# Utah Governor’s Race – An Opportunity for Change?



## hawkeye (Feb 18, 2008)

Many of us have been concerned about the direction of wildlife management in the State of Utah. While there are certainly some reasons to be optimistic, many Utah sportsmen are frustrated with the lack of accountability and transparency, the current makeup of the wildlife board, the number of wealth tags (conservation and expo tags) in Utah, the DWR's failure to follow its own rules, etc. For those that have taken the time to get involved and contact our political leaders, you likely know that our questions and concerns have largely fallen on deaf ears. However, the current governor's race may be an opportunity for change.

I had the pleasure this morning to join a small group of sportsmen in a private meeting with Jonathan Johnson, Republican candidate for governor. I was impressed with what I heard from Jonathan. He was sincerely interested in hearing our issues and concerns. If elected, Jonathan stressed that he would do the following:

•	Work to eliminate nepotism and cronyism within state agencies.
•	Improve accountability and transparency of all state agencies, including the DWR.
•	Carefully evaluate state appointees and make changes where necessary.
•	Bring in the most qualified people to fill open positions.
•	Protect the Second Amendment. 
•	Emphasize local input and control with the state's safeguards and controls.
•	See http://hirejj.com/

For those of you who don't know where Governor Herbert stands on these issues that affect hunters and sportsmen, please consider the "canned responses" that the Governor's Office sent out to sportsmen who expressed concern about the process the DWR used to award the most recent Expo Tag contract. See http://www.monstermuleys.info/dcforum/DCForumID5/23277.html Or perhaps you may want to watch Governor Herbert's speech at the Expo in February of this year: 



 Or perhaps you should consider the fact that he has stacked the Wildlife Board with individuals ties to a single conservation group. See http://wildlife.utah.gov/board-members.html. Or perhaps you should consider the fact that Peay's Consulting Co. has donated to the Herbert campaign. See http://www.followthemoney.org/entity-details?eid=39715880&default=candidate.

Now, I am not here to tell anyone how to vote in the upcoming election. That is a personal decision and there are typically many issues that come into play with such a decision. However, if you are a concerned sportsman that is frustrated with the status quo, then the current governor's election is an opportunity for change. Please consider Jonathan Johnson and spread the word to your family, friends and fellow hunters. If you have already made the decision to vote for Governor Herbert or some other candidate, please take the opportunity to contact Governor Herbert's office and let them know that sportsmen are not happy with the status quo. He is apparently under the impression that everything is great for sportsmen in the State of Utah:

http://www.utah.gov/governor/contact/
The Office of Governor Gary R. Herbert
350 North State Street, Suite 200
PO Box 142220
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-2220
Phone: 801-538-1000
Toll Free: 800-705-2464

-Hawkeye-


----------



## El Matador (Dec 21, 2007)

Thanks for posting this, Hawkeye. This race is very tight and every vote is going to make a difference...get out and vote in the Republican Primary!!! Getting Johnson into office is the best chance we have to beat this cancer.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

What has been written sounds terrific, however, Johnson has made it extremely clear and a focal point of his campaign that he will pursue the "land grab" (TPL) with greater vigor and increased use of the courts than Sherbert has. I have a big problem with that. If my access to fishing and hunting is cut off and I can't participate, it doesn't matter so much to me anymore how the DWR operates. 

For this and other reasons non related to the outdoors, he won't have my vote in the primary and I am skeptical of his listed claims generally. 


For the general election, I have been impressed so far with the Democrat running for Governor.


----------



## bigbr (Oct 24, 2007)

*A fool such as I*

Having been involved in politics for most of my adult life and having been both a state and county delegate for several decades I can tell you that what Mr. Johnson is accusing Governor Herbert of having to pay to gain an audience with the Governor, I have found quit the opposite to be true about Governor Herbert. I have been involved in the political arena since Scott Matheson was governor and I can tell you that in my opinion Garry Herbert has been the most approachable Governor that I have been around and not just delegates but the average Joe Q Public. Now with that being said I can tell you that I have my differences with Governor Herbert.

I do not like the garbage that has been allowed to happen at UDOT and UTA under his administration. I loath Common Core and think that Utah education system needs to be broken down and revamped. Every time a teacher sheds a tear we dump millions more money into education and UEA is nothing but a band of pirates in my opinion!

My biggest grip with the Governor is the fact that he sold his sole to COUNT MY VOTE, which is nothing more than a pay to play way of stealing Utah's caucus away from the grass roots. The United States was founded and setup as a republic and as a republic we elect representatives to champion the ideals of their electorate. Count my vote is the reason that California and many other states are broke, because special interest and wealthy organizations and people can buy their way into office. Utah's caucus system was special because people like Jason Chaffetz can come into a convention and with a remarkable speech knock off the Canon's and Levitt's without spending millions of dollars and is allowed to compete for a federal office. The caucus is the same system that ousted a corrupt Bob Bennett from office and was the last hope, short of attrition, of getting Orin Hatch out of office. I was livid when the hired guns of Herbert come to my door and asked for my signature to put him on the ballot for this up and coming primary. The person was told to leave my property post haste!

Now I find it so ironic to hear all the supporters of Count My Vote and how that somehow their vote counts now. And I say good luck to you ignorant UTARDS because you will never get the carpet baggers out off office such as Hatch and the Romney's. Wildlife and public property will be the least of your concerns!
Big


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

My vote this year will be based on the candidates' view of public lands. I had high hopes for Johnson when he entered the race, but unfortunately, Johnson is more out-spoken in his support of State control of the current Federal Lands-- which WILL include privatization of some those lands. (see http://le.utah.gov/~2016/bills/static/HB0276.html scroll down to lines 468-493)

I do not think I have ever seen less palatable political candidates-- from local to national candidates.

..


----------



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

He's way to strong on the state transfer and wasting money on it for me.


----------



## hawkeye (Feb 18, 2008)

For those of you who will not vote for Johnson or Herbert based upon the public lands issue, who are you going to vote for? If you don't mind me asking.

Hawkeye


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

hawkeye said:


> For those of you who will not vote for Johnson or Herbert based upon the public lands issue, who are you going to vote for? If you don't mind me asking.
> 
> Hawkeye


I already answered this, but in the general election, my vote would go for Mike Weinholtz, the Democratic nominee. So far, I'm comfortable with his other policy stances, and *nothing* would shake up the status quo of our one party state, including the appointee pattern in the wildlife Board, like having a "D" as governor.

It would even make the "R"'s more responsive to the wishes of the public as well.


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

For many of the same reasons as Catherder, I do not intend to support either Herbert or Johnson. The public land issue has the potential to make any issues with the DWR and SFW seem inconsequential. While I truly do think the other issues are important, the public lands issue trumps them with relative ease.

Also, much of the push back to the cronyism of state funding of Big Game Forever's sage grouse and wolf "lobbying efforts" has come from the democratic side of the aisle in utah politics if memory serves me correctly.

I haven't found anything truly objectionable about Weinholtz thus far, but in interviews I've heard and research I've done, he seems reasonable enough.

Most importantly to me:
Taken from Weinholtz' website-

_Utah is one of the prettiest places to live in America, and I want to make sure it stays that way.

Unfortunately, special interests are trying to take and exploit our public lands, preventing future generations from enjoying Utah's natural beauty.

Protected Lands

Over 23 million people visit Utah each year, many to our national parks and other public lands. Unfortunately, our legislature plans to fight a losing court battle to take away these lands from the public and sell to the highest bidder. They have already set aside $2 million and plan to spend an additional $12 million if necessary. As Governor, I will stop spending money to fight an unwinnable lawsuit to give our protected lands to special interests. We need to stop viewing public lands as a get-rich-quick strategy and instead work to preserve and protect our land.

PILT Payments

The federal government has in recent years fallen short on its Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) payments. There is no guarantee that these funds will come as Washington D.C. continues to make cuts to the program. These funds are specifically designed to pay back the state for the land the federal government doesn't develop and are vital to rural Utah. I will work with our congressional delegation to ensure that these funds are safe and secure so that the federal government is holding up their end of the deal._


----------



## Idratherbehunting (Jul 17, 2013)

Catherder said:


> I already answered this, but in the general election, my vote would go for Mike Weinholtz, the Democratic nominee. So far, I'm comfortable with his other policy stances, and *nothing* would shake up the status quo of our one party state, including the appointee pattern in the wildlife Board, like having a "D" as governor.
> 
> It would even make the "R"'s more responsive to the wishes of the public as well.


There will be many more "D's" getting votes on my ballot this year as well. I am also basing much of my vote on the public land transfer "movement".


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Kwalk3 said:


> For many of the same reasons as Catherder, I do not intend to support either Herbert or Johnson. The public land issue has the potential to make any issues with the DWR and SFW seem inconsequential. While I truly do think the other issues are important, the public lands issue trumps them with relative ease.


+1,

I'll even go so far as to say I've never cast a vote for Herbert in my life. No-one seems to remember that guy was never voted in as governor in the first place.

-DallanC


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

I have a hard time supporting anyone who wants to spend $14 million on a lawsuit that is a failure before it starts.
It irks me that people think they are smarter than everyone else and know whats best for everyone else when they are really only stroking their ego.


----------



## bigbr (Oct 24, 2007)

*Can this thread just go away*

Come on WN this is a valid topic and to hide it without a trace is BS. In the past when you have moved a thread from one topic to another at least announced that it has been moved and give a link. Why all the bureaucracy? Have you been bought out by SFW?
Big


----------



## Dunkem (May 8, 2012)

Hide it??


----------



## El Matador (Dec 21, 2007)

I'm also wondering why this was moved. This topic has a_ lot_ to do with big game hunting.

I was leery of the public lands issue at first. We really have no precedent to look at here in trying to determine what might change if the state got control. SITLA has sold a bunch of property it's true. Cities and counties are always trying to develop their land to gain tax revenue. After speaking with Johnson in person about this very issue I feel very comfortable with his stance. His vision for our public lands is: BETTER access, not restricting it like the Feds. Better health, such as tree thinning and prescribed burns to maintain a healthy forest. He also wants to make our lands more productive by balancing the activities of mining, livestock, hunting, etc. Local control is his selling point here. He wants safeguards in place to prevent the sale of public lands unless there's an obvious reason, well supported by the legislators and the local people. He gave me an example: the town of Moab. It's surrounded by federal land and the city can no longer expand. Tourism is going crazy down there and we don't have enough hotels, restaurants, or employees to handle them. Many employees are commuting from other towns because there's zero land to build on and the Feds won't sell anything to the city. This is an example of something that could be very beneficial to our state. With a super-majority of legislators and local approval this type of thing could come to pass. Johnson is unalterably opposed to the sale of public land simply to generate revenue. Also, $14 million seems like quite a bit of money at first...but compared to the money Herbert has wasted on giving contracts to his friends its a drop in the bucket. Johnson believes we can win the lawsuit. He was an attorney before he became CEO of Overstock and is probably more qualified to make that assessment than most of us.

To be clear, I'm not trying to say we_ should_ file the lawsuit. I'm just not at all worried about the issue after talking to JJ.

There are many issues to look at, such as public education, the economy, state boards and commissions (including the Wildlife Board), public lands, etc. Johnson is clearly the better choice for education and the economy. He has promised to get rid of the corrupt officials within our DWR and Wildlife Board, along with all the other boards and commissions. He will get rid of useless government agencies and positions. And, worst case scenario, he's equal to Herbert on the public lands issue.

I see no valid reason to vote for Herbert, unless you are one of the individuals receiving kickbacks from him. Just my opinion :mrgreen:

I'm actually quite shocked to see so much support for Herbert by Utah sportsmen. But then, I was shocked to see Obama get re-elected as well.


----------



## grizzly (Jun 3, 2012)

I tossed my primary ballot this year since there wasn't a write-in slot. I will vote for a Democrat for Governor (for the first time ever) as well as vote for the Democrat against Rob Bishop.

Kev Ivory endorsed Johnson in today's Tribune as being stronger than Herbert on the land grab. That is all I needed to know... neither one of them will ever get my vote.

PS. If you haven't watched Randy Newberg's land grab videos on YouTube, check them out. They're fantastic.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

El Mat, I am open to seeing things from different points of view. So help me out, as here is how I see the following items--

Did you happen to read the link I posted? It was passed this last leg. session to govern how the State will deal with the Fed lands should they win. Within that Act it states that the Director has the authority to sell off land parcels less than 200 acres-- with no approval needed. So Moab for example-- the Director could sell lands with no leg. majority approval, nor would he need local approval. He only needs legislative approval on parcels over 200 acres. Who will appoint that Director? What will that reg mean now, or for my kids, or my grandkids? 

What does "Local control is his selling point" mean? Does it mean all Utahns or are we into the realm of people in X town get to decide what happens on the hill behind their house? Reminds me a touch of how wildlife management decisions are sometimes made with "local" leanings-- people can decide how well some of those worked out.

There is some irony that the complaints about the Wildlife Board could be made in the future about the UPLM Board.....

And I don't see a whole lot of approval for Herbert on this thread. 

Hawkeye-- I might just throw away my vote on someone who won't win this year. But I won't vote for someone who has stated they want to privatize public lands (some or all). Herbert, Ivory, Johnson, Greene, etc are all on record as supporting such.


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

grizzly said:


> I tossed my primary ballot this year since there wasn't a write-in slot. I will vote for a Democrat for Governor (for the first time ever) as well as vote for the Democrat against Rob Bishop.
> 
> Kev Ivory endorsed Johnson in today's Tribune as being stronger than Herbert on the land grab. That is all I needed to know... neither one of them will ever get my vote.
> 
> PS. If you haven't watched Randy Newberg's land grab videos on YouTube, check them out. They're fantastic.


We have very similar plans for this election. Dem for governor and against bishop as well. I feel like I'm lost in the weeds politically after having always considered myself a moderate conservative.

However, it is very apparent that the politicians with an r next to their names in this state don't have our interests as sportsmen in mind.

Johnson and Herbert may be different on a few issues, but Johnson would be just as bad, if not worse, for public lands and access in Utah, despite what he may have told sportsmen in one on one conversations.


----------



## El Matador (Dec 21, 2007)

Packout, why you gotta always be so rational? :mrgreen: I just read through the link you posted, and those laws are a bit worrysome. Keep in mind though, Johnson had nothing to do with those laws. His stance is that selling public land to gain revenue should never happen. He made that abundantly clear. He also said of that very legislation that it's only a start. Personally I would not choose to file the lawsuit, but I feel like it's inevitable. Sooner or later somebody's going to do it. If it fails then we've lost some money. If it passes I would much rather have Johnson in charge than somebody well-known for bribery and kick-backs, Available Jones himself. For the record I would like to see that legislation heavily modified to include any amount of land, and more safeguards against sale or transfer of "national forest".

Local control, as Jonathan explained, is primarily giving the locals a bigger voice. Not putting them in complete control. Just how our RAC system is _supposed_ to work. The Wildlife Board should be there to veto or intervene with the RAC process only when there's significant conflicts. More of an oversight committee than a legislative body. That's how Johnson wants our School Board to operate, and it's how he ran his business at Overstock. He delegated responsibilities and decision-making while maintaining the oversight and authority of a good leader.

Corruption within the UPLM board is a fear of mine as well. Hopefully the power to administer and potentially sell our public lands will eventually rest with the people and our legislators, not just a handful of individuals.

This is a great discussion by the way.


----------



## El Matador (Dec 21, 2007)

Kwalk3 said:


> Johnson would be just as bad, if not worse, for public lands and access in Utah, despite what he may have told sportsmen in one on one conversations.


Could you give a little more insight on this? Johnson has been pretty forthcoming about wanting to increase public access, not decrease it. Just wondering where these sentiments are coming from


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

El Matador said:


> Could you give a little more insight on this? Johnson has been pretty forthcoming about wanting to increase public access, not decrease it. Just wondering where these sentiments are coming from


I understand what he's said, and it's really the same justifications and rhetoric that have been used by lawmakers in favor of the transfer. He may even have good intentions to preserve and enhance access as he's said.

However, good intentions are quickly forgotten when the state is under fire for not putting enough money into education or any number of other programs deemed more important than my favorite section of national forest or blm.

Plain and simple, he is strongly in favor of suing for state ownership of federal lands, which history has shown doesn't end with "better access." Anybody that is pushing for this transfer and telling us access can be made better, either has no understanding of the history and economics of land management or is possibly being a little disingenuous.

I believe there have been instances of him referencing that some of the lands would have to be sold as well..... will try and dig up tomorrow.

It's clear you support him, and that's great. However, no politician that supports the transfer of public land to the states will get my vote. There is no clear plan to preserve access and protect against sell-off. In fact the ambiguity in the legislation already passed would appear to make small sell offs easier.

As you noted, Johnson didn't pen the legislation. However he has been in step with his party on this issue and even feels a greater need to pursue this idea than Herbert and is completely opposite from the Democratic candidates position.

I'll go with the one that doesn't leave any room for guessing or interpretation as it pertains to this issue.


----------



## Idratherbehunting (Jul 17, 2013)

El Matador said:


> Packout, why you gotta always be so rational? :mrgreen: I just read through the link you posted, and those laws are a bit worrysome. Keep in mind though, Johnson had nothing to do with those laws. His stance is that selling public land to gain revenue should never happen. He made that abundantly clear. He also said of that very legislation that it's only a start. Personally I would not choose to file the lawsuit, but I feel like it's inevitable. Sooner or later somebody's going to do it. If it fails then we've lost some money. If it passes I would much rather have Johnson in charge than somebody well-known for bribery and kick-backs, Available Jones himself. For the record I would like to see that legislation heavily modified to include any amount of land, and more safeguards against sale or transfer of "national forest".
> 
> Local control, as Jonathan explained, is primarily giving the locals a bigger voice. Not putting them in complete control. Just how our RAC system is _supposed_ to work. The Wildlife Board should be there to veto or intervene with the RAC process only when there's significant conflicts. More of an oversight committee than a legislative body. That's how Johnson wants our School Board to operate, and it's how he ran his business at Overstock. He delegated responsibilities and decision-making while maintaining the oversight and authority of a good leader.
> 
> ...


Here is the problem I see with the logic with what Johnson wants. He could promise you a pink unicorn with a purple elephant riding it, but unless the legislation is changed (something he can't do), he has no way to deliver on "no land being sold" or "more access", because the State Legislature and the current Governor have already passed that as the land board could sell all the land they wanted, as long as it was in 200 acre chunks. He can promise all he wants, but if he can't get the legislature to change the law, his authority is limited.

The lawsuit is a waste of time and money from everything I've read, especially since in the Enabling Act signed when we became a state, we disclaimed all future claim on Federal Land, but even if it were a valid lawsuit and the state won, it would do two things: 1) Land would be under the control of this newly formed board, currently structured to be filled with a pretty heavy slant towards people with the incentive to privatize the land, and 2) it would set precedent for all surrounding states, none of which have set up any type of group to manage the lands they are fighting for, if they were to win.

Overall, I feel like Kwalk, someone a little lost politically, as the party I have most closely associated with my entire life is now electing and nominating people who do not share similar opinions and views as I do.


----------



## riptheirlips (Jun 30, 2008)

Could not vote for Herbert after he refused to listen to the people about moving the prison. He sold out to his buddy who is a developer less than a mile from the prison. Billions wasted on moving prison that the people said no. Cannot cast a vote for someone who does not listen to the people.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

riptheirlips said:


> Could not vote for Herbert after he refused to listen to the people about moving the prison. He sold out to his buddy who is a developer less than a mile from the prison. Billions wasted on moving prison that the people said no. Cannot cast a vote for someone who does not listen to the people.


I will forgive him if they build a NFL football stadium in its place and bring in a pro team.

-DallanC


----------



## grizzly (Jun 3, 2012)

The problem with intentions, whatever they claim to be, is the Utah Constitution requires a balanced-budget. When oil is low, as it is today, or our need for drilling dissipates due to some future technological improvement, and we can't afford to manage the land (as the Republicans own study says we can't under $80/barrel oil)... the Governor will either be forced to sell the land or raise taxes.

Can you be sure no future Governor will ever sell the land? I asked Mike Noel personally to write it in the law and he refused. They know land will be sold, they even make a specific bank account in the law to hold the funds once land is sold. They're planning on selling land. And no Governor's promise can stop it. 

PS. If the Feds don't agree to keep fighting wildfires on our new state-owned land, we need $120/barrel oil just to break even. And that doesn't even allow us to recover start-up costs to buy all the new equipment to manage all this new land. 

They're lying fools, every one of them.


----------



## Hoopermat (Dec 17, 2010)

Any candidate that supports the land transfer will not get my vote. Period. 
These are our lands and these people are wasting millions of Utah tax payer dollars to try and take our public lands away from us.


----------



## Hoopermat (Dec 17, 2010)

DallanC said:


> riptheirlips said:
> 
> 
> > Could not vote for Herbert after he refused to listen to the people about moving the prison. He sold out to his buddy who is a developer less than a mile from the prison. Billions wasted on moving prison that the people said no. Cannot cast a vote for someone who does not listen to the people.
> ...


If so at least you'll have a place to go on Sunday after they sell off all of the public lands


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

forget fires. That money is small potatoes.


What about litigation costs currently absorbed by the Federal Gov't (our federal taxes) from every lawsuit involving any kind of endangered species or land issue? How on earth can the State of Utah afford to handle each and every one of these lawsuits without those federal taxes that Americans from all over the country contribute to? Is Utah really ready to absorb those costs without help?

Add fire fighting to that mix, and we're going to become a pretty highly taxed state! I might have to move to Panaca and commute to Cedar City!


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Hoopermat said:


> If so at least you'll have a place to go on Sunday after they sell off all of the public lands


Heh,

Seriously though, if this went through... if / when the state started selling off lands. I would try to find some partners and buy up a large section for ourselves.

Worst case scenario though... state takes over the federal lands and sells it off to the Chinese, they then build a stadium actually do bring in a football team, but its the Browns.

-DallanC


----------



## Trooper (Oct 18, 2007)

Good discussion everyone. Here's my question: What does "increased access" really mean? It sounds like code for something, but what? My guess is that it means removing Wilderness Designations and allowing motorized traffic wherever- cross country, in streams, through the desert. Is that something we (Utahns) really want? If I'm off-base, would someone please describe what "access" means?


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Trooper said:


> If I'm off-base, would someone please describe what "access" means?


Ski lifts, Ziplines and yuppy mountain bike trails.

-DallanC


----------



## muleydeermaniac (Jan 17, 2008)

Trooper said:


> Good discussion everyone. Here's my question: What does "increased access" really mean? It sounds like code for something, but what? My guess is that it means removing Wilderness Designations and allowing motorized traffic wherever- cross country, in streams, through the desert. Is that something we (Utahns) really want? If I'm off-base, would someone please describe what "access" means?


Wow, I didn't even think about this angle on the more access line. I usually don't get caught up in these discussions, but this one is huge. I like so many other people have seen what an oil well or natural gas does to a mountainous area. Just devastates it. one for example is the Henry's Fork river on the North slope of the Uinta's. But back to the more roads, etc. I Love hiking into areas that roads aren't allowed! I love the silence with no four wheelers or side by sides driving everywhere. I love sitting at a lake and being the only one fishing it for days! All of that could go away! I have never voted Democrat, but both Republicans are completely against what I want and believe should happen. So there is a first time for everything! Here's mine! And it's been said before, they ignore the people's voice because they feel they are a shoe in for reelection because it's Utah.


----------



## grizzly (Jun 3, 2012)

Trooper said:


> Good discussion everyone. Here's my question: What does "increased access" really mean? It sounds like code for something, but what? My guess is that it means removing Wilderness Designations and allowing motorized traffic wherever- cross country, in streams, through the desert. Is that something we (Utahns) really want? If I'm off-base, would someone please describe what "access" means?


It's kind of like the Bundy clan saying they want to return the Malheur "to the people". It already belongs "to the people", you and I can go there any time that we want. What they really want to do is take it from "the people" and give it to a few select ranchers that claim some convoluted 'rights of ownership' based on 'adverse possession' and 'beneficial use'.


----------



## izzydog (Jan 18, 2008)

grizzly said:


> I tossed my primary ballot this year since there wasn't a write-in slot. I will vote for a Democrat for Governor (for the first time ever) as well as vote for the Democrat against Rob Bishop.
> 
> Kev Ivory endorsed Johnson in today's Tribune as being stronger than Herbert on the land grab. That is all I needed to know... neither one of them will ever get my vote.
> 
> PS. If you haven't watched Randy Newberg's land grab videos on YouTube, check them out. They're fantastic.


Word for word!


----------



## bigbr (Oct 24, 2007)

*A true Wildlife defender or is that offender*

I just took the time to read all about the Gubernatorial candidates registered to run this year in Utah. Let me say that the public service these gentlemen provide has brought me to tears.

I have decided that Utah needs, wants and deserves Supper Dell Schanze as the next Governor for the state of Utah. What a true protector of public lands! An avid second amendments supporter. Most importantly; a man who will give a leg up too and for wildlife. As with the Clintons, he has served his time with good behavior and is deserving of a higher office.

I do here-bye endorse and pledge my vote and support for Dell Schanze the next governor of the Great State of Utah.

So help me AARP, Big


----------



## hawkeye (Feb 18, 2008)

As I have said before, it doesn't matter to who you vote for. That is a personal decision. However, let's use this election as an opportunity to make our voices heard. In addition to the problems that we ahve been dealing with for years, there are some major challenges ahead of us. The candidates, including Governor Herbert, are scrambling to earn out votes. Make sure you express your concerns to them regarding hunting and wildlife management issues. For me, these issues include the following: management of public lands, stream access, increased accountability and transparency, the DWR's failure to follow its own rules, the increasing number of wealth tags, etc.

Hawkeye


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

hawkeye said:


> However, let's use this election as an opportunity to make our voices heard. In addition to the problems that we ahve been dealing with for years, there are some major challenges ahead of us.


Ain't that the truth. In all my life, I've never seen so many land/water management issues on the table at once and more is certainly on the way. Public lands transfer, PLI, stream access, Wasatch Conservation Area, Bear's Ears National Monument, Bear River, Gooseberry, constitutional sheriffs, LWCF, Lake Powell pipeline, county planning districts...makes my head hurt and I have more tolerance and time for politics than most.

While we should most certainly be motivated to at least vote (The majority of us don't.), voting by itself isn't enough to make sportsmen's issues a priority in the political arena.

I'm not the smartest tool in the shed, but it seems to me that if we're really going to make "our" voices heard, we need to crank up the volume. One way to do that is to unite our voices whenever possible. At present, we're divided by our focal interests. Most of our organizations are dedicated to a specific animal or fish or type of hunting. So when funding for phrag control is cut, that's an issue for Delta Waterfowl. When public waterways are closed, that's an issue for Utah Stream Access Coalition. And when a National Conservation and Recreation Area is proposed in order to limit development on critical habitat, well, nobody wants to support that because it was proposed by "environmentalists".

Don't we have a consensus on a basic set of values: conserving wildlife, protecting habitat and preserving public access?


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

grizzly said:


> ...
> 
> PS. If you haven't watched Randy Newberg's land grab videos on YouTube, check them out. They're fantastic.


Yes!!


----------

