# Bishop & Chaffetz...The tricksters!



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

So, now these guys wants us to believe they can write a provision in the Public Land Initiative (PLI) that will help assure hunting/fishing/recreating/etc on the lands transferred to the state. They are calling it “Sportsmen’s Conservation Area”. 
So what they have done was hold a quick and dirty meeting for today...gee, isn't it a day many, many hunters will be out of town or busy trying to get out of town, to discuss their land grab Initiative with "sportsman's groups". 
They can now say, well, "we invited all the sportsman's groups to a meeting to discuss the idea to set aside "Sportsman's Conservation Areas". You see, these groups are standing with us on the transfer with just a few little changes, but gee, they are standing with us"

The very attendance at a meeting like this suggesting we are sitting down and working on an agreement like a "Sportsmen's Conservation Area" will be the "proof" that we, the sportsman of Utah, would be fine with a transfer providing there is a promise of some sort that we won't lose hunting , etc.

You can be sure the "SCA" will be defined something like this "there will always be hunting/fishing/recreating/etc on the public land that was taken from the citizens of the United states as long as it belongs to the State of Utah"...trouble is, what about all the land the state sells, which will most assuredly include all the prime hunting and fishing properties?

The UWC, Trout Unlimited and maybe others have agreed to attend the meeting and can now be counted by the "Tricksters" as being supports of the Initiative.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

TU walks a very fine line on access issues, I'll be interested to hear their response. I already know where some of these groups are going to fall. This is political cover so they can publicly endorse, what they already endorse behind the scenes. 

Don't be fooled sportsmen, this will tell you a lot about the intentions of those that claim to speak for you.


----------



## utahgolf (Sep 8, 2007)

unreal how Republican leadership can manipulate it's constituency with such ease. Take a picture with a gun and throw on a cowboy hat or belt buckle and you've duped most people! I tell ya they are better than hollywood when it comes to producing an image and narrative.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

I don't give either guy enough credit to intentionally schedule anything over the top of the archery opener. And really, that doesn't take out nearly as many folks as you'd like to think. And there will always be a conflict. 

My thought is that congress is on a month long August recess, so really,not a lot can happen. 

One thing we need to figure out here, is first, hunters and fishers are out-numbered in Utah. And so is our economic impact of hunting on public lands. Much as I hate to admit it, if every tag in the state were given over to CWMUs, (basically making this Texas), every tag would be sold. And tags would cost several times more than they do now, and more people would make more money over all of it than happens through all the public lands hunting. 

Preserving public lands in the public trust is not an economically good thing to do no matter how you slice it. And it pains me to say that. But it is the right thing to do for so many reasons. But that is going to require a leader willing to do the right thing for the sake of doing the right thing. Period. And we sure haven't had one of those around for a very, very, very long time.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

A few comments off the top of my soft head.

1.


utahgolf said:


> Take a picture with a gun and throw on a cowboy hat or belt buckle and you've duped most people!


You are correct on your assessment, but I do have to ask. Is the politician to be faulted for this or the mindless electorate that stupidly falls for this schtick?

2. RE"One thing we need to figure out here, is first, hunters and fishers are out-numbered in Utah. And so is our economic impact of hunting on public lands."

Perhaps fly fishermen alone, duck hunters alone, mountain bikers alone, hikers alone, campers alone, are not, but what do you have if you put all of the outdoor recreationalists together? You have a very potent economic force in this state. One that is growing, even though some subsets, like hunting may not be. And the groups all benefit *economically* from access to readily available *public* land. One lesson that came out of the stream access battle was that the combined use of public waterways was an extremely potent economic force, far more than I ever dreamed before the initial battle.

An easily cited example of this is the outdoor retailer show. Losing just that convention would cause the state some real economic pain. Suppressing the underlying industries would be far worse.

3. RE" Preserving public lands in the public trust is not an economically good thing to do no matter how you slice it. "

I'm not sure about this in all cases and in taking the long view. What would Moabs current economy be like if Arches, and the slickrock trail areas had no trespassing signs all over them and North Canyonlands continued to be the nations largest Uranium mine? Lots of people will pay to visit tailings piles, right?

Also, depending on only extraction industries for revenue over a long period is not necessarily the ideal economically. History suggests that it can be profitable for a while, but the oil dries up, the coal cannot be sold due to environmental concerns, the price of a commodity drops below profitability, 
and you have a bust. If all your economic eggs are in one basket, there will be real pain. I am not anti drilling and extraction, but balancing Utah's economy with a strong recreationalist based economy sector utilizing public lands may be the safer bet *economically and financially* in the long run. And having lived all over the West, Utah does have some pretty special recreational resources that competes well nationally and worldwide.


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

And yet, alas, you wait and see, our single minded populous, being the sheep we are, will return these guys back to office. Outdoor recreationist beware, these guys are not your friends!


----------



## utahgolf (Sep 8, 2007)

Catherder said:


> A few comments off the top of my soft head.
> 
> 1.
> 
> You are correct on your assessment, but I do have to ask. Is the politician to be faulted for this or the mindless electorate that stupidly falls for this schtick?


I blame both, the politicians and the electorate. Just take a look nationally right now, The fact that trump is leading in polls just shows how full of crap the voting block is.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

One thing about the outdoor retailers show. It is one show. One of many downtown events. Sure, it is huge. But outdoor retailers money is the same color as comic con money, or international clogging festival, quilting convention, or or or, whatever conference of the week is going on downtown in the Salt Palace. My point is that people argue all the time about what would the downtown businesses do if SLC lost the outdoor retailers show. The answer is that the convention bureau would court and attract another show during that week.


----------



## utahgolf (Sep 8, 2007)

well if the cloggers decide to up and leave, than I think that might be the leverage we need to put this public land thing to rest!


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

GaryFish said:


> One thing about the outdoor retailers show. It is one show. One of many downtown events. Sure, it is huge. But outdoor retailers money is the same color as comic con money, or international clogging festival, quilting convention, or or or, whatever conference of the week is going on downtown in the Salt Palace. My point is that people argue all the time about what would the downtown businesses do if SLC lost the outdoor retailers show. The answer is that the convention bureau would court and attract another show during that week.


It is 2 shows actually. They do a smaller summertime show with the new boats and such. Sure it is only one set of shows, but there are only so many "big" shows. If the Jazz move out of Salt Lake, they could put a D-league team in ESA to fill up the dates, but would it carry the same economic impact? Same with the outdoor show. Yeah, the cloggers can be plugged in, but there is no comparison economically. Why do you think other cities are so eager to steal them away? While some talking head would undoubtedly spin it as you have, it would still be a genuine economic hit for SLC.

The symbolic hit for the up-and-coming outdoor industries coming and already present in Utah is harder to define, but could be far greater than the loss of the show.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Agreed Catherder. But the point is - with any show, hotels get filled, restaurants sell food, cars get rented, and people drop money. The reason people are in town is irrelevant. The only thing that matters are the numbers of people. Every somewhat large city has some kind of "outdoor retailers show," and as convention facilities get updated, hotels get renovated, downtowns are recycled/renovated, they all play a game of musical chairs about where they go. I realize it is among the biggest regular conventions in SLC, but if it goes away, then some other show in some other city is ripe for the poaching. 

The bigger question you raise in your post, the Jazz aren't already a d-league team? ;-)


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

GaryFish said:


> Agreed Catherder. But the point is - with any show, hotels get filled, restaurants sell food, cars get rented, and people drop money. The reason people are in town is irrelevant.


Yes and no. Take for instance our Cloggers again. They may still fill the convention center vacancy, but will only have a few contestants and a few hundred spectators. Of those, half will be either in state contestants or attendees from Santaquin, Circleville, or Mantua who will just go home afterwards and not really spend diddley squat for food, services, or hotels in SLC. Compare that to the OR show with thousands of attendees and vendors, the overwhelming majority of which are out-of-towners that will need hotel rooms, food, and service. There are not that many conventions that have large total numbers attending combined with a huge number of attendees requiring hotel rooms and services.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

BPturkeys said:


> So, now these guys wants us to believe they can write a provision in the Public Land Initiative (PLI) that will help assure hunting/fishing/recreating/etc on the lands transferred to the state. They are calling it "Sportsmen's Conservation Area".
> So what they have done was hold a quick and dirty meeting for today...gee, isn't it a day many, many hunters will be out of town or busy trying to get out of town, to discuss their land grab Initiative with "sportsman's groups".
> They can now say, well, "we invited all the sportsman's groups to a meeting to discuss the idea to set aside "Sportsman's Conservation Areas". You see, these groups are standing with us on the transfer with just a few little changes, but gee, they are standing with us"
> 
> ...


 I congratulate you on your self-perceived mind reading skills! Even I don't profess to be able to read the minds of all of our UWC members, let alone those of other wildlife groups and politicians. But I have to sadly inform you that you're way off on your assessment of UWC's concerns and intentions. And quite short sighted in your view of our view of the issue at hand.

First of all, the "Tricksters" , both in Salt Lake City and Washington DC hadn't even considered outdoorsmen important enough to specifically address them in their bills. That is, until the rally at the state capital where BHA, UWC, RMEF and maybe some others joined some wilderness and environmental advocates in a protest, followed by some emails, editorials, internet banter and meetings with "Tricksters" and staff. We got their attention by showing up, not boycotting. As a result we've now got the SCA with an invitation to discuss it.

Second, UWC didn't "agree" to anything. We were simply invited to the meeting on Friday at the MDF office along with everyone else (BHA, MDF, RMEF, SFW, TU, and some I didn't recognize email addresses for.) We were asked to be prepared to discuss the Initiative and even bring a legal draft addressing our concerns if possible. And we were asked to RSVP the invite.
Since our invitee, a board member, couldn't be there he asked for a substitute from the board or officers, but none of us could go either, so I emailed 17 of our members whom I thought might be able and willing to go based on their comments from their membership applications or past involvement and their age (66 and over). I asked them to contact me and we would let them know of our concerns and what it would take to get our support. I only got one response and it was a definite NO with a request for removal of membership because I had the nerve to ask him to go to such a meeting. He said NOTHING they did would allow him to support their initiative and he didn't want to be a part of any group that would even consider meeting with them. We honored his request and removed his name and personal data without comment.

Bottom line, since we didn't have anyone attending, we never RSVP'd the invite nor would we have even if we had someone going.

Third, you must think we're inept concerning ALL the issues surrounding the PLI and fail to give us credit for thinking beyond this SCA and the access to state lands issue. We're not only concerned about access to state lands, but the selling or leasing of prime habitat and the selling or leasing of ANY habitat and the maintenance of that habitat and the plants and animals that live there. That includes management of fires, diseases, invasive species, human encroachment, P & J encroachment, water sources, grazing, predators, roadkill, spraying of pesticides, mining and drilling procedures and waste, roads and road closures, etc. That also includes the proper management of hunting, fishing, trapping, and viewing opportunities and the costs and accountability of money, time and resources used to provide those opportunities. You know, the same things we're concerned about now! If the PLI were to come to fruition, which isn't likely BTW, we would simply shift our wildlife concerns, proposals and efforts to the Utah State agencies that replace the Federal agencies and they wouldn't get a pass from us any more than the Federals do now!

And this only deals with direct wildlife and outdoor issues. Since we're all parents and grandparents, taxpayers, homeowners, employers and employees, consumers, and voters which ties indirectly with our love of wildlife and the outdoors and the opportunities to enjoy them, the "Tricksters" have got their work cut out for them far beyond direct wildlife issues if they want to be able to claim UWC's support. Maybe they'll see the impossible task they have ahead of them and give it up. And maybe they won't, but either way we think we're better off for having our concerns made known.

If not showing up is the best way to get our points across, maybe we need to stop showing up at RAC and Wildlife Board and Mule Deer, Bear, and Cougar Management meetings. That seems to have worked for the vast majority of Utah hunters and fishermen so far, don't you think?

And the voters who don't show up at the polls are also better off, right?

You are certainly entitled to your opinion about what works best, but you have to be accountable to your posterity for your actions or inactions because the results affect them much more than you. I wish you well with your tactics, but I think UWC will continue to show up when we can.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Lonetree, I can't speak for other groups, but there have been no UWC napkin meetings, secret agreements, private arrangements or concessions with ANY politician (or staff) promoting the PLI. Nor will there be!


----------

