about here". 

I thought Bishop was Mr. Anti public lands? But he's gone now.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

Two sides of the coin. One side is to keep it public at a national level. The other is to keep it public at the state level. National sounds good, until you get appointed land czars that are pretty damaging, case in point with the bureaucracies with their stubby dirty fingers in everything.

Then on the state level, you don't have the mass oversight and public comment you have on a national level, but becomes more of a popular narrative on what is "fair".

You really want to make a difference, persuade representatives in both houses of congress to repeal the 17th Amendment, and then, establish term limits in cumulative years.

Yeah, good luck with that...


----------



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

taxidermist said:


> Did I ever mention I hate politics and political debates on a HUNTING & FISHING forum.
> 
> Please, go bark up another tree in a different forest.


I’m sorry were you forced to come to this thread? This has everything to do with public land and wildlife. Mike Lee votes against the interest of both every chance he gets. I get it taxidermist, politics suck, and they suck worse than they have in a long time, but to turn a blind eye to Lee’s career of war on public lands and wildlife habitat as a Sportsman would be a disservice to all the places I go and all the animals I hunt, especially when there are two reasonable candidates running to unseat him.


----------



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

colorcountrygunner said:


> Seems like you're getting lit up in here, 1-I, but I'm with you on this one.


It’s interesting, I posted this on Randy Newbergs HuntTalk forum, and all anyone has done has been like it. No blowback whatsoever. Know why? People outside this state who love public lands and wildlife habitat know what a danger Mike Lee is to all those things and how hard he’s fought to hurt them his entire career.


----------



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

Catherder said:


> I certainly have some opinions on this race, and will throw out a plug for Ally Isom, but my reasoning has little to do with the "stuff we talk about here".
> 
> I thought Bishop was Mr. Anti public lands? But he's gone now.


Bishop was the Chair of the House Natural Resource Committee for a long time, so he had a lot more say in what got brought for a vote/what got killed. Bishop and Lee are cut from the same cloth, Bishop had just been in congress long enough he had a more powerful and damaging seat at the table. But yes I’m very glad Bishop is gone, and Blake Moore has been a reasonable replacement so far. I haven’t seen him do anything in regards to attacking public lands.


----------



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

High Desert Elk said:


> Two sides of the coin. One side is to keep it public at a national level. The other is to keep it public at the state level. National sounds good, until you get appointed land czars that are pretty damaging, case in point with the bureaucracies with their stubby dirty fingers in everything.
> 
> Then on the state level, you don't have the mass oversight and public comment you have on a national level, but becomes more of a popular narrative on what is "fair".
> 
> ...


I agree with all this, what might be being missed here is the two candidates running against Lee are primarying him. They are both Republicans so they aren’t really the other side of the coin. Lee is a Representative at this point who simply isn’t persuadable especially on public land issues. That’s my entire point here. Edwards and Isom likely align just as much on conservative points as Mike Lee. This is a reasonable chance to oust him over his public land votes and rhetoric over his career in congress, where those who don’t feel they can vote for the other side of that coin, can simply vote for their side of the coin, but get rid of one of the most anti-conservation Representatives in America.

Term limits would be great, but we won’t get them.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> I agree with all this, what might be being missed here is the two candidates running against Lee are primarying him. They are both Republicans so they aren’t really the other side of the coin. Lee is a Representative at this point who simply isn’t persuadable especially on public land issues. That’s my entire point here. Edwards and Isom likely align just as much on conservative points as Mike Lee. This is a reasonable chance to oust him over his public land votes and rhetoric over his career in congress, where those who don’t feel they can vote for the other side of that coin, can simply vote for their side of the coin, but get rid of one of the most anti-conservation Representatives in America.
> 
> Term limits would be great, but we won’t get them.


The inherent problem is taking off one shoe with holes in it only to put on another with holes, just not as noticeable. Those not as noticeable holes get bigger the more that shoe is worn until you have another shoe with big holes in it.

Better to get shoes with no holes at all. Like I said, get rid of the the 17th Amendment. When it was approved unchecked and unbridled, senators were no longer accountable to the state legislatures as to their actions in congress. Not sure how that would be much better for UT, aren't most state legislators pro all-state public lands?


----------



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

jewbacca said:


> Bingo.
> 
> I would like to see some sources about Lee's votes on public land, though.


Here's a sampling of Mike Lee over his time in congress in relation to public lands. 









Utah Senator Compares America’s Public Lands to Elite Playgrounds and We’re Not Having It | Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership


Looking out on an impressive public lands vista may make you feel like a king, but the argument that America’s public lands are akin to England’s “royal forests” is completely ridiculous.




www.trcp.org













Senator Mike Lee Pledges Long-Term Attack on Public Lands


U.S. Senator and reputed short-lister for the Supreme Court Mike Lee has leveled his crosshairs on America’s public lands, pledging in a pointed speech and Twitter storm to a long-term goal of dismantling the system of federally owned land. Lee’s timing is particularly striking given that his...




www.outdoorlife.com





Disposal of Public Lands Act:








Summary of S. 361 (114th): Disposal of Excess Federal Lands Act of 2015 - GovTrack.us


Summary of S. 361 (114th): Disposal of Excess Federal Lands Act of 2015




www.govtrack.us




(which he's introduced several times over the year btw)

Land and Water conservation fund permanent reauthorization act:
Mike Lee is one of 8 Senators to vote against this very bipartisan, public land friendly, wildlife habitat protection bill. Senator Romney voted in favor. 

By the way this bill was endorsed by groups like Mule Deer Foundation, Turkey Federation, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, and a whole slew of other sportsman groups. Lee voted against it.









Republican Utah Sens. Mitt Romney, Mike Lee on opposite sides of sweeping public lands bill


Utah's Republican senators canceled out each other's vote on a massive bipartisan public lands bill that sailed through the U.S. Senate on Tuesday.




www.deseret.com





Should we hear from the man himself what his plans are?


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1012786062798802954This tweet above, this tweet right here shows you EXACTLY what he wants to do with public lands, but the idea isn't popular enough to pass just yet. 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1012787126272954370

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1012788411139321856
This is a sampling of his attacks, his motive is quite clear however, and he is one of the greatest threats to public lands in the United States congress.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> It’s interesting, I posted this on Randy Newbergs HuntTalk forum, and all anyone has done has been like it. No blowback whatsoever. Know why? People outside this state who love public lands and wildlife habitat know what a danger Mike Lee is to all those things and how hard he’s fought to hurt them his entire career.


I think one thing I, and most citizens from data analysis I've seen, struggle with is appealing to the chosen person or audiences values instead of our own, or even data bombing. You and I share some similar ends but we get there from different means. That said I think the quote above is indicative of my previous conclusion that means matters when trying to appeal for change for people outside our respective bubbles.

I heard a really powerful statement today in a podcast that can be generally summarized as we will never likely know how the systems and policies we value are so intertwined, or responsible, for personal anger, frustrations, disappointments and even pain. And while I likely land in a similar place as you regarding Senator Lee I have to recognize the range of reasons why someone may still vote for him even if they share goals of conservation. That reality hits home every election season. And while I may passionately disagree with the choices I must respect how they got there (it's why I truly try to never attack individuals personally or stereotype groups).

I'm flawed at applying that recognition but it is informing how I interact when I believe the audience is amenable to new approaches or ideas. And it's increasingly difficult to appeal to people outside their bubbles if we first don't know what got them there in the first place. And that is the challenge with modern conservation politics if we hope to have sustainable movement in the "right" direction. IMHO.


----------



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

High Desert Elk said:


> The inherent problem is taking off one shoe with holes in it only to put on another with holes, just not as noticeable. Those not as noticeable holes get bigger the more that shoe is worn until you have another shoe with big holes in it.
> 
> Better to get shoes with no holes at all. Like I said, get rid of the the 17th Amendment. When it was approved unchecked and unbridled, senators were no longer accountable to the state legislatures as to their actions in congress. Not sure how that would be much better for UT, aren't most state legislators pro all-state public lands?


I mean sure, it's far past time for a change. Mike Lee also told everyone while he was running he would be a 2 term Senator and nothing more, yet here we are. It's time to hold him accountable for his attacks on wildlife habitat and our public lands. Lee is one of the least responsive representatives in the state. He has chosen to cater to the extremists in his party and I'd love to see a fresh face as our Senator. 2 terms of Mike Lee is plenty.


----------



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

backcountry said:


> I think one thing I, and most citizens from data analysis I've seen, struggle with is appealing to the chosen person or audiences values instead of our own, or even data bombing. You and I share some similar ends but we get there from different means. That said I think the quote above is indicative of my previous conclusion that means matters when trying to appeal for change for people outside our respective bubbles.
> 
> I heard a really powerful statement today in a podcast that can be generally summarized as we will never likely know how the systems and policies we value are so intertwined, or responsible, for personal anger, frustrations, disappointments and even pain. And while I likely land in a similar place as you regarding Senator Lee I have to recognize the range of reasons why someone may still vote for him even if they share goals of conservation. That reality hits home every election season. And while I may passionately disagree with the choices I must respect how they got there (it's why I truly try to never attack individuals personally or stereotype groups).
> 
> I'm flawed at applying that recognition but it is informing how I interact when I believe the audience is amenable to new approaches or ideas. And it's increasingly difficult to appeal to people outside their bubbles if we first don't know what got them there in the first place. And that is the challenge with modern conservation politics if we hope to have sustainable movement in the "right" direction. IMHO.


Generally I agree with you, and get people vote on a variety of issues. But seeing as both those running against him in this case are both Republican, and both hold very similar conservative viewpoints as Lee, this isn't a situation where voting for one of them is compromising on the other issues. Mike Lee has served 2 terms as Senator, to those who want term limits, well, this is a chance to get a fresh face, and vote against a guy who has spit in the face of public land and wildlife policy his entire 2 terms as Senator. Blake Moore is a conservative Republican, but man oh man has he been a breath of fresh air compared to Rob Bishop who made a career, just like Lee has, out of attacking public lands.


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

Deer 1, Your absolutely correct in stating I didn't have to stop by this thread and make a comment! Has to be the smartest thing you've posted yet to the forum IMO. 

I look and comment on this forum because 90% of the time, the topics deal with hunting , fishing, camping, and so on. I guess that's one reason one of the rules in posting, is to stay away from Politics and Religious comments. So you carry on and do your thing and I'll no longer click on any post you've placed. Simple isn't it?


----------



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

taxidermist said:


> Deer 1, Your absolutely correct in stating I didn't have to stop by this thread and make a comment! Has to be the smartest thing you've posted yet to the forum IMO.
> 
> I look and comment on this forum because 90% of the time, the topics deal with hunting , fishing, camping, and so on. I guess that's one reason one of the rules in posting, is to stay away from Politics and Religious comments. So you carry on and do your thing and I'll no longer click on any post you've placed. Simple isn't it?


Sounds good to me.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

taxidermist said:


> I look and comment on this forum because 90% of the time, the topics deal with hunting , fishing, camping, and so on. I guess that's one reason one of the rules in posting, is to stay away from Politics and Religious comments.


But, hunting is a religion, isn't it?


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Generally I agree with you, and get people vote on a variety of issues. But seeing as both those running against him in this case are both Republican, and both hold very similar conservative viewpoints as Lee, this isn't a situation where voting for one of them is compromising on the other issues. Mike Lee has served 2 terms as Senator, to those who want term limits, well, this is a chance to get a fresh face, and vote against a guy who has spit in the face of public land and wildlife policy his entire 2 terms as Senator. Blake Moore is a conservative Republican, but man oh man has he been a breath of fresh air compared to Rob Bishop who made a career, just like Lee has, out of attacking public lands.


I'd wager the notion that you can't recognize reasons why a vote against Senator Lee could be an issue of "compromising on the other issues" could sting come November 2022. Republicans aren't an ideological monolith. It doesn't take much curiosity to understand how one could hold similar conservation ideas as you and I yet vote for Lee. Especially when you factor in the facts he's the incumbent and most of his ideas about public lands haven't come to fruition. 

I'd caution against the gross stereotypes about Utahns compared to other states. It doesn't read well even under a generous interpretation. We've seen what happens when we dismiss and caricature fellow citizens and the range of likely outcomes doesn't bode well for our shared values. Just a potential thought, as the past 8 years has proven me wrong multiple times.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

It goes without saying that political threads are acceptable on the UWN as long as the post are related to outdoor issues.

Stick to the facts, the record, and no name-calling. Posts that are not related to outdoor issues will be edited or deleted.

This is an important outdoor issue, both on a state and federal level. Thanks


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

wyogoob said:


> This is an important outdoor issue, both on a state and federal level. Thanks


The inherent problem is no accountability with those who make decisions on public lands regardless of (party designation). On one hand, there is the argument for land use and it's purpose; for the benefit of all citizens in all aspects, and then the other argument that is laced with "social justice", driven by emotion and not both wildlife and economic justification.

In some aspects, state's would do a much better job of managing public lands, and in other aspects, the feds do better.

Coming from a state that has an equal influence of partisan politics, but the opposite color of Utah, comes with it a price to depict what I am speaking about. The elected land manager for the state made coyote hunting illegal on state lands by the stroke of a pen without any consultation or guidance by wildlife managers (game and fish). Trapping as a management tool for predators has been banned statewide on all public lands because somebody's dog caught it's foot in a leg trap in a foothills area that is designated public (federal) land.

The real culprit to the public land debate is fear for what the other side will do and accommodating the needs and wants of individuals...


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Wildlife and land management can't really be separated from subjective personal values and even emotions. I have yet to meet a human capable of such pure reasoning. Not to mention policy is inherently subjective and a reflection of individual wants and needs. Who dominates that really just changes over time.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

To 1Eyes ideas...I think one flaw is that there are clearly citizens who believe conservation is consistent with state ownership. That is just reason how those who vote for Lee aren't inherently voting against their self interest. That's just one way in which the subjectivity and even emotion play out in the lands issue as we would be remiss to ignore the emotional responses by "both sides" on that particular issue.

And social science data shows how much emotion plays a role in voting no matter how much we study the facts.


----------



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

backcountry said:


> I'd wager the notion that you can't recognize reasons why a vote against Senator Lee could be an issue of "compromising on the other issues" could sting come November 2022. Republicans aren't an ideological monolith. It doesn't take much curiosity to understand how one could hold similar conservation ideas as you and I yet vote for Lee. Especially when you factor in the facts he's the incumbent and most of his ideas about public lands haven't come to fruition.
> 
> I'd caution against the gross stereotypes about Utahns compared to other states. It doesn't read well even under a generous interpretation. We've seen what happens when we dismiss and caricature fellow citizens and the range of likely outcomes doesn't bode well for our shared values. Just a potential thought, as the past 8 years has proven me wrong multiple times.


Right, but the primary challenge comes in June, not November, and it doesn’t matter which of those 3 are on the ballot in November, whoever the Republican candidate is on the ballot come November will win in this state. Voting for one of those other two candidates does not put the seat in any sort of danger come November.


----------



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

High Desert Elk said:


> The inherent problem is no accountability with those who make decisions on public lands regardless of (party designation). On one hand, there is the argument for land use and it's purpose; for the benefit of all citizens in all aspects, and then the other argument that is laced with "social justice", driven by emotion and not both wildlife and economic justification.
> 
> In some aspects, state's would do a much better job of managing public lands, and in other aspects, the feds do better.
> 
> ...


I agree with you, but neither of these other two candidates are on the other side of the political isle, they are just much more moderate in their approach to a lot of subjects.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Do either of these Republican primary challengers have statements I can review on public lands? If so, are they any different than Mike Lee’s position that federal lands should be turned over to the states?

Mike Lee’s position on this is adversarial to what I believe is good policy for public land usage. But are these two any different? If not, it forecloses the discussion on this forum pretty quickly.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Well said Vanilla. And Lee has made so many enemies in the Senate that I find it hard to believe he can push much thru as controversial as this would be. 

A good friend of mine, who had some serious contacts in Washington, and I had a conversation one day-- We were driving thru the public lands of Wyoming to go hunt deer and I commented on how much I enjoyed our public lands. He said he did too. He went on to say that there were some serious considerations being had by both Democrat and Republican officials in DC pertaining to public lands. How the lands were the "new gold" backing our currency and deficit. Public lands are an issue that both sides of the aisle have eyed for their own end game designs.


----------



## dubob (Sep 8, 2007)

Some interesting facts for your consideration not withstanding a politicians stand on public land usage. In the USA, 39.8 % of the land is public and 60.2% is private. Utah is ranked 3rd behind Alaska & Nevada with 75.2% public & 24.8 private. Of the public land in Utah, 10% of it is owned by the state or individual counties. Box elder county being the largest county holder of public land with it owning 2 million of its 4.3 million total acres.

Utah sells hunting licenses to about 12% of the population, so from a hunting standpoint, only about 1 in 8 of our residents have a stake in this issue. And I have no clue as to what percentage of that 12% are strong supporters of State control over Federal control over the land within our borders. It would appear that it’s not enough to change Senator Lee’s stance on how best to utilize those disputed lands.

While I do understand your passion for hunting and wanting to keep as much land open to your pursuits as is possible, I personally don’t believe it is worthy of consideration as the single issue above all others to decide to vote for or against Senator Lee. I, myself, am a single-issue voter and I will vote against anybody that is anti-2nd Amendment. But land ownership and usage are far from lifestyle threatening to the majority of our residents in Utah. Senator Lee supports far more of my core beliefs than he opposes so is a good choice from my perspective.

And exactly what is it in Senator Lee’s proposals that will eliminate your ability to pursue your hunting passion? Will his proposals reduce our public lands to say that of Texas at 4.2% or the lowest percentage as in Rhode Island at 1.5%? I’m not sure what it is that is so devastating about Senator Lee’s proposals to any one individual.

Nation-wide, 11.6% of our population buys a hunting license of some sort. In Utah, that percentage is 12.2%. TX and RI are about 5%. Some of that lower percentage in TX & RI is from lack of public land for sure. Are you completely convinced that Senator Lee’s proposals are going to reduce public land percentages to that of TX or RI and therefore remove most of your access to public land? I would very much like to see the data that supports that theory.


----------



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

dubob said:


> Some interesting facts for your consideration not withstanding a politicians stand on public land usage. In the USA, 39.8 % of the land is public and 60.2% is private. Utah is ranked 3rd behind Alaska & Nevada with 75.2% public & 24.8 private. Of the public land in Utah, 10% of it is owned by the state or individual counties. Box elder county being the largest county holder of public land with it owning 2 million of its 4.3 million total acres.
> 
> Utah sells hunting licenses to about 12% of the population, so from a hunting standpoint, only about 1 in 8 of our residents have a stake in this issue. And I have no clue as to what percentage of that 12% are strong supporters of State control over Federal control over the land within our borders. It would appear that it’s not enough to change Senator Lee’s stance on how best to utilize those disputed lands.
> 
> ...


I don’t care if it reduces it by 10%, if you want to live in Texas, or Rhode Island, be my guest and go live in a state with less public land. Mike Lee isn’t ruining the public land legacy of this state, and there’s plenty of places with less public land if that’s what someone prefers.

Again, some of you just want to use “I’m a single issue voter” as an excuse to support the guy. Those other two candidates are also both pro 2nd amendment themselves, and likely align with your core issues as well. They are both Republicans as well. If Mike Lee transferred and sold a place my or your family has hunted on public land for generations, neither you, I, or anyone we know would enjoy that. The entire point of this post is the fact both those other candidates likely line up just fine with all your core issues, and are a chance to oust one of the most anti-public land legislators in theUnited States government.


----------



## dubob (Sep 8, 2007)

I said: 


dubob said:


> Are you completely convinced that Senator Lee’s proposals are going to reduce public land percentages to that of TX or RI and therefore remove most of your access to public land? I would very much like to see the data that supports that theory.





#1DEER 1-I said:


> *I don’t care if it reduces it by 10%*, if you want to live in Texas, or Rhode Island, be my guest and go live in a state with less public land. Mike Lee isn’t ruining the public land legacy of this state, and there’s plenty of places with less public land if that’s what someone prefers.





#1DEER 1-I said:


> The entire point of this post is the fact both those other candidates likely line up just fine with all your core issues, and are a chance to oust one of the most anti-public land legislators in theUnited States government.


No, that is not the point of this thread (post). Your point is that you want Senator Lee removed from office. Your links thus far point to verified instances of Senator Lee's rhetoric on the public lands issue and a bill (S 361) he co-sponsored with John McCain in the 114th Congress (the ONLY sponsors of that legislation by the by). No other member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee were co-sponsors and it failed in the Senate floor vote by a 92 - 8 margin. You indicated Senator Lee had similar bills "introduced several times over the year btw". I could only find one other introduction in 2011 (112th Congress) - S 635. It died in Congress without a vote. So much for any possibility that his views are widely supported in Congress or that there is a snowballs chance in Hades that his goal for public lands will ever be reached. So please, I ask again, show me some hard facts that support Senator Lees public lands philosophy as a REAL threat to yours or anybody else’s passion for hunting and/or any other type of outdoor recreation. Show me some real facts that show me Senator Lee is a threat to our use of public lands and I will consider it in the next primary. His or your opinions on the subject don't really mean much unless there is demonstrable proof that they have any chance of becoming the law of the land. Facts always speak louder than opinions.


----------



## JerryH (Jun 17, 2014)

Where's Paddler


----------



## dubob (Sep 8, 2007)

JerryH said:


> Where's Paddler


I could care less. I have him on IGNORE! 😄


----------



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

dubob said:


> I said:
> 
> 
> No, that is not the point of this thread (post). Your point is that you want Senator Lee removed from office. Your links thus far point to verified instances of Senator Lee's rhetoric on the public lands issue and a bill (S 361) he co-sponsored with John McCain in the 114th Congress (the ONLY sponsors of that legislation by the by). No other member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee were co-sponsors and it failed in the Senate floor vote by a 92 - 8 margin. You indicated Senator Lee had similar bills "introduced several times over the year btw". I could only find one other introduction in 2011 (112th Congress) - S 635. It died in Congress without a vote. So much for any possibility that his views are widely supported in Congress or that there is a snowballs chance in Hades that his goal for public lands will ever be reached. So please, I ask again, show me some hard facts that support Senator Lees public lands philosophy as a REAL threat to yours or anybody else’s passion for hunting and/or any other type of outdoor recreation. Show me some real facts that show me Senator Lee is a threat to our use of public lands and I will consider it in the next primary. His or your opinions on the subject don't really mean much unless there is demonstrable proof that they have any chance of becoming the law of the land. Facts always speak louder than opinions.


If you do not think the bills he's introduced, votes he's cast on things like LWCF, farm bills, sportsman funding bills, etc. are a threat to public lands and wildlife, you're just straight up trying to deny Lee's record to excuse it. Just because it didn't pass, doesn't mean it didn't happen.You want to excuse it in blind allegiance to a politician you like who has already served two terms and who has two options running against him that are also conservative Republican candidates. Edwards and Isom won't stray far from Lee on a lot of topics. As far as public lands go, he is an adamant voice against them, he is a cancer to the topic of public lands in congress, and you are **** right I want that cancer to public lands and wild places funding out of the United States Senate. Lee has voted against so many beneficial packages in regards to public lands. It's not just bills he's introduced, its his votes on funding packages over the years for public lands as well.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

JerryH said:


> Where's Paddler



I'm sure he will show up before too long.


----------



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

HR 1957, The Great American Outdoors Act, which passed last year, with large bi-partisan support, and with support from nearly every hunting conservation group.

Bill:








H.R.1957 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Great American Outdoors Act


Summary of H.R.1957 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Great American Outdoors Act



www.congress.gov





Votes:




__





U.S. Senate: U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 116th Congress - 2nd Session







www.senate.gov





Mike Lee: Nay.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

I don't think you are going to convince Dubob or others with this line of reasoning.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

dubob said:


> While I do understand your passion for hunting and wanting to keep as much land open to your pursuits as is possible, I personally don’t believe it is worthy of consideration as the single issue above all others to decide to vote for or against Senator Lee. I, myself, am a single-issue voter and I will vote against anybody that is anti-2nd Amendment. But land ownership and usage are far from lifestyle threatening to the majority of our residents in Utah. Senator Lee supports far more of my core beliefs than he opposes so is a good choice from my perspective.


This. 

Candidates often align with one issue you are most "passionate" about. If one is pro-public land at a federal level, they will often be delinquent in many others, namely; education (ever heard of critical race theory?), 2nd Amendment, taxes, hunting/fishing rights, and increasing domestic product output. 

I live in a state where candidates sent to DC by popular vote (get rid of the 17th Amendment) are pro keeping public land at a federal level. My state is bottom of the barrel on everything else. Once they garner enough internal support for themselves (at a state level), federal public land will be turned over to other "enterprises".

Because of the 17th Amendment, states have little say on national matters. There are bigger fish to fry, and although public land is an important issue, it is relatively small compared to others that will have long-term generational impacts...


----------



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

High Desert Elk said:


> This.
> 
> Candidates often align with one issue you are most "passionate" about. If one is pro-public land at a federal level, they will often be delinquent in many others, namely; education (ever heard of critical race theory?), 2nd Amendment, taxes, hunting/fishing rights, and increasing domestic product output.
> 
> ...


Again. Again again. That is not the case in any way with the all Republican/conservative list of candidates here that are challenging him in a primary, not the general election.


----------



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

backcountry said:


> I don't think you are going to convince Dubob or others with this line of reasoning.


I don't think any line of reasoning will convince those with their minds already made up. I would hope most sportsman can realize just how damaging and anti-public land Mike Lee is and chose to get him out of congress.


----------



## dubob (Sep 8, 2007)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> HR 1957, The Great American Outdoors Act, which passed last year, with large bi-partisan support, and with support from nearly every hunting conservation group.


And was voted against by 25 Senators (all Republicans) including both Senators from Idaho, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah, & Wyoming. So my guess is that the bill wasn't perfect. Surprise, surprize, surprise! If you ever find any hard, verifiable facts that show beyond any doubt that Senator Lee is single-handedly destroying access to public lands, please feel free to get back to me. Your opinions on the subject don't really mean much unless there is demonstrable proof that they have any chance of becoming the law of the land. Facts always speak louder than opinions and so far, all I'm seeing from you are your opinions that he is the scum of the earth. Show me something, anything, that he caused to became law, change a law, or delete a law and that action, change, or deletion had a demonstable or meaningful impact on your access to and enjoyment of public lands. Facts always speak louder than opinions. So far you've produced links to a bill he introduced that was soundly defeated and a bill that never got voted on. He also voted against a bill that became law. None of those actions caused any demonstable or meaningful impact on your access to, and enjoyment of, public lands.

Let's see here - his record indicates he has sponsored 987 bills and co-sponsored another 1,142 bills. But hey, you don't care about any of those or how many were passed or how you may, or may not, have benefited from any of them. The only thing of importance in this thread is that he apparently doesn't hold the same view as you on the best use of public lands in this country.

And backcountry is absolutely correct; you will not convince me or others with your line of reasoning. Carry on with your thread and have a great week if you can in this heat. No hard feelings from me going forward.


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

Interesting to read that more than just the hunting and fishing crowd enjoy the outdoors (dripping with sarcasm):









What keeps tech workers in Utah? Outdoor activities outrank family, new study shows


Whether they're natives of the state or transplants, Utah tech workers say the prime motivator for living in the Beehive State is its one-of-a-kind outdoor assets.




www.ksl.com





I'm assuming if the voice grows loud enough about keeping public lands public, including loud voices from the nonhunting/fishing crowd (i.e. tech companies where the state makes massive amounts of money from), there might be a way to change the view of some folks about transferring federal land to the state. It'll be interesting to see what happens in March 2022.

Maybe I missed the links, but where do Ally and Becky stand on this issue?


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

CPAjeff said:


> Maybe I missed the links, but where do Ally and Becky stand on this issue?


There is nothing on their sites that address their positions on the subject. It must be what gives 1 eye hope. I don't think the Republican platform has changed in regards to the subject.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

CPAjeff said:


> I'm assuming if the voice grows loud enough about keeping public lands public, including loud voices from the nonhunting/fishing crowd (i.e. tech companies where the state makes massive amounts of money from), there might be a way to change the view of some folks about transferring federal land to the state.


These are the long lasting generational impacts I am talking about already being experienced in my state.

Has nothing to do with UT, I know. But when these same changes were occurring in CA, NM was still much like UT. Not anymore...


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

CPAjeff said:


> I'm assuming if the voice grows loud enough about keeping public lands public, including loud voices from the nonhunting/fishing crowd (i.e. tech companies where the state makes massive amounts of money from), there might be a way to change the view of some folks about transferring federal land to the state. It'll be interesting to see what happens in March 2022.


I realize that most of us are not one issue voters, but regardless of who we vote for (even Lee), if we can convey to our candidate of choice that public land issues are important to us, then it can definitely help. These challengers may not necessarily win, but they could end up being in an important advisory position in the future and if they come to find out about how many of us feel about public lands, a benefit may occur. 

I read on here that using the metric of hunting, only 12% of Utahns have a stake in the issue. I would submit this is way too low. Besides hunters, you have fishermen, ATVers, campers, hikers, snowmobilers, skiers, climbers, birdwatchers, rockhounders and a number of other outdoor pursuits that massively expands the numbers benefitted by public lands. A united voice could be a potent political force if properly motivated.


----------



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

middlefork said:


> There is nothing on their sites that address their positions on the subject. It must be what gives 1 eye hope. I don't think the Republican platform has changed in regards to the subject.


I’ve contacted both of them and am awaiting their replies, as I’ve said I will post them when I get them. I’ve looked back at some of their past votes and legislation and haven’t seen anything sticking out as pushing the issue. I’ll post when they reply.


----------



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

dubob said:


> And was voted against by 25 Senators (all Republicans) including both Senators from Idaho, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah, & Wyoming. So my guess is that the bill wasn't perfect. Surprise, surprize, surprise! If you ever find any hard, verifiable facts that show beyond any doubt that Senator Lee is single-handedly destroying access to public lands, please feel free to get back to me. Your opinions on the subject don't really mean much unless there is demonstrable proof that they have any chance of becoming the law of the land. Facts always speak louder than opinions and so far, all I'm seeing from you are your opinions that he is the scum of the earth. Show me something, anything, that he caused to became law, change a law, or delete a law and that action, change, or deletion had a demonstable or meaningful impact on your access to and enjoyment of public lands. Facts always speak louder than opinions. So far you've produced links to a bill he introduced that was soundly defeated and a bill that never got voted on. He also voted against a bill that became law. None of those actions caused any demonstable or meaningful impact on your access to, and enjoyment of, public lands.
> 
> Let's see here - his record indicates he has sponsored 987 bills and co-sponsored another 1,142 bills. But hey, you don't care about any of those or how many were passed or how you may, or may not, have benefited from any of them. The only thing of importance in this thread is that he apparently doesn't hold the same view as you on the best use of public lands in this country.
> 
> And backcountry is absolutely correct; you will not convince me or others with your line of reasoning. Carry on with your thread and have a great week if you can in this heat. No hard feelings from me going forward.


I haven’t said Lee is single-handedly destroying public lands, but he is one of the biggest problems in congress when it comes to attacks on public lands and funding for wildlife and wildlife habitat. I know Lee’s record on the issue, and it’s not good. I know he’s served the two terms he said he would, it’s time for a fresh start. Lee needs to go, and he needs not be gaining any more seniority within the government to further these attacks on funding and ownership of our public lands. You’re welcome to DM me what issues you have with the other 2 candidates or where they actually differ from your points of view, because I’d guess not any more than Lee, yet you want to defend him, and refuse to consider a fresh alternative. Again, the other stuff doesn’t belong in this thread but you’re welcome to DM me.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

1-I,

I sincerely admire your tenacity on this subject. I don't really have it with these types of conservation politics because of my past personal experiences.

I do have to wonder if you aren't missing the forest for the trees in your strategy though. Dubbob has explained his approach to the issue and diverges from ours. I'll vote against Lee as I believe his record is problematic and I'm less confident than Dubob that the bulwarks against his legislation are steadfast. That said I'm not going to convince him without diving either deeper into his own explanations or asking more questions. And that's assuming he is one of the rare citizens that can change their mind on short notice. 

I was reminded today of how any criticism of a political idea or vote can also be a criticism of perceived community or identity. That's a tough lesson to learn if the goal is to change someone's mind as we protect friendships and identity in a very unique way. I'm not great at it myself but I'm trying to learn, no matter how slowly. No matter how obvious a policy or candidates flaws may be to "us" there is just the strong chance that any political allegiance we hope to change in someone else is actually intertwined with a a ton of other social issues. I think that's more the case for all of us than we normally like to admit. 

TLDR: I doubt any of us are voting solely on facts about conservation or whatever other x,y,z belief we hold dear.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

backcountry said:


> I was reminded today of how any criticism of a political idea or vote can also be a criticism of perceived community or identity. That's a tough lesson to learn if the goal is to change someone's mind as we protect friendships and identity in a very unique way. I'm not great at it myself but I'm trying to learn, no matter how slowly. No matter how obvious a policy or candidates flaws may be to "us" there is just the strong chance that any political allegiance we hope to change in someone else is actually intertwined with a a ton of other social issues. I think that's more the case for all of us than we normally like to admit.



I know what you mean. I had to hold my tongue all this last week with my anti-vaxxer BIL in town for my daughters wedding. It can be a challenge. (full disclosure, besides this one issue, I really like him and his family so there aren't other general conflicts, I think) Interestingly though, in the current realm of political hyperpolarization, social scientists suggest more not less debate is a healthy remedy. 









Democrats And Republicans Should Argue More — Not Less


This holiday season, as COVID-19 cases spike across the country, many Americans will forgo family celebrations. But for some people, these canceled plans may co…




fivethirtyeight.com





In the past, folks were exposed to alternative viewpoints at church, bowling leagues, PTA meetings and work. However, as some of these institutions have declined in importance, self sorting has taken place and people don't interact with their political "opponents" anymore and then tend to demonize and dehumanize the "other". I do agree that there is evidence of this in society. 

So maybe it is healthy to have 1-eye, Paddler, Dubob, Oli, Catherder and everyone else do their thing in their unique ways on here.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Completely agree. I'm listening to the "Big Sort" right now which deals heavily with the subject. Thanks for the link, I'll tab it.

I clearly think debate is critical. I'm all for tension and disagreement and hopefully my last series of posts comes off as constructive, as that is the intent. I truly admire those who have the tenacity to do the hard political work of conservation as I've lost much of that drive after more than a few too many let downs. And the yardwork requires occupying uncomfortable spaces.

My principal concern is the strategy of changing minds which is exceedingly difficult. But the biggest flaw to my criticism is it assumes what we see written here is indicative of where individuals will be politically in 8-12 month. I'd guess fewer of us are static in our beliefs as is portrayed in our comments and like you said, each of the listed individuals definitely influences thought and potentially action for at least some people on the forum. 

And I think the import of political/social homogeneity in our lives can't be overstated enough in our current era. 

*Only person I've "ignored" is Paddler which is as much indicative of my concern for his strategy as it is a reflection of my fatigue with that in my day to day community. But it's good reason to reflect on the dangers of intentional exclusion.


----------



## dubob (Sep 8, 2007)

backcountry said:


> I'll vote against Lee as I believe his record is problematic and I'm less confident than Dubob that the bulwarks against his legislation are steadfast. That said I'm not going to convince him without diving either deeper into his own explanations or asking more questions. And that's assuming he is one of the rare citizens that can change their mind on short notice.


Anybody that knows me, knows that I have publically stated on several occasions and on several websites that I will publically admit to being wrong when shown FACTS that prove that to be the case. An emotional plea or an opinion about a person or topic doesn't even come close to being a fact. I apologize publically when I offend and when I'm shown facts that show I am wrong. Carry on.


----------



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

dubob said:


> Anybody that knows me, knows that I have publically stated on several occasions and on several websites that I will publically admit to being wrong when shown FACTS that prove that to be the case. An emotional plea or an opinion about a person or topic doesn't even come close to being a fact. I apologize publically when I offend and when I'm shown facts that show I am wrong. Carry on.


Okay, but his votes are factual. The statements he's on record making are factual. Both these alternatives are conservative Republicans is factual. You're implying something has to pass to be an attack, and I don't agree. Lee has been abrasively attacking of public lands and wildlife habitat in every statement he's made on them, the legislation he's introduced, and the votes he's cast to dry up funding for public lands and wildlife habitat over his time in congress. His record is there, and it's not any secret he's not a fan of public lands, the man will tell you himself. Just because something hasn't passed yet he's pushing, doesn't mean it won't pass eventually. I also think 2 terms is plenty for any politician, especially one who stated when running he would only serve 2 terms as Senator.


----------



## dubob (Sep 8, 2007)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Just because something hasn't passed yet he's pushing, doesn't mean it won't pass eventually.


It ALSO doesn't mean it will pass eventually. Rhetoric from one of 100 Senators means nothing. Let me make it simple for you. When you can show me a fact that something Senator Lee has done is having a real negative impact on my life, please let me know. All your statements above are true (factual). He has said those things, he has voted for those things, and he is not a fan of this countries public lands system. My point is this - NONE of those are having an impact on me at present and I don't see any real evidence that they ever will. Do us both a favor - agree that we will always disagree on this issue and move on. You can't show me anything that he has done or said that has any impact on my life. I will vote for him again in the next election based on what I know about him today. You’re wasting your time trying to convert me. Again, have a great week if you can in this heat.


----------



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

dubob said:


> It ALSO doesn't mean it will pass eventually. Rhetoric from one of 100 Senators means nothing. Let me make it simple for you. When you can show me a fact that something Senator Lee has done is having a real negative impact on my life, please let me know. All your statements above are true (factual). He has said those things, he has voted for those things, and he is not a fan of this countries public lands system. My point is this - NONE of those are having an impact on me at present and I don't see any real evidence that they ever will. Do us both a favor - agree that we will always disagree on this issue and move on. You can't show me anything that he has done or said that has any impact on my life. I will vote for him again in the next election based on what I know about him today. You’re wasting your time trying to convert me. Again, have a great week if you can in this heat.


I have, he’s Utah’s Senator and up for election next year. Every vote he’s made to slash funding to public land agencies and funds like the Land and Water Conservation fund. There’s many other reasons to vote against Mike Lee, but we’ll keep it public lands in this thread.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

> like yourself who would vote for him even if it was known he was the devil himself


----------



## maverick9465 (Nov 21, 2016)

I agree with you. He has had his sights on public land for years and has only been unsuccessful because outdoorsmen/women have thwarted him. But that can only go on for so long. Romney has made some questionable comments around public lands, but seems to be more level-headed on the issue.


----------



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

maverick9465 said:


> I agree with you. He has had his sights on public land for years and has only been unsuccessful because outdoorsmen/women have thwarted him. But that can only go on for so long. Romney has made some questionable comments around public lands, but seems to be more level-headed on the issue.


Romney doesn’t make it a point to attack public lands in the way Lee does. Romney also introduced (with Representative Curtis) a bill to improve wildfire policy, it’s nice to see actual efforts of improvement of management from Romney, vs just attacks all the time on the lands and the agencies that manage themThings like this wildfire policy legislation are important.









Romney, Kelly, Curtis Introduce Legislation to Improve Wildfire Policy - Mitt Romney


WASHINGTON—U.S. Senators Mitt Romney (R-UT) and Mark Kelly (D-AZ) with Representative John Curtis (R-UT) today introduced the Wildland Fire Mitigation and Management Commission Act of 2021, bipartisan and bicameral legislation to establish a commission of federal and non-federal...




www.romney.senate.gov





Another difference in Romney and Lee is Romney has actually voted in favor of bills that adequately fund agencies. Lee’s approach is attack attack attack public lands, while introducing nothing to actually address the problems with land management practices and every time one comes up he votes against it.


----------



## Brettski7 (May 11, 2020)

dubob said:


> It ALSO doesn't mean it will pass eventually. Rhetoric from one of 100 Senators means nothing. Let me make it simple for you. When you can show me a fact that something Senator Lee has done is having a real negative impact on my life, please let me know. All your statements above are true (factual). He has said those things, he has voted for those things, and he is not a fan of this countries public lands system. My point is this - NONE of those are having an impact on me at present and I don't see any real evidence that they ever will. Do us both a favor - agree that we will always disagree on this issue and move on. You can't show me anything that he has done or said that has any impact on my life. I will vote for him again in the next election based on what I know about him today. You’re wasting your time trying to convert me. Again, have a great week if you can in this heat.


Exactly right. Some people just don’t have the ability to understand though. You are beating a dead horse. But to DEER point though, if you can vote for someone who meets your standards and EVEN MORE, why not vote for that person. Yes Lee is no REAL risk to public lands ( really not even a risk), but why not eliminate the risk altogether if someone else also meets your standard. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

JerryH said:


> Where's Paddler


Here I am.


Catherder said:


> I'm sure he will show up before too long.


Just saw this thread. Been fishing a lot.


High Desert Elk said:


> This.
> 
> Candidates often align with one issue you are most "passionate" about. If one is pro-public land at a federal level, they will often be delinquent in many others, namely; education (ever heard of critical race theory?), 2nd Amendment, taxes, hunting/fishing rights, and increasing domestic product output.
> 
> ...


Are you familiar with Utah's legislature? They consistently give the voters the middle finger. They really don't want to hear from us. Multiple times citizen initiatives have been gutted later, despite support by a majority of the electorate. Allowing our legislature to choose our senators would be a step backward.

I am, of course, with 1-I on this. Lee has been a disaster, an embarrassment to Utah on public lands and virtually every other issue. I expect his dad is getting plenty of exercise rolling in his grave. I have attempted to contact him several times without success. I received a robocall from him last night about joining some online meeting, had his folks put me on their do not call list. I'm registered as a Republican just so I can vote against the likes of Lee.

The simplest solution to preserving our public lands is, of course, to elect a Democrat. They don't want to sell, exploit our despoil them. Conservation isn't a dirty word. Wildness and wilderness are good.

Just making my way through this thread. I'll post up more if the need arises.


----------



## MWScott72 (May 23, 2011)

Wow...just read this entire thread. Lots of it reminds me of re-run movies. Then I think of the quote, "if we fail to learn from the past, then we are doomed to repeat it" (or something like that).

Full disclosure, I actually like alot of what Lee has done. Yeah, so he has pissed off alot of people...I know another guy with orange hair that did the same. Sometimes it's good to rock the boat. If nothing else, it wakes people up!

That said, in the coming primary, I will seriously re-consider my support for Lee. I'm tired of politicians overstaying their welcome and becoming entrenched and immovable. It's no secret that those in power have fixed the levers of power to insulate themselves from primary challenges. There is a reason that 90% are re-elected and it's not right! If you think I'm wrong, look at Russia, China, Iraq or N. Korea - heck any dictatorship where popular elections yield 90% or more of popular support for whatever "Dear Leader" of the day is in the ruling party. We all scoff at those elections as phony, yet here in the U.S., a 90% re-election rate of our incumbents doesn't even make the back page of the newspaper! Wake up!

If the two alternatives to Lee are as good or better for our State than Lee, you can bet that my vote will be cast for one of them. Not that I don't like Lee, but what was that quote again, "those that fail to learn from the past..."?

Don't even get me started on Romney!! 🤯🤮😭 And yes, I have a hard time seeing just about any Democrat as the answer. Again, full disclosure.


----------



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

MWScott72 said:


> Wow...just read this entire thread. Lots of it reminds me of re-run movies. Then I think of the quote, "if we fail to learn from the past, then we are doomed to repeat it" (or something like that).
> 
> Full disclosure, I actually like alot of what Lee has done. Yeah, so he has pissed off alot of people...I know another guy with orange hair that did the same. Sometimes it's good to rock the boat. If nothing else, it wakes people up!
> 
> ...


There’s a variety of reasons I’d like to see Mike Lee out, his public land stances being the most prominent. The next most prominent is probably that when he was elected he pledged to caucus voters he would serve 2 terms and step away. He is very much going back on that word. You can’t blast “the swamp” after 2 terms as Senator, running for another. You are now part of it. You and I very much agree on that point, political aspirations should never have turned into a full on life long career. Edwards probably has the better shot at primarying him IMO. But Isom is also a very reasonable person. Look into them, judge for yourself.


----------



## Lone_Hunter (Oct 25, 2017)

There's larger issues afoot these days then *just *public lands. I think many will have to prioritize their voting issues for themselves, and decide which is the bigger issue on their list. I know I am. The reality is having to accept holding your nose on issues your also worried about, having to make a choice of Voting issue A, OR Voting issue B, because the option C politician of "All of the above" doesn't exist. 

As for myself, I'd sooner vote for Lee, then Romney, and can't wait to vote that establishment con man out of office. Maybe he'll go back to Massachusetts where he came from. He only came here because he knew his faith would allow him to continue his political career and enrich himself. He's playing Utahns like a fiddle.

There is one plus side of all of these people moving to Utah, it highlights the public land issue. It's one of the biggest perks of Utah, Lee will have to concede it at some point, the outcry will be too large to ignore.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Lone_Hunter said:


> There is one plus side of all of these people moving to Utah, it highlights the public land issue. It's one of the biggest perks of Utah, Lee will have to concede it at some point, the outcry will be too large to ignore.


I don't think so. I think you greatly underestimate how many people want federal ownership of those public lands to go away in this state. That very principle is specifically articulated in the Republican Party platform, actually. And if it was guaranteed to remain public land once transferred to the state, you would be able to put me squarely in that camp. I know, however, that there is no feasible way for the state to keep it public land if that happened, so I begrudgingly support it staying federally owned and operated. 

And I'm curious...as a transplant yourself, how you have this opinion of Romney and him not representing Utah well. I think if you line Mike Lee and Mitt Romney up with every Utahn today, Mitt more closely follows the classic temperament, ethics, and morals of the citizens of Utah than Mike Lee does. Mike Lee fits well with a small subset that happens to control the GOP generally at the party level in Utah, but when you look at the citizenry as a whole, that doesn't play out. It's why someone like Cox loses at the convention, and runs away with it in the general primary. The GOP, and even the Utah GOP, is getting out of touch with the citizens of Utah in general. They have for the last decade, and much more pronounced in the last 4 years.


----------



## Lone_Hunter (Oct 25, 2017)

I'm not a member of the GOP, never have, never will be. I don't vote for the GOP because I like them, I vote against the Democrats because I dislike everything they're doing. Just tossing that out there. I'm also fed up with the establishment, left, or right, I don't care. This political class that seems to think they our betters. Romney, is a career poliitiican. He just reeks establishment. He's a guy who knows how to play the game, and has angle in everything he does.

Pretty sure I'm not the only one who sees through his charade. He came here to get elected, and he plays on Utah's sense of ethics and morals, all the while portraying himself some political mavrick. It's all a bunch of crock. Sad to say, a lot of native Uthans are a bit naieve, and get taken advantage of quit a bit. As a transplant who's been here for the last 10 or 11 years (moved here sometime in 2010 I think, i'm not exactly keeping track), I've had an "outside the box" perspective on many things, but also an "inside the box" perspective since I married into a large LDS family. It says something when my very devote father in law, who has something to the tune of 100 grandkids, regrets voting for Romney. To be fair, I voted for him too, but I won't make that mistake again. 

What sucks about being pro freedom, pro small government, pro 2a, and pro public lands, is there is nobody who embodies all of that. I have to pick one. The GOP will rally for small government and our rights, but will sell off public land if given the chance. The Dems, will take all our rights and freedoms away, but will save public lands (not that they'll allow us to do anything with them) Given the current rise of BS (and i'm loading A LOT in those two letters), my choices are becoming all too clear. If I have to chose between freedom and liberty for my kid, OR public lands , I have to side with the former, and hold my nose on the later. If you think i'm being hyperbolic, that's fine,I get it, what's been happening in this country defies belief, but I've been paying too close attention to what's been going on for awhile to simply ignore it. It's not that I don't want to preserve public lands, I am simply capable of only worrying about so much at once.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

Vanilla said:


> And I'm curious...as a transplant yourself, how you have this opinion of Romney and him not representing Utah well.


Romney is a recent transplant himself really and you don't have to be a UT resident to see through him...


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

High Desert Elk said:


> Romney is a recent transplant himself really and you don't have to be a UT resident to see through him...


And he was hand picked by Orin Hatch as his replacement. Almost like he knew what he was doing.


----------



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

Lone_Hunter said:


> I'm not a member of the GOP, never have, never will be. I don't vote for the GOP because I like them, I vote against the Democrats because I dislike everything they're doing. Just tossing that out there. I'm also fed up with the establishment, left, or right, I don't care. This political class that seems to think they our betters. Romney, is a career poliitiican. He just reeks establishment. He's a guy who knows how to play the game, and has angle in everything he does.
> 
> Pretty sure I'm not the only one who sees through his charade. He came here to get elected, and he plays on Utah's sense of ethics and morals, all the while portraying himself some political mavrick. It's all a bunch of crock. Sad to say, a lot of native Uthans are a bit naieve, and get taken advantage of quit a bit. As a transplant who's been here for the last 10 or 11 years (moved here sometime in 2010 I think, i'm not exactly keeping track), I've had an "outside the box" perspective on many things, but also an "inside the box" perspective since I married into a large LDS family. It says something when my very devote father in law, who has something to the tune of 100 grandkids, regrets voting for Romney. To be fair, I voted for him too, but I won't make that mistake again.
> 
> What sucks about being pro freedom, pro small government, pro 2a, and pro public lands, is there is nobody who embodies all of that. I have to pick one. The GOP will rally for small government and our rights, but will sell off public land if given the chance. The Dems, will take all our rights and freedoms away, but will save public lands (not that they'll allow us to do anything with them) Given the current rise of BS (and i'm loading A LOT in those two letters), my choices are becoming all too clear. If I have to chose between freedom and liberty for my kid, OR public lands , I have to side with the former, and hold my nose on the later. If you think i'm being hyperbolic, that's fine,I get it, what's been happening in this country defies belief, but I've been paying too close attention to what's been going on for awhile to simply ignore it. It's not that I don't want to preserve public lands, I am simply capable of only worrying about so much at once.


I mean I think the entire point of my thread here is that both these candidates are Republican alternatives to get Mike Lee out of office. They likely agree with you just as much on the other issues.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Establishment: do we even know what that means anymore? I think we’d all be shocked to see who is pulling the strings on all this. The “establishment” is probably not what any of us really think it is.

For those calling Romney a “career politician,” do you realize how many total years of his life he has been an elected official? I looked this stuff up just now, as I was curious. He’s 74 years old. He’s served in public office for a total of 7 years (and counting). A guy that made his net worth of $250 million in the private sector, spending 7 years (will be 10 by end of office) in public office doesn’t sound much like a “career politician” to me. I’m beginning to think political talking points and catch phrases matter way more than facts for too many people these days.

This is a general statement and not directed to anyone in particular, but it’s time for all of us to quit being told what to simply regurgitate and start thinking for ourselves.


----------



## Lone_Hunter (Oct 25, 2017)

Your not at all suspicious about how he's saying Utah is ready for the Olympics? After all that has been going on here with out of control growth? Rising taxes and cost of living? Your going to have a hard time convincing me he does not use his political office for personal financial gain. Like any politician, I'll bet his left hand is doing something behind his back while he virtue signals openly with his right. He's setting the chessboard, to profit with his private ventures. Little people be damned. That ****bird.

And don't get me started on what I think the establishment is. You may not like what I have to say about it. It's not a simple issue of pointing at the Feinstiens and the McCains. There's A LOT more to it then that.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Lone_Hunter said:


> Your not at all suspicious about how he's saying Utah is ready for the Olympics? After all that has been going on here with out of control growth? Rising taxes and cost of living?


If we could just figure out a way to stop all these **** Californians from coming here the last 10 years or so, and then proceeding to tell us how to think and what is best for us. I think you’re on to something here, Lone. I’m all for this! 

PS- I want the olympics to come here again. That was a lot of fun last time. I’m with any person who is advocating for that, even if they’ll profit. Because I’ll profit too, and not just financially. 



Lone_Hunter said:


> Your going to have a hard time convincing me he does not use his political office for personal financial gain. Like any politician, I'll bet his left hand is doing something behind his back while he virtue signals openly with his right.


I’m not trying to convince you otherwise. In fact, this topic is new as of your last post and NOBODY has even been discussing that. At all. Not even sure where it came from. But, by golly, you got it off your chest. So that’s good.


----------



## MWScott72 (May 23, 2011)

Utah's downfall, and the reason so many people are now moving to the state, started after the 2002 Olympics. The world finally got a good look at what Utah had to offer...above and beyond the stereotypical "Mormon" viewpoint. While I don't have strong feelings against the Olympics coming back here in another 12 years, to think that won't accelerate growth even more is naive. It will happen.

I used to really like Romney back in 2008 and 2012. He was given a raw deal in 2008 when Huck-a-jerk threw a live grenade his way when he publically questioned how Romney's faith believed that Jesus and Satan were brothers and that Mormons believed they could become like God. When he completely tanked his presidential bid in 2012 after absolutely destroying Obama in their first debate, I started to have real questions about his character and motivations. When he completely turned on Trump, I didn't really need to see more. The man is a weathervane and simply twists and turns where the political winds blow him. I voted against him to be Senator, and I will vote against him again in 2024. IMO, he can't get out of politics soon enough, because if given the chance, he would give away the farm ideologically if it's in HIS best interests.


----------



## Lone_Hunter (Oct 25, 2017)

Vanilla said:


> If we could just figure out a way to stop all these **** Californians from coming here the last 10 years or so, and then proceeding to tell us how to think and what is best for us. I think you’re on to something here, Lone. I’m all for this!


I'm the least of your worries. I didn't sell off a McMansion for half a million and pay way over asking for a house driving up the housing market, nor did I come here voting for failed democrat polices. Never told anyone where I went, never advertised it. In fact, I've done my best, for my part, to protect Utah by keeping my mouth shut about where I am. I didn't want this mass migration because I knew it would **** up this state. Unfortunatley, it's come anyway. I'd have left 3 years ago if I could.

BTW, NOBODY hates California and the vast majority of Califorians more then I do. You have no ****ing clue on my level of animosity.



> PS- I want the olympics to come here again. That was a lot of fun last time. I’m with any person who is advocating for that, even if they’ll profit. Because I’ll profit too, and not just financially.


Very short sighted.




> I’m not trying to convince you otherwise. In fact, this topic is new as of your last post and NOBODY has even been discussing that. At all. Not even sure where it came from. But, by golly, you got it off your chest. So that’s good.


Oh I have not yet begun to offload. I'll make your head explode. You really don't want me to continue.

EDIT: You know what, never mind. I'll just add another name to my ignore list and be done with it. I have more constructive things to do, then argue on the internet with a lefty.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

Vanilla said:


> Establishment: do we even know what that means anymore? I think we’d all be shocked to see who is pulling the strings on all this. The “establishment” is probably not what any of us really think it is.
> 
> For those calling Romney a “career politician,” do you realize how many total years of his life he has been an elected official? I looked this stuff up just now, as I was curious. He’s 74 years old. He’s served in public office for a total of 7 years (and counting). A guy that made his net worth of $250 million in the private sector, spending 7 years (will be 10 by end of office) in public office doesn’t sound much like a “career politician” to me. I’m beginning to think political talking points and catch phrases matter way more than facts for too many people these days.
> 
> This is a general statement and not directed to anyone in particular, but it’s time for all of us to quit being told what to simply regurgitate and start thinking for ourselves.


Except the family has been involved in politics over the years, so he comes by it honestly. His goal, many years back, was to become president. When that didn't happen, he became a senator to push the agenda. He's a Bush-ite...


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

Alright gents, this has been a fun thread . . . let's keep it to public lands.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Lone, it won't matter if you see my posts. They weren't for you anyway. The irony, if not complete hypocrisy in your whole persona on this issue is glaring. I'm sure everyone saw that. But I love public lands because I really like to hunt, fish, camp, hike and a ton of other things, so there is that.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

The 2002 Olympics had a very negative effect on wildlife and public lands. We lost access to public lands, migration corridors were fenced, the quick development of public/private lands took away needed habitat, and they increased use of our public lands. Many who wanted and now want the Olympics will either benefit financially or they are stuck in the mindset that no one respects Utah. I wish we could have guarded what we had a little more cautiously and reaped the benefits with those in our Utah circle. But the cat is out of the bag.....

As for Lee- he has made too many enemies to gain much traction in a meaningful way.


----------



## Lone_Hunter (Oct 25, 2017)

Packout said:


> I wish we could have guarded what we had a little more cautiously and reaped the benefits with those in our Utah circle. But the cat is out of the bag.....


I'm probably more guarded then most people born and raised here. THE reason I moved to Utah was because I met my wife while she was in school. She could have been from Arizona, Idaho, or Oregon, she just happen to be from Utah. Utah has been good to me, and I've become very protective of it as a result.

A lot of what is happening to Utah, ive already seen before, and it saddens me greatly. Some of the changes I knew would happen eventually, but what absolutely floors me, is the pace of change. I wish Utahns were more guarded and protective of their home, before it gets pulled right out from under them. In any event, this I think will be the tip of the over populated iceberg.








Angels Landing trail in Zion moving to reservation system


At a Springdale Town Council meeting, officials with Zion National Park announced that the popular hiking trail, Angels Landing, would move to a reservation system beginning in January, St. George News reports.




www.fox13now.com





One thing i forgot about, never liked , and may eventually come to Utah (I hope not) is "wilderness permits". Aka "Hiking permit". This happens when public lands and trails are so heavily congested, with so many people, in order to stem the flow, they have to issue permits to be there. There is a set number of permits in any given day, and only those people with permits are authorized to be on public lands. If you go hiking without a permit, a fish cop will issue you a citation at the trail head. In order to get a permit, you had to call ahead at the local ranger station the day before in order to get one for the next morning. They'd post it out on a bulletin board that night before they closed, and you'd pick it up in the morning. I don't know how they'd ever enforce that here, but I hope that system never comes here. I shouldn't even mention it because someone, somewhere, will think its a good idea. "Papers please" on public lands? The thought of it pisses me off.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Vanilla a lefty? Words definitely have no meaning anymore.

And wilderness permits have been here for 15+ years. And the need and justification has nothing to do with a set of immigrants' perceived ideology. It's a pure quantity issue, and everyone one of us that recreates in these places is a variable in that equation. Some of us recognize that awkward reality while others evade it and point fingers at some phantom scapegoat. 

Ironically, we all participate in sports that have required permits and tags for decades. But whatever, it's not as thrilling as blaming boogeymen.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

backcountry said:


> Vanilla a lefty? Words definitely have no meaning anymore.


Made me laugh. This is just something the puppet masters tell them to say when they’ve run out of rebuttal or any rational thing to say. Call them a lefty. 

Regurgitation over thought- it’s the soup of the day!

I do worry about what increasing populations and tourism means for our tradition of outdoor recreation in this state. Things have changed so much in the last 20 years already. I don’t think I’ll recognize many places in 20 more.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

On my worst days I fear there is no preventing the changes to public lands. On my best days I have hope that Utah can preserve some of our more esoteric qualities like solitude, dark skies and quiet. Most days I simply don't know what will happen or what we can do to prevent every place from becoming known and over-crowded. 

I do know it's not the fault of any one group. It's a universal human problem and we'll hopefully work together to prevent the worst outcomes. But that means ignoring the calls to scapegoat and point fingers at someone else and those aren't easy urges to overcome. I'm not great at it and I only know a handful of people skilled at the balance needed. But I remain somewhat hopeful.

For my own accountability I know I'm part of the problem: immigrant to Utah, former career that profited off outdoor recreation, current recreationalist, etc. That's a place to start and consider ways to ameliorate my own influences.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

Back on topic. Lee's a twerp and needs to go, for so many reasons, not the least of which is public lands.


----------

