# Bold, yet utterly confusing statements from the DWR



## Trooper (Oct 18, 2007)

> Mike Styler, executive director of the Utah Department of Natural Resources, said species improve through active management of habitat, not through regulation.
> 
> "Any wildlife species will be better taken care of under state management rather than federal management," he said.


http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865634773/Angst-over-sage-grouse-decision-continues-to-deepen.html?pg=all

Simple enough, we just need more "management" and less "regulation". Duh! Also, state management will yield more of everything... no need to make hard choices if the State runs the show. More drilling- check. More Sage Grouse-check. More "freedom"-check.


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

Of course it's confusing. But one thing I do know is that Styler, Kathleen Clarke, Greg Sheehan and any other state official knows full well the implications of saying anything that might be construed as against the State Land Grab Initiative. You tow the line or kiss it all good bye. Our dear friend Mike Levitt taught this new breed of politician that there is no fear in dropping the hammer on mouthy employees.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Uncle Mikey was a nicer version of what we have now, and that's not a compliment.

Who says that Sheehan, Clarke, and Styler are not fully on board with the transfer?


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

I guess I really don't know. One thing for sure, nobody that works for for our current administration is sayin otherwise. These are pretty good jobs don't ya know.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

BPturkeys said:


> I guess I really don't know. One thing for sure, nobody that works for for our current administration is sayin otherwise. These are pretty good jobs don't ya know.


Every State employee I know either has a plan to get out, or got out early when they could. Of course none of them are yes men/women either.


----------



## Dodger (Oct 20, 2009)

Trooper said:


> http://www.deseretnews.com/article/...ouse-decision-continues-to-deepen.html?pg=all
> 
> Simple enough, we just need more "management" and less "regulation". Duh! Also, state management will yield more of everything... no need to make hard choices if the State runs the show. More drilling- check. More Sage Grouse-check. More "freedom"-check.


What we have here is a failure of understanding.

Regulation means federal statutes, such as the Endangered Species Act.

Management means working with stakeholders to use the resource in the best possible way.

So yes, in my mind, management is always preferable to regulation. If you manage by regulation, people in birkenstocks 1800 miles away are going to dictate what you can and can't do here.

That doesn't mean that the state doesn't have hard choices. But the choice of doing X or getting the Endangered Species Act rammed down your throat or having no choices at all because the Endangered Species Act rammed has been down your throat isn't much of a choice.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Much as I oppose the land transfer, I must say that it would sure be easier for a State agency to manage the land if it belonged to the State. I know that has been an eternal frustration - manage the wildlife but you have no control of the habitats because the BLM and Forest Service make those decisions. If the State could control, then of course that would be better. But the reality is, the State would hold the land long enough to sell it. And anything left over that isn't sold, would be further fragmented and even tougher to deal with than the Feds making those decisions. So I'd agree with Styler to the first stage - State control - but the next step of selling off the lands will make it worse.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Trooper said:


> ]
> 
> Simple enough, we just need more "management" and less "regulation". Duh! Also, state management will yield more of everything... no need to make hard choices if the State runs the show. More drilling- check. More Sage Grouse-check. More "freedom"-check.


More money raised for habitat -check.


----------



## Dodger (Oct 20, 2009)

GaryFish said:


> Much as I oppose the land transfer, I must say that it would sure be easier for a State agency to manage the land if it belonged to the State. I know that has been an eternal frustration - manage the wildlife but you have no control of the habitats because the BLM and Forest Service make those decisions. If the State could control, then of course that would be better. But the reality is, the State would hold the land long enough to sell it. And anything left over that isn't sold, would be further fragmented and even tougher to deal with than the Feds making those decisions. So I'd agree with Styler to the first stage - State control - but the next step of selling off the lands will make it worse.


There are other ways of doing a land transfer other than outright sale, Gary. The Feds could hold it in trust with Utah as a beneficiary to manage and take care of - preventing Utah from selling it off. They could lease the land with certain restrictions. There are a million things that they could do to preserve the "publicness" of the land while putting it in state control.

And with a 20 Trillion dollar debt, I think all of us are deluding ourselves by thinking that the Feds aren't going to be selling off public lands in the next 50 years. We have no other assets to pay what we owe.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

I don't disagree with you. Not at all. 

But government debt isn't like debt that you and I have. We HAVE to pay ours or face imprisonment. Congress does not. But that is a different thing all together. The point I was making - I'm sure DWR could get much more wildlife (big game) production out of BLM and Forest Service lands than currently happens, if they were allowed to manage (control) the lands only for wildlife. Deseret Land & Livestock is a prime example. They control the land, and get far superior wildlife production than adjacent BLM or Forest Service lands. But they don't get challenged in court every time they do a controlled burn, or have to provide access to four wheelers to tear up the place, or allow it to be overgrazed by welfare farmers holding to an outdated Taylor Grazing Act, or have to do an costly environmental study if they want to mechanically treat a large area to reinvigorate the habitat, or, or, or..... all of the things that BLM and the Forest Service are required to do that the DWR would not be required to do if they controlled (managed) the lands. 

And yes, they could lease the lands to the State, but as long as they are owned by the Government of the United States, they MUST be managed under the appropriate multiple use mandates.


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

No, absolutely no to the State of Utah owning, managing, controlling, governing, watching over, directing, regulating, overseeing, etc, etc, etc. any of the land currently controlled by the federal government! Period! 
Where does this so called "local" end? What is "local"? Who are these "local" people who will do such a great job managing the land? Not just the fancy, cute little sound bite "local control"...who will be the the actual people? Is it DNR, Sitla, how about "local" county commissioners, or maybe even "local" water agencies?...I know, maybe we could just sell it to individuals and let them manage the land. 
Really people, who do you really think will be managing the land if some how it does ever get into the hands of someone other than people how will manage it for the current owners... all the people in the USA!


----------

