# They just want it sold now



## Bucksnort

They used to say they want federal land under state control. This bill shows our leaders just want to sell it off to their political interests by skipping the state altogether. Please contact our Robber Baron congressional leaders and let's stop this.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/621/actions

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## ridgetop

What exactly does "suitable for disposal" mean?
What exact pieces of land are they talking about?


----------



## Bucksnort

The text of the bill is not available. It should be available in a few days.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## ridgetop

Bucksnort said:


> The text of the bill is not available. It should be available in a few days.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


Ok, I'd like to see more details.
Keep us posted.


----------



## Vanilla

The way I understand it, back in the 90s the Clinton administration, at the behest of Congress, filed a report of lands that were "excess," meaning, they won't make the government and money by leasing mineral rights, etc. (That is my interpretation/paraphrasing. I'm sure they wouldn't describe it as bluntly as I did.) 

So for 20 years these lands have been determined to be of no value to the government, or in other words, "excess." About 130,000 acres of the land are in Utah.


----------



## Bucksnort

Vanilla said:


> The way I understand it, back in the 90s the Clinton administration, at the behest of Congress, filed a report of lands that were "excess," meaning, they won't make the government and money by leasing mineral rights, etc. (That is my interpretation/paraphrasing. I'm sure they wouldn't describe it as bluntly as I did.)
> 
> So for 20 years these lands have been determined to be of no value to the government, or in other words, "excess." About 130,000 acres of the land are in Utah.


Unfortunately we will never know which lands are of no value because the house GOP recently changed the administrative rules just recently. They now prevent the government from assessing value of land that will be "disposed of". This not about bringing the land back to the people. unless you count Haliburton as a people.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## High Desert Elk

Bucksnort said:


> Unfortunately we will never know which lands are of no value because the house GOP recently changed the administrative rules just recently. They now prevent the government from assessing value of land that will be "disposed of". This not about bringing the land back to the people. unless you count Haliburton as a people.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


Umm...do you even know what Halliburton is?


----------



## 300 Wby

And so it begins.........


----------



## Lonetree

ridgetop said:


> What exactly does "suitable for disposal" mean?
> What exact pieces of land are they talking about?


It will ultimately mean almost any federal land. They have already changed the rules on values, so they can say that just about any federal land has no value. This is so they can say that "We The People" are not losing anything when they "dispose" of it, because it has no value. Here is a story on the rules change on land values: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...sell-off-federal-land/?utm_term=.976b390dc184

And when there is no more wildlife to hunt, there won't be any opposition from us dirt poor public lands hunters either.

If you are not supporting these guys TRCP.org, start now. In all the dramatic chicken little, "the sky is falling" urgency I can muster, we have not seen wildlife and public lands issues with greater gravity in 100 years. Right now, and the near future will quite literally set the stage for next 5 generations of true, Public, Western lands hunting, as we have known it. It may very well cease to exist.


----------



## 300 Wby

Lonetree said:


> It will ultimately mean almost any federal land. They have already changed the rules on values, so they can say that just about any federal land has no value. This is so they can say that "We The People" are not losing anything when they "dispose" of it, because it has no value. Here is a story on the rules change on land values: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...sell-off-federal-land/?utm_term=.976b390dc184
> 
> And when there is no more wildlife to hunt, there won't be any opposition from us dirt poor public lands hunters either.
> 
> If you are not supporting these guys TRCP.org, start now. In all the dramatic chicken little, "the sky is falling" urgency I can muster, we have not seen wildlife and public lands issues with greater gravity in 100 years. Right now, and the near future will quite literally set the stage for next 5 generations of true, Public, Western lands hunting, as we have known it. It may very well cease to exist.


I don't always agree with you; But when I do................. I prefer , oh sorry I was thirsty there for a minute. Good points made, I too am of the opinion that when the state gets hold of the land it will be sold so fast it will make your head swim........


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Sorry, I just realized I double posted this. Mods delete my other post if you'd like. As for the question of what lands are "suitable for disposal" I would say all of them in the eyes of our Utah republicans. Maybe not all of them in this bill, but in the first week of the 115th congress several bills have been introduced to lessen the BLM and FS footprint and did I mention we are in week one. I do not have faith the man at the top will veto legislation, he's gonna be cutting deals to get republicans to agree with the kind of spending he wants to do over the next 4 years.

So, within the first week of transition our public lands lost all value, there is legislation being introduced to dispose of "suitable land", and their is another bill introduced to completely strip the BLM and FS of law enforcement......If you aren't ready to fight, then be ready to lose.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Vanilla said:


> The way I understand it, back in the 90s the Clinton administration, at the behest of Congress, filed a report of lands that were "excess," meaning, they won't make the government and money by leasing mineral rights, etc. (That is my interpretation/paraphrasing. I'm sure they wouldn't describe it as bluntly as I did.)
> 
> So for 20 years these lands have been determined to be of no value to the government, or in other words, "excess." About 130,000 acres of the land are in Utah.


This is true, but the house rule change on our public lands makes a difference. So they pass this measure, and come back for more land with "no value"....All of it. This is 20 years later and a lot has changed. This is a slippery, messy path to go down. I want to see a map of these 130,000 worthless acres.


----------



## Lonetree

300 Wby said:


> I don't always agree with you; But when I do................. I prefer , oh sorry I was thirsty there for a minute. Good points made, I too am of the opinion that when the state gets hold of the land it will be sold so fast it will make your head swim........


This is worse than the state getting it. This is an attempt to bypass that route all together and sell it straight off. The method to this madness is multi faceted. Trump's pick for Secretary of the Interior, Zinke, is against transferring public lands to the states. Much of the Trump administrations guidance on this is coming from his sons, specifically Donald Jr. who is an actual hunter, that supports public lands. Because of this, Congressmen like Bishop and Chaffetz(not hunters, I once challenged Chaffetz to shoot some clays, he declined) are changing their tactics to try and achieve the original goal, which was of course a sell off anyway.


----------



## colorcountrygunner

Lonetree said:


> This is worse than the state getting it. This is an attempt to bypass that route all together and sell it straight off. The method to this madness is multi faceted. Trump's pick for Secretary of the Interior, Zinke, is against transferring public lands to the states. Much of the Trump administrations guidance on this is coming from his sons, specifically Donald Jr. who is an actual hunter, that supports public lands. Because of this, *Congressmen like Bishop and Chaffetz(not hunters*, I once challenged Chaffetz to shoot some clays, he declined) are changing their tactics to try and achieve the original goal, which was of course a sell off anyway.


My buddy at work says that Jason Chafetz was in his hunter's safety class with him. I can't guarantee you that the story is true, but he's a fairly credible guy, and I don't know why he would make that up. This is a guy that started hunting later in life. It would have been sometime within the last 3 to 5 years or so.


----------



## High Desert Elk

Why did you guys put those two chowderheads in office??? 8)


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

This is beyond politics now, so I will set it aside. This will affect ever person on this forum negatively if we allow congress to continue down this path. They haven't introduced any major legislation but they are introducing legislation that is deaths by a thousand cuts and is moving closer to the finish line of their end goal. At this point sportsmen need to stand up for the places we all enjoy NOW. There needs to be major push back NOW to shout this down right from the beginning. 

Email your representatives, call them, and even write them a handwritten letter and send it to them. Do it weekly until they pay attention. Share things on social media. Contact your representative whoever they are or whether they are for or against the sell or transfer of federal lands. Thank them if they are against it. If you do not support TRCP or BHA, I would definetly encourage you to do so if you can. BHAs membership is $25 for a year. Let's set aside disagreements on politics and all just agree we need to #keepitpublic.


----------



## Bucksnort

I think the most frustrating part about this issue is we live in the state that is leading the way. Rob Bishop lives pretty close to me, yet no representative has even responded to my emails. They do not care about my voice. I guess a visit to their office might be more effective. Anybody want to go with me? Maybe if visit together, it will make more of an impact. 

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Bucksnort said:


> I think the most frustrating part about this issue is we live in the state that is leading the way. Rob Bishop lives pretty close to me, yet no representative has even responded to my emails. They do not care about my voice. I guess a visit to their office might be more effective. Anybody want to go with me? Maybe if visit together, it will make more of an impact.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


I think that's a great option. It may seem worthless at times but if you are persistent, and you get 5 more people to be persistent, then they each get a couple, (like weekly giving them a call and email) they will eventually hear or voices loud and clear.


----------



## Lonetree

colorcountrygunner said:


> My buddy at work says that Jason Chafetz was in his hunter's safety class with him. I can't guarantee you that the story is true, but he's a fairly credible guy, and I don't know why he would make that up. This is a guy that started hunting later in life. It would have been sometime within the last 3 to 5 years or so.


That sort of makes sense, this went down right after he was first elected. He was running his mouth about sage grouse, and my response was along the lines that he must not know how to swing a shotgun, and therefor does not appreciate them(sage grouse) as he should, but not quite that nice. I guess it is never too late, but if Chafetz was taking hunters ed in his late 30's, it is no wonder he has such a disrespect for public lands, he wasn't raised right.


----------



## Lonetree

Bucksnort said:


> I think the most frustrating part about this issue is we live in the state that is leading the way. Rob Bishop lives pretty close to me, yet no representative has even responded to my emails. They do not care about my voice. I guess a visit to their office might be more effective. Anybody want to go with me? Maybe if visit together, it will make more of an impact.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


I find I get form responses from Bishop in a timely 6 months typically.

When I was with BHA, we had talked at one point about trying to get a sit down with Bishop. There were several things that were to be included, wearing camo, bringing our locals that supported area issues, boots and hats.............no fake tans, and no prissy suits........


----------



## taxidermist

I'll purchase it. last I looked they're not making any more Land.


----------



## High Desert Elk

I think Bishop and his crony should be invited as keynote speakers at the Expo next month...;-)


----------



## ridgetop

High Desert Elk said:


> I think Bishop and his crony should be invited as keynote speakers at the Expo next month...;-)


Not a bad idea.
If the land is of no value but is considered prime hunting grounds(what a few out there are saying), then the DWR or hunting orgs. should buy the land themselves at a cheap price and turn it into another WMA.:idea:


----------



## Lonetree

ridgetop said:


> Not a bad idea.
> If the land is of no value but is considered prime hunting grounds(what a few out there are saying), then the DWR or hunting orgs. should buy the land themselves at a cheap price and turn it into another WMA.:idea:


That would be like setting fire to 100 dollar bills to keep warm. WMAs, "managed" by the DWR and sportsmens orgs, are one of the biggest problems wildlife face, they would be better off with houses built on them. Don't believe me, look at Alpine and Bountiful, they grow more deer than the DWR could ever dream of.


----------



## Vanilla

Let me unequivocally state that I'm opposed to the selling or transferring of federal lands. I think I've made that clear over the years, but I'll state it clearly again. However, I think there is a misunderstanding on this and what really has happened. 

Like I said, it was the Clinton administration that declared this land excess and suitable to dispose of, two decades ago. This is not the first time Chaffetz has tried to run this basically exact bill. So this isn't some quick after the election slight of hand action. This has been in the pipeline for years. Regarding the new House rule, the only conveyances the new rule applies to having not to declare land value losses or new budgets is conveyances specifically to state, local government, or tribal entities. So no, the new House rule does not make it easier to sell this land to Halliburton (as was mentioned). Or any other private party for that matter. The Clinton administration made it easier to do so 20 years ago. The new House rule makes it a whole lot easier to convey them to the states, however. 

I don't know where the 130,000 acres in Utah are located. The best I've seen explained is "mostly in southern Utah." 

Again, I'm against this. But if we're going to rally the troops to go fight this, let's be accurate in what is happening. If you go with misinformation you have even less of a chance they will listen to you. 

Keep in mind that the Republican Party adopted as part of its party platform last year the need to reduce federal lands and put them in the hands of the states and private parties. The biggest champion of that move probably in the entire country is Rob Bishop. The only way he is backing off this is if he thinks it will cost him an election. And it won't. He knows it. We're better off getting opposition from around the country than trying to get these guys here in Utah to change their minds.


----------



## Bucksnort

Vanilla said:


> Let me unequivocally state that I'm opposed to the selling or transferring of federal lands. I think I've made that clear over the years, but I'll state it clearly again. However, I think there is a misunderstanding on this and what really has happened.
> 
> Like I said, it was the Clinton administration that declared this land excess and suitable to dispose of, two decades ago. This is not the first time Chaffetz has tried to run this basically exact bill. So this isn't some quick after the election slight of hand action. This has been in the pipeline for years. Regarding the new House rule, the only conveyances the new rule applies to having not to declare land value losses or new budgets is conveyances specifically to state, local government, or tribal entities. So no, the new House rule does not make it easier to sell this land to Halliburton (as was mentioned). Or any other private party for that matter. The Clinton administration made it easier to do so 20 years ago. The new House rule makes it a whole lot easier to convey them to the states, however.
> 
> I don't know where the 130,000 acres in Utah are located. The best I've seen explained is "mostly in southern Utah."
> 
> Again, I'm against this. But if we're going to rally the troops to go fight this, let's be accurate in what is happening. If you go with misinformation you have even less of a chance they will listen to you.
> 
> Keep in mind that the Republican Party adopted as part of its party platform last year the need to reduce federal lands and put them in the hands of the states and private parties. The biggest champion of that move probably in the entire country is Rob Bishop. The only way he is backing off this is if he thinks it will cost him an election. And it won't. He knows it. We're better off getting opposition from around the country than trying to get these guys here in Utah to change their minds.


Thanks Vanilla. I guess we will know more specifics once the wording of the bill is released.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## scout66

Here is the link from similar bill introduced by Rep. Chaffetz in Jan 2015: https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/435/text

And another similar bill introduced by Sen. Lee in Feb 2015: https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/361/text

Also another link showing which lands are designated as "suitable for disposal" which qualify as being sold under this newly introduced bill: https://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/planning/planning_overview/lands_potentially0.html


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

I am more simply saying it's time to get ahead of this and apply pressure on representatives now before we even get a bill that calls for full disposal. The Richfield RMO won't load, so I'm still wondering what lands are up to be sold. I would still encourage everyone to contact as many reps and as often as you can and let them know you are against the transfer or sell of federal land.


----------



## Lonetree

Vanilla said:


> Let me unequivocally state that I'm opposed to the selling or transferring of federal lands. I think I've made that clear over the years, but I'll state it clearly again. However, I think there is a misunderstanding on this and what really has happened.
> 
> Like I said, it was the Clinton administration that declared this land excess and suitable to dispose of, two decades ago. This is not the first time Chaffetz has tried to run this basically exact bill. So this isn't some quick after the election slight of hand action. This has been in the pipeline for years. Regarding the new House rule, the only conveyances the new rule applies to having not to declare land value losses or new budgets is conveyances specifically to state, local government, or tribal entities. So no, the new House rule does not make it easier to sell this land to Halliburton (as was mentioned). Or any other private party for that matter. The Clinton administration made it easier to do so 20 years ago. The new House rule makes it a whole lot easier to convey them to the states, however.
> 
> I don't know where the 130,000 acres in Utah are located. The best I've seen explained is "mostly in southern Utah."
> 
> Again, I'm against this. But if we're going to rally the troops to go fight this, let's be accurate in what is happening. If you go with misinformation you have even less of a chance they will listen to you.
> 
> Keep in mind that the Republican Party adopted as part of its party platform last year the need to reduce federal lands and put them in the hands of the states and private parties. The biggest champion of that move probably in the entire country is Rob Bishop. The only way he is backing off this is if he thinks it will cost him an election. And it won't. He knows it. We're better off getting opposition from around the country than trying to get these guys here in Utah to change their minds.


The difference this time is that it can be passed, and they have other plans to go with it. On public lands you have to watch what Stewart, and Chaffetz are doing, when Bishop does anything else. None of this is random. Yes, this is 20 years old and started with Clinton, that means this has legs, the ground work on it has been done, and with those specifics, it is easier to pass.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Lonetree said:


> The difference this time is that it can be passed, and they have other plans to go with it. On public lands you have to watch what Stewart, and Chaffetz are doing, when Bishop does anything else. None of this is random. Yes, this is 20 years old and started with Clinton, that means this has legs, the ground work on it has been done, and with those specifics, it is easier to pass.


Yes, I also remember these bills being introduced before as well. This one and the one about taking policing power away from land managment agencies were both introduced before. This is just the quickest, easiest land to sell first. It won't stop here. The difference between when these bills were introduced before and now is, there's no veto at the top to stop anything. Rob Bishop, Mike Lee, Jason Chaffetz, Rob Stewart, among others will work hard the next 4 years to pull more out from under us if it isn't clear this needs to stop.


----------



## Lonetree

Just a note removal of federal policing powers, since it was mentioned: We currently have increased patrols of winter ranges to deter poaching, which is great, but the DWR has finite resources and time to put towards this. Does anyone know who the biggest partners for the DWR is for these patrols?


----------



## Old Fudd

when Desert Livestock came up For Sale. the State of Utah passed on it. Now you can't even stop to take a pee off the Road. These Knuckle running this Rape are as crooked as my 72 year old Crooked Arthrtiic Finger And you can guess which finger it may be,


----------



## Trooper

High Desert Elk said:


> Umm...do you even know what Halliburton is?


A metaphor for big business.


----------



## MWScott72

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Yes, I also remember these bills being introduced before as well. This one and the one about taking policing power away from land managment agencies were both introduced before. This is just the quickest, easiest land to sell first. It won't stop here. The difference between when these bills were introduced before and now is, there's no veto at the top to stop anything. Rob Bishop, Mike Lee, Jason Chaffetz, Rob Stewart, among others will work hard the next 4 years to pull more out from under us if it isn't clear this needs to stop.


While I agree that this bill and others like it are big problems, and we should all be contacting our representatives to voice our disapproval, I do have some hope that were it to pass, Trump would actually listen to his sons and his Interior pick (Zincke?), who would most definitely be against this. Perhaps we, as hunters should be emailing them too?


----------



## Trooper

Today it's "excess land" tomorrow it is BLM land, the next it will be just enough forest service land to pay for fire suppression, then ....


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

MWScott72 said:


> While I agree that this bill and others like it are big problems, and we should all be contacting our representatives to voice our disapproval, I do have some hope that were it to pass, Trump would actually listen to his sons and his Interior pick (Zincke?), who would most definitely be against this. Perhaps we, as hunters should be emailing them too?


We definitely should be contacting everyone we have time for. I also would hope Trump, Zinke, and his sons will stand by their words, however, politics is politics and that's not where I'm putting my eggs in a basket. I'm sure phone lines have lit up over this with everyone who shared it, I would tell everyone to light them up again Monday. I would also identify yourself as a hunter when you are contacting these people as well.

Also does anyone know on bills like this if they still to the senate will they need a simple majority to pass or a super majority? Republicans hold a slim margin in the senate, and democrats across the board are unlikely to vote in favor of things like this. All it takes is to change a few republicans minds, and we can do that.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Trout Unlimited has a good way to contact your reps by email, just scroll down to where it says "Find your official" enter your zip code and address and it lets you add all your representative from President to Lieutenant Governor:

https://www.votervoice.net/mobile/TU/Home


----------



## ridgetop

Lonetree said:


> That would be like setting fire to 100 dollar bills to keep warm. WMAs, "managed" by the DWR and sportsmens orgs, are one of the biggest problems wildlife face, they would be better off with houses built on them. Don't believe me, look at Alpine and Bountiful, they grow more deer than the DWR could ever dream of.


WOW!:shock:

Seems like a lose, lose situation out there. 
The deer are all dying off because of malnutrition and all our public lands are going to be sold off, with no place to hunt. 
Well at least I can feel good about working in construction and helping build all those houses in the foothills, creating better deer habitat. 
So I can at least take pictures of a few deer in the future.


----------



## OriginalOscar

Lonetree said:


> That would be like setting fire to 100 dollar bills to keep warm. WMAs, "managed" by the DWR and sportsmens orgs, are one of the biggest problems wildlife face, they would be better off with houses built on them. Don't believe me, look at Alpine and Bountiful, they grow more deer than the DWR could ever dream of.


You are very smart. I'm glad to are here. I feel wiser after reading your thoughts. Thank you


----------



## colorcountrygunner

Lonetree said:


> Just a note removal of federal policing powers, since it was mentioned: We currently have increased patrols of winter ranges to deter poaching, which is great, but the DWR has finite resources and time to put towards this. Does anyone know who the biggest partners for the DWR is for these patrols?


*raises hand* oooh ooooh ooooh


----------



## SLCHunter

Vanilla said:


> Keep in mind that the Republican Party adopted as part of its party platform last year the need to reduce federal lands and put them in the hands of the states and private parties. The biggest champion of that move probably in the entire country is Rob Bishop. The only way he is backing off this is if he thinks it will cost him an election. And it won't. He knows it. We're better off getting opposition from around the country than trying to get these guys here in Utah to change their minds.


I guess hunters have to start working together with the Sierra Club. Ha. 
And, yes, chowderheads. 
Zinke better push back, with The Donald Jr. help. Oh I forgot, he's "running daddy's business" and can't do politics now. Ha.


----------



## Old Fudd

I've done a bit of research>> WE R GOING TO GE HOSED!!!


----------



## High Desert Elk

Trooper said:


> A metaphor for big business.


Never heard that one before, I thought it was how "Big Oil" got started when Cheney was VP.


----------



## MWScott72

Bucksnort said:


> They used to say they want federal land under state control. This bill shows our leaders just want to sell it off to their political interests by skipping the state altogether. Please contact our Robber Baron congressional leaders and let's stop this.
> 
> https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/621/actions
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


As much as many of us probably wish we didn't have to "follow" politics, it would be wise on this bill to set up an account and follow things closely. Only by being actively engaged and informed (and informing others too!) is there any chance this will get dumped in he trash where it belongs.


----------



## Lonetree

ridgetop said:


> WOW!:shock:
> 
> Seems like a lose, lose situation out there.
> The deer are all dying off because of malnutrition and all our public lands are going to be sold off, with no place to hunt.
> Well at least I can feel good about working in construction and helping build all those houses in the foothills, creating better deer habitat.
> So I can at least take pictures of a few deer in the future.


I don't care if it is drilling for unobtanium on Mars. If it grows deer and hunters, you can get me to support it. If it doesn't you will find me trying to figure out why it doesn't. Public lands are central to that premise in the West, particularly from the hunting aspect.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

If you have time today give Jason chaffetz office a call: 202-225-7751
Here's the number to get in touch with your own representatives: 202-224-3121


----------



## Twill87

Bottom line is that we cannot let this happen. Randy Newberg has some very informative information on his Youtube page about the topic of State Land Transfer. Here is a link to his Utah video but I'd suggest exploring all his videos on this topic. Then getting in contact with our representatives to voice your opinion on this matter.


----------



## PBH

As Vanilla mentioned "most of it is in southern Utah". This is scary. Because counties like Garfield and Wayne and Kane (think Mike Noel) already complain about the amount of federal land that does not generate tax money. That's what those counties want -- to the detriment of the public: more private land that generates tax dollars for the local economies. That's scary.

For those of you detesting the DWR purchasing land: one thing that cannot be disputed is that when the DWR purchases land it is kept open to the public for recreational purposes! That's a win in my eyes every day of the week!


This is all very scary.


----------



## Lonetree

PBH said:


> As Vanilla mentioned "most of it is in southern Utah". This is scary. Because counties like Garfield and Wayne and Kane (think Mike Noel) already complain about the amount of federal land that does not generate tax money. That's what those counties want -- to the detriment of the public: more private land that generates tax dollars for the local economies. That's scary.
> 
> For those of you detesting the DWR purchasing land: one thing that cannot be disputed is that when the DWR purchases land it is kept open to the public for recreational purposes! That's a win in my eyes every day of the week!
> 
> This is all very scary.


I agree in principal about the DWR buying land. That is not how it has historically played out though. The DWR will, and has, "disposed" of such lands held in trust, supposedly for hunters, before. Some quite recent, that were purchased will sportsman's dollars no less.


----------



## kdog

I sent a message to Schaffer yesterday. not happy with what he is doing.


----------



## PBH

Lonetree -- you might be right. I don't know.

I do know that when the State of Utah denied access for anglers to public waters, it was the DWR that purchased land that secured access for all of us along streams (ie: Sevier River in Piute county). I hope they keep doing that when the opportunity comes available.

As for our federal lands? allowing the state to sell those federal lands is horrible.


----------



## Catherder

A couple of comments.

1.


PBH said:


> As Vanilla mentioned "most of it is in southern Utah". This is scary. Because counties like Garfield and Wayne and Kane (think Mike Noel) already complain about the amount of federal land that does not generate tax money. That's what those counties want -- to the detriment of the public: more private land that generates tax dollars for the local economies. That's scary.
> 
> For those of you detesting the DWR purchasing land: one thing that cannot be disputed is that when the DWR purchases land it is kept open to the public for recreational purposes! That's a win in my eyes every day of the week!
> 
> This is all very scary.


It has always been the case and part of the "land grab" that rural counties want more private land to tax. They feel that PILT money is inadequate and that their budgetary issues will disappear with more property taxes coming in. It is a main reason that it is laughable when our politicians assure us that large scale sell offs won't occur with a successful TPL.

2. With all due respect, the time to send a message to Chaffetz, Bishop, and pals was November 8th. Unfortunately, the message they received that day was for them to pursue this. (even though opinion polls in Utah are consistently 50:50 on TPL.) The Land Grab is their baby. Trying to persuade them to drop it is a waste of time.

IMO, it is more fruitful to contact nationally prominent Republicans, like Paul Ryan or John Mccain, or Democrats, especially in the Senate, where real resistance can take place. Also, supporting conservation groups like Trout Unlimited, that are opposed to TPL is good. Sadly, I think we will lose some land in the next 2 years. It may take a while for it to be a lot and I hope that a little loss will show people what they are trying to throw away with public land grabs and fortify the opposition.


----------



## Lonetree

PBH said:


> Lonetree -- you might be right. I don't know.
> 
> I do know that when the State of Utah denied access for anglers to public waters, it was the DWR that purchased land that secured access for all of us along streams (ie: Sevier River in Piute county). I hope they keep doing that when the opportunity comes available.
> 
> As for our federal lands? allowing the state to sell those federal lands is horrible.


I am very right about some other fairly recent lands, I will let someone that knows the issue better pipe in on those specifics, or dig it up if I have to.

As for points of access? yes, very good example, I can think of several myself. But the legislature does not want the DWR owning large chunks of land, which is a very interesting premise, given the stance on transferring federal lands to the the sate. I think it demonstrates clearly that they don't want hunters to be a part of that equation.


----------



## Catherder

Lonetree said:


> I agree in principal about the DWR buying land. That is not how it has historically played out though. The DWR will, and has, "disposed" of such lands held in trust, supposedly for hunters, before. Some quite recent, that were purchased will sportsman's dollars no less.


The DWR recently tried to do this with some parcels (in Duchesne county) in the Lake Canyon Lake area but backed down. The DWR hasn't generally been a big seller. SITLA is an entirely different "animal". For better or worse, they have sold off many of their parcels at the drop of a hat.


----------



## Catherder

Lonetree said:


> But the legislature does not want the DWR owning large chunks of land, which is a very interesting premise, given the stance on transferring federal lands to the the sate. I think it demonstrates clearly that they don't want hunters to be a part of that equation.


This is sadly true.


----------



## Vanilla

It has been discussed before, but you can't throw SITLA lands into this discussion. Constitutionally the state has to manage those lands in the highest profitable way. As stated, they are a completely different animal. Nothing we are ever going to be able to do about those lands, as the beneficiary is not the public at large.


----------



## Bucksnort

Catherder said:


> A couple of comments.
> 
> 1.
> 
> It has always been the case and part of the "land grab" that rural counties want more private land to tax. They feel that PILT money is inadequate and that their budgetary issues will disappear with more property taxes coming in. It is a main reason that it is laughable when our politicians assure us that large scale sell offs won't occur with a successful TPL.
> 
> 2. With all due respect, the time to send a message to Chaffetz, Bishop, and pals was November 8th. Unfortunately, the message they received that day was for them to pursue this. (even though opinion polls in Utah are consistently 50:50 on TPL.) The Land Grab is their baby. Trying to persuade them to drop it is a waste of time.
> 
> IMO, it is more fruitful to contact nationally prominent Republicans, like Paul Ryan or John Mccain, or Democrats, especially in the Senate, where real resistance can take place. Also, supporting conservation groups like Trout Unlimited, that are opposed to TPL is good. Sadly, I think we will lose some land in the next 2 years. It may take a while for it to be a lot and I hope that a little loss will show people what they are trying to throw away with public land grabs and fortify the opposition.


I think it will also be helpful make a request through social media to friends outside of the State. We need to convince them to call their representatives and tell them not to support it.

Like it was stated before. The Utah delegation is never going to back down unless we can fire them.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## Lonetree

Vanilla said:


> It has been discussed before, but you can't throw SITLA lands into this discussion. Constitutionally the state has to manage those lands in the highest profitable way. As stated, they are a completely different animal. Nothing we are ever going to be able to do about those lands, as the beneficiary is not the public at large.


This is all very true. And I think the way those lands are dealt with, unfortunately sets a precedent, for how some want to "dispose" of federally acquired land.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

I agree going beyond Utah reps is probably the best of our efforts. However, every mail box was full this weekend when you tried to leave messages. I think Chaffetz opened a big can of worms with his two bills though and he ignited a fire under a lot of people and organizations. I know his office is getting flooded with calls. Maybe if people scream loud enough, it will discourage them some. Him introducing these might be a good thing, because he unleashed some serious resistance. Cameron Hanes, Joe Rogan, Steven Rinella, Randy Newberg, Solo Hunter, and a ton of others have called Chaffetz out by name, and that doesn't even count all the non-hunting groups surly flooding the field. I would make sure you let your reps know you are a hunter so they can see a diverse opposition to this. This is on top of the stones thrown by the Outdoor Industry the last few weeks at Utah. In 2 years, please vote.

I also just noticed several of those same people just reposted these things on Facebook again specifically calling out Chaffetz. He opened a can of whoop-ass and he's not about to get it back in the can. This is a great time to pressure the hell out of congress and Utahs reps, or they'll continue trying this BS.


----------



## PBH

Vanilla said:


> Nothing we are ever going to be able to do about those lands, as the beneficiary is Lyman Family Farms.


Sorry. Had to fix it for you.

but, I think we all understand that those lands will only ever benefit private interests.


----------



## High Desert Elk

In response to Mr. Newberg's video, the inherent problem with selling off the lands once transferred is a short term fix to their money problems. Those same deficits will come back...

Where will the revenues come from then? Higher state taxes? More gross receipts taxes from private business on newly aquired land purchased from the state? Makes you wonder...


----------



## paddlehead

What is the contact info? Email? Phone #? WE can talk amongst ourselves all we want, but we need contact info if we are going to make any impact!


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

paddlehead said:


> What is the contact info? Email? Phone #? WE can talk amongst ourselves all we want, but we need contact info if we are going to make any impact!


Paddle head go this link:

https://www.votervoice.net/mobile/TU/Home

Click on the "Take Action" at the top of the page to sign TUs petition.

Then put in your zip code and address where it says "Find Officials" Turn all your officials on from President to Lieutenant Governor and send them a personal letter from you. Then call your reps at: 202-224-3121. I would also say call Jason Chaffetz office at 202-225-7751. Send a mail in letter to your Senators and those in the House of Representatives if you have time. Let's bite this in the butt now so it doesn't get any worse.

Here's another petition to sign if you haven't yet: www.sportsmensaccess.org


----------



## MWScott72

I was forwarded a Facebook post from a friend where Chaffetz said he was going to withdraw HR621 today. I haven't seen anything official in the news yet, but it looks promising. Keep contacting your reps though to make sure they know EXACTLY where YOU stand on this issue!


----------



## Vanilla

Well done, everyone!


----------



## MWScott72

You know this is just the 1st iteration though...keep on your toes, and be ready for the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th attempt to pass this kind of crap!


----------



## Lonetree

Sportsmen definitely deserve the credit on this one. Chaffetz has not changed his mind, only his decision to pursue it this particular way, which is of course why sportsmen need the credit, and to keep at it. 

This bill, like bills attached to ski-link, and transferring land to BYU for the Y, among several others, are part of a bigger picture. Those proposing the transfer of public lands know what they are proposing is radical and unprecedented, so they chip away incrementally to try and build a larger precedent, in an attempt to give the appearance of normalcy to the bigger goal of a sell off. 

This may be a small victory, but one that may prove to have larger implications, just like those that proposed it, had hoped for themselves.

Thank you! to everyone that showed up, called, became a member of an opposing org, sent emails, etc.


----------



## swbuckmaster

Jason said on facebook he's backing off on the sale of the land. 

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## Lonetree

swbuckmaster said:


> Jason said on facebook he's backing off on the sale of the land.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


He is backing off of just _this_(HB621)land sale. He is still on record as supporting the transfer of federal lands to the state, including the sale of some of those. This(HB 621) was only a smaller piece of that bigger picture.

He is on the right track, but he has some miles yet to cover.


----------

