# New Monument



## adamsoa (Oct 29, 2007)

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/55262 ... qus_thread

I wonder what kind of effect this will have on the LE units in the monument.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

I would expect none...hunting is still allowed on the Grand Staircase monument...why would it affect this one? I like the idea!


----------



## adamsoa (Oct 29, 2007)

I guess it would depend on the off road access. Not sure how that plays out.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Personally, I like the idea of limiting access and closing roads. I don't have a problem with the idea of maintaining some roads and some atv access, but protecting some of our awesome landscapes from abuse is not a bad thing. Somehow, a middle ground needs to be reached between access and use issues with the abuse issues...


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

That's the problem, there appears to be no middle ground.......


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Maybe not (it's kind of like our whole political landscape right now--a deeply divided country and deeply divided user base)...but it seems to me that the designation of the Grand Staircase has been a great thing. I love it!


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

wyoming2utah said:


> Maybe not...but it seems to me that the designation of the Grand Staircase has been a great thing. I love it!


Depends on who you are and what you like to do.....

Edit:
Deeply divided and no middle ground is the way things are now.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Huntoholic said:


> wyoming2utah said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe not...but it seems to me that the designation of the Grand Staircase has been a great thing. I love it!
> ...


Again, maybe...but what really has changed? What could we do before the designation that we can't do now?


----------



## Towhee (Oct 23, 2012)

I say do it. And then do the same thing to the pinedale anticline, and the bookcliffs, and any other place that supports great geography and large amount of animals.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

wyoming2utah said:


> Huntoholic said:
> 
> 
> > wyoming2utah said:
> ...


Not sure on the Stair Case, but what has changed in the Swell is camping. And that is with just a proposed Wilderness Designation.


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

wyoming2utah said:


> .....
> Again, maybe...but what really has changed? What could we do before the designation that we can't do now?


I am not sure but I remember with the Grand Staircase there was some fuss about some school trust lands being swept up in the designation and locked up. I believe there some coal mining deals that got thwarted there. Anyone know the real scoop?


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

A National Monument can be whatever the declaration says it is. It can include mining, OHV use, heck, even full scale oil & gas development. There is no set of management that goes just with a monument designation. Each National Monument is unique in the resources there to be protected, as well as the management required to protect them. What Monument designation does do is shift priority from a multiple-use mandate, to saying one particular resource will take priority if management conflicts exist. If mining or OHV use conflict with protection of a Monument designated to protect beautiful scenery, then they will be prohibited - giving the scenic values higher priority to OHV use or mining. But just because anything is declared a National Monument does not result in a general package of management decisions.

Now the bigger beef with National Monument designation is with one of two ways they are created. First, they can be created by Congress, through passing a bill through both houses and then signed by the President. There usually is not an issue with Monuments created this way. The second method is that the President may designate a Monument under authority given him, by Congress, in the Historic Preservation Act of 1906 with no approval of any kind from anyone, including Congress. This power was originally given for protection of small historic sites. But over time has extended and used as a way of changing management priority over large tracts of land - Grand Staircase sill being the largest of these (I think that is still the case). Many feel that the such designations are an abuse of Presidential powers, and are contrary to the intent of the Historic Preservation Act. 

As I understand the Grand Staircase issue, the monument designation placed higher priority on preserving the natural and geologic landscapes over mining and OHV access. I don't think the designation included full mineral withdrawl - I don't believe it did. There is a significant coal deposit there, but it is fairly low grade coal, and is quite deep as I understand it (I could be wrong here). But it seems like I remember that the depth and grade of the coal make it pretty uneconomical to mine.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

I'm cautiously in favor of this but as they say, the devil is in the details, and as Gary explained, that can vary. If the monument is anything like the staircase, I don't think it will affect the hunts much. 

Two more points from the article;

1. In reading the article, it sounds like the local outdoor businesses and community in and around Moab are spearheading this. This sounds like the "local" control we so often hear about from Governor Sherbert and Mr. Swallow. The locals are probably afraid that the state would otherwise sell off this land to the highest bidder if the states ill conceived land grab somehow succeeds and put them out of business. Good to see they "get it".

2. If the states land grab efforts continue, I can't help but think that the outdoor retailers will take their conventions out of state. That would sting our economy a bit. (actually, a lot)


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

Sherbert and Wallow are doing a bad thing with this land grab. It could cost us millions in court and legal expenses alone. If they grab it watch out for the fast moving croanyism landslide when it comes to selling it off.

Can you say under the table kick-backs boys and girls?


----------



## bigbr (Oct 24, 2007)

Glad to see that we have a thriving groupe of government can do it all mentalities on this forum. just remember that your hunting privledge is the last thing that monument status will consider. And don't for one second think that the bull deficators will stop with just one!

Are we still living in America?


----------



## Dukes_Daddy (Nov 14, 2008)

I love the idea. What I hate is the O.R attitude. Mr. President. Utah hates you so "do it". Be like Bill.


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

bigbr said:


> Glad to see that we have a thriving groupe of government can do it all mentalities on this forum. just remember that your hunting privledge is the last thing that monument status will consider. And don't for one second think that the bull deficators will stop with just one!
> 
> Are we still living in America?


WOW! I thought I was the only one that was starting to fail to recognize our great nation.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

GaryFish said:


> A National Monument can be whatever the declaration says it is. It can include mining, OHV use, heck, even full scale oil & gas development.


I'm just curious if there is a National Monument that has a declaration with a priority to "mining, OHV use, even full scale oil & gas development"?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

I could be wrong, but OHV use, hunting, cattle grazing, and mining are not only all still allowed on the Grand Staircase...but part of its original declaration made certain that those things would continue. Protecting special places is a good thing...


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Huntoholic said:


> I'm just curious if there is a National Monument that has a declaration with a priority to "mining, OHV use, even full scale oil & gas development"?


I am not aware of any. My point was, that each monument is different. And what the monument designation does is it changes management from attempting to balance multiple uses, to giving highest priority to one use. But if other activities can occur and still keep the primary resource protected, then they can go forward.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

GaryFish said:


> Huntoholic said:
> 
> 
> > I'm just curious if there is a National Monument that has a declaration with a priority to "mining, OHV use, even full scale oil & gas development"?
> ...


I think it is a bit miss leading to indicate that priority might be given to "mining, OHV use, even full scale oil & gas development" when there is no case or very, very few cases. Monuments are not created to protect "mining, OHV use, even full scale oil & gas development". 
I understand each monument is different with different regulations. But wilderness acts and Monuments are now being used in ways that were not intended. Personally I'm of the opinion that Utah has enough locked up land. We have plenty of regulations, if they would just be enforced, to protect the remaining areas. The pendulum has now swung the other way. I'm against this monument being created.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

I guess I wrote that kind of weird. I didn't mean that a monument would be created to given mining, OHV or O&G development the highest priority. I wasn't clear there. Sorry about that. My point was, just because something is a monument, it doesn't automatically preclude energy development. That is all. Sorry I wasn't more clear.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

This isn't a question of whether or not there is "enough" land locked up...it is a question of whether or not this land should be locked up. I believe this land should be "locked up" because it is worth protecting...to me, this is some pretty incredible country that shouldn't be exploited. Others obviously may disagree...also, just because mining, OHV use, and oil and gas development isn't protected doesn't mean they can't happen either.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Huntoholic said:


> I understand each monument is different with different regulations. But wilderness acts and Monuments are now being used in ways that were not intended.


I do understand these concerns and if such a plan went through, it will be as important to scrutinize the details of a proposed monument as the overall act itself. That said, I believe it is telling that Moab businesses that depend on jeep tours, rock climbing, hiking, back country access, and mountain biking trails are the ones pushing for this. I have great difficulty believing that a jeep tour business would support a monument that would cut off OHV use.

As I said before, I suspect that these businesses believe "locking up" these lands by granting monument status is the best way to keep them truly unlocked. Nothing will lock up these lands more surely than the State selling them off and seeing no trespassing signs go up.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

One thing we have learned about these designations is that they have also been a huge boost to local economies...
http://sfred.org/media-center/featured- ... rosperity/


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

wyoming2utah said:


> One thing we have learned about these designations is that they have also been a huge boost to local economies...
> http://sfred.org/media-center/featured- ... rosperity/


Key word in the conclusion "Balance".


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

Catherder said:


> Huntoholic said:
> 
> 
> > I understand each monument is different with different regulations. But wilderness acts and Monuments are now being used in ways that were not intended.
> ...


Yep, we are out of balance. On one hand we have the State wanting to sell it off. On the other we have those that only want a few to see these great wonders. If we spent the dollars that are paid to the courts and lawyers to just enforce the existing laws and regulations, far more people would be able to enjoy these wonders.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Huntoholic said:


> wyoming2utah said:
> 
> 
> > One thing we have learned about these designations is that they have also been a huge boost to local economies...
> ...


You are right...the key word is "balance". But, that is exactly what happened with the last designation that people were so up in arms over. The balance was struck and the Grand Staircase has ultimately been a very good thing for Utah...regardless of the politics involved of why or how it was designated.

If that balance is struck again with this other area, we could again have a very good monument designated that boosts local economies and allows for multiple uses without exploiting or damaging a truly special area.

We are only out of "Balance" in our politics...to me it is sad that something like this can't have both sides come together and find common grounds. There is no reason why we can't protect an area and still responsibly mine, graze, and develop natural resources.


----------



## cklspencer (Jun 25, 2009)

If you let them lock this up, what will they lock up next? It is a never ending cycle and will keep going if we let it. It maybe some spot you don't care about this time but what about the next time around. You give them control over it and they will start to take away what you can do on it. The worst part is who is pushing to get this locked up, so outside private group who is after money should have the power to control what belongs to the public.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Nothing is being locked up....the only way it could be locked up is if the state gains control of these lands, sells them off to a private individual or company, and that individual locks the public out. Otherwise, the designation allows the public continued use!


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

wyoming2utah said:


> We are only out of "Balance" in our politics...to me it is sad that something like this can't have both sides come together and find common grounds. There is no reason why we can't protect an area and still responsibly mine, graze, and develop natural resources.


I agree with this statement.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

cklspencer said:


> The worst part is who is pushing to get this locked up, so outside private group who is after money should have the power to control what belongs to the public.


The businesses and citizens that actually live and work in the affected area are an "outside private group"? Huh? :?:


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

wyoming2utah said:


> Nothing is being locked up....the only way it could be locked up is if the state gains control of these lands, sells them off to a private individual or company, and that individual locks the public out. Otherwise, the designation allows the public continued use!


So explain the difference between being governed by a federal agency versus a "Monument Status"?


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

Catherder said:


> cklspencer said:
> 
> 
> > The worst part is who is pushing to get this locked up, so outside private group who is after money should have the power to control what belongs to the public.
> ...


I think in some ways these local businesses are between a rock and hard spot. On one side is the State with the plans to sale off and on the other could be a Monument with very limited useage. Their future is being based on the unknown.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Huntoholic said:


> wyoming2utah said:
> 
> 
> > Nothing is being locked up....the only way it could be locked up is if the state gains control of these lands, sells them off to a private individual or company, and that individual locks the public out. Otherwise, the designation allows the public continued use!
> ...


I am not sure what you are asking...a federal agency does govern these areas that are "monuments". But, how is that locked up? I can still hike, fish, hunt, ride my OHV, and recreate on national monuments. I don't feel locked out at all....

...I think there is a huge misconception that usage has dropped. It hasn't...usage has increased on these national monuments!


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Huntoholic said:


> On one side is the State with the plans to sale off and on the other could be a Monument with very limited useage. Their future is being based on the unknown.


limited usage? I guess from a mining, logging, and oil production standpoint you could say "usage" would be limited. However, from a recreation standpoint (hunting, ATVs, hiking, camping, site-seeing, etc) usage, just like on the Grand Staircase, would probably increase.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

wyoming2utah said:


> Huntoholic said:
> 
> 
> > wyoming2utah said:
> ...


My point is there is something happening or different when the "Monument Status" is given. They are both being governed by the Feds. There has to be a reason for the two. So what is the difference?
On useage of the Staircase, what has gone up and what has gone down? How many roads were closed, opened or were they left same. What restrictions on camping? More, less or the same. Access in general? More, less or the same as before? I can say usages are up by having a 100,00 people drive down one road in the middle of the area.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

The biggest difference between Public Land (BLM Lands) and a National Monument is that Public Lands have to be managed with a multiple use mandate as required by FLPMA. A National Monument does not have to be managed for multiple use, but instead, can be managed with one use given higher priority over all other uses. The other thing with a National Monument is that they can be managed by BLM, as in the Grand Staircase, or by the National Park Service, like at Golden Spike. Or some combination of both - like Craters of the Moon in Idaho. National Park Service tends to manage more for preservation and interpretation, whereas BLM tends to manage more for outdoor recreational experience. Again, it all goes back to the enabling legislation or Presidential proclamation.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

PBH said:


> Huntoholic said:
> 
> 
> > On one side is the State with the plans to sale off and on the other could be a Monument with very limited useage. Their future is being based on the unknown.
> ...


Not necessarily. It all depends on the restrictions attached. I have yet to be on a Monument that has less restrictions than when it was just governed by the Federal agency before "Monument Status".


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

However, most large land-grab national monuments tend to be less restrictive than Wilderness Study Area management.


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

bigbr said:


> Glad to see that we have a thriving groupe of government can do it all mentalities on this forum. just remember that your hunting privledge is the last thing that monument status will consider. And don't for one second think that the bull deficators will stop with just one!
> 
> Are we still living in America?


For once....I agree with you completely. Being from Moab, it is not the same as it used to be when I was growing up there. To listen to those who try to sell the monument as a good thing, they do not refer to hunting and only refer to access via motor vehicle as "existing roads" which will be left to the interpretation of who?

Also, with regard to selling public lands to private citizens. Sounds great, doesn't it? Until you have to cut a check to DP or someone else who will drive the dollar on animals on those units where right now, you can hunt freely! I understand the fiscal benefit, if restrictions to other resources are thoughtfully put in place to prevent abuse of the citizenship that it belongs to right now!


----------



## Longfeather (Nov 27, 2007)

Also, once they make it a monument everyone and thier dog will know about it and want to visit. 

It will be printed on the maps all the out of state fruit and nut types that don't go there now, will...


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

What can't we do on the Grand Staircase that we could do before (recreation)?

I hunt rabbits, coyotes, and deer. I ride ATVs. I hike. I camp. I see far more people using that area now than prior to it being named a monument.


I don't see oil rigs. I don't see mining operations. I don't see log trucks. You know what? It doesn't bother me that I don't see those things. I actually kind of like it.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Longfeather said:


> Also, once they make it a monument everyone and thier dog will know about it and want to visit.
> 
> It will be printed on the maps all the out of state fruit and nut types that don't go there now, will...


For an area that depends so much on travel and tourism, how could anyone consider that a bad thing???

Fruit and nut types. You mean, all those people that pay taxes that go towards funding for forest fire fighting?

you people kill me.

that's what people won't look at. They'll bitch and moan about the loss of timber and resource losses -- but they won't attempt to take advantage of the huge influx of tourism happening all around them.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

The land in this proposal is land surrounding the section of Canyonlands National Park already. Its not like it is some kind of hidden secret. Seems to me that a better solution than a Monument would be to just expand the boundaries of the National Park.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

GaryFish said:


> The land in this proposal is land surrounding the section of Canyonlands National Park already. Its not like it is some kind of hidden secret. Seems to me that a better solution than a Monument would be to just expand the boundaries of the National Park.


Why does anything need to be done? Is int not controlled already by the Feds?


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

One last comment on this.



GaryFish said:


> Seems to me that a better solution than a Monument would be to just expand the boundaries of the National Park.


Changing the area to National Park status would restrict or eliminate hunting and many other recreational uses. While it may be suitable for some land parcels there, it would be too restrictive to do this to the entire area under consideration IMO.



klbzdad said:


> Being from Moab, it is not the same as it used to be when I was growing up there.





Longfeather said:


> It will be printed on the maps all the out of state fruit and nut types that don't go there now, will...


I was in Moab a couple of months ago for the first time since 1993, when I interviewed for a job there way back then. I was staggered by the changes. The place went from a sleepy little town to a genuine tourist mecca. There certainly was a lot more wealth evident there too. It wasn't just "fruit and nut" types that were there, but average folks from Germany, The Netherlands, and from the East coast, all spending plenty of dough to go river rafting, jeep riding, rock climbing and the usual tourist things. It seems to me that Moab is a good example of a town that embraced the tourist economy and has greatly benefited from it. Not all areas of the state have the natural wonders of Grand county, but I agree with PBH that bashing it seems ridiculous. As I said before, if these folks feel that monument status helps them, that carries significant weight. While we would need to watch what the details are in a proposed monument, if the result is a monument like the Staircase, hunters and recreationalists shouldn't have much to worry about.


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

Let me just say that "those people" who are claiming it will help them, were NOT in Moab back in 1993 and were NOT granola munchers or tree huggers of the original variety that were home grown there. They are very wealthy people who moved there in hopes of doing this very thing. And I can assure you, they are anti-hunting. On your next trip, ask one of them their thoughts on cryptobiotic soil and enjoy that conversation! Preservation of use, just like PBH is talking about in the staircase, is vital. There were guarantees that use would continue and it wouldn't lock it all up. However, one can't help question the motives of both sides, no?


----------



## TopofUtahArcher (Sep 9, 2009)

And the Uintah Mountain range, and the Wellsville Mountain Range, and all of the Wasatch Front, and, and and and... where does it end?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Great wildlife conservation, is realizing when preservation is the best prescription. Monuments are THE current compromise scenario between the conservation and preservation ideologies. They are NOT some sort of extreme goverment take over that "locks up" public land. The preservation side has come to rely on the monument compromise to appease those too fat to walk, and welfare ranchers, loggers, and miners that cant afford their own land. Monuments are for pussies, we need more emphases on wilderness designation. I mean at look how bad those are for wildlife and hunting.

Crypto soil?, try walking on it in my presence.


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

PM your address to me Lone and I'll scoop some up and send it to you for safe keeping! LOL


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

By mail? Not in person? :rotfl: 

PM sent


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

You'd better talk to one of or mutual friends before wanting to tell me in person not to strip on some crusty old dirt  thanks for the pm though!!!!!


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

These " monuments" will ultimately see 'no hunting allowed ' ......Just a matter of time.

VERY , very bad for Utah hunters....IMHO.


----------



## bigbr (Oct 24, 2007)

Headlines: "NATIONAL PARK ANEXES MONUMENT" no hunting allowed ....KEEP OUT!


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> These " monuments" will ultimately see 'no hunting allowed ' ......Just a matter of time.
> 
> VERY , very bad for Utah hunters....IMHO.


What makes you think this? How much time are we talking about out of curiosity? We have already seen...what? 16 years pass on the Grand Staircase and there still hasn't even been an attempt at banning hunting on the monument...and, if you look at the original declaration, hunting was one of the recreational uses guaranteed to continue. When land gets designated as a national monument, recreationists should jump for joy because national monuments are preserved for them and to protect recreational users and the land they recreate on!


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

The feds closed the Paria river to vehicles. A place some of the biggest deer in Utah winter.

Jump for joy? Protect it from what? Do you really think commercial activity on the Staircase was going to jeopardize the landcape as a whole? 

It's not like Utah has a shortage of locked up canyon country that is designated look but don't touch. I think many of these designations are overkill, We already have too many national monuments that don't deserve the designation. Most people come to canyon country are in awe the first day then could really care less about rest. Its just more of the same. 

As far as I'm concerned this new monument proposal will satisfy an Utopian mentality and ultimately shaft commerce and recreation.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> The feds closed the Paria river to vehicles. A place some of the biggest deer in Utah winter.


So, what? Because it has been closed--protected from-- to vehicles, you can't hunt there? What happened to get of your butt and walk? What about horses?

Have you never seen the damage OHVs do?


----------



## bigbr (Oct 24, 2007)

What many on this thread fail to realize is that Grand Staircase –Escalante was a first of its kind. The only reason that Utah got the previsions in the monument that were put in place is, because Congressman James Hansen of Utah was the Chair of the public lands and appropriations and it was at his hand that the monument plan was crafted. Jim would not let the funding or final approval come out of committee without such provisions. Utah no longer has this committee seat and any new Utah National Monument will have little to no steering by our Utah federal delegation. If my memory serves me right mining, gas and oil extraction and exploration are not currently being pursued because in the charter these resources are set aside for future generations reserved by congress.

In my opinion sportsmen who are pushing for further federal restrictions on public land are only asking for more headaches and lost opportunities across the spectrum including reduced or eliminated recreational activities. The enabling act for the State of Utah guarantied the citizens of Utah millions of acres of federal controlled property that was to be given back to the state for furthering the social and economic good with things like prisons, courthouse, land grant colleges just to name a few. This is why I support the governor in his efforts to exercise title to federal lands promised and signed into law with the Utah Statehood enabling ACT. I feel that we are governed best at a local level.
Big


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Yeah you retards are right, you convinced me. We need to make sure we maintain "access". This means to winter range too. No one has the right to tell me I cant run my wheeler any place I want. I mean, how else am I going to get there. :roll: 

Guess what is even better than national monuments? Guess what has hunting and fishing written in as a priorty use by design, that can not be stripped away? Thats right, Wilderness designation. But everytime it gets brought up, allot of hunters start freaking out and crying foul. Why? A huge lack of education about the real world, and a buy in to propaganda that would sell out hunting, in return for a percieved gain in bull **** ideology. What ever makes you little girls feel warm and fuzzy I guess. 

As ussual on this forum, lots of folks that like to vote, lobby, and take stands that are contrary to their own best interest. Of course, I am biased, and looking at this through the eyes of a hunter. And I am probably wrongfully projecting that same hunters perspective on other posters. Some times I take for granted that its a hunting forum, and that most people here would be looking out for the best interest of hunting.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

wyoming2utah said:


> Iron Bear said:
> 
> 
> > The feds closed the Paria river to vehicles. A place some of the biggest deer in Utah winter.
> ...


So I guess by Iron Bear's response he has noted that there is at least one loss for recreationist.

Have you ever seen the damage horses do to a trail?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

klbzdad said:


> You'd better talk to one of or mutual friends before wanting to tell me in person not to strip on some crusty old dirt  thanks for the pm though!!!!!


As ussual, you dont know what you are talking about. You are, and have been, a detriment to allot of good peoples hard work. Keep up the effort :evil:


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Huntoholic said:


> wyoming2utah said:
> 
> 
> > Iron Bear said:
> ...


Have you ever seen the damage they do not do off trail?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> Yeah you retards are right, you convinced me. We need to make sure we maintain "access". This means to winter range too. No one has the right to tell me I cant run my wheeler any place I want. I mean, how else am I going to get there. :roll:
> 
> Guess what is even better than national monuments? Guess what has hunting and fishing written in as a priorty use by design, that can not be stripped away? Thats right, Wilderness designation. But everytime it gets brought up, allot of hunters start freaking out and crying foul. Why? A huge lack of education about the real world, and a buy in to propaganda that would sell out hunting, in return for a percieved gain in bull **** ideology. What ever makes you little girls feel warm and fuzzy I guess.
> 
> As ussual on this forum, lots of folks that like to vote, lobby, and take stands that are contrary to their own best interest. Of course, I am biased, and looking at this through the eyes of a hunter. And I am probably wrongfully projecting that same hunters perspective on other posters. Some times I take for granted that its a hunting forum, and that most people here would be looking out for the best interest of hunting.


+1...funny, it seems like a lot of hunters on this forum and others would rather have our hunting areas exploited for gas and mineral resources rather than protected for big game. We are seeing that mining is having some seriously negative consequences on wildlife, yet some hunters continue to think we should be doing it. I don't get it! I also don't get why we wouldn't be advocating road closures that protect watersheds...again we have loads of research showing that such closures benefit game! Why would hunters oppose these things?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Because these people are not hunters! And should just find a high fence operation that allows wheeler access.


----------



## bigbr (Oct 24, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> Yeah you retards are right, you convinced me.


Wow LT a little harsh aren't you with the "retards" those are fighting words! Did you not mean Utards?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Huntoholic said:


> wyoming2utah said:
> 
> 
> > Iron Bear said:
> ...


One loss? Funny....I look at that as a major gain!

Which do more damage to a trail? Horses or ATV's/OHV's? Which have a bigger impact on wildlife, riparian areas, watersheds, and habitat?


----------



## bigbr (Oct 24, 2007)

The Forest circus would say Horses because they spred noxtious weeds....


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

We have many "best interests". People are not just hunters or fishermen. For example, I love to hunt and fish, camp, ride my horse, hike, ATV, manage our ranch, work, go to sporting events, drive to places, watch a movie, have a warm house, put gas in my car, throw the ball with my kids, go to a play, find solitude away from the masses, etc... If all you worry about is maintaining the current man-made, changed landscape then by all means cut everyone off from access and use. You know how hard it is/will be to do habitat projects on the GSE NM? Changes in land status will have effects both ways. Be it selling our public lands, restricting use, developing private lands, etc... 

I see the land in a Monument being done so for the good of only a segment of my life and only a segment of the population. The land is there now, some cooperative balance and compromise should drive its management.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Horses dont spread weeds, irresponsible horse owners spread weeds.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Packout said:


> We have many "best interests". People are not just hunters or fishermen. For example, I love to hunt and fish, camp, ride my horse, hike, ATV, manage our ranch, work, go to sporting events, drive to places, watch a movie, have a warm house, put gas in my car, throw the ball with my kids, go to a play, find solitude away from the masses, etc... If all you worry about is maintaining the current man-made, changed landscape then by all means cut everyone off from access and use. You know how hard it is/will be to do habitat projects on the GSE NM? Changes in land status will have effects both ways. Be it selling our public lands, restricting use, developing private lands, etc...
> 
> I see the land in a Monument being done so for the good of only a segment of my life and only a segment of the population. The land is there now, some cooperative balance and compromise should drive its management.


That is just it, Monument status IS a compromise. But for those that dont undersdtand, they think its some horrible over reach. As for habitat projects, they can be done very easily with monument status. But why not take care of what we have left, before we have to do a project to restore something? Why is ****ing something up, and then fixing it ok? But taking care of, mantaining it, so we dont have to go back and fix it such a taboo? You guys spouting this **** dont even know why you are saying what you are say. THINK!


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

bigbr said:


> Lonetree said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah you retards are right, you convinced me.
> ...


They are synonyms.


----------



## utahgolf (Sep 8, 2007)

bigbr said:


> In my opinion sportsmen who are pushing for further federal restrictions on public land are only asking for more headaches and lost opportunities across the spectrum including reduced or eliminated recreational activities. The enabling act for the State of Utah guarantied the citizens of Utah millions of acres of federal controlled property that was to be given back to the state for furthering the social and economic good with things like prisons, courthouse, land grant colleges just to name a few. This is why I support the governor in his efforts to exercise title to federal lands promised and signed into law with the Utah Statehood enabling ACT. I feel that we are governed best at a local level.
> Big


I have no doubt the state would sell off many areas we currently have access to. Mining/drilling lobbysts would love this and recreationists and sportsmen will suffer and in utah we won't vote them out, so our local representatives have no fear of doing just that. I don't see the federal government selling off large tracks of land. Its a lesser of two evils, and the fed wins in this case. Those that are possibly worried about a monument seeing a no hunting sign, better think about a no hunting/private property sign everywhere if the state gets the land they want. I know the fed is largely seen as "evil" but local government can be just as bad and here in utah largely held unaccountable.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Packout said:


> I see the land in a Monument being done so for the good of only a segment of my life and only a segment of the population. The land is there now, some cooperative balance and compromise should drive its management.


Oh come on....surely you can see deeper than this. Just by examining the effects these designations have on the local economies, you should be able to see how it has benefitted all.

Personally, I believe that compromise and balance has been struck. 


Packout said:


> If all you worry about is maintaining the current man-made, changed landscape then by all means cut everyone off from access and use.


Why deal in absolutes...is eveyone being cut off from access and use? Hardly...in fact, from my viewpoint, NO ONE has been cut off from access and use!


Packout said:


> You know how hard it is/will be to do habitat projects on the GSE NM? Changes in land status will have effects both ways.


Hmmm...how hard? I can think of two projects right now designed to improve habitat on the GSE NM (one of which is designed to help big game). Sure, more government hoops will be needed to get through, but that doesn't mean they won't/can't be done.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> That is just it, Monument status IS a compromise. But for those that dont undersdtand, they think its some horrible over reach. As for habitat projects, they can be done very easily with monument status. But why not take care of what we have left, before we have to do a project to restore something? Why is **** something up, and then fixing it ok? But taking care of, mantaining it, so we dont have to go back and fix it such a taboo? You guys spouting this **** dont even know why you are saying what you are say. THINK!


I'll just shut up now and let you speak for me!


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

wyoming2utah said:


> Iron Bear said:
> 
> 
> > The feds closed the Paria river to vehicles. A place some of the biggest deer in Utah winter.
> ...


Yep and every spring any evidence of tire tracks are washed away. So now its about elitism and exclusivity huh? You need horses or be able to hike 40 miles to see big deer wintering.

Effects of ATV are in reality very minimal. Close an area to ATV's and the effect they made will be erased in a matter of yrs. Not decades or centuries. In the grand scheme of things Mother earth has no idea ATV's exist. The scars you see are mealy scratches.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> Packout said:
> 
> 
> > We have many "best interests". People are not just hunters or fishermen. For example, I love to hunt and fish, camp, ride my horse, hike, ATV, manage our ranch, work, go to sporting events, drive to places, watch a movie, have a warm house, put gas in my car, throw the ball with my kids, go to a play, find solitude away from the masses, etc... If all you worry about is maintaining the current man-made, changed landscape then by all means cut everyone off from access and use. You know how hard it is/will be to do habitat projects on the GSE NM? Changes in land status will have effects both ways. Be it selling our public lands, restricting use, developing private lands, etc...
> ...


Uhhh, some of us do know what we are "spouting" about. You may, but you seem to have no comprehension of how to validly express your "knowledge".

If we were going back 500 years and creating the monument to "take care of what we have left, before we have to do a project to restore something" then your point would be valid. Unfortunately, or fortunately- however one looks at the situation, the habitat is ALREADY changed and needs to be restored in much of the proposed NM. Do you not understand the habitat change NW of Blanding? Good grief LT, you act like you have a background in wildlife and habitat yet you claim this NM will "take care of what we have left, before we have to do a project to restore" the land. And the GSE NM is closing its doors to habitat restoration projects. Ask the UDWR Habitat Section how they feel about the opportunity to improve/restore habitat in the GSE. Why would the new NM be any different?

The land is there now, some cooperative balance and compromise should drive its management.

WY2- Yeah, more gov't loops to jump through. I guess that is the direction we are headed. Brilliant.....


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Iron Bear said:


> wyoming2utah said:
> 
> 
> > [quote="Iron Bear":11w8v5gt]The feds closed the Paria river to vehicles. A place some of the biggest deer in Utah winter.
> ...


Yep and every spring any evidence of tire tracks are washed away. So now its about elitism and exclusivity huh? You need horses or be able to hike 40 miles to see big deer wintering.

Effects of ATV are in reality very minimal. Close an area to ATV's and the effect they made will be erased in a matter of yrs. Not decades or centuries. In the grand scheme of things Mother earth has no idea ATV's exist. The scars you see are mealy scratches.[/quote:11w8v5gt]

ATVs have plenty of designated road to run on. My big gripe is ATVs off of those roads, or on trails that are closed. Its more than scratches, its run off, wildlife disturbance, etc. There are conclusive studies that show that elk will not frequent areas that are within 3/4 of a mile of motorized use. These effects ripple through the ecosystem. Just keep them on designated trails, thats all most of us ask.

As for elitism, I am an elitist, so if you want to call it that, sure. You do not need horses to go 40 miles. In the lower 48 the furthest distance you can be from a road it 25 miles, thats a long days walk. In most cases you are less than 5 miles from a road, thats 2-10 hours depending on terrain.

Lastly, no one "needs" to drive/ride winter range, its bad for deer.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Packout said:


> Lonetree said:
> 
> 
> > Packout said:
> ...


A monument IS the "compromise", federal hoops will have to be jumped through for habitat work, be it a NM or not. Very little will change, other than the future of this land will be spelled out more clearly.

You are taking my sentiments on preservation, and conservation out of context, in regard to their application to the proposed NM. I'm making the case that a NM is a level of preservation, that is good for hunters and wildlife. The bigger esoteric arguement I'm making is that in many cases, NM status is a bad compromise, and short of the needed preservation.

I have more of a back ground in wildlife and habitat than a whole lot of people on this forum.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

*Re: New MonumentNew Monument*

Im an independent retard thinker on this subject. I need 8 more pages to make up my mind on who is correct.

Im leaning towards W2U and LT but if LT brings up selenium deficiencies im going to vote the other way.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

*Re: New MonumentNew Monument*



swbuckmaster said:


> Im an independent retard thinker on this subject. I need 8 more pages to make up my mind on who is correct.
> 
> Im leaning towards W2U and LT but if LT brings up selenium deficiencies im going to vote the other way.


 :rotfl: But, seriously.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> Yep and every spring any evidence of tire tracks are washed away.


yep -- it's called "erosion".



Iron Bear said:


> Effects of ATV are in reality very minimal. Close an area to ATV's and the effect they made will be erased in a matter of yrs. Not decades or centuries.


seriously? Will those affects that are washed away good or bad? When lakes silt in due to erosion caused by motorized vehicle traffic, is that something that will simply "be erased in a matter of yrs"? when was the last time you fished Chuck Lake on Boulder Top?



Joseph Heller said:


> Major Major's father was a sober God-fearing man whose idea of a good joke was to lie about his age. he was a long-limbed farmer, a God-fearing, freedom-loving, law-abiding rugged individualist who held that federal aid to anyone but farmers was creeping socialism. He advocated thrift and hard work and disapproved of loose women who turned him down. His specialty was alfalfa, and he made a good thing out of not growing any. The government paid him well for every bushel of alfalfa he did not grow. The more alfalfa he did not grow, the more money the government gave him, and he spent every penny he didn't earn on new land to increase the amount of alfalfa he did not produce. Major Major's father worked without rest at not growing alfalfa. On long winter evenings he remained indoors and did not mend harness, and he sprang out of bed at the crack of noon every day just to make certain that the chores would not be done. He invested in land wisely and soon was not growing more alfalfa than any other man in the county&#8230;.
> 
> Major Major's father was an outspoken champion of economy in government, provided it did not interfere with the sacred duty of government to pay farmers as much as they could get for all the alfalfa they produced that no one else wanted or for not producing any alfalfa at all. He was a proud and independent man who was opposed to unemployment insurance and never hesitated to whine, whimper, wheedle and extort for as much as he could get from whomever he could.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Joseph Heller said:


> Major Major's father was a sober God-fearing man whose idea of a good joke was to lie about his age. he was a long-limbed farmer, a God-fearing, freedom-loving, law-abiding rugged individualist who held that federal aid to anyone but farmers was creeping socialism. He advocated thrift and hard work and disapproved of loose women who turned him down. His specialty was alfalfa, and he made a good thing out of not growing any. The government paid him well for every bushel of alfalfa he did not grow. The more alfalfa he did not grow, the more money the government gave him, and he spent every penny he didn't earn on new land to increase the amount of alfalfa he did not produce. Major Major's father worked without rest at not growing alfalfa. On long winter evenings he remained indoors and did not mend harness, and he sprang out of bed at the crack of noon every day just to make certain that the chores would not be done. He invested in land wisely and soon was not growing more alfalfa than any other man in the county&#8230;.
> 
> Major Major's father was an outspoken champion of economy in government, provided it did not interfere with the sacred duty of government to pay farmers as much as they could get for all the alfalfa they produced that no one else wanted or for not producing any alfalfa at all. He was a proud and independent man who was opposed to unemployment insurance and never hesitated to whine, whimper, wheedle and extort for as much as he could get from whomever he could.


Now that is funny stuff!


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

PBH-"
seriously? Will those affects that are washed away good or bad? When lakes silt in due to erosion caused by motorized vehicle traffic, is that something that will simply "be erased in a matter of yrs"? when was the last time you fished Chuck Lake on Boulder Top?"

I got this. Do you think that just because some ****, liberal, scientists say that silted in streams will reduce fish, changing the entire ecosystem, reducing insects and bank brush, heating up the stream, ultimately negatively effecting ungulates for a 1/2 mile on either side of the stream, you have another thing coming. I dont care, I "believe" that what I percieve to be good for myself, is. BTW, my cans, bottles, and wrappers disappear into the earth, in like 2 or 3 days too, zero trace. Besides what am i supposed to do, haul them out on my wheeler?


----------



## bigbr (Oct 24, 2007)

PBH said:


> [
> 
> 
> Joseph Heller said:
> ...


PBH, now here is a more true to life example:


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

bigbr said:


> PBH said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...


Are you trying to make a case for states rights? :rotfl:


----------



## bigbr (Oct 24, 2007)

utahgolf said:


> bigbr said:
> 
> 
> > In my opinion sportsmen who are pushing for further federal restrictions on public land are only asking for more headaches and lost opportunities across the spectrum including reduced or eliminated recreational activities. The enabling act for the State of Utah guarantied the citizens of Utah millions of acres of federal controlled property that was to be given back to the state for furthering the social and economic good with things like prisons, courthouse, land grant colleges just to name a few. This is why I support the governor in his efforts to exercise title to federal lands promised and signed into law with the Utah Statehood enabling ACT. I feel that we are governed best at a local level.
> ...


 There is only one problem with your argument; The United States Constitution mandates the federal government to disperse of excesses fedral property, where as States are not mandated to do so.

US Constitution Article 1 section 8: Congress to establish post offices and post roads the erection of of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock yards and other needful buildings.
US Constitution Article IV section 3: The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States.


----------



## bigbr (Oct 24, 2007)

Further more, the president of the United States has no authority under the Constitution to establish any National Monuments....


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Article IV section 3, does not mandate that the federal goverment disperse excess property. It does give the federal goverment the power to "make all needeful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States"  I think that might give the federal goverment the power to create NMs, NPs, NFs, etc. Sometimes I cant tell what side of the arguement you are on.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

bigbr said:


> Further more, the president of the United States has no authority under the Constitution to establish any National Monuments....


Some of your last posts confuse me. You are against CA having the right to spent their money as their residence see fit, and you are for federal power over property of the United States.  I guess I should be glad you are making my case.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

*Re: New MonumentNew Monument*



swbuckmaster said:


> Im an independent retard thinker on this subject. I need 8 more pages to make up my mind on who is correct.
> 
> Im leaning towards W2U and LT but if LT brings up selenium deficiencies im going to vote the other way.


I see it differently. If LT brings up selenium I'm voting for him. 

page 10


----------



## bigbr (Oct 24, 2007)

LT,
It is not a matter of the Federal government having the power it is a mater of limited and defined power among the different branches of the Fedral Government. The President of the United States Does not have the power to make rules or regulation on matters dealing with properties held in the United States or it Teritories. Congress has those powers.

Seperation of power was a mechanisim put in place to keep "We the People" safe from a tyranical government.


----------



## bigbr (Oct 24, 2007)

LT,
you are the one that i can not understand. You argue about wilderness and all of the other federal programs that some how make things better but you fail to understand how these same measure strip us of our freedom.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

bigbr said:


> LT,
> It is not a matter of the Federal government having the power it is a mater of limited and defined power among the different branches of the Fedral Government. The President of the United States Does not have the power to make rules or regulation on matters dealing with properties held in the United States or it Teritories. Congress has those powers.
> 
> Seperation of power was a mechanisim put in place to keep "We the People" from a tyranical government.


  Yes I know, we are talking about the formation of a new NM, with local support, not the GSE. If Obama was declaring a new NM this would be a different arguement. I would still be for the NM, although there would certainly be a discussion about how it would come to be. But that is not the case here. It is not detrimental to wildlife or hunters, you have provided the constitutional arguement for why/who can legally create NMs, so what is your beef? You dont have to answer, thats rhetorical, I understand your illogical, ideological bend, that you regurgitate.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

bigbr said:


> LT,
> you are the one that i can not understand. You argue about wilderness and all of the other federal programs that some how make things better but you fail to understand how these same measure strip us of our freedom.


Your right, preserving lands that are owned by "We the People", for our benefit, especially us as hunters, strips our freedoms. Such a solid arguement. Yeah, not being able to use motorized travel, which in turn helps wildlife and hunters, and puts food on my table, is akin to tyranical socialism. Good lord, you should run for office, you'ld be swept in, in this state. Have you ever read the Utah constitution, do you know what WAS protected for hunters and angles, do you know how many of those rights and freedoms have been stripped under bull **** arguements like the ones you try to make?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Hint, some of those rights had 800 years of precedence, and were the foundation of hunting and angling as a culture of freedom, and self sufficiency.


----------



## Longfeather (Nov 27, 2007)

This is being pushed by outdoor retailers to the Fed Gov. Niether party could care-less what the citizens of Utah want done with this land. They have thier interests and that is all they are looking out for.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Longfeather said:


> This is being pushed by outdoor retailers to the Fed Gov. Niether party could care-less what the citizens of Utah want done with this land. They have thier interests and that is all they are looking out for.


Evil corporate America! So what do the "citizens of Utah want done with this land"? Now remember, "corporations are people my friend", and therefor citizens.


----------



## Longfeather (Nov 27, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> Longfeather said:
> 
> 
> > This is being pushed by outdoor retailers to the Fed Gov. Niether party could care-less what the citizens of Utah want done with this land. They have thier interests and that is all they are looking out for.
> ...


I don't know what the citizens of Utah want done with this land, unlike all of these groups I don't claim to speak for the citizens.

I guarantee you these groups and the fed gov could care less about what the citizens of Utah want done with this land. They could also care less about the land, the land and this issue is a tool for them and their interests.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

Y'all just gave me a terrible headach! 

Preservation: Good 

Conservation: Good 

Hunting: Good

-)O(- :? :shock: :V|: 6 more pages? :mrgreen:


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

stillhunterman said:


> Y'all just gave me a terrible headach!
> 
> Preservation: Good
> 
> ...


No, no, no you're missing the point. Selfishness: good Illogical bi-auto-non-intellectual thought: good No planning or saving for the future: good

How can I possibly make this more clear?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Longfeather said:


> Lonetree said:
> 
> 
> > Longfeather said:
> ...


Ssoooo true, thats why we need state control of federal lands within Utah. Then we can sell them, and these groups can buy this land and do as they see fit. Its soo clear now, I see.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

These corporations(groups) are citizens, right?


----------



## Longfeather (Nov 27, 2007)

stillhunterman said:


> Y'all just gave me a terrible headach!
> 
> Preservation: Good
> 
> ...


I wish it were that easy. Look at the national parks and national recreation areas and you can see that preservation and conservation don't equal hunting.


----------



## Longfeather (Nov 27, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> These corporations(groups) are citizens, right?


The election was last week


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Longfeather said:


> stillhunterman said:
> 
> 
> > Y'all just gave me a terrible headach!
> ...


Certain levels of preservation do not directly lead to hunting opurtunities, such as NPs and NRAs. Conservation on the other hand is rooted in multliple use, with hunting being one of them. Another level of preservation that implicitly benefits and preseves hunting is wilderness. It is Muir verses Roosevelt, something you obviously dont understand.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Longfeather said:


> Lonetree said:
> 
> 
> > These corporations(groups) are citizens, right?
> ...


I see, so Obama's "mandate" trumps the Citizens United descision? I love how you dodge the question. According to the Supreme court, there are some citizens of Utah that do want this NM. Why are you trying to marginize these ciitizens of Utah?


----------



## Longfeather (Nov 27, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> Longfeather said:
> 
> 
> > stillhunterman said:
> ...


This area is already multiple use and managed for multiple use.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Longfeather said:


> Lonetree said:
> 
> 
> > Longfeather said:
> ...


What is the long term out look and plan for this area? And of course, what do the citizens of Utah want? Is NM designation detrimental to hunting? or just your feelings?


----------



## Longfeather (Nov 27, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> Longfeather said:
> 
> 
> > Lonetree said:
> ...


There are many citizens of Utah who don't want the NM. Why should they be marginalized?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

because they cant support their arguement, from a hunters perspective.


----------



## Longfeather (Nov 27, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> Longfeather said:
> 
> 
> > [
> > What is the long term out look and plan for this area? And of course, what do the citizens of Utah want? Is NM designation detrimental to hunting? or just your feelings?


There more to life than just hunting. I have never hunted in this area but, I have spent considerable time there riding four wheelers, jeeping and hiking the slot canyons.
I don't want the place strip-mined or sold off but I don't want it roped off or over managed.


----------



## Longfeather (Nov 27, 2007)

Longfeather said:


> Lonetree said:
> 
> 
> > Longfeather said:
> ...


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

You're right, hunting sucks, lets do something else. 

Another vote for things that are bad for hunting, over things that are good for hunting.

No wonder we cant bring mule deer back, hunting is just not important to hunters.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

I'm talking about the Paria River. So stirring up silt is of no consequence. Unless your worried about silt traveling about 500 river miles to lake mead.

LT needs to take a look at a map. You can walk for a hundred miles on the Paria and never cross a road. 

Selfishness? I think its selfish to take away easy access for 300 million people and put in place regulations that make it so only a few 1000 people are even capable of accessing. 

Elk stray from ATV use? You got study to back that up huh? Monroe, Yellowstone, Banff, Jackson, Hardware.

Humans bad nature good. :roll: At least you 3 are consistent.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

I can tell you whats bad for hunting. Managing for an ecosystem that has natural predation at or near capacity. YOu see it leaves no room for hunters. Or at least little room and simple supply and demand dictates money will enter the fray. 

So you can vilify pay to hunt.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Iron Bear said:


> I'm talking about the Paria River. So stirring up silt is of no consequence. Unless your worried about silt traveling about 500 river miles to lake mead.
> 
> LT needs to take a look at a map. You can walk for a hundred miles on the Paria and never cross a road.
> 
> ...


Over silting of water is bad for all wildlife, deer and elk include. I dont expect you to understand, though you should.

Selfishness: You said it, "easy" Yep thats at the the heart of the hunters spirit. The great wilds of uncles Ted's patures, slaughtering "wild game"

Motorized study, yes I do have one. when I get back to my home office, i'll find it.

Wildlife good, hunters good. I dont care about what you anti wildlife, and anti hunters feel about it.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Iron Bear said:


> I can tell you whats bad for hunting. Managing for an ecosystem that has natural predation at or near capacity. YOu see it leaves no room for hunters. Or at least little room and simple supply and demand dictates money will enter the fray.
> 
> So you can vilify pay to hunt.


Wow this was out of the blue, did not see this coming. We do not have a predator problem. We have a dumb ass, anti-hunter problem. The only predator problem we have is wolves in sheep's clothing, that have a better batting average than Peta.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

"LT needs to take a look at a map. You can walk for a hundred miles on the Paria and never cross a road."--Iron Bear. I missed this one, You can walk over 100 miles across the Uintas too, and not ever cross a road. That does not mean you are 100 miles from a road. In the River of no return wilderness in ID, 15 miles is the furthest you can get from a road, it is around 10 miles in Escalante. The most remote spot in the lower 48, is in the Greater Yellowstone region, and it is only 20 miles from a road. I was being generous when I said 25. I can read a map and compass, I dont use GPS.

Motorized study: http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/journals/ ... and001.pdf


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

Lonetree said:


> klbzdad said:
> 
> 
> > You'd better talk to one of or mutual friends before wanting to tell me in person not to strip on some crusty old dirt  thanks for the pm though!!!!!
> ...


I don't know what I'm talking about? Really? A detriment? Oh....okay. You go right ahead and own the rest of this thread oh high and mighty one. I chose popcorn, a Nearbeer, will continue ruining people's hard work (WFT?!?!), and to take the high road across some crypto soil. :roll:

Interesting that when one has no valid argument, human nature will force one to insult those they are in contest with. Have a great night!


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

klbzdad said:


> Lonetree said:
> 
> 
> > klbzdad said:
> ...


No, you dont know what you are talking about. And yes, you are a detriment. You have no substantive arguements, And portray uneducated weakness, in arguements you make here, and elsewhere. Your representation is counter productive. I'll be waiting for that package.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

*Re: New MonumentNew Monument*



wyogoob said:


> swbuckmaster said:
> 
> 
> > Im an independent retard thinker on this subject. I need 8 more pages to make up my mind on who is correct.
> ...


Holy smokes, I spent the morning fishing before putting in my day at the office and the thread ballooned into this. I suppose that I said my peace 10 pages ago, but what I want to know is this. What is the selenium requirement for cryptobiotic soil?

Oh, and IBTL. o-||

Page 13.


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

Lonetree said:


> klbzdad said:
> 
> 
> > Lonetree said:
> ...


Oh....okay. I didn't grow up in Moab. I don't have ANY experience in politics or with the structure, discussion, and actual attendance with decision makers on issues like this monument and their creation. I also, under your assumption, don't have friends and / or constituents who are actively influential in this or any other discussion I've been a part of. Your assumption is also that I'm uneducated, inexperienced, and guilty of doing nothing to run my mouth to some detriment to someone? Who that is, I don't know but again, its your assumption. You have a nice night, Captain.

:roll:


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

"What is the selenium requirement for cryptobiotic soil?" I have no idea, but cryto is the only reason some plants survive in nutrient deficient soils in the desert. Cryto is capable of converting atmospheric nitrogen into nitrates in the soil that can be used by plants. In other words they fertalize the soil, via the air. All while holding this very fragile soil in place. They also reduce localized tempatures, better allowing other plants in the area to grow, much like sagebrush does(but with out the water cycleing). In certain areas on the Colorado plateau, this is what makes it possible for desert bighorn sheep to thrive. But who gives a **** about big horn sheep? a bunch of **** bunny buggars.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

klbzdad

Thats the second time you said good night, are you waiting for me to say it back?


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

Nope.....because I wouldn't understand your superior way of saying it. I enjoy those cut and paste bing searches of yours. Have a nice night! (that makes the third time, but then again, you're assuming I don't know how to count either)

Carry on your excellence!

Are we at 20 pages yet? I can't handle being such a detriment much longer!


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Third time you said night, night. This is how you end threads on MM when you are getting spanked. You just keep coming in and saying that you are leaving.

Bing searches  That might be part of your problem right there. I've forgot more than you will ever know.


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

Lonetree said:


> I've forgot more than you will ever know.


 :_O=: :_O=: :_O=: :_O=: :_O=: :roll:

Its how I end threads with boneheads who can do nothing substantive other than throw insults and get all emotional about being smarter than everyone else. But again, you keep assuming whatever you'd like about me. Just know that I don't have to win or be right in order to feel like I contributed to a conversation. Sometimes, actually accepting someone else's input on a subject shows far more intellect than saying someone is wrong because YOU think so. So, for the fourth, and FINAL time, you have a super nice evening!

Someone else will have to pick up the page # progress here. I don't know enough big people words to keep going :O•-:


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

:rotfl:


----------



## mikevanwilder (Nov 11, 2008)

> a bunch of **** bunny buggars


What is this? :shock: 
My only thing to add into this is. Someone back about 7 or 8 or 9 pages ago said something about mining and gas exploration being bad for animals. 
Being from an area were we have both coal mining and natural gas drilling(Emery county) 
I can say that I see a ton more deer were they have drilled then were they haven't. And if I could hunt by the coal mines I would be in heaven. 
That is all I have to say as a hunter AND someone who depends on natural resources such as coal and natural gas.
Oh also to help this thread get to 18 pages
o-||


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Mike

Disturbed ground will benefit deer browse, especially since they are required to reseed pads. After studying the same effect on power line platforms and roads, I can tell you the benefits are short term. And while there is a short term benefit, there is also a short term down side. These things change feeding patterns, that create increased short term predation. After the short term pros and cons, the long term decertification of soil, and loss of native plants is essentially unrepairable. So you are trading a percieved short term gain, for your childrens and grandchildrens future. But thats no surprise, coming from a Utard. Your affiliations, announce your ignorance. One more vote against the future of hunting. I copied and pasted this information from Bing :roll:


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

mikevanwilder said:


> I can say that I see a ton more deer were they have drilled then were they haven't. *And* _if _I could hunt by the coal mines I would be in heaven.


Why can't you hunt by them? Your answer is EXACTLY why I fear the State taking control of Federal land and auctioning it off to the highest bidder.

Roads. The Paria. Distances.

On Boulder Mountain you can't get more than 5 miles away from a road. Anywhere.

Why do people insist on wanting to drive ATVs up and down the Paria River bed? There are 100's of miles of ATV trails and roads on the Grand Staircase for people to recreate on. Yet Noel and his cronies think that they need to have the Paria River bed to ride in. Why? Why not ride the Skutumpah Road? Smokey Mountain Road? or any other multitude of roads on the GSNM?

for some reason ATVs, just like skiers, always want that "virgin" ground -- that area of dirt that currently doesn't have any tracks on it. Why?

And, as for hunting in National Recreation Areas -- who says you can't?? Hunting is allowed in Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, as long as what you are hunting is in season and you have the proper permits.

citizens. What do they want? More than 40 Utah companies were part of the letter to the President requesting this NM to be made. Wouldn't they count as being citizens?

http://c767204.r4.cf2.rackcdn.com/98620 ... 195e58.pdf


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

PBH said:


> mikevanwilder said:
> 
> 
> > I can say that I see a ton more deer were they have drilled then were they haven't. *And* _if _I could hunt by the coal mines I would be in heaven.
> ...


5 miles! thats like in the middle of nowhere! That is the average in the west, 3-5 miles form a road. And if anybody cares to read the road study I posted, you will see the impacts.

I understand where the gas and mining folks are coming from. I was raised on money earned from mining operations, its their perogative. But I dont understand "hunters" coming on "hunting forums" to defend those things detrimental to the culture and lifestyle of hunting.

As for hunting on National monuments thats not the issue here, nor are related land uses really. The opposition is steeped in, and accustumed to other people doing their thinking for them. their regurge is the automatic knee jerk reaction to self enslave, that is so engrained in them.

That is quite a list of companies, I know allot of the folks that run and own those companies. I do work for two of them. Under the Citizens United descision, these corporations absolutely are "citizens". Lets make the arguement that they are not citizens, OK. Then what we have left, is a bunch of individual citizens, that own corporations, that employ thousands of people, and give back to society, and the outdoors, bigger than most other individual citizens.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

PBH said:


> More than 40 Utah companies were part of the letter to the President requesting this NM to be made. Wouldn't they count as being citizens?


Didn't you read 10 pages back that we established that these folks aren't "real" citizens because they are recent transplants to the area and didn't arrive to SE Utah in the original Hole-In-The-Rock expedition? 

One more observation about this entire thread. Sad to say, but the thread demonstrates why it is so hard to get any reasonable conservation-environmental initiatives accomplished in this state. (Or for that matter, resource utilization like oil and gas drilling that IS environmentally feasible.) Why? The pro environmental folks are "fruits and nuts", "Homos", "tree huggers", "communists", "leftists" and any number of other derogatory terms. And they are ALWAYS outsiders, even when they are not. Conversely, those that express concerns about environmental overreach just as quickly get labeled "Utards", "********", "retards", "religious zealots", "uneducated/uninformed" and the same colorful array of additional negative terms. Because neither side can ever seem to work together is why this state has such a sorry environmental track record. Kind of sad IMO.

Anyway, carry on. o-||
Page 14.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

There is very little, looking through the prizm of what is good for wildlife and hunters, that can be construed as "enviromental overreach". But anything that even sounds like preservation, imediately becomes a far left enviromental conspiracy. National monuments are very middle of the road, multi use designations. The enviromentist side of things has moved past the center, and to the right. Yet the Utards, ********, uneducated, etc. see right of center conservation/preservation, as far left extremism. This is not an issue of far left, and far right polarization. This is an issue of extreme counter productive, illogical, emotionaly driven, ideology. This welfare state we live in is full of "conservatives", that are nothing of the kind. I've been involved in both the conservation and preservation side of the movement for 20 years, I make waves on both sides. I take the hardline stands, that are never reaped in the short term, because just like with hunting, there is no long term gain in "easy". In all seriousness, the hunter backed conservation side of things has fallen behind the curve. They frankly do not really give a **** about those things good for wildlife, hunting, and the spirit of hunting. Much like some of the posts on this forum: "can someone tell me where I can drive to a big deer or elk, I'm lazy, but want some horns to hang on the wall, I want to kill something"


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Our society is engrained and continually praying to the god of money and things. Until that smoke becomes cleared and allows people to see the world without, or even with less of that stigma, we will never make decisions that aren't indicative of our infatuation with our short term wants. The result will always be the same and decisions will always be completely influenced by the perspective we have created with the assistance of our worship of the almighty dollar. The long term effects will always have unforeseen downsides, because we are unwilling to waiver from idealistic action and reaction, such as focusing on who is pushing an agenda, not the merits of the agenda itself.


----------



## osageorange (Nov 20, 2010)

Tree, so in your somewhere thinking thing, why do you think it is the outdoor retailers that are the ones aggressively pressing this agenda? 

You and like minded UWC sympathizers always support greater governmental management, if it supports your moral/political values, which generates revenues for a different group of companies.

It's okay with you guys for the outdoor retailers to grow there economic opportunities and generate new and additional profits but wrong (both morally and politically) for non-outdoor retailers such as miners, loggers, ranchers etc to generate profits off these lands.

It's the old time tested system of "you got it now and I want it" (for what ever my purposes might be). Ask the Native Americans, fur traders, free rangers, and the first large cattle/sheep operators how all that works. They each had it once, for their purposes, and they each lost it to a new profit motivated group. 

This proposed change has nothing what ever to do with what's best for people like you and I partner, and everything to do with what you infer your above, that being the almight dollar.

A little less sanctimony if you don't mind. 

That's the stuff I'm somewhere thinking.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

bigbr said:


> Headlines: "NATIONAL PARK ANEXES MONUMENT" no hunting allowed ....hunters KEEP OUT!


That pretty much sums it up , this is what will happen to hunting,
in these " Monuments " ..................................
Our kids will most likely see this happen sometime their life.


----------



## utahgolf (Sep 8, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> bigbr said:
> 
> 
> > Headlines: "NATIONAL PARK ANEXES MONUMENT" no hunting allowed ....hunters KEEP OUT!
> ...


as opposed to "STATE SELLS LARGE SECTIONS OF LAND TO DEVELOPERS, NO HUNTING OR RECREATION OF ANY KIND ALLOWED!" I see the state taking away more land permanently than the feds. Our local representatives aren't held accountable for various political reasons, but i bet ya know why.


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

Cedar Breaks NATIONAL MONUMENT. Just sayin'

http://www.nps.gov/cebr/parkmgmt/lawsandpolicies.htm


----------



## bigbr (Oct 24, 2007)

klbzdad said:


> Cedar Breaks NATIONAL MONUMENT. Just sayin'
> 
> http://www.nps.gov/cebr/parkmgmt/lawsandpolicies.htm


"Hunting is still prohibited within all areas of the monument. Any display or use of firearms other than lawful use is still prohibited. These changes do not extend to the possession or use of any weapon other than firearms under 36 CFR 2.4 (e.g. hunting bow, BB gun, slingshot)."

This is the standared for 99% of all National monuments.


----------



## bigbr (Oct 24, 2007)

osageorange said:


> Tree, so in your somewhere thinking thing, why do you think it is the outdoor retailers that are the ones aggressively pressing this agenda?
> 
> You and like minded UWC sympathizers always support greater governmental management, if it supports your moral/political values, which generates revenues for a different group of companies.
> 
> ...


Great post!

And why is it that one member on this forum can insult and break forum rules at will with full immunity from the moderators without even a peep. Could it be that this forum should be renamed the "UWC sympathizers" Forum?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

osageorange said:


> Tree, so in your somewhere thinking thing, why do you think it is the outdoor retailers that are the ones aggressively pressing this agenda?
> 
> You and like minded UWC sympathizers always support greater governmental management, if it supports your moral/political values, which generates revenues for a different group of companies.
> 
> ...


Osage

I personally know a number of the owners and founders of these companies, MANY of them are hunters and anglers. One who is not a hunter, but counts many as friends, has done more for hunting access, than 99% of hunters. A few have put millions of dollars into biggame habitat and stream conservation. (Every cutthroat saved, is another deer or sheep) Yeah, I'm pretty sure they are just trying to destroy everything, for their own gain.

Moral/political values: I wont speak for the UWC, like some dumb ass's, but my moral and political values align with what is good for wildlife and hunters. And yes it is morally and politically wrong, to take, and not give back. When was the last time oil, gas, and timber protected more than they destroyed? We are in the middle of a gas and oil boom, and just like timber in the 90's, the only ones whining, and not making money, are the welfare queens that think they need to get theirs on the public land dole.

You have not seen sanctimonious. Why dont you go find an oil and gas forum to post on. If you really think that the oil and gas industry are aligned with the traditions and values of hunting, you are operating on pure, illogical emotion, like a 7 year girl.


----------



## utahgolf (Sep 8, 2007)

bigbr said:


> klbzdad said:
> 
> 
> > Cedar Breaks NATIONAL MONUMENT. Just sayin'
> ...


whats the standard for mining/drilling operations, sub divisions and private property? You'll see a whole lot more of that if the state gets its way.


----------



## bigbr (Oct 24, 2007)

utahgolf said:


> goofy elk said:
> 
> 
> > bigbr said:
> ...


Oh, and it is so much easier for Utahn's to change laws and regulation of the federal government with our six votes in congress?


----------



## utahgolf (Sep 8, 2007)

bigbr said:


> utahgolf said:
> 
> 
> > goofy elk said:
> ...


Oh, and it is so much easier for Utahn's to change laws and regulation of the federal government with our six votes in congress?[/quote ]

Oh and utahn's will vote out our representatives? our representatives don't have much fear and not afraid to overreach! pretty easy to manipulate the public here, but don't worry, all the land that's sold will go towards education. :lol: :shock:


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

bigbr said:


> klbzdad said:
> 
> 
> > Cedar Breaks NATIONAL MONUMENT. Just sayin'
> ...


You cant hunt many of the national monuments, that are administered by the NPS. These are managed like NP's, and it is not 99%. NM's administered by the FS, or BLM, are managed differently, but there are exceptions to this too. Why dont you go see which presidential administrations locked up more hunting, verses which ones enhanced big game habitat and presevered hunting rights. The only way hunting gets banned in this new NM, is if uneducated hunters dont become part of the process, and make sure hunters benefit from these protections as well. Or you can put you head in the sand, post little quips from Bing searches, stay uniformed, and out of the process, and then yeah, maybe hunting will be banned in the NM. But it wont be because some bunny buggar was out to get us, it will be because as an outdoor interest group, we let our own emotions, misguided fears, and bull ****, false prophet ideology take it from us. Or rather, as we have done for 30 years now, we will give it away in exchange for a short lived warm fuzzy feeling in our tummy.

This kind of **** is typical of people that just dont know what they are talking about, or how the world they live in works. No logic, no thought, no foundation, just softly supported feeling.


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

bigbr said:


> klbzdad said:
> 
> 
> > Cedar Breaks NATIONAL MONUMENT. Just sayin'
> ...


The super of each monument can make rules concerning the monument but as I understand it, they still need to be legislatively approved and most of that comes from the state the monument is located in. Thus the reason some monuments have dual management agencies.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

bigbr said:


> klbzdad said:
> 
> 
> > Cedar Breaks NATIONAL MONUMENT. Just sayin'
> ...


Only 85.7%! It took me a while, but I found 16 of the 112 NM's allowed hunting. And I probably missed a few. In addition, about 1/2 of the 112 don't have game animals on them anyway. And many of the ones that do have the animals aren't large enough to make it safe for the visitors. So, whether or not this proposed new one will allow hunting is still up for grabs, but it's not quite as unusual as we might think.


----------



## mikevanwilder (Nov 11, 2008)

Lonetree said:


> Mike
> 
> Disturbed ground will benefit deer browse, especially since they are required to reseed pads. After studying the same effect on power line platforms and roads, I can tell you the benefits are short term. And while there is a short term benefit, there is also a short term down side. These things change feeding patterns, that create increased short term predation. After the short term pros and cons, the long term decertification of soil, and loss of native plants is essentially unrepairable. So you are trading a percieved short term gain, for your childrens and grandchildrens future. But thats no surprise, coming from a Utard. Your affiliations, announce your ignorance. One more vote against the future of hunting. I copied and pasted this information from Bing :roll:


Hey buddy calm down! So because I "affilate" with coal and gas I'm some kind of anti hunter? I'm sorry but if your saying I should choose hunting over everything else including work to support my family then your the idiot and have your priorities all messed up. 
And for the record I never said I wasn't for this NM. For the most part I was agreeing with your stance. Just not on the coal and gas part of it. 
And as for short term gain VS long term, what is your time period on those? Because the coal mines have been here for far longer than you or I and the still have better deer and elk on them than areas without.
The gas rigs have been here the better part of 25 years and the deer still seem to enjoy going to those areas far more than other areas.


----------



## mikevanwilder (Nov 11, 2008)

PBH said:


> mikevanwilder said:
> 
> 
> > I can say that I see a ton more deer were they have drilled then were they haven't. *And* _if _I could hunt by the coal mines I would be in heaven.
> ...


The area around the mine is small maybe 10-15 acres, which is private. But the fact is without the mine the animals would not be there.
Again I'm not against the NM. I don't want the state to get ahold of it either.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Good thing we have all that oil, gas, and coal. I mean, we would not have any deer or elk if not for them. :roll: 

I make my living in the outdoor recreation, hunting, and angling industry, and feed my family with wildlife. So why should I have to choose between a sustainable future for myself, children and family, or short term(call it one generation) short sighted, destructive, unsustainable, "gain"?


----------



## mikevanwilder (Nov 11, 2008)

Lonetree said:


> Good thing we have all that oil, gas, and coal. I mean, we would not have any deer or elk if not for them. :roll:
> 
> I make my living in the outdoor recreation, hunting, and angling industry, and feed my family with wildlife. So why should I have to choose between a sustainable future for myself, children and family, or short term(call it one generation) short sighted, destructive, unsustainable, "gain"?


Wow! Going to extremes much? 
Same question to you then should I have to choose between providing for my family or not because you have a job in a buisness that in all reality is nothing more than a recreational hobby? 
I never was against you on the NM issue. And Im glad you can make a living doing what you are doing. I will do whatever to help make sure you can keep doing it. But not at a cost of my families lively hood.
Now the good news is this should have no effect on the areas I do live. And no ones going to lose jobs.
But back to my first post, I dont argee with you on the areas that have been mined or drilled for gas being bad for wildlife.. That was it. So stop being so **** emotional and understand what im saying.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

No emotion, just fact. I stated a readers digest version arguement of scientifically based, short and long term pros and cons, of mining, oil, and gas, on wildlife and its inevitable effect on hunting. You stated your uncoraborated, non peer reviewed, observations, supported only by your feelings on the matter. 

As for extremes, all the time.

My father worked in the mining industry for many years, I'm not against people making a living. But I wont make excuses for those things that are ultimately bad for wildlife, and there for bad for hunting.

"Same question to you then should I have to choose between providing for my family or not because you have a job in a buisness that in all reality is nothing more than a recreational hobby?" For some people, hunting and fishing are more than just "recreational hobbies", it fills many niches in our lives. That is the same arguement that PETA makes about hunting not being neseccary in the modern age.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ -^|^- Happy Thanksgiving! -^|^-


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

I don't see this as an either/or issue. With the advancements in both industries, there's no reason to eliminate one or the other. I grew up in Garfield (and later, Magna) and it was unusual to see a deer while hiking in the nearby mountains per the Garfield Smelter smoke which destroyed most of the vegetation. But that was long before Kennecott was environmentally friendly. It was (and still is) their property and they were in the business of mining, milling, smelting, refining and marketing copper and that's what they did, period. Yet, at the same time, my family hunted the Oquirrhs from the other side (Lake Point) and we had no trouble finding deer and elk in Big Canyon, which is only a few miles further south.

Well, times have changed! The animals, vegetation, and land have become much more valuable to them than in times past. (Can you say, Daybreak, Heaston CWMU). I'm sure they would have done things differently in those days if they had access to the technology and knowledge we now have and if there were the incentives and regulations based on and generated by that technology and knowledge. I've hunted their CWMU and have seen the changes. And, believe me, there are lots of deer and elk in those hills now and they are next to roads, railroad tracks, buildings, pipelines and other operations. And, FWIW, my daughter and grandkids live in Copperton and they see deer and antelope all the time in and around town. And we're not just talking does, fawns and small bucks!

Obviously, there are ways to make it work, but it takes cooperation. And from what I've seen, that's happening a lot more than in the past!


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

I SEE allot of elk in over grazed high fence operations. I also SEE allot of deer in the nieghborhoods of Bountiful. Maybe this is because the neighborhoods of bountiful resemble early successional plant communities, much like early successional plant communities found on revegatated oil, and gas pads, and reclaimed mine sites. 

These early successional plants, in all reality, resemble primary successional plant communities, more so than secondary successional plant communities, because of the level of disturbance, and the lack of prior habitat influence. Secondary ecological succession can have a positive effect on deer habitat. It is believed to have contributed to some of the early deer eruptions. These secondary ecological successions that contributed to early deer eruptions, are nothing like the quasi-primary succession seen with mining reclaimation in particular. In the early stages they play out the same, but then the resemblance between the two begin to head in different directions. Revegatation of large severely disturbed sites, lack ecological diversity, as well as age class diversity. So a reclaimed mine site looks very good a few years after reclamation. Many mine sites in sagebrush plant communities, respond very well to reseeding. But after 50 years, they become a vast monoculture of decadent plants, that have little value to big game.

Roads, railroad tracks, strip mines, oil and gas pads, neighborhoods on winter range, etc. Can all have a degree of short term benefit to wildlife at some stage. Roads channel water onto well drained shoulders where you can many times find rich plant life that wildlife are attracted to. So does this mean that roads are good for deer? Neigborhoods stacked into winter range are planted with all sorts of plants that deer just cant resist. Does this mean that neighborhoods built on winter range are good for deer? 

Cooperation: Yes there has been better cooperation than in the past. This is because people have demanded better. That does not necassarily mean hunters have demanded better though.


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: 

Almost to 20 pages!


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Lonetree said:


> I SEE allot of elk in over grazed high fence operations. I also SEE allot of deer in the nieghborhoods of Bountiful. Maybe this is because the neighborhoods of bountiful resemble early successional plant communities, much like early successional plant communities found on revegatated oil, and gas pads, and reclaimed mine sites.
> 
> These early successional plants, in all reality, resemble primary successional plant communities, more so than secondary successional plant communities, because of the level of disturbance, and the lack of prior habitat influence. Secondary ecological succession can have a positive effect on deer habitat. It is believed to have contributed to some of the early deer eruptions. These secondary ecological successions that contributed to early deer eruptions, are nothing like the quasi-primary succession seen with mining reclaimation in particular. In the early stages they play out the same, but then the resemblance between the two begin to head in different directions. Revegatation of large severely disturbed sites, lack ecological diversity, as well as age class diversity. So a reclaimed mine site looks very good a few years after reclamation. Many mine sites in sagebrush plant communities, respond very well to reseeding. But after 50 years, they become a vast monoculture of decadent plants, that have little value to big game.
> 
> ...


So you're saying there's no way we can have both? And that the rehabilitation of land around mining and oil and gas drilling operations is only short term, ie: 50 years? And that mining and gas and oil drilling operations (and all land development) have to end in order to save hunting? If so, I guess I'm more optimistic than you. I think those who operate those facilities are much more informed and cooperative than you're giving them credit for. I talked in great length to the "guide" on one of the two hunts we had on Kennecott property and was told that one of the perks some of the officers of the company enjoyed was the ability to go on some of those hunts. They are very aware of the hunting experience and what it takes to produce the quantity and quality of animals to be a successful CWMU. (And FWIW, both of our hunts were two doe permit hunts, so culling does was part of their management strategy.) I certainly can't vouch for the other companies that have these kind of operations, but I strongly suspect that Kennecott/Rio Tinto isn't alone in this kind of thinking. They have a PR image to uphold and regulations to comply with in order to stay in business, and though they aren't perfect, for the most part, they seem to be doing that.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

klbzdad said:


> :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:
> 
> Almost to 20 pages!


I could go 100 pages, in a lot less time than this has taken. As long as people feel that "seeing is believing", some will never learn.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

elkfromabove said:


> Lonetree said:
> 
> 
> > I SEE allot of elk in over grazed high fence operations. I also SEE allot of deer in the nieghborhoods of Bountiful. Maybe this is because the neighborhoods of bountiful resemble early successional plant communities, much like early successional plant communities found on revegatated oil, and gas pads, and reclaimed mine sites.
> ...


Go tell that to all the folks in Alaska, that will be living down stream from the proposed pebble mine, I am sure it will put them at easy. They dont need to worry about their future at all, if these companies are such great stewards of the land. I mean it sounds like life could get even better for them :roll:

I'm not saying all progress must cease, that is not practical. Expand Kennecott, fine I dont have a huge issue with that, its practical. Open old existing FS roads to re-log a 50 year old stand, ok. But to not grasp that we need to preserve that which has not already been spoiled, because we think "technology" will save us, or that we can come back and fix it, well that is a Fools progress. The stream of thinking that promotes such sentiments in the hunting community, is about as pure as third world country tap water.

Only 84 more pages to go.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Lonetree said:


> elkfromabove said:
> 
> 
> > They have a PR image to uphold and regulations to comply with in order to stay in business, and though they aren't perfect, for the most part, they seem to be doing that.
> ...


And your practical solution is?


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

He has none. Instead, he's arguing emotionally just to get to 20 pages on this thread. THEN, he'll belittle and insult anyone who doesn't see eye to eye with him. I have family and friends who either live in Alaska or work for the Oil companies that manage those pipelines and pump stations. There are more wildlife benefiting in Alaska from oil processing and production than EVER! And as far as Alaskans not supporting the Oil industry.....ask one of them how much of that $1800.00 the state stipends to each citizen every year they want to return in the name of doing right for "emotional rhetoric". There is a long term sustainable value to using these lands for something other than to put between the ears of other government "monuments".

Just to save the math, they get around $1800.00 per year AND don't pay state or sales tax because of oil royalties. But since I am someone who undoes people's work and has no substantive contribution to this discussion at all....there's THIS:

http://www.apfc.org/home/Content/home/index.cfm

Oh, as far as using Alaska as a model for not producing oil and natural resources to the detriment of wildlife and the land, there's THIS:

http://www.anwr.org/ANWR-Basics/Arctic- ... -issue.php

WHOOHOO!!!! Page 18 anyone?


----------

