# Another nail in our public lands coffin



## spencerD (Jan 14, 2014)

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=34055020&ni...enges-of-federal-land-ownership&s_cid=queue-5

"Beyond this public lands initiative process, Bishop said Utah's "take back" effort when it comes to federal land ownership is moving in the right direction, bolstered by specific statutory steps Utah leaders are taking along the way.

"Utah is taking a very intelligent approach passing legislation and ramping up the government structure on how you would manage the lands," he said, pointing out that previous proposals were flawed because they lacked an actual "remedy" to propose to judges or Congress.

"Our kids are hurt by this massive amount of federal land being controlled by the federal government, and there is no way of getting around that," he said."

Bishop is doing a frighteningly good job of disguising his true intentions here.

I wish it were possible to trust that if the land was managed by the state, that it would remain public - in the hands of those to whom it belongs.


----------



## redleg (Dec 5, 2007)

I wish it were possible to trust that if the land was managed by the state, that it would remain public - in the hands of those to whom it belongs.[/QUOTE]

Someone could talk to his buddy in the state legislature and get him to propose a bill that says it will.


----------



## massmanute (Apr 23, 2012)

The State of Utah can't even get its act together when it comes to a stable program for phragmites control. How can we expect them to manage the vast tracts of Federal land in the State?


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

massmanute said:


> The State of Utah can't even get its act together when it comes to a stable program for phragmites control. How can we expect them to manage the vast tracts of Federal land in the State?


How would you get phrag under control if you were running the program. Keep in mind this year the legislature gave them a whopping $500,000


----------



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

Email Mr. Bishop and let your voice be heard.


----------



## massmanute (Apr 23, 2012)

LostLouisianian said:


> How would you get phrag under control if you were running the program. Keep in mind this year the legislature gave them a whopping $500,000


My point is not how to control phrag, but rather the political contortions the legislature went through on the issue which put the whole program at risk. Now, imagine this happening every year on a much larger scale.


----------



## spencerD (Jan 14, 2014)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Email Mr. Bishop and let your voice be heard.


I sent him one last night, and I highly encourage everyone else to follow suit. This is a cause that needs all the help it can get.


----------



## The Naturalist (Oct 13, 2007)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Email Mr. Bishop and let your voice be heard.


Yes, please email him.

However, he is so entrenched on this PLT I believe he could care less at emails that differ from his perspective. His mind is made up and he has put his blinders on.
I do know the one thing he listens to is the amount you contribute to his campaign coffers! It would be hard to outdo the extraction and development lobbies!


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

massmanute said:


> My point is not how to control phrag, but rather the political contortions the legislature went through on the issue which put the whole program at risk. Now, imagine this happening every year on a much larger scale.


Thanks Mass, I misunderstood your initial post. Totally agree with this post.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

This is part of the problem. Mormons support the Republican party more than any other single group.

http://www.sltrib.com/news/2373757-155/mormons-are-the-most-reliable-republicans

Only 22% of Mormons lean Democratic, even though the church takes no official position. It seems many think you can't be both a good Mormon and a Democrat.

So long as having an "R" behind your name almost guarantees victory in the general election, we will have to put up with the "Drill, Baby, Drill" Republican agenda. Bishop sweet talks the issues, but it really is all about extraction.

Also, so long as the caucus convention system prevails, we will elect the far right nut jobs like Mike Lee, Chaffetz, etc. Under that system, candidates are chosen by a very small number of people who don't represent the majority of Utahns. Witness Lee beating Bennett at the convention years ago. No way he represents even the majority of Utah Republicans.

Gerrymandering also plays a huge role in keeping our Congressional delegation purely Republican. I don't see things changing anytime soon. However, if outdoorsmen called their representatives on the carpet for their shortsighted actions, things could change.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Just stop the Mormon bashing thing on this. Mormons are typically R because D advocates for killing babies. Take that away and you'll see more general dispersion across parties. We get it. The republicans run a crooked shop and the Mormons trust them because they don't want to kill babies. That isn't the point of this post. Every state has political corruption at least as bad as Utah - it just isn't as magnified because they have two party systems vs. the one party system here. But that is an entirely different discussion. 

Now, on the public lands thing - At least Bishop is the guy that CAN address the public lands debate instead of the legislature. So I give him props on that one. What I'd personally like to see is one, just one of the states that are advocating for state management of public lands - Utah or Nevada - get exactly what they are asking for. The Forest Service and BLM could completely pull out of the state. And take all grazing alotment management, timber sale, mineral leasing records, habitat data, water resource management, public recreation area facilities, etc.... And all the jobs in towns like Kanab and Richfield and Montecello and Price and Vernal and Oakley And Duchesne and..... and...... and...... While we're at it, have Reclaimation give up management of the CUP and all the dams to whomever shows up with the biggest and most guns.
And then see what happens. Until the State got things set up, public land grazing would be totally unregulated. And once shop got set up, it would be un-subsidized. No money from USDA for any kind of range improvements that SFW loves to tout as great successes. Drop support of USU as a land grant school, and close down every extension office that is funded with USDA dollars. No management whatsoever of any kind of drilling activities for a year or two. And people would be free to cut timber or forest products of any kinds, unrestricted. And all of Emery County could go on riding their four wheelers uninhibited, all over anything they can find. (OK. So that last part would be the same.) And as dry as it is this year - no federal help WHEN things catch on fire. I'd LOVE LOVE LOVE to see how quick it would be for Utah or Nevada to cry to the President for help then. I'd love to see just how fast the inmates would burn down the asylum with no one to protect them from themselves.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

"Our kids are hurt by this massive amount of federal land being controlled by the federal government, and there is no way of getting around that," he said."

That is the biggest bunch of bull crap ever uttered. Other highly federal land states have exponuntially more money from their SITLA lands than Utah, and they are dealt the same hand as Utah. Wyoming and Nevada have SEVERAL BILLION more dollars in their state trusts because they actually manage them to make money long term instead of selling off parcels that provide one time payments.

AND while I'm on the rant - nothing about the federal lands in Utah hurts Utah's kids more than the utter freaking unwillingness of the people that live here to pay for better education opportunities and facilities. Schools are not overcrowded because of federal lands. They are overcrowded because LOCAL school districts vote down bond elections that would increase their property taxes $5/month and they'd rather have their kids sit with 45 kids in a classroom than give up that second megagulp refill once/week.

Ok. Rant over. I feel better now.


----------



## spencerD (Jan 14, 2014)

Couldn't agree more Gary with what you said. 

The Mormons debate is asinine - the problem is uniformed voters, as it is every important issue. On the surface, state management sounds like a great thing to the voter who doesn't know any better. It's up to people like us, who live and breathe for the time we spend on public lands, to raise awareness. 

This isn't a partisan issue. At least, it shouldn't be. It's an issue of the people retaining their rights to recreate on OUR land. 

RE, federal lands being bad for kids - I think his argument is that East Coast schools have more money for schools because they have so much more private land to levy property taxes on.

Well, most East Coast states have a higher population than Utah by a mile. But Utah has on average more children per family than most states. I think we lead the nation in that but I could be wrong. 

The problem isn't having enough money, the problem is how we spend the money. The legislature this year approved an additional $12 million to get control of public lands. That money could have been spent on education. 

A bill was proposed (Not sure if it passed) to spend $2 billion on a pipeline to deliver lawn-watering water to St. George. You could throw that money into education as well. 

No matter what, we need to keep doing what we're doing - letting our reps know our opinions, and raising awareness in the general public. 

I'm using my monthly column at the Standard-Examiner to tackle this issue. Hopefully we can win this fight.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

GaryFish said:


> "Our kids are hurt by this massive amount of federal land being controlled by the federal government, and there is no way of getting around that," he said."
> 
> That is the biggest bunch of bull crap ever uttered. Other highly federal land states have exponuntially more money from their SITLA lands than Utah, and they are dealt the same hand as Utah. Wyoming and Nevada have SEVERAL BILLION more dollars in their state trusts because they actually manage them to make money long term instead of selling off parcels that provide one time payments.
> 
> ...


Megagulp refills are $5?

45 kids in one classroom? We had 50 to 60 in a classroom when I went to school. I'm not making this up, I did go to school.

.


----------



## paddlehead (May 30, 2014)

GaryFish. You nailed it!!!!!! There is NO way the State of Utah could afford to manage all the the land they want to gain control of from the Federal Government. The fire topic is one often forgotten about. Paying for fire control would bankrupt us. The wages and salaries alone would do that, not to count what equipment would cost. Taking control of the Federal Lands would be outright foolish!!!

Does anyone have Bishops email address? I want to write him. 

I can guarantee that the first thing to be sold or leased to help pay for this land management would be the BLM. BLM land is usually considered "waste land" that isn't good for much but grazing and mineral exploration. Guess where 90% of ALL winter range is? BLM!!!!!!! IF this land swap happens, say goodbye to our game herds, and the oh so rare and delicate sage grouse leks and population. You think we have winter range encroachment now, just you wait.

I hope for the future of sportsmen, this land swap dies a quick death.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

wyogoob said:


> Megagulp refills are $5?


No Goob. That is $5/month. Refills are about a dollar at Maverick. Usually 95 cents for 44 ounces at Maverick. So giving up one megagulp refill each week will almost cover that $5. Cut back on just one slim jim per month and there is the other dollar.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

The other flaw about this being about the kids - 

Bishop and all the other idiots in this parade say it isn't fair to the kids in rural Utah. Not sure if these folks aren't paying attention, but 90% of Utahans live in Utah, Salt Lake, Weber, and Davis counties. AND, most of those school districts have NO federal lands within their boundaries. No. Utah's lack of financial support for education is WHOLLY on the people that live in each school district that are too whack to financially support what they claim means the most.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

GaryFish said:


> Just stop the Mormon bashing thing on this. Mormons are typically R because D advocates for killing babies.


Not sure if you were referring to my post, but it wasn't Mormon bashing. Mormons overwhelmingly support Republicans. Republicans are behind every one of these stupid ideas; public land grab, sage grouse, the wolf thing, among many, many others. That's the political reality. Until and unless it changes, our elected representatives don't have to worry about being held accountable for not representing our interests.

Unless they hear from constituents who are fed up, they really don't care. Even when they do, as in the Healthy Utah debate, they do whatever they want. The most recent poll said that 82% of Utahns supported the governor's plan, Speaker Hughes wouldn't even discuss it. Unless these guys feel threatened at the polls, look forward to more of the same.

Go to the Legislative Score Card thread. Look up your senator and representative. Call them and review their record. Make some noise. Imagine if hunters and fishermen across the state did that. Imagine if they talked to their neighbors. Imagine what would happen if our elected leaders felt accountable, be they Republican or Democrat. Imagine if they knew your name, and knew you were watching.


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

paddler213 said:


> Not sure if you were referring to my post, but it wasn't Mormon bashing. Mormons overwhelmingly support Republicans. Republicans are behind every one of these stupid ideas; public land grab, sage grouse, the wolf thing, among many, many others. That's the political reality. Until and unless it changes, our elected representatives don't have to worry about being held accountable for not representing our interests.
> 
> Unless they hear from constituents who are fed up, they really don't care. Even when they do, as in the Healthy Utah debate, they do whatever they want. The most recent poll said that 82% of Utahns supported the governor's plan, Speaker Hughes wouldn't even discuss it. Unless these guys feel threatened at the polls, look forward to more of the same.
> 
> Go to the Legislative Score Card thread. Look up your senator and representative. Call them and review their record. Make some noise. Imagine if hunters and fishermen across the state did that. Imagine if they talked to their neighbors. Imagine what would happen if our elected leaders felt accountable, be they Republican or Democrat. Imagine if they knew your name, and knew you were watching.


I think you are oversimplifying a bit. Especially when you bring up that some think you can't be a good Mormon and a democrat. This is, at best, tangential to the overall public land issue, and comes across as you saying Mormons are the problem. I think this is a poorly veiled attempt to take a shot at a political party you oppose on every issue, not just this one which happens to fall under outdoors forum topics.

Without getting into it too much. I have sent emails/letters to the senators and representatives for the state at the federal level regarding my displeasure with their voting and constantly pushing to allow sell-off of public lands.

I'm in disagreement with the republican lawmakers on this one and some others. I try to be pragmatic and take each issue and politician at face value without worrying about what letter they are attached to. I believe, from the history of your posts, however, that you are as unlikely to vote for something with an R attached to it as most in Utah are to vote for a Democrat. We all have biases......

I do agree, that no matter what your political affiliation may be, the threat of public lands being sold is real and if we do not make our voices heard to our lawmakers, we could see changes that truly do endanger the common bond that brings many of us together. Public land is one of the things that make Utah a great treasure that we can all enjoy to watch, hike, hunt and fish.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

I'm a realist. It's the Republican agenda to exploit public lands. Look at the scorecards, look at the issues that affect hunters and fishermen. You will soon realize who acts in our best interests and who does not.

Mike McKell introduced paying Ryan Benson more money this year on top of the previous years. He's in District 66, Spanish Fork, and also serves on the House Ethics Committee. Ironic, no? He scored 17% on the scored bills. His consistuents need to tell him that's not okay.

http://le.utah.gov/house2/detail.jsp?i=MCKELMK

Look at the issues. Get informed. Act. Just don't expect too much given the political realities.

Kwalk3, have you spoken to your reps in person or on the phone? Do you know how they voted on conservation issues? Did you vote for them? I have spoken with both my representative and senator multiple times. I have their numbers in my phone. Both scored 100%. Both are Democrats. Do you see a pattern?


----------



## Dunkem (May 8, 2012)

Ya Paddler we see a pattern:!:


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

paddler213 said:


> Look at the issues. Get informed. Act. Just don't expect too much given the political realities.
> 
> Kwalk3, have you spoken to your reps in person or on the phone? Do you know how they voted on conservation issues? Did you vote for them? I have spoken with both my representative and senator multiple times. I have their numbers in my phone. Both scored 100%. Both are Democrats. Do you see a pattern?


I have looked. I am informed, and have acted. Thanks for the suggestion....

I have not spoken to them on the phone. I also did not vote for them. I have contacted them through email. I'm happy for you that you are buddies with your representatives.

What you apparently didn't take away from my post was that I agree with you and the Democrats on THIS issue. There are also a great many issues that I disagree with politicians about irrespective of their political party.

The thing I take issue with in your post is that you are using your own "patterned" political biases to take one issue and say "i told you so" to everyone else. I don't believe a true realist or pragmatist can be completely fit into a political box(party) on every issue. Rings a little hollow to me.

As sportsmen we aren't in the strongest position. The D's are protecting our ability to hunt, fish and utilize public lands in this instance, and for that I am grateful. However, it's not all roses and champagne. There are also ongoing instances of Democrats trying to take public land open to hunting and fishing and shut sportsmen out of it. Pardon the hyperbole here, but it would be hard to hunt without guns.

There are abuses on both sides. I am apprehensive of what the future holds for sportsmen(and our country as a whole) on either side of the political spectrum.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

"Gummint gonna take r guns." Yeah, right. My point is that hunters and fishermen don't know who their friends are, and so vote against their own interests.

It would be ideal if everybody on every internet forum dealing with outdoor issues closely examined their representatives actions on all conservation issues. Those living in Kanab should talk to Noel about his billboard proposal, they should have talked to him about the stream access issue. He should be gone.

Kwalk3, call the people who represent you, or at least are supposed to represent you. If you don't like what they do, tell them you will vote against them next time around. Talk to other candidates. Support the ones who will act for you, not against. Talk to your neighbors, put signs in your yard. Where do you live, who is your senator, who is your representative? How did they vote, what did they do? Gary, same questions. Post it up, call them and then post up their responses. If hunters and fishermen speak up, we can make a difference. If we just b*tch on a forum, well.....


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

paddler213 said:


> "Gummint gonna take r guns." Yeah, right. _Look up HYPERBOLE_ My point is that hunters and fishermen don't know who their friends are, and so vote against their own interests. My point here is that neither side is as "friendly" towards sportsmen as you are making them out to be. Especially on a federal level.
> 
> It would be ideal if everybody on every internet forum dealing with outdoor issues closely examined their representatives actions on all conservation issues. Those living in Kanab should talk to Noel about his billboard proposal, they should have talked to him about the stream access issue. He should be gone. I agree
> 
> Kwalk3, call the people who represent you, or at least are supposed to represent you. If you don't like what they do, tell them you will vote against them next time around. Talk to other candidates. Support the ones who will act for you, not against. Talk to your neighbors, put signs in your yard. Where do you live, who is your senator, who is your representative? How did they vote, what did they do? Gary, same questions. Post it up, call them and then post up their responses. If hunters and fishermen speak up, we can make a difference. If we just b*tch on a forum, well.....


I am politically aware and capable of making reasonable, rational and pragmatic decisions. I don't vote party lines. I vote for those who represent my views the best. The condescension implying no one but you has any idea what's going on is laughable. Some of us are willing to talk about it as sportsmen who share differing values on other social issues. I think we would agree on a lot of these issues facing sportsmen, but you can't climb off your soapbox long enough to validate anyone else's opinion or even give creedence to the idea that you aren't the only one participating.


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

hy·per·bo·le
hīˈpərbəlē/Submit
noun
exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

Kwalk3 said:


> hy·per·bo·le
> hīˈpərbəlē/Submit
> noun
> exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.


I understand hyperbole. Funny, though, many outdoorsmen really do believe Obama wants to take our guns away. Complete BS, but as you say, you seem to believe it. Is that true? If so, is that then hyperbole? Gary said that Democrats advocate for killing babies. I assume he was engaging in hyperbole, but will let him speak for himself.

I see you live in Bountiful, which should be Senate district 23 and House district 19. Your senator is Todd Weiler, your Representative is Ray Ward. Ward voted for the Bear Lake and Lake Powell pipelines, Weiler voted for the land grab bill. At least if I'm reading this correctly. Have you asked them why? Why don't you try to call them and report back? Please.

This is not about condescension. This is recognizing a problem and encouraging people to get involved in solving it. Or not.


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

paddler213 said:


> I understand hyperbole. Funny, though, many outdoorsmen really do believe Obama wants to take our guns away. Complete BS, but as you say, you seem to believe it. Is that true? If so, is that then hyperbole? Gary said that Democrats advocate for killing babies. I assume he was engaging in hyperbole, but will let him speak for himself.
> 
> I see you live in Bountiful, which should be Senate district 23 and House district 19. Your senator is Todd Weiler, your Representative is Ray Ward. Ward voted for the Bear Lake and Lake Powell pipelines, Weiler voted for the land grab bill. At least if I'm reading this correctly. Have you asked them why? Why don't you try to call them and report back? Please.
> 
> This is not about condescension. This is recognizing a problem and encouraging people to get involved in solving it. Or not.


I don't believe Obama is trying to take my guns away. You missed the part about hyperbole not being taken literally. I have my representative's information and know how they have voted. Thanks again. I have and will continue to contact my representatives. You are trying to supervise something(someone) that doesn't need supervising. Whether you can see it or not, you are barking out instructions and orders to someone who agrees with you on the land grab issue and has done enough to let the representatives know.

You have continuously implied that everyone here isn't doing a thing about this issue. That may be true for some, but not for me. There is always more to be done, but your methods of encouragement are counterproductive.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

paddler213 said:


> I understand hyperbole. Funny, though, many outdoorsmen really do believe Obama wants to take our guns away. Complete BS, but as you say, you seem to believe it. Is that true? If so, is that then hyperbole? Gary said that Democrats advocate for killing babies. I assume he was engaging in hyperbole, but will let him speak for himself.


You are correct Paddler. I did speak in hyperbole. But to an extent. That one issue keeps most of Utah's majority folks from even considering the democratic party. And that is too bad. Because they categorically dismiss many of the good perspectives of that party and the end result in a one-party system that lends itself to more greed, deceit, and backdoor deals than a two party system where there is at least some kind of check and balance. And the irony of it all is that there is nothing the State of Utah can do about that one issue at this point. Yet, I can guarantee you that it is much more a litmus issue to more Utahans than how their legislator views management of outdoor recreation resources.

My own thought is that management of the outdoors isn't really subject to either party paradigm. Rather, it is best situated when influenced by both. While one party tends to lean towards more government control while the other leans to more market control, use of public lands as currently managed allows private economic uses such as guided recreation including hunting, resource use such as grazing or mineral extraction, yet still allowing public recreation in the shared multiple-use lands approach. It isn't perfect, but it is a balance between the two constructs.

But politics doesn't work that way. At least not in Utah. It is a team sport, and people blindly follow one team based on one or two issues only, and ignore all the rest. And as I mentioned, the one or two issues are ones that are determined at the Federal level anyway. Heavy sigh........


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

GaryFish said:


> You are correct Paddler. I did speak in hyperbole. But to an extent. That one issue keeps most of Utah's majority folks from even considering the democratic party. And that is too bad. Because they categorically dismiss many of the good perspectives of that party and the end result in a one-party system that lends itself to more greed, deceit, and backdoor deals than a two party system where there is at least some kind of check and balance. And the irony of it all is that there is nothing the State of Utah can do about that one issue at this point. Yet, I can guarantee you that it is much more a litmus issue to more Utahans than how their legislator views management of outdoor recreation resources.
> 
> My own thought is that management of the outdoors isn't really subject to either party paradigm. Rather, it is best situated when influenced by both. While one party tends to lean towards more government control while the other leans to more market control, use of public lands as currently managed allows private economic uses such as guided recreation including hunting, resource use such as grazing or mineral extraction, yet still allowing public recreation in the shared multiple-use lands approach. It isn't perfect, but it is a balance between the two constructs.
> 
> But politics doesn't work that way. At least not in Utah. It is a team sport, and people blindly follow one team based on one or two issues only, and ignore all the rest. And as I mentioned, the one or two issues are ones that are determined at the Federal level anyway. Heavy sigh........


Well said GaryFish. I may have come across as dismissive of Paddler. That's not my intention. I agree with the democrats on this issue. I think that the reason this issue is gaining more traction here than in other Western States is because of the lack of political balance here. Utah is absolutely a political echo-chamber where there is virtually no opposition. Without balance either way, it becomes a dangerous situation where one party or another thinks that every bill they introduce is legislative gold.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

Kwalk3 said:


> Well said GaryFish. I may have come across as dismissive of Paddler. That's not my intention. I agree with the democrats on this issue. I think that the reason this issue is gaining more traction here than in other Western States is because of the lack of political balance here. Utah is absolutely a political echo-chamber where there is virtually no opposition. Without balance either way, it becomes a dangerous situation where one party or another thinks that every bill they introduce is legislative gold.


I am not trying to supervise you, and don't mean to single you out. Just trying to encourage hunters and fishermen to get involved, educated and participate in the political process. That's why I started the sticky thread up top. Perhaps I'm naive, but I think we can make a difference. I'd encourage every hunter and fisherman to call their representatives on the phone and post up the results. Take Ward and Weiler, for example. Say you called them and didn't get through. Did they call you back? How many times did you call before you got through? How did they explain their voting record? What did they say when you told them they were acting against your interests, that they didn't represent you? Did you tell them you won't vote for them again? What did they say? I'd love some guys from Kanab getting in Noel's face.

The alternative to the above is doing nothing. That will never work.


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

paddler213 said:


> Perhaps I'm naive, but I think we can make a difference. I'd encourage every hunter and fisherman to call their representatives on the phone and post up the results.


I agree that we can make a difference, and especially on this issue should have more common ground on both sides of the aisle than many others. I agree that it is aggravating that there is no opposition here. As far as our public lands, we have to stand up for ourselves.

People need to get involved. Most of my response to you has been based on the insinuation that I am uninformed, supporting bad lawmaking, and that I have not done anything regarding my information.

I think organizations like Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, Trout Unlimited, TRCP and others are a great voice for public lands on a greater scale. Does anyone know of local chapters of any of them? I also think that it is strange that SUWA rather than SFW in Southern Utah is pushing against legislation that would endanger our ability to utilize our public lands.

In order for the State to pay attention it has to be a somewhat coordinated effort voicing opposition, and that may mean joining arms with organizations or parties that people don't normally identify with.

Talking to our representatives is a good starting point. Even if you didn't vote for them.


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

For a number of years (until last year when I was out of town for the caucuses) I've been a county delegate. I hoped it would allow me better access to my representatives on outdoor issues that affect my love of the outdoors. It did help a little bit, but now that I'm not a delegate anymore, my representative (Brad Dee) won't even return my emails or calls. He voted to spend $2 million dollars on starting a fund for the Bear River Pipeline which is unnecessary and will destroy wetlands of the Great Salt Lake. He voted for a law that took away fishermen's ability to access streams. He voted to waste money on an ill-conceived plan to try and take federal lands from the American public and turn them over to the state. Yet, I'm sure he would defend my right to own and posses a firearm. I wish I could talk with him in order to let him know how I (and most everybody I know) feels about protecting our hunting and fishing lands, but alas, it is not to be. Such is the dilemma of a conscientious outdoorsman in Utah.
R


----------

