# Does anybody really buy this head fake from Chaffetz.



## colorcountrygunner (Oct 6, 2009)

The guy has been hard at work undermining our public lands for quite some time now, yet he claims to be some authentic, real deal Utah outdoorsman and pretends like he is in our corner. He is not an idiot. I'm sure he realizes that you can't be a passionate outdoorsman and do the things that he has been doing. That little picture he posted of himself wearing camo up in the mountains while holding a dog is so palpably disingenuous it is laughable. Everyone was applauding him and telling him how wonderful he is for listening to his constituents on 621. It's like having a big bully threatening to kick all our asses and then saying, "you know what. Since I'm such a nice guy I'm not going to kick your ass today after all." Then we all say, "oh, thank you so much! You are too kind!" 

His Instagram account has been lit on fire all day by people who aren't so easily persuaded telling him that if he really wants us to believe him he needs to s*!t can 622 as well. Anyone wanna make any bets how this one plays out? We are all watching you very closely Mr. Chaffetz. Your move.


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

Am I glad he listened/caved? Sure. Do I believe that it was genuine? I wish it were, but don't believe it is. He tried to blame it on Clinton designating these lands 20 years ago as fit for disposal. 

He reintroduced the bill this year without so much as a thought about Bill Clinton. He did it all by himself. Our state delegation as a whole has proven to have a serious burr in their collective saddle when it comes to the Federal government owning or doing anything that could remotely be construed as positive. 

Ryan Callaghan of FirstLite posted something to the effect of "you shouldn't get credit for cleaning up a mess you made yourself." That kinda sums up my feelings on the congressman's "change of heart." 

I do think that the letters, calls, emails, and Instagram posts all calling him out made a difference. I hope it was a bit of a wake up call that his generally conservative constituency isn't going to just let him pass horrific legislation because he's afraid of the big bad Feds. Time will tell, but I, for one, am not holding my breath that this is any indication of a lasting ideological change with regard to our public land.


----------



## colorcountrygunner (Oct 6, 2009)

Kwalk3 said:


> Am I glad he listened/caved? Sure. Do I believe that it was genuine? I wish it were, but don't believe it is. He tried to blame it on Clinton designating these lands 20 years ago as fit for disposal.
> 
> He reintroduced the bill this year without so much as a thought about Bill Clinton. He did it all by himself. Our state delegation as a whole has proven to have a serious burr in their collective saddle when it comes to the Federal government owning or doing anything that could remotely be construed as positive.
> 
> ...


Now that we are praising him for his goodness and resting on our laurels over the 621 "victory" he probably thinks he can carry on with 622 unopposed. From what I have seen that is not going to happen. I'm actually quite proud of my fellow sportsmen and outdoor recreation enthusiasts from all avenues for being so involved on this one.


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

Just a thought. Rather than bashing and alienating him, just acknowledge him when he does well and ridicule him when he does bad.

I am thankful he did not double down on his position and hopefully we can convince him to be on our side.

With the left shooting themselves in the foot with riots, destruction of public property, and overall virtue signaling we will need all the help we can get from the right; because Senor Bishop is still lurking and waiting.


----------



## colorcountrygunner (Oct 6, 2009)

MuscleWhitefish said:


> Just a thought. Rather than bashing and alienating him, just acknowledge him when he does well and ridicule him when he does bad.
> 
> I am thankful he did not double down on his position and hopefully we can convince him to be on our side.
> 
> With the left shooting themselves in the foot with riots, destruction of public property, and overall virtue signaling we will need all the help we can get from the right; because Senor Bishop is still lurking and waiting.


I agree that we need to treat him somewhat respectfully. I think we should be bold, stern, and have a take no BS attitude, but we should treat him respectfully. For all we know he may have a little integrity in him and actually care about what we want. CPAjeff noted how there were so many people making disgusting and mean-spirited comments toward him on Instagram. I will admit that I laughed over the one where a guy told him he looked like an inbred squirrel.:mrgreen:


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

First of all, it was the Clinton administration that designated these as excess federal lands suitable for disposal back in the 90s. This has been noted on this forum multiple times (by me) even before he backed off and also in every news story I have seen on this issue. This isn't some "blame Bill Clinton to save face move." It is a fact. One that has to be acknowledged if you want to honestly discuss this issue. These lands have been on the chopping block for a LOOOONG time. My guess is that eventually, unless an official change in their status as "excess" takes place, these lands will be sold or otherwise transferred from federal ownership and control. Unless/until they are redesignated, this will continue to be a fight to keep them.

Next, do I buy that Rep Chaffetz has had a change of heart and ideals? Not for one second. Does it matter? He was running a bill that he probably could have pushed through and passed, and listened enough to st least at this point take it off the table. Another thing I've mentioned before, but is also very important to acknowledge in the discussion of this issue, is the Republican Party changed its platform last year to include the transfer of federal lands to states and selling them off to private parties.

So what does this mean? It means Chaffetz got enough pressure from people with enough influence (not likely us people) that changed his mind on running this bill at this time. Is the issue dead? Not even close. We need to not just sit and attack Jason Chaffetz, we need to effect change on a wider scale. Probably one of the best ways of doing that, to the chagrin of many right now, is getting President Trump squarely on our side when it comes to public lands. I think he leans toward continued retention of federal lands. He has stated he is for that. So let's keep him there, and we've got a fighting chance for the next 4 years.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

MuscleWhitefish said:


> Just a thought. Rather than bashing and alienating him, just acknowledge him when he does well and ridicule him when he does bad.
> 
> I am thankful he did not double down on his position and hopefully we can convince him to be on our side.
> 
> With the left shooting themselves in the foot with riots, destruction of public property, and overall virtue signaling we will need all the help we can get from the right; because Senor Bishop is still lurking and waiting.


That is actually just a fake tan.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Vanilla said:


> First of all, it was the Clinton administration that designated these as excess federal lands suitable for disposal back in the 90s. This has been noted on this forum multiple times (by me) even before he backed off and also in every news story I have seen on this issue. This isn't some "blame Bill Clinton to save face move." It is a fact. One that has to be acknowledged if you want to honestly discuss this issue. These lands have been on the chopping block for a LOOOONG time. My guess is that eventually, unless an official change in their status as "excess" takes place, these lands will be sold or otherwise transferred from federal ownership and control. Unless/until they are redesignated, this will continue to be a fight to keep them.
> 
> Next, do I buy that Rep Chaffetz has had a change of heart and ideals? Not for one second. Does it matter? He was running a bill that he probably could have pushed through and passed, and listened enough to st least at this point take it off the table. Another thing I've mentioned before, but is also very important to acknowledge in the discussion of this issue, is the Republican Party changed its platform last year to include the transfer of federal lands to states and selling them off to private parties.
> 
> So what does this mean? It means Chaffetz got enough pressure from people with enough influence (not likely us people) that changed his mind on running this bill at this time. Is the issue dead? Not even close. We need to not just sit and attack Jason Chaffetz, we need to effect change on a wider scale. Probably one of the best ways of doing that, to the chagrin of many right now, is getting President Trump squarely on our side when it comes to public lands. I think he leans toward continued retention of federal lands. He has stated he is for that. So let's keep him there, and we've got a fighting chance for the next 4 years.


Many have been doing that, before it was thought that it would actually be needed. That is what Jr, and Zinke are supposed to be for. And I'll be honest, there may not be enough sugar for that pill, we'll see.


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

Vanilla said:


> First of all, it was the Clinton administration that designated these as excess federal lands suitable for disposal back in the 90s. This has been noted on this forum multiple times (by me) even before he backed off and also in every news story I have seen on this issue. This isn't some "blame Bill Clinton to save face move." It is a fact. One that has to be acknowledged if you want to honestly discuss this issue. These lands have been on the chopping block for a LOOOONG time. My guess is that eventually, unless an official change in their status as "excess" takes place, these lands will be sold or otherwise transferred from federal ownership and control. Unless/until they are redesignated, this will continue to be a fight to keep them.
> 
> Next, do I buy that Rep Chaffetz has had a change of heart and ideals? Not for one second. Does it matter? He was running a bill that he probably could have pushed through and passed, and listened enough to st least at this point take it off the table. Another thing I've mentioned before, but is also very important to acknowledge in the discussion of this issue, is the Republican Party changed its platform last year to include the transfer of federal lands to states and selling them off to private parties.
> 
> So what does this mean? It means Chaffetz got enough pressure from people with enough influence (not likely us people) that changed his mind on running this bill at this time. Is the issue dead? Not even close. We need to not just sit and attack Jason Chaffetz, we need to effect change on a wider scale. Probably one of the best ways of doing that, to the chagrin of many right now, is getting President Trump squarely on our side when it comes to public lands. I think he leans toward continued retention of federal lands. He has stated he is for that. So let's keep him there, and we've got a fighting chance for the next 4 years.


I agree that it was Clinton that designated these lands as suitable for disposal. The intent at the time was to fund a large scale conservation project in the everglades if I'm not mistaken.

So while the fact remains that these lands have been identified for disposal because of Clinton, Chaffetz' attempt to use that as reasoning is a total bastardization of the original intent and is entirely disingenuous on his part. He wants to reduce the federal estate in any way possible. If he can blame it on Slick Willy all the better.

Would be great if we could get these lands listed as unsuitable for diposal.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


----------



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

Everyone show up to his town hall and send an even clearer message.


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

What a concept! listening to what constituents desire....it is so unfortunate that such a thing does not exist with the rioting terrorist party! 
A call for some respect is certainly due as mentioned, how disgraceful how so many resort to personal attacks once they are shown to have zero merit or logic with their own argument, rather pitiful actually. I guess Im not old enough to know if this is a new thing where people can't act respectfully with those who do not agree with you. Many have to villanize anyone who has an opinion different from mine.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Everyone show up to his town hall and send an even clearer message.


I had someone say to me that the reason he caved was two fold: Overwhelming feedback, in particular from sportsmen, and the fact that that town hall meeting was coming up. All of the feedback served as a preview for what he was expecting to come up against at the town hall. Certainly another reason for follow through here.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Huge29 said:


> What a concept! listening to what constituents desire....it is so unfortunate that such a thing does not exist with the rioting terrorist party!
> A call for some respect is certainly due as mentioned, how disgraceful how so many resort to personal attacks once they are shown to have zero merit or logic with their own argument, rather pitiful actually. I guess Im not old enough to know if this is a new thing where people can't act respectfully with those who do not agree with you. Many have to villanize anyone who has an opinion different from mine.


I'm not yet 40, but Teddy's tactics seem to have worked for hunters and wildlife 100 years ago.......


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

Jason is the Chairman of the U.S. Committee of Oversight and Governement Reform, meaning he interrogates individuals like Hillary Clinton, Director Comey (FBI), and other high ranking officials - I don't think he caved. I am not a political person or Jason Chaffetz groupie, but I do think the guy deserves some respect for listening to and changing his position on a topic based off what the people wanted. Hopefully he continues to do so in the future.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

CPAjeff said:


> Jason is the Chairman of the U.S. Committee of Oversight and Governement Reform, meaning he interrogates individuals like Hillary Clinton, Director Comey (FBI), and other high ranking officials - I don't think he caved. I am not a political person or Jason Chaffetz groupie, but I do think the guy deserves some respect for listening to and changing his position on a topic based off what the people wanted. Hopefully he continues to do so in the future.


^^^


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Since I never dreamed that Chaffetz would withdraw this bill so quickly, I'm probably not the right person to ask about interpretation and motives. A couple thoughts anyways.

1. 


Vanilla said:


> So what does this mean? It means Chaffetz got enough pressure from people with enough influence (not likely us people) that changed his mind on running this bill at this time. Is the issue dead? Not even close. We need to not just sit and attack Jason Chaffetz, we need to effect change on a wider scale. Probably one of the best ways of doing that, to the chagrin of many right now, is getting President Trump squarely on our side when it comes to public lands. I think he leans toward continued retention of federal lands. He has stated he is for that. So let's keep him there, and we've got a fighting chance for the next 4 years.


This is a very good point and I wonder if the reason that he withdrew the bill so quickly was that Trump or a surrogate passed word to Chaffetz that such a bill would be vetoed. If so, that could be a good sign for fighting TPL.

2. Chaffetz's district does include San Juan and Grand counties, but it also includes somewhat Democratic Carbon county and most of the district population is in suburban Utah county. Perhaps his suburban constituents put enough heat on him to make him reconsider. That could mean that one of his colleagues with less local pressure may bring it back. This battle is far from over.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

We as a society have become so unbelievably juvenile. I'm not a huge fan of Jason Chaffetz myself, but the guy did EXACTLY what we all wanted him to do. Why is it so hard for people to just acknowledge it and move on? 

Praising someone for one single decision does not mean you endorse everything the person has done or will do. It means you approve of that decision. There are people that need to seriously grow up.


----------



## colorcountrygunner (Oct 6, 2009)

Vanilla said:


> We as a society have become so unbelievably juvenile. I'm not a huge fan of Jason Chaffetz myself, *but the guy did EXACTLY what we all wanted him to do. Why is it so hard for people to just acknowledge it and move on?
> *
> Praising someone for one single decision does not mean you endorse everything the person has done or will do. It means you approve of that decision. There are people that need to seriously grow up.


He did a VERY small part of what we want him to do. It is in now way, shape, or form time to move on. In all honesty, it likely never will be.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I had so much typed...but my better judgment took over. Wouldn't want to spark people burning down a Starbucks. I'd hate to have that on my conscience.


----------



## colorcountrygunner (Oct 6, 2009)

Vanilla said:


> I had so much typed...but my better judgment took over. Wouldn't want to spark people burning down a Starbucks. I'd hate to have that on my conscience.


I'm not sure that I'm picking up what you're putting down, but it seems that maybe you are telling me and others that we need to take a valium or something. Is anybody here even hinting about degenerate forms of protest? Is anybody being unduly disrespectful to Jason Chaffetz; a man who is trying to commit a grave disservice to the people he claims to represent? Do you want a cookie for attempting to be the sensible voice of reason to people who are at about 1.5 on the 1 to 10 scale for going and burning down a Starbucks?


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

Maybe I came across too harsh. I don't want to burn anything down. I don't like Chaffetz, but I am glad he reversed course on this. I'll just continue to be skeptical of the guy and the rest of our state reps as it pertains to this issue.

I really am appreciative that he changed his mind.on this one issue. I hope he realizes now how important this is to a lot of sportsmen.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Just give credit where credit is due. No more, no less!


----------



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

Catherder said:


> This is a very good point and I wonder if the reason that he withdrew the bill so quickly was that Trump or a surrogate passed word to Chaffetz that such a bill would be vetoed. If so, that could be a good sign for fighting TPL.


Catherder, your quote becomes more interesting to me now. I noticed Trump Jr. commented on Jason's(KUIU founder) personal Instagram page in the comments and said "Well said buddy." Did Chaffetz pull this bill due to truly listening, or did sportsmen speak loud enough Trump Jr. and others let him know this bill would be vetoed if it ever made it to Trumps desk? Either way, it is nice to have Jr. As an advocate and to see he still seems to hold the same belief on these lands. Jr. also posted Chaffetz post on his Instagram and said "Great move congressman." Whatever turned the tide, Chaffetz meeting is a true chance to send a clear message that HR 622 needs to be pulled back and transfer of or public lands is not going to happen. By no means can the pressure let up.


----------



## hossblur (Jun 15, 2011)

To answer, a head fake. You don't just sit down over a bowl of jello after dinner and blast out an HR. There is some legal verbage, there is some background info that goes into it. Meaning, one, he spent some time and thought and effort putting it together, or two, and most likely IMO, a lobbyist handed him the HR ready to go just needing his signature. That also explains why he dropped it so quickly without a fight, most likely because it wasn't his idea to start with. But, he dropped it so credit where its deserved. 

Now, since these are "excess" public lands, meaning the feds don't need them, instead of simply sitting around hoping some other weak minded "conservative" takes another pre written HR, how about Jason PROVING he is with us and running a bill to take them off the chopping block and returning them to public land status, thusly making them non excess.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Allot of these lands have the potential to be traded for other parcels, to provide for better access to, or consolidate other larger tracts of federal lands. Some of these were identified as "excess" based on their disconnected nature form larger blocks. Show a real commitment to hunters and wildlife, and make these lands really go to work for us. Strip the excess label off the majority of them, and leverage a smaller portion, were possible, for access and expansion of prime wildlife habitat and hunting access. Sounds like the kind of thing a Western hunter would be eager to work on.


----------

