# More public land SOLD



## HJB

More loss of public land. Hope this doesn't pass :x 
http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=148&sid=10839299

It's only a matter of time before they start selling off our National Forest land to the highest bidder so that we can pay back our huge debt.


----------



## Guns and Flies

****


----------



## jsumm_2000

For an insite on what is being sold in Utah look at the Utah Trust Lands site. They will send you a notice of the property they sell to support the schools. They even tell you who they sell to and mostly it is out of staters. The state is selling thousands of property in the most premium areas of the state. It is sickening what the State of Utah is doing. At the rate they are liquidating our hunting assets we will be out of the hunting business (private citizens).


----------



## jahan

My understanding is this is crap land.


----------



## Packout

The estimated value for many of the parcels in 1997 pushed $1,000-100,000 an acre. Current prices would be double that (3 years ago the prices would have been 4x that). So how are "Crap" lands worth thousands of dollars an acre? I'd wager that most of these lands provide substantial wildlife benefit, but might not provide excellent hiking/atv/mining/oil--etc benefit. It is a foolish idea----

HJB is right on. We currently have trillions in debt, backed by gov't equity. That equity consists largely of Federal Lands. Don't approach the slippery slope unless you want to be all wet.


----------



## HJB

If you find any links with the certain parcels being sold, post it up. I would really like to see which lands apply to this. I do know that many counties are affected. Box Elder, Weber, Rich, Cache, and many others.


----------



## HJB

[attachment=0:29abxgos]Public Land Loss.JPG[/attachment:29abxgos]


----------



## DBCooper

Remind my why private property is evil, I really like it!
What has our "state" done that would warrant the monopoly they have on so much land?

How much did they pay for it? How could private citizens do any worse at taking care of "our" natural resources than our "state"?

As long as our precious "state" monopolizes so much land we will remain hunting serfs forever. I for one would like to see that come to an end. But then all you swashbuckling, rugged hunters would have to get off the hunting dole and pay(full market price) for what you take.

A little wisdom if you don't mind,
"It is the highest impertinence and presumption, therefore, in kings and ministers to pretend to watch over the economy of private people, and to restrain their expense.... They are themselves always, and without any exception, the greatest spendthrifts in society. Let them look well after their own expense, and they may safely trust private people with theirs."
-- Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations [1776]

Substitute "kings" and "ministers" with legislators, wildlife board members, and hunting serfs - who are afraid of the private property boogie-man - and take it from there...


----------



## proutdoors

DBCooper said:


> Remind my why private property is evil, I really like it!
> What has our "state" done that would warrant the monopoly they have on so much land?
> 
> How much did they pay for it? How could private citizens do any worse at taking care of "our" natural resources than our "state"?


Excellent questions that I would love those up in arms over selling public land off to answer.


----------



## jahan

Packout said:


> The estimated value for many of the parcels in 1997 pushed $1,000-100,000 an acre. Current prices would be double that (3 years ago the prices would have been 4x that). So how are "Crap" lands worth thousands of dollars an acre? I'd wager that most of these lands provide substantial wildlife benefit, but might not provide excellent hiking/atv/mining/oil--etc benefit. It is a foolish idea----
> 
> HJB is right on. We currently have trillions in debt, backed by gov't equity. That equity consists largely of Federal Lands. Don't approach the slippery slope unless you want to be all wet.


Looking at the map HJB provided most of the land was under $100 an acre, that is cheap, I would like to see the map you are talking about.


----------



## luv2fsh&hnt

While we are at it lets just become part of the EU. The North American model of wildlife management is the most succesfull model in the world. Folks are paying 10,000 plus for Elk hunts. In New Mexico the Jicharillo Apache reservations were getting 6500 plus for trophy mule deer hunts the last I checked. I can only imagine what the prices would do if all the public lands were converted to private ownership. I don't know about anybodyelse but if this were to happen my hunting and fishing days would be over. There is no way I could afford to pay what the market would demand if there was no access to public ground.


----------



## coyoteslayer

I personally don't like the idea of selling off chucks of land because then this land becomes off limits to the public and no one will be able to hunt the land unless you pay a trepass fee. This practice will definately ruin the future of hunting because if you sell off all the public land then where is the majority of hunters going to hunt?

It will become a rich man's sport much like England or other places. People that buy this land can also destroy the good mule deer habitat by selling lots for homes or cabins.


----------



## jahan

Here is my opinion. If it is mostly worthless land that is just costing us money sell it off. We are talking less than 1% here folks of not great ground. I don't want to see tons of Private land everywhere, but from what I see in this bill so far, I like it, but that may change the more I find out about it. :mrgreen: :lol:


----------



## coyoteslayer

Prime example is one of the owners of Nuskin. He bought property up Pole Canyon and built a nice cabin on it which is fine with me, but he also has been talking about selling lots for homes or cabins. This is where a lot of deer winter, but they won't be wintering there if this guy has his way.


----------



## wyoming2utah

DBCooper said:


> Remind my why private property is evil, I really like it!
> What has our "state" done that would warrant the monopoly they have on so much land?
> 
> How much did they pay for it? How could private citizens do any worse at taking care of "our" natural resources than our "state"?
> 
> As long as our precious "state" monopolizes so much land we will remain hunting serfs forever. I for one would like to see that come to an end. But then all you swashbuckling, rugged hunters would have to get off the hunting dole and pay(full market price) for what you take.
> 
> A little wisdom if you don't mind,
> "It is the highest impertinence and presumption, therefore, in kings and ministers to pretend to watch over the economy of private people, and to restrain their expense.... They are themselves always, and without any exception, the greatest spendthrifts in society. Let them look well after their own expense, and they may safely trust private people with theirs."
> -- Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations [1776]
> 
> Substitute "kings" and "ministers" with legislators, wildlife board members, and hunting serfs - who are afraid of the private property boogie-man - and take it from there...


This kind of thinking needs to really go back in history and look at how poorly the private sector has done in managing wildlife. Someone else already hit on it, but you should take a look at the North American Model of Wildlife Management and compare it to the European model (which is entirely private).

Start here:http://www.huntright.org/heritage/AldrichConservationModel.aspx

Selling off public land to private entities is nothing short of highway robbery....it is taking something from US. Those who love the outdoors should do everything to protect public land and keep it public so that everyone can benefit from it!

The kind of thinking above would only lead us to a type of hunting that is reserved for the wealthy and would certainly see major decreases not only in tags but also wildlife!
http://www.huntright.org/heritage/peril.aspx


----------



## elkfromabove

DBCooper said:


> Remind my why private property is evil, I really like it! Of course you do! Especially when it's yours and you are allowed to use it any way you chose, regardless of the impact on wildlife, your neighbors, the environment, etc. Owning private property isn't evil, but carries with it certain responsibilities, many of which you dismiss based on your own agenda.
> 
> What has our "state" done that would warrant the monopoly they have on so much land? Through duly elected (by you) officials, there is a system devised for the protection of land that is common and essential to all the citizens, even those outside of this state. You can't be suggesting that National Parks, Monuments and Grasslands; National Forests: BLM lands: State Trust Lands; State Parks; Wildlife and Waterfowl Refuges; all rivers, lakes, streams, and beaches; or for that matter, all military, law enforcement, medical, fire protection, road and bridge maintenance facilities become private property, are you? If not, where do YOU draw the line?
> 
> How much did they pay for it? How could private citizens do any worse at taking care of "our" natural resources than our "state"?
> "They" (meaning us) have paid for it ever since it was set aside, and we continue to pay for it. You're joking on your second question, right? Dust bowl, oil spills, water pollution, air pollution, slums, litter, endangered species, just to name a few examples of private citizens "taking care" of "our" natural resources.
> 
> As long as our precious "state" monopolizes so much land we will remain hunting serfs forever. Quite the opposite is true! I've paid no access fees to hunt anywhere I've hunted public property. I for one would like to see that come to an end. But then all you swashbuckling, rugged hunters (and hikers, campers, fishermen, ATV riders, sight seers, firewood gatherers, picnickers, bikers, birders, etc.) would have to get off the hunting (see above) dole and pay(full market price) for what you take.
> 
> A little wisdom if you don't mind,
> "It is the highest impertinence and presumption, therefore, in kings and ministers to pretend to watch over the economy of private people, and to restrain their expense.... They are themselves always, and without any exception, the greatest spendthrifts in society. Let them look well after their own expense, and they may safely trust private people with theirs."
> -- Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations [1776]
> 
> Substitute "kings" and "ministers" with legislators, wildlife board members, (You can't make that substitution. Kings and the ministers he's talking about aren't elected nor are they accountable to the "serfs")  and hunting serfs (I, a serf, thrown in with kings and ministers? How does that work?)  - who are afraid of the private property boogie-man - and take it from there...


*You *take it from there...


----------



## coyoteslayer

Robert Redford has done wonderful things up at Sundance for wildlife hasn't he? -_O- -_O- -_O- -_O- -_O- He got mad because a moose got in his swimming pool and called the DWR to haul it off.


----------



## Size Matters

Very well said I agree with elkfromabove 100%. 8)


----------



## truemule

Size Matters said:


> Very well said I agree with elkfromabove 100%. 8)


+1 A voice of reason for sure.


----------



## Huntoholic

DBCooper said:


> Remind my why private property is evil, I really like it!
> What has our "state" done that would warrant the monopoly they have on so much land?
> 
> How much did they pay for it? How could private citizens do any worse at taking care of "our" natural resources than our "state"?
> 
> As long as our precious "state" monopolizes so much land we will remain hunting serfs forever. I for one would like to see that come to an end. But then all you swashbuckling, rugged hunters would have to get off the hunting dole and pay(full market price) for what you take.
> 
> A little wisdom if you don't mind,
> "It is the highest impertinence and presumption, therefore, in kings and ministers to pretend to watch over the economy of private people, and to restrain their expense.... They are themselves always, and without any exception, the greatest spendthrifts in society. Let them look well after their own expense, and they may safely trust private people with theirs."
> -- Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations [1776]
> 
> Substitute "kings" and "ministers" with legislators, wildlife board members, and hunting serfs - who are afraid of the private property boogie-man - and take it from there...


I guess you have not been watching whats happening in the gulf.


----------



## Huntoholic

jahan said:


> Here is my opinion. If it is mostly worthless land that is just costing us money sell it off. We are talking less than 1% here folks of not great ground. I don't want to see tons of Private land everywhere, but from what I see in this bill so far, I like it, but that may change the more I find out about it. :mrgreen: :lol:


1% this year, maybe 10% next. Open that door and you might find yourself another hobby.


----------



## Huntoholic

truemule said:


> Size Matters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very well said I agree with elkfromabove 100%. 8)
> 
> 
> 
> +1 A voice of reason for sure.
Click to expand...

Me too!!!!

Nice job "elkfromabove".


----------



## jahan

Huntoholic said:


> jahan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is my opinion. If it is mostly worthless land that is just costing us money sell it off. We are talking less than 1% here folks of not great ground. I don't want to see tons of Private land everywhere, but from what I see in this bill so far, I like it, but that may change the more I find out about it. :mrgreen: :lol:
> 
> 
> 
> 1% this year, maybe 10% next. Open that door and you might find yourself another hobby.
Click to expand...

I see what you are saying, but if this is land that is worthless persay, I don't see the slippery slope. This makes you all mad, but I didn't see too many pissed off people about the Red Rock Wilderness Bill which was trying to turn 9.5 million acres of Utah into Wilderness, now that is a threat to our hunting.

P.S. Huntoholic, I know you voiced concern over RRWB, I am talking about others. :mrgreen:


----------



## Huntoholic

jahan said:


> I see what you are saying, but if this is land that is worthless persay, I don't see the slippery slope. This makes you all mad, but I didn't see too many pissed off people about the Red Rock Wilderness Bill which was trying to turn 9.5 million acres of Utah into Wilderness, now that is a threat to our hunting.
> 
> P.S. Huntoholic, I know you voiced concern over RRWB, I am talking about others. :mrgreen:


The thing is I don't see any land as worthless. Yes some has more value then others, but worthless, no.


----------



## jahan

Huntoholic said:


> jahan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see what you are saying, but if this is land that is worthless persay, I don't see the slippery slope. This makes you all mad, but I didn't see too many pissed off people about the Red Rock Wilderness Bill which was trying to turn 9.5 million acres of Utah into Wilderness, now that is a threat to our hunting.
> 
> P.S. Huntoholic, I know you voiced concern over RRWB, I am talking about others. :mrgreen:
> 
> 
> 
> The thing is I don't see any land as worthless. Yes some has more value then others, but worthless, no.
Click to expand...

I agree it is a poor word choice, but when you are talking about land going for thousands of dollars and acre, $100 an acre is very cheap, so it has value. I just feel someone in the private sector could do something with that land better than is currently being done, that is all.

Just to clarify, I do not agree with all land being private.


----------



## Huntoholic

jahan said:


> Huntoholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> .......I just feel someone in the private sector could do something with that land better than is currently being done, that is all.
Click to expand...

Like a radioactive waste dump? :shock:


----------



## proutdoors

WOW! The reprogramming of Americans has apparently been accomplished. Here I thought many of you guys were 'conservative' and in favor of smaller government. Thanks for clearing that up. :? 

Here is the rub: Using the WEAK arguments that wy2ut use of what happened decades/centuries ago is inane and nonsensical. Let's keep it to some relevant time frames. Is the wildlife managed better on DL&L or on the Nebo unit? Why do you guys think land in UTAH is better in the hands of pinheads in Washington DC than in the hands of individuals? This truly confounds me. Is wildlife in danger of extinction in the eastern half of this country? Is there more/less wildlife in the eastern half of the country or the western half? Guess which one has almost NO public land and guess which one is mostly public land? How many BILLIONS of tax dollars are spent 'managing' public lands that could be better served in other arenas, such as your/my wallet? The argument that it would cost too much to hunt if all the land was private doesn't hold water either. You are paying big time for it now, you just don't notice it because the government STEALS it from your paycheck before you ever see it. This nation was NOT set up with millions of acres of public land, the Founders didn't see land as the property of the government.

Here is what I would LOVE to see: the government GIVE every LEGAL American 40 acres of land that is now deemed public. They don't need to sell it for a dime to get a net profit. The costs of maintaining public land is immense and mostly wasted. These funds could then be directed toward either the federal deficit, putting funds BACK into the Social Security 'lock box', or be in the form of a tax cut that would put BILLIONS back into the economy. The people then would be LESS dependent on the government as well, 40 acres is enough to grow a years worth of fruit/veggies for a family of 6, thus reducing the cost of living and freeing up monies to be spent on other venues. Everyone wins, and in today's environment, the rad herring argument that wildlife would be devastated holds NO water. I see NO drawbacks to 'privatizing' public lands, NONE!


----------



## proutdoors

Huntoholic said:


> jahan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huntoholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> .......I just feel someone in the private sector could do something with that land better than is currently being done, that is all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like a radioactive waste dump? :shock:
Click to expand...

Absolutely! What do YOU suggest be done with such waste? What better use of land in the west desert than this? Have you been out there, what is so 'grand' about the land between Grantsville and Wendover that 'needs' to be protected by suits in Washington? :?


----------



## Huntoholic

proutdoors said:


> WOW! The reprogramming of Americans has apparently been accomplished. Here I thought many of you guys were 'conservative' and in favor of smaller government. Thanks for clearing that up. :?
> 
> Here is the rub: Using the WEAK arguments that wy2ut use of what happened decades/centuries ago is inane and nonsensical. Let's keep it to some relevant time frames. Is the wildlife managed better on DL&L or on the Nebo unit? Why do you guys think land in UTAH is better in the hands of pinheads in Washington DC than in the hands of individuals? This truly confounds me. Is wildlife in danger of extinction in the eastern half of this country? Is there more/less wildlife in the eastern half of the country or the western half? Guess which one has almost NO public land and guess which one is mostly public land? How many BILLIONS of tax dollars are spent 'managing' public lands that could be better served in other arenas, such as your/my wallet? The argument that it would cost too much to hunt if all the land was private doesn't hold water either. You are paying big time for it now, you just don't notice it because the government STEALS it from your paycheck before you ever see it. This nation was NOT set up with millions of acres of public land, the Founders didn't see land as the property of the government.
> 
> Here is what I would LOVE to see: the government GIVE every LEGAL American 40 acres of land that is now deemed public. They don't need to sell it for a dime to get a net profit. The costs of maintaining public land is immense and mostly wasted. These funds could then be directed toward either the federal deficit, putting funds BACK into the Social Security 'lock box', or be in the form of a tax cut that would put BILLIONS back into the economy. The people then would be LESS dependent on the government as well, 40 acres is enough to grow a years worth of fruit/veggies for a family of 6, thus reducing the cost of living and freeing up monies to be spent on other venues. Everyone wins, and in today's environment, the rad herring argument that wildlife would be devastated holds NO water. I see NO drawbacks to 'privatizing' public lands, NONE!


Oh if it where that simple.....


----------



## proutdoors

The only thing keeping it from being that simple is you/me.


----------



## xxxxxxBirdDogger

> I see what you are saying, but if this is land that is worthless persay, I don't see the slippery slope.


The land definitely isn't worthless or someone wouldn't buy it. I followed the links and looked at the breakdown for each and every property. Many of the properties are listed as suitable for grazing, but landlocked. Remember that Jason Chaffetz once stated that "The only place a sage grouse belongs is on the menu of a French bistro." He doesn't give a rat's behind about wildlife. If the properties in question are suitable for grazing, they hold wildlife. Might a landlocked property that is suitable for grazing be a wintering or breeding area for deer and elk? Think about it. 
FYI- The $100 per acre figure that's been thrown out here by someone is misleading. Many of the properties are valued at a much higher rate. Go through them and you'll see some million dollar pieces. Admittedly, the Box Elder location on the Salt Flats is probably over-valued at $100 per.


----------



## jahan

BirdDogger said:


> I see what you are saying, but if this is land that is worthless persay, I don't see the slippery slope.
> 
> 
> 
> The land definitely isn't worthless or someone wouldn't buy it. I followed the links and looked at the breakdown for each and every property. Many of the properties are listed as suitable for grazing, but landlocked. Remember that Jason Chaffetz once stated that "The only place a sage grouse belongs is on the menu of a French bistro." He doesn't give a rat's ass about wildlife. If the properties in question are suitable for grazing, they hold wildlife. Might a landlocked property that is suitable for grazing be a wintering or breeding area for deer and elk? Think about it.
> *FYI- The $100 per acre figure that's been thrown out here by someone is misleading.* Many of the properties are valued at a much higher rate. Go through them and you'll see some million dollar pieces. Admittedly, the Box Elder location on the Salt Flats is probably over-valued at $100 per.
Click to expand...

I posted that number based off of a image someone posted, and by using those numbers I stand by my statement. Like I said earlier, the word worthless was a poor choice of a word.  So what else should be done with those pieces of property that is landlocked?


----------



## lunkerhunter2

proutdoors said:


> The only thing keeping it from being that simple is you/me.


The point is that loosing public land anywhere opens the back door for the rest of the greedy asswipes to come in without any lube. Who owns it makes no difference. It is a problem when we loose any land to private hands. DL&L is run by/for money. The LDS church is raking in hundreds of thousands of dollars on behalf of the utah hunters. Sure they have good elk but the public lost it when the idiots in the big seat bought a worthless island in the middle of the "beautiful" GSL. I don't think you will ever understand that any loss is a tragedy Pro.


----------



## xxxxxxBirdDogger

> Is the wildlife managed better on DL&L or on the Nebo unit?


For public usage, definitely Nebo. I can go there to hunt. I can't hunt DL&L unless I have big dollars. We the people benefit from public lands. You can't refute that.


----------



## Huntoholic

proutdoors said:


> Huntoholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jahan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huntoholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> .......I just feel someone in the private sector could do something with that land better than is currently being done, that is all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like a radioactive waste dump? :shock:
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Absolutely! What do YOU suggest be done with such waste? What better use of land in the west desert than this? Have you been out there, what is so 'grand' about the land between Grantsville and Wendover that 'needs' to be protected by suits in Washington? :?
Click to expand...

How about a hazardous waste incinerator or waste incinerators? And then take the inurt byproduct and bury it out there.


----------



## jahan

lunkerhunter2 said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing keeping it from being that simple is you/me.
> 
> 
> 
> The point is that loosing public land anywhere opens the back door for the rest of the greedy asswipes to come in without any lube. Who owns it makes no difference. It is a problem when we loose any land to private hands. DL&L is run by/for money. The LDS church is raking in hundreds of thousands of dollars on behalf of the utah hunters. Sure they have good elk but the public lost it when the idiots in the big seat bought a worthless island in the middle of the "beautiful" GSL. I don't think you will ever understand that any loss is a tragedy Pro.
Click to expand...

So what is wrong with people making money and allowing the public benefits also?


----------



## proutdoors

BirdDogger said:


> Many of the properties are listed as suitable for grazing, but landlocked. Remember that Jason Chaffetz once stated that "The only place a sage grouse belongs is on the menu of a French bistro." He doesn't give a rat'**** wildlife. If the properties in question are suitable for grazing, they hold wildlife. Might a landlocked property that is suitable for grazing be a wintering or breeding area for deer and elk? Think about it.


Why do you/others assume if a private entity purchased the above mention land he would bull doze it and rid it of any/all wildlife? The more likely scenario is the new owner would improve it and make it BETTER suited for wildlife. Think about it.


----------



## proutdoors

Huntoholic said:


> How about a hazardous waste incinerator or waste incinerators? And then take the inurt byproduct and bury it out there.


What would stop that from happening if more of Utah was privately owned?


----------



## proutdoors

BirdDogger said:


> Is the wildlife managed better on DL&L or on the Nebo unit?
> 
> 
> 
> For public usage, definitely Nebo. I can go there to hunt. I can't hunt DL&L unless I have big dollars. We the people benefit from public lands. You can't refute that.
Click to expand...

Like I have repeatedly said, you pay over the course of your lifetime a boat load of money for land you will never even see let alone use. At least with DL&L you only pay if you chose to use it. You can't refute that.


----------



## HJB

The way I see it, NO public land is completelty *Worthless*. Maybe there's no elk or deer on the properties. Maybe it's desert land that many people would just pass by. But to me every tract of land has value and can be used by the public. Sage grouse and rabbits inhabit our deserts. Doves and chukars are also all over the west desert. It also provides a great place for people to go and shoot guns. This is assuming that the land is actually desert land. 
Let me ask you a question: Do you really think President Obama, Princess Pelosi _/O , and friends know Desert from Forest? This is just the beginning. Once the government realizes that bills like this can easily be passed and we can start making our money back and paying the debt back, Things will get out of control real fast. Obama doesn't care about hunting or fishing, he doesn't care about how much public land we have or use. Ask grandpa how much land was available to hunt when he was a kid, now look at how much YOU have, and think about the future for our kids. This is a dreadful trend and hunting will become a rich mans sport if we don't open our eyes and take a stand.


----------



## proutdoors

lunkerhunter2 said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing keeping it from being that simple is you/me.
> 
> 
> 
> The point is that loosing public land anywhere opens the back door for the rest of the greedy asswipes to come in without any lube. Are you saying there are no greedy "asswipes" in Washington? Who owns it makes no difference. It makes all the difference in the world. It is a problem when we loose any land to private hands. Says you, I obviously disagree. DL&L is run by/for money. Nothing wrong with that. Last I checked that is the 'American way'. The LDS church is raking in hundreds of thousands of dollars on behalf of the utah hunters. Not sure they make money on "behalf" of Utah hunters, but I see NOTHING wrong with them making a profit. Do you work for free? Sure they have good elk but the public lost it when the idiots in the big seat bought a worthless island in the middle of the "beautiful" GSL. You lost me on this sentence, not saying its your fault, just saying you lost me on this one. I don't think you will ever understand that any loss is a tragedy Pro. I am not sure how to take such a statement. When you say "any lose" do mean "any lose" or just any lose of public land/access? I am hoping you are not saying the former.
Click to expand...


----------



## xxxxxxBirdDogger

> Why do you/others assume if a private entity purchased the above mention land he would bull doze it and rid it of any/all wildlife? The more likely scenario is the new owner would improve it and make it BETTER suited for wildlife.


Do you believe that fairy tale? I've seen it happen over and over and over again to my hunting spots. The private interest takes over and those with money get to hunt the land. Those without tons of money are left to hope and pray that there will still be some public land left for their grandkids. Let me fix your quote:


> The more likely scenario is the new owner would improve it and make it BETTER suited for HIS wildlife. Public Joe will never set foot on the property unless snooty Private Owner decides to turn it into a CWMU. Then he'll make tens of thousands, have the best land all to himself, and feel gracious and self-important when some lucky public grunt draws a tag.


----------



## Huntoholic

proutdoors said:


> The more likely scenario is the new owner would improve it and make it BETTER suited for wildlife. Think about it.


He may or may not. I don't by into the all or nothing on either side. There will be those that are good stewards and those that will not be. Some will want the wildlife and some will not. But one thing I do know is that the freedom of grabbing the trailer and driving out to a spot, pulling off the side will be greatly limited unless you are one of the lucky ones.


----------



## Huntoholic

proutdoors said:


> Huntoholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about a hazardous waste incinerator or waste incinerators? And then take the inurt byproduct and bury it out there.
> 
> 
> 
> What would stop that from happening if more of Utah was privately owned?
Click to expand...

Pretty much the same reg's that stop it now.


----------



## Huntoholic

proutdoors said:


> Like I have repeatedly said, you pay over the course of your lifetime a boat load of money for land you will never even see let alone use. At least with DL&L you only pay if you chose to use it. You can't refute that.


I think this is a little miss leading. I will see a boat load of area that I would not other wise see if it belong to private parties. Yes we pay, but we pay to a pot. If I use Nebo instead of LaSal that does not mean I wasted money or got less of a return.


----------



## coyoteslayer

> Why do you/others assume if a private entity purchased the above mention land he would bull doze it and rid it of any/all wildlife? The more likely scenario is the new owner would improve it and make it BETTER suited for wildlife. Think about it.


Pro, it depends on WHO is the owner. If he's not a hunter or doesn't care about wildlife then he won't do anything to help the wildlife.

If he's against hunting then he would never allow anyone on his property to hunt deer or elk.


----------



## proutdoors

Huntoholic said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huntoholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about a hazardous waste incinerator or waste incinerators? And then take the inurt byproduct and bury it out there.
> 
> 
> 
> What would stop that from happening if more of Utah was privately owned?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pretty much the same reg's that stop it now.
Click to expand...

Ironically, the very government that you entrust Utah lands to is the ONLY government that can set such inane regulations.


Huntoholic said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I have repeatedly said, you pay over the course of your lifetime a boat load of money for land you will never even see let alone use. At least with DL&L you only pay if you chose to use it. You can't refute that.
> 
> 
> 
> I think this is a little miss leading. I will see a boat load of area that I would not other wise see if it belong to private parties. Yes we pay, but we pay to a pot. If I use Nebo instead of LaSal that does not mean I wasted money or got less of a return.
Click to expand...

My point is, YOU are paying for land in many parts of the west you will NEVER lay eyes on. In other words, you are being FORCED to pay for access to lands you will never avail yourself to. Its like paying for entitlement programs that are of NO benefit to you that I am pretty sure you despise.



coyoteslayer said:


> Why do you/others assume if a private entity purchased the above mention land he would bull doze it and rid it of any/all wildlife? The more likely scenario is the new owner would improve it and make it BETTER suited for wildlife. Think about it.
> 
> 
> 
> Pro, it depends on WHO is the owner. If he's not a hunter or doesn't care about wildlife then he won't do anything to help the wildlife.
> 
> If he's against hunting then he would never allow anyone on his property to hunt deer or elk.
Click to expand...

If it is landlocked now what would be the difference, even in your worst case scenario? Also, there could very easily be added guidelines for those who obtain previously public lands, problems SOLVED. 8)


----------



## coyoteslayer

Yes, I can see it wouldnt make a difference with a landlocked piece of ground, but I was meaning if the land wasn't landlocked. I also don't see us selling off huge chunks of land in the future like on the Nebo or La Sals because the public outcry would be very high.


----------



## Packout

I guess I am a Teddy Roosevelt Republican.


----------



## proutdoors

Packout said:


> I guess I am a Teddy Roosevelt Republican.


And I am NOT! :evil:

Teddy was the first progressive president of this nation, and we have 'progressed' all the way to Obama. :O>>:


----------



## proutdoors

coyoteslayer said:


> Yes, I can see it wouldnt make a difference with a landlocked piece of ground, but I was meaning if the land wasn't landlocked. I also don't see us selling off huge chunks of land in the future like on the Nebo or La Sals because the public outcry would be very high.


That is because the public has been taught to depend on the government. :?


----------



## Huntoholic

> proutdoors wrote:
> My point is, YOU are paying for land in many parts of the west you will NEVER lay eyes on. In other words, you are being FORCED to pay for access to lands you will never avail yourself to. Its like paying for entitlement programs that are of NO benefit to you that I am pretty sure you despise.


If I never set eyes on it, it's not because it was not available. I'm also pretty sure the monies I pay right now concerning the access to the outdoors, I'm getting my monies worth. I guess I could be like those back East and two weeks a year I get in the rented motor home and drive to jellystone. Then go visit central park.


----------



## coyoteslayer

proutdoors said:


> coyoteslayer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I can see it wouldnt make a difference with a landlocked piece of ground, but I was meaning if the land wasn't landlocked. I also don't see us selling off huge chunks of land in the future like on the Nebo or La Sals because the public outcry would be very high.
> 
> 
> 
> That is because the public has been taught to depend on the government. :?
Click to expand...

Yes, I know, but I also would like to have places that I can hunt on public land without having to buy a trespass fee every time I wanted to go into the mountains.


----------



## proutdoors

Huntoholic said:


> proutdoors wrote:
> My point is, YOU are paying for land in many parts of the west you will NEVER lay eyes on. In other words, you are being FORCED to pay for access to lands you will never avail yourself to. Its like paying for entitlement programs that are of NO benefit to you that I am pretty sure you despise.
> 
> 
> 
> If I never set eyes on it, it's not because it was not available. I'm also pretty sure the monies I pay right now concerning the access to the outdoors, I'm getting my monies worth. I guess I could be like those back East and two weeks a year I get in the rented motor home and drive to jellystone. Then go visit central park.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing you don't know very many people from back east. :roll:


----------



## Huntoholic

proutdoors said:


> I'm guessing you don't know very many people from back east. :roll:


Ya, the ones I know keep moving West. :shock:


----------



## .45

coyoteslayer said:


> Yes, I know, but I also would like to have places that I can hunt on public land without having to buy a trespass fee every time I wanted to go into the mountains.


Just use you're new Socialist Identification card....coming soon to our neighborhood !!


----------



## Huntoholic

.45 said:


> coyoteslayer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I know, but I also would like to have places that I can hunt on public land without having to buy a trespass fee every time I wanted to go into the mountains.
> 
> 
> 
> Just use you're new Socialist Identification card....coming soon to our neighborhood !!
Click to expand...

I got mine three weeks ago. I'm good to go........


----------



## coyoteslayer

> Just use you're new Socialist Identification card....coming soon to our neighborhood !!


Is that the mark of the beast? :mrgreen: :wink:


----------



## proutdoors

coyoteslayer said:


> Yes, I know, but I also would like to have places that I can hunt on public land without having to buy a trespass fee every time I wanted to go into the mountains.


So, you prefer having your access to hunting subsidized. Got it. You may want to think about that mindset a little more before you claim to be for small government, state rights, and individual freedoms. Just saying..........


----------



## coyoteslayer

> So, you prefer having your access to hunting subsidized. Got it. You may want to think about that mindset a little more before you claim to be for small government, state rights, and individual freedoms. Just saying..........


Well first of all the government shouldn't be the one's making all the deals in selling the land. I'm for smaller government. You know where I stand, but I also don't want everything privately owned so that unless you know someone or you're the owner or your rich to buy trespass fees then you would be pretty much screwed. I know it's a God given right to own land, but that doesn't mean ALL lands should be privately owned by one individual or a group of rich folks.

Be careful what you wish for because sometimes it doesn't turn out like you thought it would.


----------



## MadHunter

My 2 cents worth on this is that this is opening the door for non lubricated invasion. Do any of you in favor of this actually think that selling this land will do anything to improve the nations economy? Any money that come in to the government gets spent by 125%. think about it.... the more we are taxed and the more the gov collects from us the less there is. This will do nothing to to solve the defficit problem.

Now... I disagree with selling public lands in this. It sets a presedence that will never be revoked. Roosevelt was a progressive and we have progressed to having all this public land for the enjoyment of the people.

The only way to stop this is for all who are opposed to contact Jason Chaffetz and threaten not to re-ellect him. Make our system work.


----------



## elkfromabove

Huntoholic said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> 
> WOW! The reprogramming of Americans has apparently been accomplished. Here I thought many of you guys were 'conservative' and in favor of smaller government. We are, but we're not in favor of eliminating it, nor are we in favor of preventing it from managing aspects of our lives that are beyond the scope, practical or otherwise, of private citizens to manage, ie: military protection, roads and bridges, environmental protection, aviation regulation and control, etc., AND preservation/management of natural resources. They may not always do a perfect job, but to turn these things over to the private sector would either be impossible or it would give too much control of our lives over to wealthy businessmen, which wouldn't be any improvement.  Thanks for clearing that up. :?
> 
> Here is the rub: Using the WEAK arguments that wy2ut use of what happened decades/centuries ago is inane and nonsensical. I am surprised you bring this up, since you do it all the time, ie; Founding Fathers, Federalist Papers, etc. Let's keep it to some relevant time frames. Is the wildlife managed better on DL&L or on the Nebo unit? Undoubtedly on DL&L, but only because they have an invested financial interest and are not accountable to voters who would use the land for other activities. Why do you guys think land in UTAH is better in the hands of pinheads in Washington DC than in the hands of individuals?  A difference in accountability. See above. This truly confounds me. Is wildlife in danger of extinction in the eastern half of this country? Heath hen, passenger pigeon, bison, eastern elk, to name a few. Some of these may not have been directly eliminated "in the eastern half", but were eliminated nonetheless by "easterners" who wanted the meat, pelts, furs, leather, railroad, telegraph and other luxuries that wildlife and/or their elimination could provide. Is there more/less wildlife in the eastern half of the country or the western half? It depends on your categorization of "wildlife". There are certainly more rats, pigeons, whitetails, brook trout, etc. in the eastern half, but more pronghorns, mule deer, blacktailed deer, elk, sage grouse, bighorns, etc. in the west. If you're talking about total number of individual animals, who's to know? Guess which one has almost NO public land and guess which one is mostly public land? Unfair comparison since the existing eastern species are better able to tolerate humans than most of the western species. Bring the whitetails here and let's see what happens to the mule deer.. How many BILLIONS of tax dollars are spent 'managing' public lands that could be better served Better served? I think my money used to manage public land serves me just fine! in other arenas, such as your/my wallet? The argument that it would cost too much to hunt if all the land was private doesn't hold water either. You are paying big time for it now, True, but my $20,000 (or whatever it is) has given me the opportunity to hunt mule deer for 50+ years on roughly 46,548 square miles in Utah, while that $20,000 may get me only 2 hunts on 10 square miles at DL&L, if I'm lucky enough to get the tags you just don't notice it because the government STEALS it from your paycheck before you ever see it. Oh, I'm well aware of it, but I also notice the benefits it affords me, and the fact that I can control much of it with my vote. This nation was NOT set up with millions of acres of public land, Only because there wasn't enough money to buy millions of acres from the Indians. It was purchased a little at a time. the Founders didn't see land as the property of the government. "What happened decades/centuries ago is inane and nonsensical". Forts? Shipyards? Townships? Cemeteries? Village Squares? Jails and Prisons? The purchase of Long Island? The Louisiana Purchase? Utah Territory? Oregon Territory? Homestead Act which gave land that the government owned to homesteaders?
> 
> Here is what I would LOVE to see: the government GIVE every LEGAL American 40 acres of land that is now deemed public. Great! I'll take "Old Faithful" or maybe Bryce Canyon, but don't give any western salt flats. They don't need to sell it for a dime to get a net profit. The costs of maintaining public land is immense and mostly wasted. These funds could then be directed toward either the federal deficit, putting funds BACK into the Social Security 'lock box', or be in the form of a tax cut that would put BILLIONS back into the economy. Who's to decide? We're not gonna fight over this are we? The people then would be LESS dependent on the government as well, 40 acres is enough to grow a years worth of fruit/veggies for a family of 6,  Of course I, and everyone else, will have to fence it to keep the wildlife from eating my year's supply. They'll have to find food elsewhere! thus reducing the cost of living and freeing up monies to be spent on other venues.Disneyland, here I come. Everyone wins, Except the wildlife, old folks who can't get out and garden, hunters, hikers, bikers, campers, fishermen, etc. and in today's environment, the rad herring argument that wildlife would be devastated holds NO water. You're right! Devastated ain't the word for it, but NO water (or food or shelter) is.  I see NO drawbacks to 'privatizing' public lands, NONE!
> 
> 
> 
> Oops, I think you missed some.
> 
> Oh if it where that simple.....
Click to expand...

Oh if, indeed, it were that simple....


----------



## wyoming2utah

proutdoors said:


> Here is the rub: Using the WEAK arguments that wy2ut use of what happened decades/centuries ago is inane and nonsensical.


Decades/centuries ago? Huh? It is happening now! All I have to do to see the damage done and being done by private landowners is drive down US 89 and take a quick gander at the Sevier River....and, I can see how poorly the riparian areas and fish habitat along this river have been taken care of by private landowners! On the other hand, as soon as I reach a WMA along the river, the river suddenly changes and looks like an excellent place to fish or hunt. Thank god that our national forest land is public; otherwise, it would probably be overgrazed by sheep and cattle to the point that no ungulate habitat would exist at all...

About the only private landowners who have taken care of the wildlife and wildlife habitat are those who look to get rich off the land and wildlife on it...wildlife owned not by some private landowner but wildlife owned by the public. Have you ever wondered why so few hunters and hunting opportunities exist in Europe today? It sure isn't because the federal governments over there are controlling and managing wildlife!

+1 on everything Elkfromabove has already said! I am glad to see that some get it....


----------



## Levy

Elkfromabove is spot on.


----------



## proutdoors

wyoming2utah said:


> About the only private landowners who have taken care of the wildlife and wildlife habitat are those who look to get rich off the land and wildlife on it...wildlife owned not by some private landowner but wildlife owned by the public. Have you ever wondered why so few hunters and hunting opportunities exist in Europe today? It sure isn't because the federal governments over there are controlling and managing wildlife! I agree that 'greed' is a big factor, maybe even the biggest factor for many landowners, but I contend that is NOT a bad thing. Why is profiting from your possessions (land in this case) be shunned? As far as Europe, you are comparing apples to oranges. Europe isn't set up around the notion of private ownership being a desired thing, apparently neither is America anymore based on the many comments on here, but rather based on elitism where only a few are allowed to own significant amounts of land.
> 
> +1 on everything Elkfromabove has already said! I am glad to see that some get it....While I agree that Elkfromabove made some good points, I disagree that he 'gets it'. :mrgreen:


----------



## proutdoors

elkfromabove said:


> Huntoholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> 
> WOW! The reprogramming of Americans has apparently been accomplished. Here I thought many of you guys were 'conservative' and in favor of smaller government. We are, but we're not in favor of eliminating it, nor are we in favor of preventing it from managing aspects of our lives that are beyond the scope, practical or otherwise, of private citizens to manage, ie: military protection, roads and bridges, environmental protection, aviation regulation and control, etc., AND preservation/management of natural resources. They may not always do a perfect job, but to turn these things over to the private sector would either be impossible or it would give too much control of our lives over to wealthy businessmen, which wouldn't be any improvement.  I am at a loss as to why any SANE person would trust bureaucrats more than entrepreneurs. I am also NOT in favor of eliminating the government, but simply in favor of keeping them in their proper roles/realms. I can't see any justification via the Constitution for the federal government to own/control land in Utah. The federal government, via the Constitution, has been specifically given the responsibilities of the military, roads/bridges, and a few other SPECIFIC things. Thanks for clearing that up. :?
> 
> Here is the rub: Using the WEAK arguments that wy2ut use of what happened decades/centuries ago is inane and nonsensical. I am surprised you bring this up, since you do it all the time, ie; Founding Fathers, Federalist Papers, etc. Are you serious? :? Let's keep it to some relevant time frames. Is the wildlife managed better on DL&L or on the Nebo unit? Undoubtedly on DL&L, but only because they have an invested financial interest and are not accountable to voters who would use the land for other activities.  Exactly why I LIKE it! Why do you guys think land in UTAH is better in the hands of pinheads in Washington DC than in the hands of individuals?  A difference in accountability. See above. I contend it is MUCH easier to hold your neighbor accountable than the pinheads in Washington. This truly confounds me. Is wildlife in danger of extinction in the eastern half of this country? Heath hen, passenger pigeon, bison, eastern elk, to name a few. Some of these may not have been directly eliminated "in the eastern half", but were eliminated nonetheless by "easterners" who wanted the meat, pelts, furs, leather, railroad, telegraph and other luxuries that wildlife and/or their elimination could provide. Is there more/less wildlife in the eastern half of the country or the western half? It depends on your categorization of "wildlife". There are certainly more rats, pigeons, whitetails, brook trout, etc. in the eastern half, but more pronghorns, mule deer, blacktailed deer, elk, sage grouse, bighorns, etc. in the west. If you're talking about total number of individual animals, who's to know? Guess which one has almost NO public land and guess which one is mostly public land? Unfair comparison since the existing eastern species are better able to tolerate humans than most of the western species. Bring the whitetails here and let's see what happens to the mule deer. That is beside the point, the point large amounts of land in the hands of private citizens is NOT a death nail for wildlife, even though that seems to be the main argument put forth against private land ownership. How many BILLIONS of tax dollars are spent 'managing' public lands that could be better served Better served? I think my money used to manage public land serves me just fine! That is because you seem to have no grasp of how much of your money is WASTED in this 'noble' cause. in other arenas, such as your/my wallet? The argument that it would cost too much to hunt if all the land was private doesn't hold water either. You are paying big time for it now, True, but my $20,000 (or whatever it is) has given me the opportunity to hunt mule deer for 50+ years on roughly 46,548 square miles in Utah, while that $20,000 may get me only 2 hunts on 10 square miles at DL&L, if I'm lucky enough to get the tags Does it have to be DL&L or nothing? I have many friends back east, they join hunting clubs for a couple hundred dollars a year and get to hunt EVERY year on the land they pay for. you just don't notice it because the government STEALS it from your paycheck before you ever see it. Oh, I'm well aware of it, but I also notice the benefits it affords me, and the fact that I can control much of it with my vote. Really? How much control did you have in trying to sway the Wildlife Board? If you can't easily sway 7 'like-minded' souls, how can you 'easily' control such things with your vote? Tell that to the folks living in Central California and the water issues there over a FISH! This nation was NOT set up with millions of acres of public land, Only because there wasn't enough money to buy millions of acres from the Indians. It was purchased a little at a time. the Founders didn't see land as the property of the government. "What happened decades/centuries ago is inane and nonsensical". Forts? Shipyards? Townships? Cemeteries? Village Squares? Jails and Prisons? The purchase of Long Island? The Louisiana Purchase? Utah Territory? Oregon Territory? Homestead Act which gave land that the government owned to homesteaders?Forts where set up as TEMPORARY establishments, those few that became towns/cities were no longer 'owned' by the federal government. Townships/cemeteries/village squares/jails are NOT 'owned' by the federal government. A small percentage of prisons are owned by the federal government, and that is to fulfill their duty of protecting the citizens, not for controlling them. Who owns Long Island now? The Homestead Act is EXACTLY what I would LOVE to see done again! Back then, the suits were smart enough to see there where more positives to GIVE land to citizens than to keep it and pay to maintain it. We are now 180 degrees in view of this today. It is far easier to control the masses if they are dependent on the government than of they own land that can sustain themselves on.
> 
> Here is what I would LOVE to see: the government GIVE every LEGAL American 40 acres of land that is now deemed public. Great! I'll take "Old Faithful" or maybe Bryce Canyon, but don't give any western salt flats. Absurdity is not becoming you my friend. They don't need to sell it for a dime to get a net profit. The costs of maintaining public land is immense and mostly wasted. These funds could then be directed toward either the federal deficit, putting funds BACK into the Social Security 'lock box', or be in the form of a tax cut that would put BILLIONS back into the economy. Who's to decide? We're not gonna fight over this are we? Do it something like they did under the above mentioned Homestead Act. The people then would be LESS dependent on the government as well, 40 acres is enough to grow a years worth of fruit/veggies for a family of 6,  Of course I, and everyone else, will have to fence it to keep the wildlife from eating my year's supply. They'll have to find food elsewhere! thus reducing the cost of living and freeing up monies to be spent on other venues.Disneyland, here I come. Whatever floats your boat. The point being: YOU get to have more say in where YOUR money is spent. Everyone wins, Except the wildlife, old folks who can't get out and garden, hunters, hikers, bikers, campers, fishermen, etc. Wildlife will be just fine, old folks will be fine (that is what families are for! NOT what the government is for!), hunters/hikers/bikers/campers/fishermen/etc will still be able to do so. Last I checked these acts are NOT extinct in the eastern half of the USA. and in today's environment, the red herring argument that wildlife would be devastated holds NO water. You're right! Devastated ain't the word for it, but NO water (or food or shelter) is.  Horse apples! I see NO drawbacks to 'privatizing' public lands, NONE!
> 
> 
> 
> Oops, I think you missed some.
> 
> Oh if it where that simple.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh if, indeed, it were that simple....
Click to expand...


----------



## jahan

Am I the only one having a hard time with all the colors :lol:


----------



## proutdoors

jahan said:


> Am I the only one having a hard time with all the colors :lol:


I do them in honor of ZIM. :shock: :wink:


----------



## uffda

I wish they would take the small tracts and trade them and make a few larger tracts for the sportsman, (Wyoming did that in the past) once you sell it its gone forever, who knows if access get closed other sections, because they closed off the some roads, typical big money. I wonder how much of the debt it would pay off vs recreation forever


----------



## MadHunter

The reason that I disagree with the sale of public land is that it will not server the public at all.

The part that bothers me is that the sale of this public land is will not benefit the public who are the real owners and are charged with the stewardship of it regardless. Our government has become to large of a beast and has gone into self preservation mode. Lets look at it objectively from the point of view that the land is owned by the public and should be used, cared for, and ultimately benefit the public.

With the gov. being so large and out of control on their spending; Do we really believe that the monies collected from the sale of this land will benefit us, the public?

By allowing the sale do we not allow the gov to establish a precedence that when THEY are in a money crunch they can sell of the public's resources to cover their excessive spending?

Can we trust that they will apply the monies from this land to benefit other land that is more, in their own words "usable"?

I for one am against it unless there is a specific plan for the revenue collected and that it should go towards the improvement of other land. As far as this land costing us money.... I could care less if it does. I would rather have my tax money (and believe me... I pay a lot of taxes) go to supporting public land than to go to a bankrupt social security fund, some senator's elite medical plan, or worse yet to support the welfare state that the fed has created.

Proutdoors:
I share your position that there is nothing wrong with private enterprise and profiting from your possessions. The question that has to be brought up to that is: At the cost of what? and Is it being done ethically and while practicing good stewardship? Especially when it comes to natural resources such as land, water, wildlife, etc.

Again the question I ask is; What benefit does the PUBLIC(the real taxpaying public) get from the sale of Public land? I see it more as holding our government accountable for what it does no matter how well intended it's ill actions may be.


----------



## proutdoors

MadHunter said:


> Proutdoors:
> I share your position that there is nothing wrong with private enterprise and profiting from your possessions. The question that has to be brought up to that is: At the cost of what? and Is it being done ethically and while practicing good stewardship? Especially when it comes to natural resources such as land, water, wildlife, etc.
> 
> Again the question I ask is; What benefit does the PUBLIC(the real taxpaying public) get from the sale of Public land? I see it more as holding our government accountable for what it does no matter how well intended it's ill actions may be.


As long as the profits gained are not gained through coercion and through government assistance in the mode of regulations, I see NO actual costs to the 'public' for ANY individual making uncapped amounts of wealth. What good is it for this nation to have such immense natural resources if they can't be used? What good is it for Utah to have thousands upon thousands of acres within its borders that has resources that are deemed 'untouchable?

The benefit the PUBLIC gets from either the sale of giving away PUBLIC land is that the resources on these lands can now be managed locally instead of nationally. The wolf issue is a perfect example of why this whole PUBLIC thing is nonsensical. Just as the wolf issue is driven and dictated by people who have NO direct impact from the wolf population, the same is the case in regards to land use. Have you noticed who the members of Congress are w/o fail that propose more Wilderness Designations? They are from back east, and since there are more people back east, they have more votes in Congress. So, at the end of the day the lands out west are under the control of people who have never seen the lands, the wildlife are under the control of people who have never seen a wolf/elk/owl, and the environment is under the 'care' of people that listen to the likes of Al Gore. How is ANY of this 'higher accountability', more freedom, and how does it make it sense whatsoever?


----------



## wileywapati

Wasn't going to jump in on this but I'm just like a sucker to a hook full of stink bait.
I can't help but bite.

Rhetoric from both sides of the aisle is so over the edge that most of the time these fools 
have no idea what they are doing. See where Bridgewater and Lee both signed the defense 
pledge that will re-start nuke testing in the Nevada desert??? So do we want to declare everything as wilderness or do we want to start detonating Nukes??? There is no middle ground, there is no common sense anymore. It's either you are with us or you are against us
instead of working out compromises you have one party spending us in to ruin and the other party posturing by just saying no all the time. Does anybody with a brain in their head think that maybe moderation and dialogue should be found???

On to the public lands in Utah... Who would you rather put your trust in, the Legislature on 
the hill that just took away your access to Utah's streams?? The Law Breaking Mike Noel's of the world?? ( By the way this is the same guy that pushed the Legislation for the Antelope Island canned hunt ) If you can't see that our Utah Govt. is in fact treating your wildlife like a Private Corporation would treat it's product then you are several years late in having your eyes opened. We quit managing wildlife biologically many many years ago. We are all about new record book heads and how much value we can get out of a given tag for a given species. The track record with Utah's Legislature and how they would treat your public commodities like public land and public wildlife has been on display for several years. Now Pro would like me to trust them to do the right thing with my public lands??? Private ownership would be a cash driven lock out even worse than the govt.

In the words of the illustrious George W Bush" Fool me once shame on.... Uh ...er.... shame on you... Uh hell what I'm trying to say is ya cant fool me twice


----------



## proutdoors

Gordy, do we need to review the MULTIPLE examples of the federal government's shortcomings? Or, are you of want to dismiss them for the 'greater good' of your big government wishes? I'm just asking................


----------



## wileywapati

Could ask the same question about private enterprise. Tyko, Enron, the latest Goldman Sachs, Toyota, BP... Should I continue???

Don't assume that I am for big govt. cause I ain't


----------



## MadHunter

proutdoors said:


> As long as the profits gained are not gained through coercion and through government assistance in the mode of regulations, I see NO actual costs to the 'public' for ANY individual making uncapped amounts of wealth. What good is it for this nation to have such immense natural resources if they can't be used? What good is it for Utah to have thousands upon thousands of acres within its borders that has resources that are deemed 'untouchable? You are right it does us no good. Again, I ask at what expense? Do we allow private enterprise (which I am part of and love) to just rape the land and not provide for its continued use? Improvement for our posterity? Like I stated I am not opposed to it as long as it is done as correctly as possible and with the benefit to those who it really serves.
> 
> The benefit the PUBLIC gets from either the sale of giving away PUBLIC land is that the resources on these lands can now be managed locally instead of nationally. The wolf issue is a perfect example of why this whole PUBLIC thing is nonsensical. Just as the wolf issue is driven and dictated by people who have NO direct impact from the wolf population, the same is the case in regards to land use. Have you noticed who the members of Congress are w/o fail that propose more Wilderness Designations? They are from back east, and since there are more people back east, they have more votes in Congress. So, at the end of the day the lands out west are under the control of people who have never seen the lands, the wildlife are under the control of people who have never seen a wolf/elk/owl, and the environment is under the 'care' of people that listen to the likes of Al Gore. And that is why I believe that the states should regain control over the lands within their borders. Federal entities should require the approval of management plans by the states. NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND How is ANY of this 'higher accountability', more freedom, and how does it make it sense whatsoever?


It all makes sense because once you remove the power from the government that seeks only to benefit itself and not pay a care in the world to those who are impacted directly you gain value on a land otherwise deemed useless. If it is so worthless why are they collecting revenue for it? Removing power from government is done by holding them accountable for what they do or in many cases what they don't do.


----------



## Huntoholic

wileywapati said:


> ......Don't assume that *we are* for big govt. cause *we* ain't


"Wileywapati", I changed your wording a little, because I think a portion on here feel this way. I hope you don't mind.

And I think I can goes as far as to say we don't see any reason a person should not be able to earn and benefit from those earnings, what ever they maybe. But to take what is held by the government currently and just put it on the open market for the "elite" to purchase, is just plain asking for trouble as a whole. This thread is just not about the good and bad that the wildlife might come under. I think that will solely be on those that purchase, but access as we currently have will be greatly reduced.


----------



## wileywapati

Huntoholic WOW someone finally gets it!!! Like PACKOUT said I am a Teddy Roosevelt Republican... Believe it or not some things aren't for sale... Some things aren't meant to bring a profit and some things are meant for all regardless of social standing or financial means. Wildlife and public access to our lands happen to fall in to this category.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr

What he said.


----------



## proutdoors

Huntoholic said:


> And I think I can goes as far as to say we don't see any reason a person should not be able to earn and benefit from those earnings, what ever they maybe. But to take what is held by the government currently and just put it on the open market for the "elite" to purchase, is just plain asking for trouble as a whole. This thread is just not about the good and bad that the wildlife might come under. I think that will solely be on those that purchase, but access as we currently have will be greatly reduced.


That is why I am in favor of the government GIVING it away. They did it under the Homestead Act on the 19th century, why is today so different? I am still waiting for someone, ANYONE to point to where in the Constitution the federal government has the RIGHT to own/control most of the land in Utah. Who will help me out?



wileywapati said:


> Huntoholic WOW someone finally gets it!!! Like PACKOUT said I am a Teddy Roosevelt Republican... Believe it or not some things aren't for sale... Some things aren't meant to bring a profit and some things are meant for all regardless of social standing or financial means. Wildlife and public access to our lands happen to fall in to this category.


If you are a "Teddy Roosevelt Republican", why are you registered as a Democrat? Just wondering? Also, how can you be a T.R. fan and a BHO fan and say with a straight face you are not a big government guy? Where is this guide you use to decide what things are/aren't "meant to bring a profit"?


----------



## proutdoors

MadHunter said:


> It all makes sense because once you remove the power from the government that seeks only to benefit itself and not pay a care in the world to those who are impacted directly you gain value on a land otherwise deemed useless. If it is so worthless why are they collecting revenue for it? Removing power from government is done by holding them accountable for what they do or in many cases what they don't do.


They are NOT collecting revenue from public land(s). That is the rub, the federal government is spending hand over fist to maintain public land(s) and national parks. So is the state of Utah over the public land it owns/controls/maintains.

I believe the federal government should stick to doing what they were intended to do, and land management in Timbucktwo, Utah isn't one of them.


----------



## rukus

wyoming2utah said:


> Thank god that our national forest land is public; otherwise, it would probably be overgrazed by sheep and cattle to the point that no ungulate habitat would exist at all...


You have some arguments that make sense, I don't agree with, but none the less they make sense. Then you go and say something as stupid as this. I hope you are joking and I just didn't catch it. Why would anyone who benefits from a resource want to ruin it so they can't benefit in the future. It is ludicrus and the majority would not let it happen. To say the opposite is narrow minded and refusing to look at the whole spectrum. This goes for anyone not just these terrible sheep and cattle monsters. I don't think there is any denying that when you have personal ownership of something you take care of it and make use of it to your benefit.


----------



## .45

Confusing thread....I wish Pro could just use one color and a different text than everybody else.... :| 

Pro, IF everybody were given a 40 acre parcel, supposedly to make improvements in 5 years, maybe with fences, housing, barns, gardens, ponds, roads, wells, utility lines, easements and whatever....where are the deer and the buffalo supposed to roam? Where would you expect the UWN to go on a rabbit hunt ??? The private owner won't have any wildlife to worry about taking care of because he's ruined all their habitat or/and killed 'em all. 
40 acre lots means a heck of a lot of permits and with HB141 looming over our heads we won't be guaranteed access to anything. We might as well hang up our fishing poles, rifles and bows because we won't even be able to afford the access fees. 
We need 'public' lands, we need open range....that's one of the reasons we enjoy living in this desert. I really don't believe you think that private ownership can improve anything on a large scale, if anything it will make it worse.


----------



## wileywapati

Being a registered Dem is news to me... There are Dems I've voted for and a Dem will get my vote for Governor this year. Apparently if Lee and Bridgewater are intent on catering to the tea baggers without a lick of common sense they won't get my vote either. Are these men seriously for starting nuke testing again??? Or are they telling the tea baggers what they want to hear to get elected. Either way it makes them either idiots or liars.

Did I vote for G.W. part 2 and the Bimbo??? Hell no I didn't and if ya want to imply that my intelligence is lacking or that my morals and values are not up to par with someone that only votes for people with the little R in front knock yourself out. There are a lot of self proclaimed 
Conservatives getting DUI's, Having affairs with 15 year old girls, picking up homosexual prostitutes and running check kiting schemes.


----------



## proutdoors

wileywapati said:


> Being a registered Dem is news to me... There are Dems I've voted for and a Dem will get my vote for Governor this year. Apparently if Lee and Bridgewater are intent on catering to the tea baggers without a lick of common sense they won't get my vote either. Are these men seriously for starting nuke testing again??? Or are they telling the tea baggers what they want to hear to get elected. Either way it makes them either idiots or liars.
> 
> Did I vote for G.W. part 2 and the Bimbo??? Hell no I didn't and if ya want to imply that my intelligence is lacking or that my morals and values are not up to par with someone that only votes for people with the little R in front knock yourself out. There are a lot of self proclaimed
> Conservatives getting DUI's, Having affairs with 15 year old girls, picking up homosexual prostitutes and running check kiting schemes.


No need to act all offended Wiley, none was intended. But, YOUR use of the word bagger IS intended to offend, so go figure. I have never questioned your intelligence or your morals/values, as I have repeatedly expressed my respect for your intelligence, passion, and insight on many issues and on many occasions. Don't take this where is does NOT need to go.

Calling Mike Lee an idiot or a liar shows, to me, where you stand in the political arena. Enough said on that for me. What letter is behind a politicians name is of little importance to me, what matters is his/her stance on ISSUES.

.45, you are doing a whole lot of fantasy writing. Try coming back to reality. :?


----------



## .45

Fantasy? Read this again, why should the government give you anything?



> Here is what I would LOVE to see: the government GIVE every LEGAL American 40 acres of land that is now deemed public. They don't need to sell it for a dime to get a net profit. The costs of maintaining public land is immense and mostly wasted. These funds could then be directed toward either the federal deficit, putting funds BACK into the Social Security 'lock box', or be in the form of a tax cut that would put BILLIONS back into the economy. The people then would be LESS dependent on the government as well, 40 acres is enough to grow a years worth of fruit/veggies for a family of 6, thus reducing the cost of living and freeing up monies to be spent on other venues. Everyone wins, and in today's environment, the rad herring argument that wildlife would be devastated holds NO water. I see NO drawbacks to 'privatizing' public lands, NONE!


More fantasy...



> Why do you/others assume if a private entity purchased the above mention land he would bull doze it and rid it of any/all wildlife? The more likely scenario is the new owner would improve it and make it BETTER suited for wildlife. Think about it.


Now who is going to regulate or even care what we do with our new lands? If, while trying to grow a garden, why would we care about wildlife. At the rate your giving up government we could also do away with the DNR and the DWR.

My so called 'fantasy's' come from your own post Pro....


----------



## proutdoors

.45 said:


> Fantasy? Read this again, why should the government give you anything? Not fantasy, just seems that way. It is commonsense, which to many folks seems 'extreme'. Why should the government control the majority of land in Utah?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is what I would LOVE to see: the government GIVE every LEGAL American 40 acres of land that is now deemed public. They don't need to sell it for a dime to get a net profit. The costs of maintaining public land is immense and mostly wasted. These funds could then be directed toward either the federal deficit, putting funds BACK into the Social Security 'lock box', or be in the form of a tax cut that would put BILLIONS back into the economy. The people then would be LESS dependent on the government as well, 40 acres is enough to grow a years worth of fruit/veggies for a family of 6, thus reducing the cost of living and freeing up monies to be spent on other venues. Everyone wins, and in today's environment, the rad herring argument that wildlife would be devastated holds NO water. I see NO drawbacks to 'privatizing' public lands, NONE!
> 
> 
> 
> More fantasy...See above.
> 
> [quote:3ksfy8pr]Why do you/others assume if a private entity purchased the above mention land he would bull doze it and rid it of any/all wildlife? The more likely scenario is the new owner would improve it and make it BETTER suited for wildlife. Think about it.
Click to expand...

Now who is going to regulate or even care what we do with our new lands? If, while trying to grow a garden, why would we care about wildlife. At the rate your giving up government we could also do away with the DNR and the DWR. Regulations are one of the BIGGEST problems we have in this nation! Regulations set by pinheads in suits that do the bidding of special interests are NOT looking out for wildlife, you, or me. Why would individuals care less about wildlife if they where land owners as opposed to them being apartment dwellers? That is nonsensical at best. Again, most of the eastern part of this nation is private land, and it is teeming with wildlife. It is a red herring to assert that wildlife would suffer and become extinct simply because of more individuals being able to 'live the American dream' and be landowners.

My so called 'fantasy's' come from your own post Pro....Your fantasy comes from your faith in the government looking out for YOUR best interests......[/quote:3ksfy8pr]


----------



## wileywapati

you are correct Mr H. I did use bagger as a slur... I apologize to the partiers.  

Now just agree with me and I wont have to blunt you in the forehead!!!! :lol:


----------



## proutdoors

wileywapati said:


> you are correct Mr H. I did use bagger as a slur... I apologize to the partiers.
> 
> Now just agree with me and I wont have to blunt you in the forehead!!!! :lol:


Apology accepted. 8)

As for the blunt, I am not into Mary Jane, so I will pass on that. :wink: A word of advice, if you're going to hit me, the head is the last place to aim for. It is hard and mostly empty, so an any attempt to cause injury in such a manner would be futile. :mrgreen:


----------



## .45

> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your fantasy comes from your faith in the government looking out for YOUR best interests......
Click to expand...

I've never fantasized that, said it, or even felt that way. You like what they do back east, move there. To claim that having our pubic lands, be turned over to private individuals is no more than a wet dream gone bad. 
I enjoy our 'public' lands and I wish there were more, I just don't see how you can 'dictate' to us how wonderful this place would be with more private lands... :?


----------



## Huntoholic

proutdoors said:


> That is why I am in favor of the government GIVING it away. They did it under the Homestead Act on the 19th century, why is today so different? I am still waiting for someone, ANYONE to point to where in the Constitution the federal government has the RIGHT to own/control most of the land in Utah. Who will help me out?


Why is it so different today? The shear number of people to start with.

So I guess since you say the Federal government can't own land we should give back the land that was part of the Louisiana Purchase and Alaska?

If the Federal government is authorized (through congress by our elected members) to make these purchases show me where in the Constitution that it says they (federal government) then have to give it to the individual?


----------



## The Janitor

In order to buy into Pro's argument, one has to accept the notion that every private owner values wildlife, and others having access to improves hunting opportunities. In the theoretical world of Adam Smith this would make sense, but since theories and reality are all too often two different things, and since there is no way that everyone in America would ever be given 40 acres, it is best to stick to your guns and continue to fight for what you have. It is best to have the public be able to hold its elected officials accountable for how the public's land is used, especially on a state level, than fall into an aristocratic top-down hierarchy controlling your opportunities as exclusive private property ownership would establish over our wilderness. 
Think about what the outcome would also be, if the private entity buying out your wilderness happened to be the likes of peta...


----------



## proutdoors

The Janitor said:


> In order to buy into Pro's argument, one has to accept the notion that every private owner values wildlife, and others having access to improves hunting opportunities. No, you just have to realize the government is NOT more like to give a rip than individuals. In the theoretical world of Adam Smith this would make sense, but since theories and reality are all too often two different things, and since there is no way that everyone in America would ever be given 40 acres, it is best to stick to your guns and continue to fight for what you have. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different/better results. It is best to have the public be able to hold its elected officials accountable for how the public's land is used, especially on a state level, than fall into an aristocratic top-down hierarchy controlling your opportunities as exclusive private property ownership would establish over our wilderness. Are you implying our saintly government officials are being held accountable for their actions today? And, are you implying the people making the decisions in Washington are 'common folk' or are they more of "an aristocratic top-down hierarchy?
> Think about what the outcome would also be, if the private entity buying out your wilderness happened to be the likes of peta...As opposed to being under the control of PETA folks in the EPA and ESA, you know the ones who forced the wolf deal on the west that all you that trust the government so much have apparently forgotten about? :?


----------



## The Naturalist

proutdoors said:


> WOW!.......
> Here is what I would LOVE to see: the government GIVE every LEGAL American 40 acres of land that is now deemed public. They don't need to sell it for a dime to get a net profit. The costs of maintaining public land is immense and mostly wasted. These funds could then be directed toward either the federal deficit, putting funds BACK into the Social Security 'lock box', or be in the form of a tax cut that would put BILLIONS back into the economy.* The people then would be LESS dependent on the government as well, 40 acres is enough to grow a years worth of fruit/veggies for a family of 6, thus reducing the cost of living and freeing up monies to be spent on other venues*. *Everyone wins,* and in today's environment, the rad herring argument that wildlife would be devastated holds NO water. I see NO drawbacks to 'privatizing' public lands, NONE!


WOW is right! Most everybody loses with this idea....a few would win big time. Coming from a farming background you would probably do good with 40 acres, however, the majority of people struggle keeping on top of their 1/4 -1/2 acre lots. On 40 acres people should be able to feed 600+, if they know what they are doing.  
What would happen with this scenario is most people's forty acres would be sold simply because they can't take care of it, and can't make enough profit to pay the taxes. Large corporations would be buying up the land, and they may take care of it, wildlife too if they see a profit in it.  
What happens if your 40 is on top of Timpanogos, or out in the west desert with no water? This would be an absolute nightmare, unless you are a wannabe real estate tycoon like our current Govenor, or a large corporation that has mining , mineral, or energy uses for the land.
Bottom line is the average hunter/fisherman/land/wildlife lose out.


----------



## elkfromabove

PRO, (and others of you) go to the DWR website, scroll down to the bottom to Hot Subjects, click on Mule deer issues (PDF) and print (and read) the 30 page small print booklet from the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. It is quite a read and will take some time, but it deals with the problems and solutions associated with the decline of mule deer. Some of the information could also apply to other western species, and it is pertinent to our discussion. As you read, plug your 40 acre per citizen solution into the topics and also your comparison to hunting, wildlife and habitat in the eastern half of the U.S. and see how you come out. The conclusions may surprise you.

Now, as to my ineffective efforts to influence the Wildlife Board, you saw, in the RACs and WB meetings, only a portion of my efforts which also included emails and faxes with compiled maps, charts, figures, and compiled data, as well as personal stories from my 20+ years of hunting the so-called "crowded" Southern Region. We have no way of determining my personal influence but I do know I didn't give up and, in the end, we got back our statewide archery season.

As to my not getting *it*, to misquote an infamous US President, it depends on what *it* is. If *it* is passion for the subject, you probably have the upper hand. If *it* is intelligence and the ability to reason, we're on even par. If *it* is practicability, I think I've got you on that one. Your ideas and solutions are certainly noble, but unworkable. Converting government held property into private property in any form with your expected results for wildlife would require the cooperation of far too many people with far too many agendas. Remember that hunters only represent a small portion of the US population, and even many of those wouldn't sacrifice what is required to provide the hunting opportunities we now have.

As for your friends in the east who have memberships in hunting clubs for a few hundred dollars per year, that's great if all you want to hunt are whitetails, quail, ruffed grouse, and maybe black bear and moose, but what happens when they want to hunt mule deer, blacktails, elk, antelope, bighorns, mountain goats, wild bison and sage hens. And what happens to the rest of the hunters when the club membership quota is filled.

You're correct on the specific non-mention in the US Constitution of the government ownership of land, but that "general welfare" thing has resulted in many a debate about a lot of subjects. I don't know the history of US (or state or county or city) Government ownership of land, but somewhere along the line, quite early in our history I believe, it was obviously sanctioned by all three branches of government, and it has stood the test of time. To change it now would have unimaginable negative consequences, and not just to hunters. Grazing rights, timber sales, prescribed burns, ATV trails, nature walks, hiking and biking trails, access to landmarks and natural phenomena, and access to inland fishing waters are just some of the things that would disappear and the results would be difficult to imagine.

No, PRO, we don't want to jump from our frying pan into your fire. We can work on the heat in the frying pan.


----------



## luv2fsh&hnt

elkfromabove said:


> PRO, (and others of you) go to the DWR website, scroll down to the bottom to Hot Subjects, click on Mule deer issues (PDF) and print (and read) the 30 page small print booklet from the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. It is quite a read and will take some time, but it deals with the problems and solutions associated with the decline of mule deer. Some of the information could also apply to other western species, and it is pertinent to our discussion. As you read, plug your 40 acre per citizen solution into the topics and also your comparison to hunting, wildlife and habitat in the eastern half of the U.S. and see how you come out. The conclusions may surprise you.
> 
> Now, as to my ineffective efforts to influence the Wildlife Board, you saw, in the RACs and WB meetings, only a portion of my efforts which also included emails and faxes with compiled maps, charts, figures, and compiled data, as well as personal stories from my 20+ years of hunting the so-called "crowded" Southern Region. We have no way of determining my personal influence but I do know I didn't give up and, in the end, we got back our statewide archery season.
> 
> As to my not getting *it*, to misquote an infamous US President, it depends on what *it* is. If *it* is passion for the subject, you probably have the upper hand. If *it* is intelligence and the ability to reason, we're on even par. If *it* is practicability, I think I've got you on that one. Your ideas and solutions are certainly noble, but unworkable. Converting government held property into private property in any form with your expected results for wildlife would require the cooperation of far too many people with far too many agendas. Remember that hunters only represent a small portion of the US population, and even many of those wouldn't sacrifice what is required to provide the hunting opportunities we now have.
> 
> As for your friends in the east who have memberships in hunting clubs for a few hundred dollars per year, that's great if all you want to hunt are whitetails, quail, ruffed grouse, and maybe black bear and moose, but what happens when they want to hunt mule deer, blacktails, elk, antelope, bighorns, mountain goats, wild bison and sage hens. And what happens to the rest of the hunters when the club membership quota is filled.
> 
> You're correct on the specific non-mention in the US Constitution of the government ownership of land, but that "general welfare" thing has resulted in many a debate about a lot of subjects. I don't know the history of US (or state or county or city) Government ownership of land, but somewhere along the line, quite early in our history I believe, it was obviously sanctioned by all three branches of government, and it has stood the test of time. To change it now would have unimaginable negative consequences, and not just to hunters. Grazing rights, timber sales, prescribed burns, ATV trails, nature walks, hiking and biking trails, access to landmarks and natural phenomena, and access to inland fishing waters are just some of the things that would disappear and the results would be difficult to imagine.
> 
> No, PRO, we don't want to jump from our frying pan into your fire. We can work on the heat in the frying pan.


I wish I was as articulate as you but you nailed it brother. I agree with Pros ideaology but it has no application in the real world!


----------



## proutdoors

luv2fsh&hnt said:


> I wish I was as articulate as you but you nailed it brother. I agree with Pros ideaology but it has no application in the real world!


At the end of the day isn't all this fun little topic is about, ideology? -Ov-


----------



## Huntoholic

The "Louisiana Purchase" and the purchase of "Alaska". Both done by the Federal government.

I am truely interested in your opinion on these purchases.


----------



## proutdoors

Huntoholic said:


> The "Louisiana Purchase" and the purchase of "Alaska". Both done by the Federal government.
> 
> I am truely interested in your opinion on these purchases.


Both purchases were purchasing lands from other nations for the expressed purpose of 'enriching' this nation. I am fine with that. In the instance of the Louisiana Purchase, most of that land is now in the hands of individuals/states where the resources are more able to be availed and managed. In the instance of Alaska, it was done as much to keep the USSR from obtaining it as anything. Coupled with the immense amounts of natural resources this land could provide for the United States and this was one of the few things the federal government has done in the last century, IMHO, that makes sense. In the case of Alaska the lands resources, which were one of the two primary factors in obtaining this land, they should be used more than they are. The resources would be used for the 'greater good' of the masses under the control of the state of Alaska and even more so under the control of individuals. What good is 'gained' by having so many resources in Alaska if we put them off limits? It's like buying a Corvette and putting it up on blocks and never driving it, nonsensical.


----------



## HunterGeek

proutdoors said:


> What good is 'gained' by having so many resources in Alaska if we put them off limits? It's like buying a Corvette and putting it up on blocks and never driving it, nonsensical.


Take the Corvette out, race it, abuse it, use it up and after it's worn out, the owner will trade it in on a new car. We can't do that with Alaska or Utah, for that matter. Bulldoze the deserts, strip mine the mountains, build roads across the tundra, dam the rivers, etc., and we, our children and their children live with the aftermath.

Unlike a dented fender or a blown gasket, it's difficult to fix something like the top of a mountain being sheared off to remove the coal, not to mention the destroyed and polluted streams and lost habitat.

[attachment=2:44jttgj8]strip-mine-996789-sw.jpg[/attachment:44jttgj8]

[attachment=1:44jttgj8]STRIP3.JPG.jpeg[/attachment:44jttgj8]

[attachment=0:44jttgj8]Aerial-photos-of-Mountain-Top-Removal-southern-West-Virginia.jpg[/attachment:44jttgj8]


----------



## Huntoholic

HunterGeek said:


> Take the Corvette out, race it, abuse it, use it up and after it's worn out, the owner will trade it in on a new car. We can't do that with Alaska or Utah, for that matter. Bulldoze the deserts, strip mine the mountains, build roads across the tundra, dam the rivers, etc., and we, our children and their children live with the aftermath.
> 
> Unlike a dented fender or a blown gasket, it's difficult to fix something like the top of a mountain being sheared off to remove the coal, not to mention the destroyed and polluted streams and lost habitat.


Now that was a load of manure....................

That corvette does not need to sit on the blocks, nor does it need to be abused. It is meant to be driven, respected, cared for, and loved. Please explain why things always have to be all or nothing..........


----------



## HunterGeek

You're inferring something from my post, Huntoholic, that I didn't write and that isn't my opinion.

What I'm saying is Pro's automobile analogy doesn't hold up particularly well. Cars wear out and are replaceable; our natural resources are in many cases finite and irreplaceable once they're gone. Privatizing nearly all public land (as Pro has advocated) with the notion that development by private corporations will proceed with caution, responsibility and with respect for the land and those resources is a dangerous and Pollyannaish assumption. When millions and billions of dollars are to be made, short-term greed seems to trump long-term environmental responsibility.

Yes, there are lots of resources in Alaska that can be exploited responsibilty, and should be exploited. On the other hand, mass transfers of millions of square miles of pristine Alaskan territory into the hands of developers is not a responsible option. I would prefer not to see Alaska strip mined, like West Virginia, or millions of barrels of oil spilled into the incredibly fragile Arctic Ocean coastal waters, like we've seen in the Gulf of Mexico, or a maze of interconnected roads blazed through the Alaskan forest wilderness to support thousands of dense-packed drilling pads, like we've seen in eastern Utah and western Wyoming.

Yes, Huntoholic, things don't have to be "all or nothing," as you put it. These things should be "driven, respected, cared for, and loved" as you said.


----------



## wileywapati

I am really trying to see the other side of my opinion here... I realize that there must be energy development or I need to park the truck and start walking, turn the heat and lights off in the house.

In my opinion private ownership of public land would equal nothing more than no trespassing signs, well heads, and opportunity for the chosen few. This minority in hunting will be devastating to the fight that would help keep our hunting heritage. PR funds would shrink
and basically without land access hunting would be nothing more than a elitist sport to those that could afford a lease or a landowner permit.

Private ownership of land would continue to be SUBSIDIZED by taxpayers in ways like law enforcement, fire, flood, disease, and depredation. We would fund private ownership of land we have no access to. Hunter numbers would nose dive, recruitment would be extremely low and our privilege to hunt would be easy picking for the anti hunting darkside. 

There is so much wrong with the idea of no public land that we need to look no further than 
Europe or in our own country Texas.. How many would like to have to compete financially 
to obtain a lease and then draw a permit on this lease.

Private land ownership as it pertains to our hunting heritage is the gun to each of our heads. Balance is the key


----------



## proutdoors

HunterGeek said:


> You're inferring something from my post, Huntoholic, that I didn't write and that isn't my opinion. He read into it the same thing I did, so I 'infer' it was your wording that was the problem. :shock:
> 
> What I'm saying is Pro's automobile analogy doesn't hold up particularly well. Cars wear out and are replaceable; our natural resources are in many cases finite and irreplaceable once they're gone. Privatizing nearly all public land (as Pro has advocated) with the notion that development by private corporations will proceed with caution, responsibility and with respect for the land and those resources is a dangerous and Pollyannaish assumption. When millions and billions of dollars are to be made, short-term greed seems to trump long-term environmental responsibility. Very few of our natural resources are 'finite', we have been hearing the naysayers saying we were close to running out of oil under Jimmy Carter. Last I checked we have more known oil reserves today than in the 1970's. Lumber is neither finite nor irreplaceable, and most other resources are in the same category. Assuming private entities are less responsible in today's world is naive and unfounded. There can easily be guidelines and over-sight to have safeguards installed to curtail the "mass destruction" of the environment. Funny, the government has gone _way_ too far in 'protecting' the environment, which has hurt wildlife and sportsmen in REALITY, yet you seem more worried about hypothetical scenarios. :?
> 
> Yes, there are lots of resources in Alaska that can be exploited responsibilty, and should be exploited. On the other hand, mass transfers of millions of square miles of pristine Alaskan territory into the hands of developers is not a responsible option. I would prefer not to see Alaska strip mined, like West Virginia, or millions of barrels of oil spilled into the incredibly fragile Arctic Ocean coastal waters, like we've seen in the Gulf of Mexico, or a maze of interconnected roads blazed through the Alaskan forest wilderness to support thousands of dense-packed drilling pads, like we've seen in eastern Utah and western Wyoming. Pure hyperbole!
> 
> Yes, Huntoholic, things don't have to be "all or nothing," as you put it. These things should be "driven, respected, cared for, and loved" as you said. And, to expect the government to be "driven, respectful, caring, and loving" is beyond nonsensical.





wileywapati said:


> There is so much wrong with the idea of no public land that we need to look no further than Europe or in our own country Texas.. How many would like to have to compete financially to obtain a lease and then draw a permit on this lease. Apples and oranges due to how European government and the view of private property and individual rights are night and day different. We don't have any monarchs, no nobles, and we do have the ability to obtain wealth from all segments of American society. Make the leases be awarded via some sort of lottery, problem solved.
> 
> Private land ownership as it pertains to our hunting heritage is the gun to each of our heads. *Balance is the key* I will agree with that! And, I contend with the majority of Utah being public land with most of that public land being federal land I say the balance is shifted big time to the public entity and the private sphere is being left in the cold.


----------



## xxxxxxBirdDogger

> There is so much wrong with the idea of no public land that we need to look no further than Europe or in our own country Texas..


Texas has just so much more affordable acreage, though. You can buy flat, fertile farmland down there for less than $1500 per acre. I'm not even kidding.


----------



## proutdoors

BirdDogger said:


> There is so much wrong with the idea of no public land that we need to look no further than Europe or in our own country Texas..
> 
> 
> 
> Texas has just so much more affordable acreage, though. You can buy flat, fertile farmland down there for less than $1500 per acre. I'm not even kidding.
Click to expand...

 :mrgreen:


----------



## elkfromabove

proutdoors said:


> BirdDogger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is so much wrong with the idea of no public land that we need to look no further than Europe or in our own country Texas..
> 
> 
> 
> Texas has just so much more affordable acreage, though. You can buy flat, fertile farmland down there for less than $1500 per acre. I'm not even kidding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Try getting access to it for hunting without having to buy it.


----------



## proutdoors

elkfromabove said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BirdDogger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is so much wrong with the idea of no public land that we need to look no further than Europe or in our own country Texas..
> 
> 
> 
> Texas has just so much more affordable acreage, though. You can buy flat, fertile farmland down there for less than $1500 per acre. I'm not even kidding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> :mrgreen:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try getting access to it for hunting without having to buy it.
Click to expand...

I have! I right now could drive to Texas and be hunting tomorrow for wild pigs. I had offers to hunt turkeys down there earlier this year, the price.........the fuel to get down there. :?


----------



## MadHunter

proutdoors said:


> Private land ownership as it pertains to our hunting heritage is the gun to each of our heads. *Balance is the key* I will agree with that! And, I contend with the majority of Utah being public land *with most of that public land being federal land* I say the balance is shifted big time to the public entity and the private sphere is being left in the cold.


This is why I support what I stated earlier about states having control over public land within their borders. It is easier to have accountability at a state level than at a federal level. The issue is addressed by those who it concerns. Although it would still be a huge fight.


----------



## elkfromabove

REALITY? Let's figure this out with the real numbers!

Since we're talking about at least 2 different governments (Federal and Utah State), we'll have to calculate this in 2 different ways.

Since Federal lands encompass more than Utah and belong to all US citizens, we have to use national figures to calculate the federal acreage given to each adult citizen.

BLM lands - 253,000,000 acres (wikipedia.org)
US Forest Service lands - 193,000,000 acres
US Fish & Widlife Service lands - 150,000,000 acres
National Park Service lands - 84,400,000 acres
Bureau of Indian Affairs (reservation) lands - 55,700,000 acres
Department of Defense (military) lands - 30,000,000 acres
*Army Corps of Engineers - ? acres
*Bureau of Reclamation - ? acres
*Tennesee Valley Authority (TVA) - ? acres
Total Known acres - *766,100,000* acres
* These agencies hold some acreage, but they are mostly designed to conduct projects (dams, levies, roads, canals, etc) that benefit US citizens. I couldn't find the total acreage held.

US population - 307,006,550 (estimated 2009) (classbrain.com)
75.7% adults
US adult population (includes illegals) - 232,403,958
US adult population (minus illegals) - *182,403,958* (estimated by author based on various remembered government and private sources. That equals 50 million illegals. I could be way off on this but it wouldn't make a whole lot of difference in the following figures.)

766,100,000 acres/182,403,958 adult citizens = *4.2*acres per adult US citizen.
Without Indian reservation lands = *3.89* acres
Without Dept of Defense lands = *4.04* acres
Without above lands = *3.73* acres
BLM & Forest Service land only = *2.45* acres

Though the above lands include fertile valleys, great wildlife habitat and scenic views, it also includes such areas as harsh deserts, frozen tundra, snowcapped/volcano mountain tops, southern swamps, boggy wetlands, badlands, volcanic rock beds, hazardous military target bases, cheatgrass flats and other less desirable land. Good luck on your draw, even if it's in Utah. And no comment needed on the amount of land you get!!

Now for the State of Utah public lands and population. This is in **addition to your newly owned federal land.

State Trust lands - 3,500,000 acres (http://www.utahtrustlands.com)
State Park lands - 108,359 acres (http://www.stateparks.utah.gov)
DWR lands - 158,518 acres (DWR website)
Total Utah public lands - 3,766,877

Utah population - 2,784,572 (July 2009) (http://www.classbrain.com)
69% adults
Utah adult population (includes illegals) - 1,921,355
Utah adult population (minus illegals) - 1,729,220 (Estimated by author)

3,766,877 acres/1,729,220 adult citizen = 2.18 acres per adult Utah citizen.

**Some of the state lands are leased from federal agencies, ie: most of Sand Hollow from BLM, most of Starvation from Bureau of Reclamation, etc.)

So we will end up with 2.18 acres in Utah from the State of Utah and 2.45 to 4.2 acres anywhere in the US from the federal government, likely in 2 separate places which can be as far from each other as 2,500 miles (Salt Lake City to Miami), not counting Alaska or Hawaii.

Think about that and its impact on your hunting. Have fun, folks!


----------



## proutdoors

elkfromabove, please tell me you are joking. :?


----------



## elkfromabove

proutdoors said:


> I right now could drive to Texas and be hunting tomorrow for wild pigs. I had offers to hunt turkeys down there earlier this year, the price.........the fuel to get down there. :?


My friend, the key words in your statement are *drive* and *fuel*, and you forgot the time away from your family and/or work, and probably the non resident tags.

With the proper tags and licenses, right now I could drive 20 minutes/10 to 15 miles to hunt elk/mule deer/antelope/cougars/bears/turkeys/pine hens/rabbits/coyotes on public lands. And I can fish afterward. I'd hate to see that change!

Am I joking? With the time and effort I've taken to compile all that real data, would I be joking?


----------



## proutdoors

elkfromabove said:


> Am I joking? With the time and effort I've taken to compile all that real data, would I be joking?


But your numbers are deeply flawed, so I was/am hoping you were/are joking instead of seriously wanting to use flawed data to draw any sort of conclusion. :?


----------



## Levy

> But your numbers are deeply flawed, so I was/am hoping you were/are joking instead of seriously wanting to use flawed data to draw any sort of conclusion.


You are a funny guy pro. :lol: 
Calling someone out with flawed data....you bud, are the king of flawed data, you have 10000 posts worth. According to the data that is roughly 10 flawed posts per day for the last 2 years and 8 mos. (BSikipedia.org)


----------



## proutdoors

Never mind my wish for private land ownership. If this goes through it would be a mute point: http://www.resistnet.com/profiles/blogs ... 0-makes-it

:evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:


----------



## WasatchOutdoors

So here's a dumb question. Anyone have any idea where I could find information on the exact parcels that are potentially up for sale? I don't exactly love the idea of the loss of public land, but if they're going to sell it off regardless, I wouldn't mind looking to see if any of them have potential for being of value for wildlife and managing a chunk specifically for wildlifeand hunting.


----------



## elkfromabove

proutdoors said:


> elkfromabove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Am I joking? With the time and effort I've taken to compile all that real data, would I be joking?
> 
> 
> 
> But your numbers are deeply flawed, so I was/am hoping you were/are joking instead of seriously wanting to use flawed data to draw any sort of conclusion. :?
Click to expand...

Nobody's perfect, so show us the right (correct) numbers and your sources for your 40 acres per citizen conclusion!! BTW, except for the illegal alien numbers which nobody actually knows, those numbers aren't mine. You're more than welcome to check out, and dispute, my sources, my math, my methods and my conclusions.


----------



## proutdoors

elkfromabove said:


> Nobody's perfect, so show us the right (correct) numbers and your sources for your 40 acres per citizen conclusion!! BTW, except for the illegal alien numbers which nobody actually knows, those numbers aren't mine. You're more than welcome to check out, and dispute, my sources, my math, my methods and my conclusions.


First, 40 acres was a random number. It isn't anything set in stone or based on years of research. I based it on 40 acres being enough to sustain a large family with the in-laws included. Second, it is not accurate to assume very individual would want/accept the responsibilities of owning that much land. Third, I said each FAMILY not each American citizen. This makes your figures way off. Fourth, Saying the acreage would be scattered by as much as 2500 miles is beyond absurd.

Points 2 & 3 make your numbers meaningless thus making your conclusions flawed. I commend you on your efforts, however. :wink:


----------



## elkfromabove

WasatchOutdoors said:


> So here's a dumb question. Anyone have any idea where I could find information on the exact parcels that are potentially up for sale? I don't exactly love the idea of the loss of public land, but if they're going to sell it off regardless, I wouldn't mind looking to see if any of them have potential for being of value for wildlife and managing a chunk specifically for wildlifeand hunting.


Try calling Matt Craddock, Supervisor of Realty Specialists, BLM state office at 801-539-4115. He should be able to help you or steer you in the right direction. But before you do, you might want to Google "HR5339" and print a copy of Chaffetz's bill, then click on the link on the 1st post of this thread, then click "a 1997 study" where you'll find a list of the properties by state (Utah - pages 146 to 168) along with the counties they're in, the acreage, number of parcels, surrounding land use, estimated value, and impediments to disposal (reasons they might not want to sell or you might not want to buy). Have that info ready when you call. And remember, this bill hasn't passed yet and hopefully may not! Good luck!


----------



## elkfromabove

proutdoors said:


> elkfromabove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody's perfect, so show us the right (correct) numbers and your sources for your 40 acres per citizen conclusion!! BTW, except for the illegal alien numbers which nobody actually knows, those numbers aren't mine. You're more than welcome to check out, and dispute, my sources, my math, my methods and my conclusions.
> 
> 
> 
> First, 40 acres was a random number. It isn't anything set in stone or based on years of research. I based it on 40 acres being enough to sustain a large family with the in-laws included. Second, it is not accurate to assume very individual would want/accept the responsibilities of owning that much land. Third, I said each FAMILY not each American citizen. This makes your figures way off. Fourth, Saying the acreage would be scattered by as much as 2500 miles is beyond absurd.
> 
> Points 2 & 3 make your numbers meaningless thus making your conclusions flawed. I commend you on your efforts, however. :wink:
Click to expand...

Bart, it's been interesting and rather fun, but it appears you and I are the only ones left on this thread, and I don't want to mar our friendship, so I'm bailing out. Besides, we can carry this on later mano to mano, if we desire. However, I'm not conceding 'cause you're still wrong, baby, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG! Lee


----------



## 1BandMan

Lets squish two issues together.
95% of the private land "that a river runs through it" I cant fish. I've asked quite a few folks for permission and one of the most popular answers I get is "if I want you to come fish my property I'd come ask you." "Thats the f*$(##% reason I posted it!!!!"
Niiiiiiiiice answer for sure. I would have done with a simple "no" but they wanted to put the explanation point on it. 

A lot of folks won't let you on their property due to liabilty reasons for which I can understand. Makes no sense if Billybob falls and breaks his ankle climbing a fence that you told him not to in the first place and he sues you because he was on your land.

No, making public land private doesn't sound like a good idea to me.


----------



## proutdoors

elkfromabove said:


> Bart, it's been interesting and rather fun, but it appears you and I are the only ones left on this thread, and I don't want to mar our friendship, so I'm bailing out. Besides, we can carry this on later mano to mano, if we desire. However, I'm not conceding 'cause you're still wrong, baby, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG! Lee


Fair enough my friend. Next time you are up this way get a hold of me and we will have a meal together. 8)


----------



## Huntoholic

elkfromabove said:


> ........but it appears you and I are the only ones left on this thread.


Just remember that all things are not as they appear....

It has been an interesting topic.


----------



## .45

Huntoholic said:


> It has been an interesting topic.


I didn't think so.... :|


----------



## Huntoholic

.45 said:


> Huntoholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It has been an interesting topic.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't think so.... :|
Click to expand...

What's wrong? Ya don't like sharing thoughts?


----------



## elkfromabove

.45 said:


> Huntoholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It has been an interesting topic.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't think so.... :|
Click to expand...

Apparently others did. It's number 4 in replies and number 7 in views in the last 10 pages of threads on Big Game. And there's another one (it's twin) on Everything Else! :lol:


----------



## josefat1

Pro- I'm with you on this one 100%. We are seeing how hard it is to take the government's spoon out of people's mouths but if they would take it out they would see that there is life afterwards.


----------



## truemule

This is as closely realted to hunting as guns and the 2nd amendment. It should be locked. -O|o-


----------



## coyoteslayer

> This is as closely realted to hunting as guns and the 2nd amendment. It should be locked.


You can't be serious :lol: :lol: :roll: :roll:


----------



## truemule

coyoteslayer said:


> This is as closely realted to hunting as guns and the 2nd amendment. It should be locked.
> 
> 
> 
> You can't be serious :lol: :lol: :roll: :roll:
Click to expand...

Nope, Just doling my part. :twisted:


----------



## Guns and Flies

Love public land, means I get to hunt and fish on it.


----------

