# Future of the Wasatch Front



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

I'm a bowhunter, first and foremost. I suck at it, but still, it's what I do. So in my mind, this is all about the Wasatch extended hunt. But if you're an angler, cross-country skier, biker, hiker or just someone who values wildlife, you should be aware of the Mountain Accord and the Wasatch Mountain Planning District.

I've been participating in the process. It reminds me a lot of standing before the Wildlife Board...except there tends to be no other hunters or anglers in the room. Seems to me that there's a lot at stake here. Most certainly, change is coming. It's unavoidable. I think hunters and anglers should have a voice in that change. Sure beats being sorry after the decisions have all been made.

I'm really curious what anybody else thinks.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Here's 80 acres the public will never get back.

http://m.deseretnews.com/article/86...l-Y-Mountain.html?ref=https://www.google.com/


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

Start a separate thread IB. Separate issue.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

I know


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

I've admittedly been very slow in actually getting involved in the issues surrounding hunting and land policy in Utah. Part of that has resulted from not making myself aware of things like this that have the potential to impact a lot of extended hunters, myself included. The second part of that lack of involvement is not being sure exactly HOW to involve myself. Excuses, I know, but inaction nonetheless. 

At face value it seems a proposed designation could be a good thing to protect some of the wilderness that remains along the front from further development. It sounds like from Finn's as well as other people's accounts that we as a hunting community have been absent from a lot of what is being proposed. As has been intimated by others, the thought of protections being put in place for the region without hunting listed as one of the primary or beneficial uses could cause big problems for the guys that hunt the area regulary.

Does anyone more intimately involved in the process know what the details are in the designation pertaining to the ability to hunt? If those protections are in place it seems this could be a good thing for the front and those of us that hunt it or would like to hunt it.

Seems like this post would be a good place to list information of who to contact, future meetings, and especially what the best way to organize as hunters and approach the decision makers with a cohesive voice.

Also, I admittedly have only done a cursory lookover of the information pertaining to this issue. I'm hesitant to formulate an opinion beyond "It seems like it could be a good thing." without hearing the concerns that others may have about this as well.


----------



## goforbroke (Jan 4, 2009)

I've did the online survey and submitted comments in the past. I find it easier to financially support an organization with similar ideals than attend all the different events in person. Is there a hunting group that is involved?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Kwalk3 said:


> I've admittedly been very slow in actually getting involved in the issues surrounding hunting and land policy in Utah. Part of that has resulted from not making myself aware of things like this that have the potential to impact a lot of extended hunters, myself included. The second part of that lack of involvement is not being sure exactly HOW to involve myself. Excuses, I know, but inaction nonetheless.
> 
> At face value it seems a proposed designation could be a good thing to protect some of the wilderness that remains along the front from further development. It sounds like from Finn's as well as other people's accounts that we as a hunting community have been absent from a lot of what is being proposed. As has been intimated by others, the thought of protections being put in place for the region without hunting listed as one of the primary or beneficial uses could cause big problems for the guys that hunt the area regulary.
> 
> ...


The biggest voice for much of this has been Save Our Canyons (SOC) they are very friendly to hunters and anglers. I was asked early on the be a voice for hunters on this. I don't see myself as a platform for representing hunters, so I passed along the names of several orgs.

I have since given input as a manufacture of outdoor products, as have many other Utah manufactures. SOC has had several of us in for input, and Patagonia had a TU rep that was offering support.

When SOC was working on getting a National Monument status passed for the Wasatch(because Matheson's(a hunter) wilderness bill kept getting blocked(by non hunters)), I was the one that brought up hunting and getting language for the continued inclusion of hunting as part of any NM designation. No problem, done, no opposition. But it still took a whole lot of back door poking and prodding to get anyone representing hunters to step up WRT NM status, and NONE would do it publicly even with the unanimous inclusion of hunting. Just like NO con orgs would publicly support the effort against the sale of 40 acres for "Skilink" which threatened Matheson's wilderness bill, and would cut off hundreds of acres of public land through the sale of a narrow strip that totaled 40 acres, but spanned between two pieces of private acting like a "gate" that would close public access and preclude wilderness designation. Which was one of the reasons NM status has come to be considered. This area is a favorite of many extended elk hunters.

I was a Utah BHA co-chair at the time of skilink and was told NOT to publicly oppose skilink. Me and another co-chair disregarded that directive, and publicly lobbied against skilink. That is what the current membership supported, and that is what 2 out of three co-chairs supported as well. We had allot of members that were very upset that BHA would not support hunters on the skilink issue.

And they still refuse to utter a word about certain things..............you know what that means?

BTW, this is a nice attempt at saving face by some. But the simple facts still remain.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

Kwalk3 said:


> Does anyone more intimately involved in the process know what the details are in the designation pertaining to the ability to hunt? If those protections are in place it seems this could be a good thing for the front and those of us that hunt it or would like to hunt it.


Here's the current proposal. It began as a proposal for a congressional National Monument. But that was quickly determined DOA. Hopefully, R&C designation is more palatable and it's definitely more flexible. In fact, we've been asked to submit additional bullet points.

My chief concern at this point is access. It does us no good if hunting is allowed but we don't have practical access. Of course, access is going to be an issue regardless of what happens with the designation proposal.

While working on the PLI last summer, a group of us were entertaining the idea of a new designation - Sportsman's Conservation Area. We didn't get a chance to flesh that idea out, but I'm hopeful we can return to the subject at some point. After all, if the Accord is successful, it will likely be duplicated in other counties.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

My exsperience on the Wasatch front was this..

It was/is very good mountain lion hunting from Springville to Bountiful along the front.

Years ago when HO lion hunting started there, I spent quite a bit of time on the front.
Harvested lons in about EVERY canyon you can see from I-15.....

Then they ban the use of dogs in salt lake county,
People started getting ' snotty' at access points when you would pull up and unload hounds.

Quit hunting it 10 years ago, never set foot back on it since, never will.
You valley guys can have it......................................


----------



## Old Fudd (Nov 24, 2007)

Going to Public Hearings in Utah.. It's sad to say. Most of the time they have made up their minds long before Joe Public sits down to let em know where a Bear PooPs. MONEY MONEY MONEY.It's like a lady in Draper who calls Law Enforcement because you parked on a public street, used public access to go up and hunt with your Bow. Then you find out that this so called lady has a mouth like a garbage can when you get pack to your truck..Shes PO'D because the officer told her no laws were broken.... NOW Whats going to happen?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Finnegan said:


> While working on the PLI last summer,


And there is the problem right THERE, quit giving it legitimacy. All they have done is used your cooperation against you. The PLI is a con job, with absolutely NO merit. Stop following the conversation, start one, and dominate it!

Last time I ran into Bishop, just before the frame work for the PLI was announced publicly, he was with a suicidal man traveling with what appeared to be a troop of actors working on an 1880s Western met the modern day zombie apocalypse.

You don't negotiate with terrorists, you give them the terms, and an exit strategy.

Some people don't know which hand to eat with......


----------



## Old Fudd (Nov 24, 2007)

lonetree, u are right on.. my hunting time is getting shorter. whats going to happpen with Rob Bishop and the BOYZ Scares the B Jebbers outa me.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

goforbroke said:


> Is there a hunting group that is involved?


That's my motivation for posting here. I'm trying to see if there is enough support/opposition for the NCRA proposal to warrant the involvement of other organizations.

I've been personally involved with the Mountain Accord for a couple years. I also applied for a seat on the Mountainous Planning District, but obviously wasn't successful. So I just attend the meetings when I can. Happy to share info and collaborate with anybody who's interested.



Old Fudd said:


> lonetree, u are right on.. my hunting time is getting shorter. whats going to happpen with Rob Bishop and the BOYZ Scares the B Jebbers outa me.


Just to be clear, this isn't connected to PLI. But for what it's worth, there is a common theme: Refusal to participate, discuss or be involved accomplishes nothing.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

I'll also toss this out there...

In addition to protecting our fishing and hunting privileges and public access, I think there's another concern and that involves protecting migratory corridors or transition routes between summer and winter range. Several of us are working together to gather as much statewide data as we can find. But meantime, if anyone can offer a possible lead for finding such data specific to the Wasatch, I'd be very grateful.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Finnegan said:


> That's my motivation for posting here. I'm trying to see if there is enough support/opposition for the NCRA proposal to warrant the involvement of other organizations.
> 
> I've been personally involved with the Mountain Accord for a couple years. I also applied for a seat on the Mountainous Planning District, but obviously wasn't successful. So I just attend the meetings when I can. Happy to share info and collaborate with anybody who's interested.
> 
> Just to be clear, this isn't connected to PLI. But for what it's worth, there is a common theme: Refusal to participate, discuss or be involved accomplishes nothing.


Just to be clear, some people and entities have spent too much time and treasure on legitimizing the PLI, at the expense of, and while ignoring what their constituency wants, and what can and should be done for hunters and hunting here in Utah.

Mountain Accord, Wasatch National Monument, Wasatch Wilderness, Skilink opposition? Yes, Sportsmen should get involved and make our presence known. If the pie plate is all anyone thinks they can hit at 10 yards(NCRA), then yeah, we should be involved, because if there is anything that is going to lock hunters out, it is something with that kind of "flexibility.

Right hand....Left hand......


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Finnegan said:


> I'll also toss this out there...
> 
> In addition to protecting our fishing and hunting privileges and public access, I think there's another concern and that involves protecting migratory corridors or transition routes between summer and winter range. Several of us are working together to gather as much statewide data as we can find. But meantime, if anyone can offer a possible lead for finding such data specific to the Wasatch, I'd be very grateful.


Good luck, it does not exist. I've looked at migrations for 20 years and every time I figure one out, it surprises me. The way deer show up on the Front, I would not be surprised if some come from 20 miles away.

It is not just up and down the mountain. Almost every route I have figured out is a traverse. Which I laugh at now, because in expedition planning that is a big part of route efficiency, so it makes so much sense.

Until more GPS studies are conducted, on known migratory deer and elk, this will remain a big black hole that complicates allot of issues.


----------



## walter sobchak (Jul 3, 2009)

Lonetree, nice Mos Def quote in your tag line.

Finnegan, glad someone is bringing up the problem of a limited voice from hunters in the Mt. Accord process. From what I have seen, I'd recommend more hunters get involved as some of the items being proposed will heavily impact the quality of hunting the extended area along the front.

With all the changes to transportation and recreation (trails, parking areas, etc.) proposed, it's inevitably going to impact someone's honey hole. Better to speak up now, while things are relatively fluid, than later, after things have crystallized.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

walter sobchak said:


> Lonetree, nice Mos Def quote in your tag line.
> 
> Finnegan, glad someone is bringing up the problem of a limited voice from hunters in the Mt. Accord process. From what I have seen, I'd recommend more hunters get involved as some of the items being proposed will heavily impact the quality of hunting the extended area along the front.
> 
> With all the changes to transportation and recreation (trails, parking areas, etc.) proposed, it's inevitably going to impact someone's honey hole. Better to speak up now, while things are relatively fluid, than later, after things have crystallized.


Walter, Shalom! Nice spot. Black on Both Sides has to be one of the best albums of all times, Yassin is pure genius. I have it up there around Red Headed Stranger and Blood on the Tracks. The quote is my reminder to heed what Umi says, so Know That.........its all Mathematics.


----------

