# Who's in?



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

As you know, Utah wants to take possession of all USFS and BLM lands in the state's borders. Everybody understands the ideology that would support Utah's wish. I generally agree with the ideology, myself.

But it doesn't take a lot of insight to understand what this could mean for those of us who value our access to these lands. I like gambling, but this is a sucker's bet. And just like a bet, once made, there's no going back.

So why are so many Utah conservation organizations not taking a position?

Backcountry Hunters and Anglers has stood up.
Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation has stood up.
Trout Unlimited has stood up.
Quail Forever has stood up.
National Wild Turkey Foundation has stood up.
Professional Bowhunter's Society has stood up.
Utah Stream Access Coalition has stood up.

Did I miss anybody?

United Wildlife Cooperative, Mule Deer Foundation, Ducks Unlimited, Utah Chukar and Wildlife Foundation, Utah Bowmen's Association...y'all sitting this fight out? We need your support. Short of that, it would only be straight that you tell us where you stand. Yes?

Interesting that SFW Wyoming, where a similar movement is afoot, had no trouble coming out against this land transfer. How about SFW Utah?

Legislature is in session. Those of us who know where we stand will be standing up together on March 2nd with a lot of other organizations and individuals who value public lands. Details coming soon.


----------



## Blanding_Boy (Nov 21, 2007)

so Finn--tell me who's going to own federal lands when all the US debts come due? US owes lots of money to various countries---what do we have that can pay it off? Just saying state owning the land might make more sense then the feds in the long run. Just thinking 20 years down the road when we are dead and gone.:smile:

Anyway, not trying to stir the pot or start an argument BUT I think there are many parcels that make sense to sell perhaps others that might be good to come under state ownership. I'm not saying the feds should just give it all up but maybe there are other things/options to consider.

I don't think it will ever happen the way UT wants it to BTW

Todd


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Blanding_Boy said:


> so Finn--tell me who's going to own federal lands when all the US debts come due? US owes lots of money to various countries---what do we have that can pay it off? Just saying state owning the land might make more sense then the feds in the long run. Just thinking 20 years down the road when we are dead and gone.:smile:


Uhhh we print our own money. China might be pissed over it, but if they wanted payment we could print up a cargo ship's worth and sent it over. Of course the inflation afterwards would be insane: $100,000k for a gallon of gas for example and wreck the world economy in general.

PS: I'm against Utah taking ownership of lands. But I am totally against the feds seizing more lands AND making existing open areas wilderness,

-DallanC


----------



## gdog (Sep 13, 2007)

Blanding_Boy said:


> I think there are many parcels that make sense to sell perhaps others that might be good to come under state ownership.
> Todd


....yeah...can see it now....Deseret L&L owning 80% of Utah's wilderness. Wonder what the draw odds would be for one of your cwmu bull elk tags? 8)


----------



## Airborne (May 29, 2009)

gdog said:


> ....yeah...can see it now....Deseret L&L owning 80% of Utah's wilderness. Wonder what the draw odds would be for one of your cwmu bull elk tags? 8)


Ha!


----------



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

Blanding_Boy said:


> so Finn--tell me who's going to own federal lands when all the US debts come due? US owes lots of money to various countries---what do we have that can pay it off? Just saying state owning the land might make more sense then the feds in the long run. Just thinking 20 years down the road when we are dead and gone.:smile:
> 
> Anyway, not trying to stir the pot or start an argument BUT I think there are many parcels that make sense to sell perhaps others that might be good to come under state ownership. I'm not saying the feds should just give it all up but maybe there are other things/options to consider.
> 
> ...


You really think our debt matters as much as the media makes you believe ? The media of course will tell you worst case scenario to get your blood boiling. If Americas economy crashed the world would go with it, including china who's economy is heavily dependent on us buying there ****, you know those little made in china stickers on everything, I doubt china wants us to fail. It's public land managed by federal agencies, we already own it , the state has no right to it, the end.


----------



## Jedidiah (Oct 10, 2014)

Blanding_Boy said:


> so Finn--tell me who's going to own federal lands when all the US debts come due? US owes lots of money to various countries---what do we have that can pay it off? Just saying state owning the land might make more sense then the feds in the long run. Just thinking 20 years down the road when we are dead and gone.:smile:
> 
> Anyway, not trying to stir the pot or start an argument BUT I think there are many parcels that make sense to sell perhaps others that might be good to come under state ownership. I'm not saying the feds should just give it all up but maybe there are other things/options to consider.
> 
> ...


We owe most of the debt to ourselves, not other countries:

http://www.businessinsider.com/who-we-owe-federal-debt-to-2013-10

What would you do if a bunch of people from another country came in and started running fences around the land they decided to repossess anyway? That crap might fly in California but I'm pretty sure those guys would become a non-game animal with an open season and a $50 bounty to boot, here in Utah.


----------



## Idratherbehunting (Jul 17, 2013)

Is the land less likely to be sold (or long-term leased) by the federal government than by state government? 

What about access restriction?

Please let me know why you think that is the case, whichever you think.


----------



## gdog (Sep 13, 2007)

Motives to everything....

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57980727-78/ivory-council-west-http.html.csp


----------



## massmanute (Apr 23, 2012)

Here's a related question. Why would the Federal Government willingly give up title to the land, and even if they did, why would they simply give the land to the State of Utah?


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

back to the OP. It would be a real good question to have asked by the thousands that attend the Expo. Lots of people are going to be there tooting their horns in the name of conservation. Conservation starts and ends with our public land.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

Blanding_Boy said:


> so Finn--tell me who's going to own federal lands when all the US debts come due? US owes lots of money to various countries---what do we have that can pay it off? Just saying state owning the land might make more sense then the feds in the long run. Just thinking 20 years down the road when we are dead and gone.:smile:
> 
> Anyway, not trying to stir the pot or start an argument BUT I think there are many parcels that make sense to sell perhaps others that might be good to come under state ownership. I'm not saying the feds should just give it all up but maybe there are other things/options to consider.
> 
> ...


Straight up, I don't know anything about our national debts. But I know China and Saudi Arabia are buying U.S. real estate. I know Gov. Herbert said that China's money is good here. And I know that Utah's prospects depend on the oil market. Where's that market going to be 20 years down the road?

You and I both know that as things are, We the People can influence federal management. We've been doing it for decades. "Multiple Use" includes us...hunters, fishermen, campers, ATVers, etc. Private lands have no "multiple use" mandate. For that matter, neither do state lands.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

Idratherbehunting said:


> Is the land less likely to be sold (or long-term leased) by the federal government than by state government?
> 
> What about access restriction?
> 
> Please let me know why you think that is the case, whichever you think.


Here's what the experts think.

The consensus is that Utah will have no choice but to sell/lease significant parcels. That's why developer Ken Ivory is leading the charge.

Public hunting and fishing is not why people/corporations buy land.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

massmanute said:


> Here's a related question. Why would the Federal Government willingly give up title to the land, and even if they did, why would they simply give the land to the State of Utah?


When this issue first arose, I laughed it off. But then I saw Ted Cruz (Mike Lee's mentor) torpedo the Sportsmen's Act with his rider and it dawned on me that while this transfer is unconstitutional, Congress has the authority to amend.

Why would Congress give up these lands? Because lobbyists (Ken Ivory) and politicians (Mike Lee) think they can hoodwink the American People. And if we don't speak out, they're right.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

Meantime, my question is unanswered. Why are these organizations unwilling to take a position? I'm recently reminded, silence is consent.

The UWC I knew and helped found wouldn't hesitate for a moment...now you guys got nothing to say?

MDF, you're the premier advocates for mule deer. You guys rock! But what happens to all your hard work and aspirations if the state takes control? What happens to our mule deer without public land?

SFW, we got it. You hate us "socialist" public land hunters. But guess what? Without us, you've got nothing. Or do you think convention tags will float you through? Good luck with that.

UBA, you're the first voice of bowhunters...where does bowhunting figure into all this? Surely, knowing you guys, you aren't going to just sit on your hands and wait to see what happens? Y'all want the Wasatch extended to be like the Uintah extended?

I get it. This is hard. If you stand for public lands, you stand with a bunch of folks you don't like...SUWA, the Sierra Club, et al. But right is right. If you stand for public lands, you stand against the Tea Party and your Republican representatives. But right is right.

Push come to shove, come out in support of your state. I think you're nuts to do that, but I ain't nobody. Just don't sit there silent.


----------



## fishreaper (Jan 2, 2014)

Finnegan said:


> I get it. This is hard. If you stand for public lands, you stand with a bunch of folks you don't like...SUWA, the Sierra Club, et al. But right is right. If you stand for public lands, you stand against the Tea Party and your Republican representatives. But right is right.


In my opinion, I don't think it is standing against anyone. The thing is, either of our major political entities are on fairly opposite sides of each other. I find it hard to believe that even a handful of people are 100% on board with everything either platform supports. 
It comes down to prioritizing what is most important to you, and then when those priorities are locked in via ballots. You can start pushing for the grey and purple areas along side you fellow man for what you believe is right, not what a party tells you is. Support a party to get the big concerns taken care of, then fight for the smaller things without labeling each other and instead unifying for a common purpose.

Just my view of things, arguably worth less than the smoke in the air.


----------



## The Naturalist (Oct 13, 2007)

Finnegan said:


> When this issue first arose, I laughed it off. But then I saw Ted Cruz (Mike Lee's mentor) torpedo the Sportsmen's Act with his rider and it dawned on me that while this transfer is unconstitutional, Congress has the authority to amend.
> 
> Why would Congress give up these lands? Because lobbyists (Ken Ivory) and politicians (Mike Lee) think they can hoodwink the American People. And if we don't speak out, they're right.


 Exactly...see my post Legislative sponsors for HB 148 (Land Grab) 
under the Great Outdoors Section.


----------



## riptheirlips (Jun 30, 2008)

Blanding_Boy said:


> so Finn--tell me who's going to own federal lands when all the US debts come due? US owes lots of money to various countries---what do we have that can pay it off?
> 
> Todd


The answer to your question would be China.


----------



## Airborne (May 29, 2009)

riptheirlips said:


> The answer to your question would be China.


The US owes about 17 trillion in debt, of which China owns 1.3 trillion of that so I guess this means they own all of our public lands :-?

Talk about hyperbole.


----------



## gdog (Sep 13, 2007)

*Federal Lands Takeover Would Harm the Public*

Posted on January 29, 2015 
*Press release dated January 27, 2015 -* The Wallace Stegner Center for Land, Resources & the Environment at the University of Utah's S.J. Quinney College of Law today released a White Paper titled "The Transfer of Public Lands Movement: Taking the 'Public' Out of Public Lands." The White Paper discusses Utah's Transfer of Public Lands Act, or TPLA, which demands that the federal government transfer title to more than 31 million acres of federal public lands within Utah to the State.

"If Utah succeeds in taking over federal public lands, the public will have less, not more, input into land management, and all who utilize what are now public lands - industry and recreation interests alike - will see the cost of access increase substantially. In short, the public will suffer from this misguided effort."

http://law.utah.edu/news/federal-lands-takeover-would-harm-the-public/


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

Just FYI...if anybody is making reference to the "eminent domain" hoax or reports that Obama granted U.S. land as collateral to China, better check your facts.

The U.S. retains our AA+ credit rating. We don't offer collateral. We don't need to.


----------



## massmanute (Apr 23, 2012)

Finnegan said:


> ...Why would Congress give up these lands? Because lobbyists (Ken Ivory) and politicians (Mike Lee) think they can hoodwink the American People. And if we don't speak out, they're right.


Good point.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

Turns out, only two Utah fish and game organization chapters stand in opposition to the dreams of developers and the oil industry. Those are RMEF and BHA. The majority of Utah fish and game organizations would rather stand with Ken Ivory than stand with RMEF and BHA. That's amazing. Sad.

When did Utah hunters and fishermen become pro-development?

I'm amazed that waterfowlers remain unequivocal after what's gone down in the past couple weeks.

I'm amazed that big game hunters are only thinking about this year's tag allotments and content to see Utah turn into Texas. Hey, maybe I can shoot an aoudad in Orem? Waddaya think?

Guess I'm just old and easily amazed.

But seems to me this is a **** good time to pay some close attention, folks.


----------



## utahgolf (Sep 8, 2007)

Ivory is running a nice little scheme, pocketing money on this debate as we speak. Like I said in another post, we don't need more hunter recruitment if we as hunters continue to vote against our own interests. Even worse are the older hunters on here who experienced lots of opportunity and places to hunt but now that they are older and had their fill, they now want more "quality" experiences by limiting opportunity and supporting groups who don't care about the average hunter. Shame on these hunters.


----------



## GeTaGrip (Jun 24, 2014)

Friends this is a slippery slope. Even if it doesn't pass this time it is one small step closer to passing next time. We need to unite as sportsman, not fight as liberals and conservatives. This bill scares the [email protected]!! out me, it should all of you too.


----------



## izzydog (Jan 18, 2008)

I'm not so sure! Look at Gov. Herberts record. He never, ever puts his own needs in front of anglers or hunters.;-)


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

Amazing how fired up people get about expo and conservation tags but don't seem nearly as concerned about the land itself. It REALLY amazes me how all of these "conservation" groups are happy to leave well enough alone and not verbalize their position. VERY VERY SAD. Grow a pair already.

IMO they aren't worth their own salt.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

I wonder how a state taking control of public land (FS and BLM) fits into the _necessary and proper clause_ of the Constitution.

I don't reckon this will go through.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

As the largest single private land owner in the state. I wonder what the LDS church thinks of all this. 

And maybe if they opposed it then we wouldn't be talking about it. 

Is this an attempt to build a kingdom? Like Brigham wanted. But the federal government said no way to.

I mean will Deseret land and livestock grow by 10 fold?

Will the church be able to purchase land from the state without so much red tape? Like the Y mountain purchase. That was first denied by congress but had to be hidden into the homeland defense bill in order to pass?

Is it just evil rich people that are behind this or is there more to it then that? 

I really don't know.


----------



## redleg (Dec 5, 2007)

One of my Letters to editor the Dez news has actually printed:

In Utah, the people have a lot of land. It is known a public land. A lot of it is desert and salt flats and some is Dougway Proving grounds, which would be a superfund site if it were not military land.
The few Square miles that remain are the reason we enjoy living in Utah. Open BLM lands and National Forests make this state a good place to live and raise families.
We know the state legislature is not after the west desert, the goal is to divide up and sell the choice forested land so that it can be fenced-up and locked up so that if you want to enjoy the outdoors you can pay a fee to the landowner (if he is willing to lease it) or do your hunting and camping on the Salt Flats.
David J Adamson 
485 West Hindley, American Fork, Utah 84003


----------



## riptheirlips (Jun 30, 2008)

izzydog said:


> I'm not so sure! Look at Gov. Herberts record. He never, ever puts his own needs in front of anglers or hunters.;-)


Now that is funny, That comment should be moved to the humor section.


----------



## gdog (Sep 13, 2007)

elkfromabove said:


> It may be true that there are a few UWC members that back the land grab, but the leadership does not! We did have two board members debate the issue on Facebook, but they resolved their differences and the board, President (myself), Vice President, and the majority of the current staff oppose the transfer of Federal public lands to the State of Utah! In fact, I and Gordy Bell (wileywapiti), a board member were at the rally and I made sure the other sportsmen (and SUWA) who were there knew our stance. *UWC OPPOSES THE TRANSFER OF PUBLIC LANDS TO THE STATE OF UTAH!*


....there we go!


----------

