# Public lands debate



## Hoopermat (Dec 17, 2010)

Ok I would like to hear from both sides on the public lands issue we currently have going on. 
If your for the states rights to the land let's hear your argument. 
If you for the Feds to keep it lets hear yours 

Just a simple hopefully friendly debate.


----------



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

It's simple for me. The states are given the duty to manage the lands for economic value so it makes money. The Feds are dutied to manage the land for multiple use. Are there problems with federal management? Absolutely, but the states have a proven track record of selling and the Feds have a track record of retaining most of it. The Feds need to fix policies with management of many things.... Timber harvest, wild horses, and fire just to name a few. They also should allow more reasonable local public influence on management. The issue for the state is not management, the issue the state has is they want to economically exploit these lands on a short sighted basis. I am not completely happy with federal management either, but I believe we have a system to fix these problems without taking over a refuge, renouncing grazing contracts, or constantly beating up on local land managers. Congress needs to do their job and fix problems that exist. Maybe it's worth Utah suing the Feds for $14 million to get their ass handed to them and we can move on from the transfer or state rights issues and actually start working on management instead of selfish, short sighted agendas.


----------



## toasty (May 15, 2008)

I see advantages to both sides of the debate. I think the state could do a much better job of managing the lands than the feds, however, without federal funds, I don't think the state could make any money managing the lands and would probably run a deficit or sell the lands to make ends meet.

I also believe that if the state ever gets their hands on fed lands, they will sell off every good parcel to the highest bidder and they will then lock the gate forever changing hunting as we now know it. Despite any agreements might me made or guarantees put forth, I fear that with any state involvement, the mighty dollar will win out and we will loose access.

That puts me for the first time ever in my life on the side of federal land management. I almost can't believe I just typed that. I just wish the state (counties in particular) had more input on how, when, and where the land is used and a guarantee that existing roads and access can never be removed.


----------



## hemionus (Aug 23, 2009)

A rancher who relies on public land as part of their business model better watch what they ask for (obviously not all of them are asking for this) because if it was transferred to the state that would be the end of their lifestyle over the next several years. This is why:

1) As state controlled land they no longer will have the predictability that it will remain available for grazing long term. The threat of privatization or developed for gas, oil, minerals will be real. Under federal management there is a certain amount a predictability that it will remain available for grazing. 

2) The State would need funds to manage the land so pieces will be sold and developed for different uses to fund management. If you don't believe this your dead wrong because it happens now. Plus the land sold is going to be those that bring the biggest profits which are the most productive lands that provide the greatest forage base for grazers...summer range. What won't be sold unless they have to is the least productive desert lands because quite simply they aren't worth that much.

3) What does a AUM cost on State lands? 7-10x's more than federally managed land. Private leases are 15-20x's more. That'll put most guys out of business right off the bat.

4) If you think some of the folks who oppose federal regulation are going to adhere to state regulation when they see it is putting them out of business is laughable. They will start turning out where they want and when they want and rangelands will deteriorate.

5) When environmental groups start seeing land being sold, developed, minerals extracted and grazing issues you'll see them bidding on allotments through the state bidding process and legally all they have to do is put 1 cow on it.

6) Now all that was geared toward the ranching community. This is for sportsman...If you think you'll have the same right to recreate on State land across the board like you did under federally manged land that is a pipe dream. Take the pieces sold and privatized. They're gone forever. The pieces developed will be useless to wildlife, sportsman, and recreationist alike. And not all State land is freely opened to the public. In Utah the DWR has to pay SITLA hundreds of thousands of dollars each year for sportsman access to SITLA land, and some of it is still off limits to sportsman. Most people don't realize this. 

I hate hearing and reading the rehtoric that it is "federally owned land". It's not! It is owned by all of us; the public, "we the people"! Someone has to manage it and that falls to Public Land agencies. Is there problems yes. It's not perfect but it is much easier to work kinks out of an existing system then to build a whole new one. I also feel bad for the honest down to earth and hard working ranching community as a few sour apples in the group are ruining the ranching reputation for the rest of them. 

Of course this is just my opinion and we all look at things from a different perspective.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

My grandmother gave me a set of books that were carried by my ancestors (push cart people) to Utah, to me. A couple decades ago, I researched the value of this mini library- handcrafted leather covers, hand stitched, one and only edition. Turned out, the collection is worth a lot of money. I was sorely tempted to sell, especially since I was in dire financial straits at the time. But I gave them to my son.

You can figure the rest for yourself.


----------



## 2full (Apr 8, 2010)

If the states get ahold of the ground............
You just have to look at what happen to most of the school sections. 
SOLD to highest bidders and closed up. Has been stated already.
I really hate to say it, but it is the truth.


----------



## Hoopermat (Dec 17, 2010)

I'm surprised by the lack of response. 
Does anyone have an argument for state control?


----------



## Dunkem (May 8, 2012)

Hoopermat said:


> I'm surprised by the lack of response.
> Does anyone have an argument for state control?


 I'm relieved at the lack of response:mrgreen:


----------



## utahgolf (Sep 8, 2007)

Dunkem said:


> I'm relieved at the lack of response:mrgreen:


sadly there's a lack of response when it comes to voting.


----------



## Dunkem (May 8, 2012)

utahgolf said:


> sadly there's a lack of response when it comes to voting.


 Very true Golf


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Dunkem said:


> I'm relieved at the lack of response:mrgreen:


I think most of us have written so much on it the past couple years, we're simply burned out on discussing the topic yet again.

The OP can look through the archives and find a host of threads on the subject. Look for the threads that have 10+ pages and you'll find a few about the land grab.;-)

Top of page!


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

As one who hunts on exclusively public land and fishes in public rivers, I truly don't think that there is a compelling argument FOR the state to own the land. 

History has proven what the state intends to do with the land under its management . And while federal management is far from perfect, and there are decisions made that rub each of us wrong from time to time, the reality is that the public lands managed by the feds in our state are an amazing resource that we have great freedom to use in many different ways.

I understand the desire for more local input with federal management, and think there is a valid complaint there. However, while our input is limited with federal management in some instances, if the lands become private through sale, we would have zero input and zero access.

I think part of the reason for the lack of response here is due in large part to the fact that those who have explored the issue more than the lip service from politicians, have come to understand the danger to public access that a transfer would be.

Sent from my SM-G928T using Tapatalk


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Hoopermat said:


> I'm surprised by the lack of response.
> Does anyone have an argument for state control?


I'll say there is a lack of responses because for most here it has been hashed out already. And anyone that _thinks_ they have an argument for State control, knows deep down in their hearts and in the back of their minds they *don't*. Not morally, not legally, or by any other legitimate means. Just like the state and wingnut fringe that they are in agreement with, all they really have is empty wallets, and their empty entitled hands hanging out in the wind demanding things that do not belong to them. At it's core this is a property rights issue. And under any reasonable conservative(ideology and premise) argument the concept of handing federally controlled lands over to the states and individuals, is a basic and simple assault on the property rights of many, by the aggression of the few. It is a demand that people give up their property rights, plain and simple.

If anyone here is for state control, please tell me how giving up my property rights to all of the West can be justified from a conservative property rights point of view. Tell me how having Utah get the federal lands within it's borders, and supposedly conferring those rights to me as well(I already had that property right) is compensation for me(and every US citizen) giving up my property rights to the rest of the West? If you can make that claim without using South American Socialista ideology, then I might start to take your seriously.

And on side, but related note. When the UDWR can show me a sustainable increase in wildlife and hunting opportunity, or at a minimum the competency to implement policies that would lead to these things, I'll start to take you guys seriously as well.

For those that have paid any attention to this, you may have seen what came out of Boise Yesterday. The new narrative being pushed is that by making "improvements" to public grazing allotments, cattlemen are conferring a right to said property, because those "improvements" now qualify as private property. Well lets do the math on this, how do those "improvements" stack up against subsidized AUMs that are $1.69? How do these "improvements" stack up to other "improvements" made by other users? Look no further than what hunters have contributed in the way of "improvements" over the last 100 years.

Elkfromabove once asked what I thought about the biological impacts of state control. I did not have a lot of time to respond when he asked. I have a sort of partial answer now. In discussing some of the roots of this(as some of us were there when this effort was really getting under way 20 years ago) someone pointed me to this: http://www.wildwilderness.org/wi/wiseuse.htm They gleefully pointed out number 12, under "Agenda". I am already painfully aware of that part of this whole "movement", county weed boards, state legislation, and "constitutional sheriffs" are just other pieces of this agenda that ultimately seeks to privatize the West. The end result of that is the death of Western hunting, plain and simple. Western hunting not your thing? There are other message boards.

Some more context about line 12 in the before mentioned synopsis: For those that have heard me drone on about selenium deficiencies, you may have seen me make reference to this study: http://deerlab.org/Publ/pdfs/23.pdf where deer with selenium deficiencies were supplemented and their populations rebounded exponentially. Well you have to dig deeper and look at what went on in those areas just prior to these deer populations declining. Much of it starts here: http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/documents/psw_rn224/psw_rn224.pdf with the experimental use of silivicides(since banned because of how dangerous they are) in the area, which continued to be a test area for other experimental herbicide use into the '80s. There are allot of heads to this dragon, but they all appear to prefer to feed from public sources of revenue, like any proper welfare entity.

To bring some of this full circle to recent events, look no further than Malheur, Steens, and Hart mountain. http://westernwildlifeecology.org/education/ Over the last 20 years they have seen wildlife declines on a scale similar to other parts of the West, with the same build up and implementation of "land use policy". Which includes using these places as test grounds by corporate chemical interests aligned with the land grab concept that was evolving at the time(20-30 years ago). Ones like this: http://oregonstate.edu/dept/eoarc/sites/default/files/publication/408h.pdf These experimental tests conducted by Monsanto at Malheur were followed by declines in wildlife, and copper and selenium deficiencies in the said wildlfie. This has resulted in grazing restrictions, and helped drive much of the rhetoric we see today around this issue. Not to mention the vastly reduced hunting opportunities, and wildlife. And before someone tells me about quail at Malheur, tell me about the deer, antelope, and bighorn sheep on these refuges first.

This is not tinfoil hat conspiracy theory stuff, this is real documented on the ground reality. And the vast majority of public lands ranchers are being played as rubes, just like most public lands hunters. Not to mention all those with in the UDWR that are knowingly implementing these policies, and those that are unknowingly being sold these policies under the guise of "conservation".

A much shorter answer I guess would be, look at what the DWR and state have brought us in the way wildlife, hunting permit numbers, hunter recruitment, and access to public lands over the last 20 years. A note on access: We as hunters foot the bill for access to SITLA lands. It is the state again robbing Peter to pay Paul. In short, if you get hunters and public lands ranchers out of the way, the take over of public lands becomes much easier. We are seeing the escalation of more wedges being driven into these two key communities right now. This is the divide and conquer tactics being employed here. I'm fine with that, I'll gladly engage(on every level) the minorities in both camps that are for the sell out of the West.

If you are for state control, you are against public lands hunting. So you either have a lot of money, or you are just very misinformed on the entirety of the issue at hand, with a total disregard for our future. At a minimum, if you are for state control, please submit a proposal for the legal sale of federal property(owned by every American) to states and or individuals. This needs to include upfront payment terms, earnest money, and a collateralization of anything being borrowed against if the proposed purchase is not cash. Or by all means, put your empty hands back in your empty pockets.

Gotta go, my kids are having a tea party. These things always get out of hand and result in a big mess and costly clean up, when not properly supervised by adults...........


----------



## Hoopermat (Dec 17, 2010)

So if we are all against it. Why is bishop and the governor's plan getting so much support. 
We need to educate the people that don't understand the real issue. Awareness is key. 
Most people it talk to believe it is in the states best interest until I lay out the fact and change some minds. 
Are you doing the same?
We have to spread the word if not we are going to lose our lands


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

I would say the reason that they are getting a lot of support for it is that the general public could care less of what happens to the public lands in Utah or anywhere else for that matter. 

Even on this forum you are only seeing a very small segment of all the hunters and fishermen in the state of Utah. It is also a lot like gun control. How many hunters say that they can get rid of AR type rifles because they don't use one for hunting, I know quite a few hunters that feel that way and they feel like as long as it doesn't affect them directly then they are not going to care what happens.


----------



## Hoopermat (Dec 17, 2010)

Totally agree with you critter. 
I am just as concerned about Herbert's and bishops plans. As I am of Hilliary getting elected. 
So let's spread the word.
It might not be great party conversation. But if you can change one mind and they talk to others we can spread the word. 
With all the current plans from the state this should be our number one topic. Once you have the facts on the table it's pretty hard to agrue for the state. 
So challenge to all. Talk to someone about this get them involved. I don't care if they are a hunter or not. Blast it on social media get others thinking about the loss of their lands. The threat of taking away this land is real and must be stopped.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

It just looks like they are getting traction. The same guys that were selling this nonsense 20-30 years ago, are the same guys selling it today. It is unfortunately a war of attrition. The bight side being that they are rapidly aging.

From a hunters point of view, yes we need a bigger voice, and a better education platform. I won't mention any names because I don't play well with anyone, at least not publicly.

Perception is key to much of this. We had not seen even a frame work for Bishop's Grand Bargain in the 3 years since it was conceived. Then suddenly in the midst of a nutter tard fest at the Malheur wildlife refuge Bishop unveils the plan?

If anyone has ever played 6 degrees of separation, just shorten it to 2 and apply it to Utah anti hunting politics and the current narrative(people are working on this depth). Example: Shawna Cox, Malheur wildlife refuge "occupier". Has been involved in this thing since at least 2009 when she participated in the Paria canyon ride. She was at the Bundy welfare compound, and at the recapture canyon ride. From there start connecting the dots going forward and backwards in time, and by association to elected officials. Shawna Cox......Mike Noel(Utah legislator and personal friend).............Ken Ivory(Utah legislator, Noels bud, lands council)...........etc.

Bishop, Ivory, and Swallow all on the same page here: http://utahsfreedom.org/reclaim-western-lands.html I don't know about the rest of them, but Swallow is a stand up guy..........

This can be done with a lot of key Utah officials, both elected and appointed,especially the appointed ones. The games fun when you start tying the contracts and other hand outs that are give to the nutter tards to help carry out this agenda.

Here is the bitterest pill of all for some here. You are going to have to start voting on the bigger issue. It is the party line voters of this state that have brought us to this point. I have nothing against Conservatism or Liberalism. Ultimately they are just ideas, and frame works for accomplishing things. It is truly the people that claim to be either of these things, and claim to represent either of them, while telling you they are end all solutions, that are the problem. Like conservatives selling anti property rights agendas under the guise of property rights, or wildlife orgs and agencies selling anti hunting agendas under the guise of conservation. The proof is the reality and consequences on the ground that can't be cooked like numbers in a book, or pulled from the internet like data bases(that were already copied anyway).

Not to get too personal or political, but we have the same Congressman, Bishop. Did you vote for or support his pro public lands, veteran challenger? I'm not asking anyone to reply to the question, only making a statement about why and how we are where we are at.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Critter said:


> I would say the reason that they are getting a lot of support for it is that the general public could care less of what happens to the public lands in Utah or anywhere else for that matter.
> 
> Even on this forum you are only seeing a very small segment of all the hunters and fishermen in the state of Utah. It is also a lot like gun control. How many hunters say that they can get rid of AR type rifles because they don't use one for hunting, I know quite a few hunters that feel that way and they feel like as long as it doesn't affect them directly then they are not going to care what happens.


Wedge, just keep hammering.......


----------



## Hoopermat (Dec 17, 2010)

I think they are getting more traction than normal. If you read the comments the 90% of the uninformed agree with them. They blindly follow Herbert and bishop. It's scary. 
I was one of them. Then randy Newberg got me thinking and after doing some research I changed my mind. 
So for those that don't quite understand please start with Newberg then do some digging on your own. It will be a shock.


----------



## Hoopermat (Dec 17, 2010)

Also for those that feel this has been hashed out. Your wrong. This is the most important fight for the sportsman you have right now. 
It should be a sticky topic.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Hoopermat, Newberg is a good guy, and a really good example of many people's journey to this shared position. I mean this in many ways.

I think when some of us say "hashed out", that is in regard to here. You are absolutely correct that it is not a settled issue by any stretch of the imagination for some of these people. Nor are you wrong about the gravity it holds.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

One thing that the states' rights people seem to not realize is this: regardless of who is in charge of the management of the lands--the Feds or the states--the managers still have to follow federal law. So, even if the states have the ownership, they would still have to follow the Endangered Species Act, for example.

A great example of how this affects the state's ability to manage was the Legacy Highway...it took the state 17 years to get through the red tape and federal laws to get it done. So, my point is that even if the states gain ownership, what do the states gain? I don't think they gain anything, unless they sell that land!


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

The State may have to comply with laws like ESA and CWA. But they would not longer have to comply with FLPMA - which is the multiple-use mandate. That in all reality is what drives land managers completely nuts - having to be everything to everybody. So in that regard, management approach would certainly change. BLM couldn't manage just for wildlife even if they wanted to. Legally, they CAN'T. Under state ownership, the State COULD manage an area specifically just for wildlife if they so choose. That could mean banning OHV all together, making all fluid mineral developed No Surface Occupancy, and they could withdraw it from mineral entry (mining claims) if they wanted. However, they could also manage the lands for maximizing energy extraction, and dictate no consideration for wildlife or habitats in any way. 

I do think that management of federal lands is a mess. But I don't blame that on BLM or the Forest Service. Most of the guys I know in both agency are great guys that hunt and fish and love the outdoors as much as anyone else. But they are also some of the most professionally frustrated people I know because of the legal mandates they face that are in direct contradiction. I actually think that both agencies do a pretty good job considering the cards they are dealt. My issue is that the cards are stacked against each other so no one can win.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

GaryFish said:


> However, they could also manage the lands for maximizing energy extraction, and dictate no consideration for wildlife or habitats in any way.


I do agree with most of what you say; however, the above statement is only true as long as they comply with federal laws that do deal with wildlife and habitat. For example, they could manage for maximizing energy extraction as long as they comply with rules governing ESA or Wetlands or any other federal law. They would also probably have to still jump through a lot of red tape that could take years...like an EIS.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> I do agree with most of what you say; however, the above statement is only true as long as they comply with federal laws that do deal with wildlife and habitat. For example, they could manage for maximizing energy extraction as long as they comply with rules governing ESA or Wetlands or any other federal law. They would also probably have to still jump through a lot of red tape that could take years...like an EIS.


That is correct to an extent. It is hard to address theorhetically. But the best answer is "It depends."

For example, if the State wishes to sell a private tract of land to a private developer, there would be no need to comply with NEPA, or ESA, or do any kind of environmental study. If there is no federal nexus (either federal funding or federal decision to be made) then NEPA would not apply. As for ESA, lands would have to be designated as critical habitats, but again, most critical habitat designations exclude private lands within the broader areas, so there would not need to be any kind of provisions.

In the case of leasing lands for fluid minerals extraction, that too would depend upon who would regulate fluid minerals leasing. If that regulatory aspect is retained by BLM (as it is in most non-public lands states), then the Federal action would be the granting of the lease, and would be subject to NEPA. But NEPA for subsurface mineral extraction is a bit of a different animal when the land from which the fluid minerals are accessed is not subject to Federal regulation, but instead subject to the land-owner real estate transaction for placement of surface infrastructure to access subsurface minerals. So it gets complicated with the split estate lands.

As for permitting aspects such as wetlands, 404 permits, altering waterways, that kind of thing - the stuff that the ACOE regulates, that is a different baby and would be a case by case situation. Considering that in reality, how little BLM lands in Utah have any kind of wetlands or navigable waterways, it wouldn't be that much of an issue.

Several other states (California and Montana for example) have their own state version of NEPA. So they are required to do environmental studies for state actions as well as federal actions. At this point, Utah doesn't have a state version of NEPA. True, it is a bit oversimplified to say that if the State of Utah were to gain control of BLM lands, there would be considerable LESS red tape and hoops to jump through to do anything on those lands, compared to Federal control.

Which leads to one major aspect of switching management of these lands from the BLM/Forest Service, to the State of Utah. Under Federal management, EVERY management decision is at some point, subject to public review, critique, and input provisions are provided. This makes Federal management cumbersome, draining, and counter-productive in many ways. But, the public IS involved at some point. Under current State policy, there are no mandated public input provisions for management of those lands. There are no public review periods, no mandated public meetings, and no aspect for public participation for any of it. Simply put, SITLA NEVER asks what the public thinks when they sell a parcel of State Trust Lands.


----------



## 2full (Apr 8, 2010)

I have never missed voting in an election. 

I know a lot of people don't use the right to vote.
Then they don't have the right to complain


----------



## Trooper (Oct 18, 2007)

Let's talk about wild horses... every list of Federal grievances from the Land Grabbers complains that "the feds" aren't doing enough about wild horses. Isn't it obvious that the BLM would like nothing more than to reduce the number of horses on the range, but that the elected (majority Republican) Congress people refuse to take the political heat that would come from changing the Wild Horse and Burro Act? Why is the solution to transfer land ownership? Why not just vote for better representation?


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

2full said:


> I have never missed voting in an election.
> 
> I know a lot of people don't use the right to vote.
> Then they don't have the right to complain


I've always said that if you don't vote you can't bitch. You got what you asked for.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Trooper, perhaps we should start another thread relating to the Wild Hose and Burro Act. I think that is a separate issue for the most part. In relation to this discussion however, unless repealed, should BLM lands in Utah be transferred to State ownership, management of wild horses and burros would still be necessary as it is federally mandated. Total removal of the herds by any state agency or private entity would be a major violation of federal law and subject to prosecution.


----------



## Hoopermat (Dec 17, 2010)

Can anyone please explain how the states getting control of this land would benefit these ranchers and bundy people


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

Hoopermat said:


> Can anyone please explain how the states getting control of this land would benefit these ranchers and bundy people


That's the irony of the whole situation. This movement hasn't really thought their position through very well.

At the very best (for them) the state will charge them more than the feds to graze their cattle. At the very worst, the land would be sold to those wealthy enough to afford it and grazing wouldn't be allowed at all.


----------



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

In the end, the people who are complaining the most (grazers) don't consider the negative impacts this will have on them if the state ever gets it and especially if it ends up for sale. They will pay more to graze, or watch places they've always had the right to graze be sold off. The land transfer really benefits a very select few politicians and those who are already wealthy as well as mineral extraction businesses. Grazers for some reason think they will have a better hand if dealt by the state, sadly that won't be true and if it ever does happen it will be too late to change anything. We as sportsmen need to show support for these lands by writing our representatives, going out those who are in favor of the transfer, and voting for those who are against it. In the past year I've joined/donated to several more sportsmen groups who have showed opposition to this transfer, I would recommend anyone who can join at least one group that has proven it is against the transfer. I would also in every setting you can with a representative or group to let it be know how important these public lands are and how working towards better management is where we need to put our energy not the disposal or transfer of these lands.


----------



## Hoopermat (Dec 17, 2010)

Have you guys heard the ranchers belive they if the states get control the will somehow get the land they currently lease because they have made improvements to it. Like fencing and such.


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

Hoopermat said:


> Have you guys heard the ranchers belive they if the states get control the will somehow get the land they currently lease because they have made improvements to it. Like fencing and such.


I've heard the argument, but it doesn't hold much water to me. Those "improvements" have been made as part of a privilege to utilize public land for grazing with no promise of anything extracurricular.


----------



## grizzly (Jun 3, 2012)

They're trying to use some convoluted form of "adverse possession", which cannot take effect if they seek permission. The possession must be taken through hostility. That's why they're first refusing to pay grazing fees, so they can then claim ownership through adverse possession law. I doubt it would fly, because another spoke of that wheel is paying property taxes... which they aren't.

They're getting bad advice, and according to the SLTrib, funding from people like Smith & Edwards (though I hope it's not true, because I used to like shopping there)... http://www.sltrib.com/news/3507655-155/after-finicum-funeral-cliven-bundy-encourages


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

Not that I'm a complete supporter but I really like the SUWA commercial airing the last couple of nights. May Mr Bishop and friends have a short shelf life.


----------



## Trooper (Oct 18, 2007)

Hey Middlefork- that was a great way to start my morning! Just in case you take some grief for the SUWA support- just wanted you to know you are not alone on this forum.


----------

