# Land management preference?



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

Lots of discussion over land these days? Who do you prefer and who does the best job? State, federal or private for our wildlife?


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Frankly, your poll is missing the best option: Depending on the tract, all of the above.


----------



## utahgolf (Sep 8, 2007)

The free market works for everything, should be applied to everything, it's also incorruptible and can never be rigged by those already at the top or twisted into something it wasn't intended for!!!! So with that perfect system in place, lets sell all the land and let those who can afford it be the ones who can choose to do what they want with it. All these handouts and people wanting public land and opportunity... Freaking socialists.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

utahgolf said:


> The free market works for everything, should be applied to everything, it's also incorruptible and can never be rigged by those already at the top or twisted into something it wasn't intended for!!!! So with that perfect system in place, lets sell all the land and let those who can afford it be the ones who can choose to do what they want with it. All these handouts and people wanting public land and opportunity... Freaking socialists.


I guess I missed the smile face for sarcasm 

Carry on!


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

utahgolf said:


> The free market works for everything, should be applied to everything, it's also incorruptible and can never be rigged by those already at the top or twisted into something it wasn't intended for!!!!


Yea like the stockmarket...........no wait........

I can name you so many things that free market doesn't or wouldn't work for that you don't have time to read it.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

Sorry I couldn't hardly get past the first sentence.


----------



## utahgolf (Sep 8, 2007)

middlefork said:


> I guess I missed the smile face for sarcasm
> 
> Carry on!


here it is! :smile:


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

And really, each plays by a completely different set of rules. Places where lands don't have to be managed for multiple use, but CAN be managed exclusively for wildlife will do better, regardless of who manages them. It is my experience that private lands can be managed for fewer uses than law demands for Federal or State land managers. So in that regard, I think private lands have the most potential for management for wildlife only. But that also means that the general public is held out of such places. So the lands may favor wildlife, but not the general public. If BLM or the Forest Service were allowed to manage lands only for wildlife, leaving out mining, fluid minerals, timber, grazing, recreation, etc.... except to only make the wildlife habitats better, then hunters would certainly benefit, but it would be at the expense of other industries that could use those lands.


----------



## Cooky (Apr 25, 2011)

GaryFish said:


> And really, each plays by a completely different set of rules. Places where lands don't have to be managed for multiple use, but CAN be managed exclusively for wildlife will do better, regardless of who manages them. It is my experience that private lands can be managed for fewer uses than law demands for Federal or State land managers. So in that regard, I think private lands have the most potential for management for wildlife only. But that also means that the general public is held out of such places. So the lands may favor wildlife, but not the general public. If BLM or the Forest Service were allowed to manage lands only for wildlife, leaving out mining, fluid minerals, timber, grazing, recreation, etc.... except to only make the wildlife habitats better, then hunters would certainly benefit, but it would be at the expense of other industries that could use those lands.


Gary nailed it. The first question needs to be "managed for what?" Not all land is suitable for every use. If land is best used as wildlife habitat then we should manage for that, if the best use is an oil well then a well it is. Trying to make all the land fill all the uses just isn't going to work... when we try that we end up where we are now... money and purchased politicians get to decide.


----------



## 2full (Apr 8, 2010)

I'm sorry to say it but:
If the state gets control they will just sell chunks off to the rich ******.
If you need to see any proof, ask yourself.........
How did it work out for a big part of the school trust sections.........
Oh ya.......... THEY SOLD 'EM. 
Now the average guy has less areas to go to. 
Same thing will happen if the state takes control, on a bigger scale.
Just my 2 cents worth, know I will get fried by a lot of people, that's okay.


----------



## redleg (Dec 5, 2007)

I hate federal control of anything. but I like to hunt and fish and I know federal land is known as "public land", Private land is known as "posted" and State land is known as "for sale"


----------



## SLCHunter (Dec 19, 2013)

utahgolf said:


> The free market works for everything, should be applied to everything, it's also incorruptible and can never be rigged by those already at the top or twisted into something it wasn't intended for!!!! So with that perfect system in place, lets sell all the land and let those who can afford it be the ones who can choose to do what they want with it. All these handouts and people wanting public land and opportunity... Freaking socialists.


Hahaha


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Frankly, my preference, would be for me to own about 20,000 acres of land on a river in Montana, that I could manage for livestock and wildlife, for just me and my friends and family to hunt and fish. That would be my preference. Just outside Yellowstone, where I could get some bison, elk, wolfies, grizzly, all to make it one freaky cool little hunting preserve. That would be my preference.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

GaryFish said:


> Frankly, my preference, would be for me to own about 20,000 acres of land on a river in Montana, that I could manage for livestock and wildlife, for just me and my friends and family to hunt and fish. That would be my preference. Just outside Yellowstone, where I could get some bison, elk, wolfies, grizzly, all to make it one freaky cool little hunting preserve. That would be my preference.


So you don't have several million $$$$ lying around? Maybe we could take contributions. I will go in on it with you


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

You'd be invited Mr. Muleskinner. Of course.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

Can we sell it all off to Big Oil and Paper now? That's who I'm working for at the moment.

just saying


----------



## Cooky (Apr 25, 2011)

wyogoob said:


> Can we sell it all off to Big Oil and Paper now? That's who I'm working for at the moment.
> 
> just saying


I don't think we ought to sell it off to them... but if managing for the utilization of the oil or lumber is the best use of that particular tract of land I think we, the landowner/taxpayers, should allow that use. With proper attention paid to fair market value of said use.
Management plans need to be in place and long term. Selling land off cheap so it can be trashed then abandoned isn't in the best long-term interest of the current owners (us).


----------



## The Naturalist (Oct 13, 2007)

Cooky said:


> I don't think we ought to sell it off to them... but if managing for the utilization of the oil or lumber is the best use of that particular tract of land I think we, the landowner/taxpayers, should allow that use. With proper attention paid to fair market value of said use.
> *Management plans need to be in place and long term. Selling land off cheap so it can be trashed then abandoned isn't in the best long-term interest of the current owners* (us).


 That is what our State allows the extraction industry to do. Coal for example pays no severance tax, and oil pays little to no tax compared to other States.
It is no wonder our politicians have been bought off to try and get their hands on the public lands.


----------



## massmanute (Apr 23, 2012)

I think that if the states get their hands on the public lands currently under Federal control it will be an unmitigated disaster for Utah sportsmen.

By the way, both the State constitution and the enabling act for Utah statehood specify that Utah "..._forever disclaim(s)_ all right and title to the unappropriated public lands...". I wonder what part of "forever" our state politicians don't understand.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

Cooky said:


> I don't think we ought to sell it off to them... but if managing for the utilization of the oil or lumber is the best use of that particular tract of land I think we, the landowner/taxpayers, should allow that use. With proper attention paid to fair market value of said use.
> Management plans need to be in place and long term. Selling land off cheap so it can be trashed then abandoned isn't in the best long-term interest of the current owners (us).


I don't care about any of that. I want what's best for me.....me, me, me.

.


----------

