# DNR takes a BIG budget hit!!



## 2litl2l8 (Jan 16, 2008)

18% budget cuts. Ouch, I guess our tag prices will go up!!

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=14694961


----------



## xxxxxxBirdDogger (Mar 7, 2008)

> "We asked for that audit because we wanted to operate more efficiently, but it is as if they are using it as a witch hunt," Styler said.


Now you know how those of us in public education have felt for the past thirty years, Mr. Styler. This is mostly an attempt by the legislature to close state parks. They'd rather have the parks in private hands so only those with the most money can use them.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

I haven't seen anywhere that tag prices are going to be rising, although I think that might be the case. The actual cuts to the DWR haven't been released as of yet, at least I haven't seen them. Anyone?


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

BirdDogger said:


> > "We asked for that audit because we wanted to operate more efficiently, but it is as if they are using it as a witch hunt," Styler said.
> 
> 
> Now you know how those of us in public education have felt for the past thirty years, Mr. Styler. This is mostly an attempt by the legislature to close state parks. They'd rather have the parks in private hands so only those with the most money can use them.


Pretty ignorant statement. How much is charged at a private park like Echo? You have probably never even tried to go there due to the reputation of it being one of those exclusive parks, right? :roll:


----------



## xxxxxxBirdDogger (Mar 7, 2008)

> Pretty ignorant statement. How much is charged at a private park like Echo? You have probably never even tried to go there due to the reputation of it being one of those exclusive parks, right? :roll:


Pretty ignorant comeback. I've lived in Texas, where public land is almost non-existent. I've seen firsthand the results of a government that allows for privatization of everything. It costs thousands of dollars just to gain access to a hunting spot down there. Echo comment disregarded as being a singular private entity that allows access as compared to the thousands of private entities that don't allow access in Utah or only do so for big money. What a narrow argument. :roll: 
Enid Greene reported on KSL today that the State Parks and Recreation Department has to absorb cuts of 59% in the coming year. Good-bye, state parks. Good-bye, open-to-the-public opportunities.


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

Narrow maybe better than nonsensical, you said they (the Utah State Legislature) want it all to be in private hands. Somehow from that I am to ignore the only example I am aware of within the very state as the subject and look at Texas?? My bad! I certainly think that the gov does have a large role in recreation, but with the budget at hand, would you prefer the education dept be cut? I think there are certain state parks that could be handed over in looking at the list. http://stateparks.utah.gov/parks A few of those really should be self sustaining in my humble opinion. I am not familiar with the inner workings of these, but if it is anywhere resembling the USPS semi private structure it would be useless. The USPS is granted freedom until they want to be profitable by doing things such as stopping Saturday delivery, closing offices that are extremely rural and closing offices that are very near others. Once they propose such things like that that are politically unpopular they are threatened with losing independence; it is an impossible structure...just curious as to how these are set up. I would be interested to see how they are managed. Certainly a worthy cause of public funds, but to what degree...??


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Out here in Tooele County we have Settlement Canyon reservoir that is PRIVATELY owned with public access for fish, and the canyon that is PRIVATELY owned allows lots of public hunters up the canyon. Grantsville reservoir is PRIVATELY owned and allows public access, same goes for Vernon Reservoir. That is just three in 'my' county. I am guessing there are many others throughout the state. I am hunting turkeys this spring on PRIVATE land, and what am I paying for access? Not even a penny. I did send some coyote hunters onto the property to help the deer herd as well as the landowners calves. 

I would LOVE to see most, if not all, of the state parks turned over to private companies. I bet the bulk of the parks would turn a profit in short order. For that matter, I propose we start privatizing state roads. Traffic congestion would go away, the pot holes would be a thing of the past and the state would save millions!


----------



## xxxxxxBirdDogger (Mar 7, 2008)

Access to public lands is assured.

Access to private land might go away and might not. There is no guarantee, regardless of whatever successful venture you want to point out as your example.

The end.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

BirdDogger said:


> Access to public lands is assured. Are you sure about that. Are you going on record to say public access is NEVER taken away, or restricted to hunting/fishing?
> 
> Access to private land might go away and might not. There is no guarantee, regardless of whatever successful venture you want to point out as your example. The eastern half of the country is made up mostly of private land, and there are MORE hunters/fishermen in the east than in the west. So, your doom and gloom has no validity, and is not backed by actual facts.
> 
> The end. Now, that is the end.....


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> BirdDogger said:
> 
> 
> > Access to public lands is assured. Are you sure about that. Are you going on record to say public access is NEVER taken away, or restricted to hunting/fishing?
> ...


It may not be taken away, but it will surely cost you more.


----------



## xxxxxxBirdDogger (Mar 7, 2008)

> It may not be taken away, but it will surely cost you more.


Yep. Either that or you've got to know somebody who is willing to share.



> Are you going on record to say public access is NEVER taken away, or restricted to hunting/fishing?


Of course not. If you want to start counting privately owned pieces of property where I am welcome to walk/hike/hunt/fish without permission versus privately owned property where I need permission, at least in my neck of the woods, public lands come out waaaaaaay on top.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

jahan said:


> ]It may not be taken away, but it will surely cost you more.


Not always! The upfront costs may be higher, but the hidden costs of public land are more than most realize. I am guessing if people had to pay for the 'free' perks upfront and out of their wallet, instead of having it taken out before the money you earned even its your bank account, they wouldn't be thinking its so 'cheap'.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> jahan said:
> 
> 
> > ]It may not be taken away, but it will surely cost you more.
> ...


I understand the concept of we pay taxes to pay for the parks and what not. But I just don't see the government closing parks and giving us some taxes back. I am not against some privatization, but I don't want to see us turn into back east, UWC would be pointless if that was to happen. Government isn't nearly as efficient as the private sector, but the additional cost in the long run is worth it too me to have some public ground to hunt. A little over a long time hurts a lot less than a lot upfront. You make some good points, but I like the mix of private and public lands.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

I only want all private land in my little Utopian world. In the real world, I think Utah (with 70+% of the land being public) has more than its fair share of public land. Turning over a few state parks that are losing money won't be the death nail for hunting in Utah. You could even have some specific guidelines for the park managers for public access.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> I only want all private land in my little Utopian world. In the real world, I think Utah (with 70+% of the land being public) has more than its fair share of public land. Turning over a few state parks that are losing money won't be the death nail for hunting in Utah. You could even have some specific guidelines for the park managers for public access.


I would say I agree with your statement here. Just like hunting, I don't want all of one thing. A nice mix is the best approach. :mrgreen:


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Bottom line is that 1/2 of the State Parks were created as counties lobbied the legislature for State taxes to pay for local parks. Nothing more. Otter Creek. Piute. Iron Mission. Palisade. Snow Canyon. Jordan River OHV Park. Wasatch Mountain and all its golf courses. Utah Lake. Green River to name a few. And all the history parks should be dumped on Division of State History where they belong, and where they can be done right. Places like the Territorial Statehouse, Edge of the Cedars, Anasazi, Camp Floyd. There is no reason these things need ANY management at all, and if they do, it should be local. I see no harm at all in the State Park system dropping management of many properties. 

I'll not comment further on this as it will jump me into a political tyraid about our Legislature. But I would then have to delete my own post and send myself a reminder that this is not a political forum.


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

GaryFish said:


> And all the history parks should be dumped on Division of State History where they belong, and where they can be done right. Places like the Territorial Statehouse, Edge of the Cedars, Anasazi, Camp Floyd. There is no reason these things need ANY management at all, and if they do, it should be local. I see no harm at all in the State Park system dropping management of many properties.


Those were the parks that caught my eye on the list. I checked your post for topicality and it checks out! With the big announcement from the almighty state senator last week; should we be looking for an announcement here?


----------



## xxxxxxBirdDogger (Mar 7, 2008)

> Turning over a few state parks that are losing money won't be the death nail for hunting in Utah. You could even have some specific guidelines for the park managers for public access.


I also agree with this portion of your statement. Cutting the agency by 59% all in one swoop is pretty drastic, though. Do you think the legislature studied how much needed to be cut to get rid of those parks that were losing money (golf courses), or was it a random cut? My experience says they just lopped off a bunch of money they wanted to save and now the agency has no idea what to do. They will scramble to make the pegs fit into the funded holes.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Huge29 said:


> Those were the parks that caught my eye on the list. I checked your post for topicality and it checks out! With the big announcement from the almighty state senator last week; should we be looking for an announcement here?


You know, I've had over a dozen phone calls and emails in the last 4-5 days asking that very question. And the answer is no.


----------

