# HR 622 needs to go- here's contact information



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

Time to focus on HR 622. Contact your representatives whoever they are, and then make sure Chaffetz and Stewart hear us loud and clear. Time to pressure Stewart as well. HR 622 takes all law enforcement power away from the BLM and Forest service. I get why local control seems like a good idea at times but this is a broad brush stroke that will remove law enforcement where laws simply aren't going to be enforced if the BLM and Forest Service aren't around. What's next we get rid of DWR officers? Then UHPs? This undermines the law and order and integrity of our public lands and the agencies that manage them. Here's the information, this bill needs to go:

Jason Chaffetz- Utah office: 801-851-2500
DC Office: 202-225-7751

Chris Stewart- Utah office- 801-364-5550
DC Office- 202-225-9730


For your representatives: 202-224-3121


----------



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

Bump, also here is a list of the cosponsors on this bill, if you live in Mia Loves district be sure you contact her as well.

Here is her number: 202-225-3011

Co-sponsor list:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/622/cosponsors

This bill will likely have a good shot at passing unless people oppose it, so please contact your reps today.


----------



## archerben (Sep 14, 2007)

Just read the bill...I like it.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

Seems like the difference between DWR Officers and USFW Officers...

Wouldn't you rather have state game enforcement instead of federal?


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

the State of Utah is currently over game management / enforcement already, regardless of whether we have BLM or FS LEO's.

My fear is: where does it end? Piute County already wants to kick the State out. If the State kicks out the Feds, won't that just give more power to the counties to kick out the State?


who manages and enforces grazing allotments?
(why do we want to kick the feds out?)


----------



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

High Desert Elk said:


> Seems like the difference between DWR Officers and USFW Officers...
> 
> Wouldn't you rather have state game enforcement instead of federal?


Just like the DWR need enforcement power to manage wildlife the BLM and FS need law enforcement power to enforce federal laws on those lands. Again, you turn these powers over to the local sheriffs department and end up with a sheriff like the ones in Piute, or San Juan county, do you really have faith they are going to ensure cows are off the mountain when they should be when it's their uncle or grandpas cattle? How about ticket their cousin when he drives all over off road? You can't have an agency like the Forest Service or BLM that have laws they can't enforce. If local sheriffs were in charge of poaching trust me, in places like Piute county they would turn the other cheek. The problem with this bill is it isn't calling for a state officer, it's calling for the local sheriff to enforce federal land. I have no faith that sheriffs living in communities like Piute county will uphold federal laws they already hate. The sheriff in Piute county flat out said we aren't taking any more cuts from the Forest Service. On top of that the BLM and FS officers you speak of live in or communities and are citizens just like everyone else. I get so sick of this idea that they are some federal robot sent from D.C. No, they are local individuals doing their **** job just like any other officer. By all means if you want a blind eye turned to laws being broken on federal land and stripping the agencies who manage them from enforcing those laws, support this bill. Then support it when the few counties who want to break the law scream bloody murder over DWR officers enforcing the law and they want them removed next.

I promise you the sentiment in some of these rural counties is about nearly as hostile to DWR officials as it is the BLM and Forest service. Now that doesn't mean the BLM or FS needs to have swat teams, but they absolutely need law enforcement power on the lands they manage.

This is simply another sound bite of "local control" that will undermine the integrity of enforcement on our public lands and another step towards ending federal managment of them. This bill essentially says you get to be the managing agency, but you don't get to enforce the managment. It's ridiculous.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

Since BLM and USFS are the "same" nationwide, they need alot to truly enforce each district or field office. On big stings or ops, they usually borrow from other districts and offices.

My local FO has one or two BLM law enforcement and maybe one in our local FS district. I hardly think they can adequately manage law on their own, but there are over 20 sheriff's deputies.

Just sayin'..


----------



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

High Desert Elk said:


> Since BLM and USFS are the "same" nationwide, they need alot to truly enforce each district or field office. On big stings or ops, they usually borrow from other districts and offices.
> 
> My local FO has one or two BLM law enforcement and maybe one in our local FS district. I hardly think they can adequately manage law on their own, but there are over 20 sheriff's deputies.
> 
> Just sayin'..


I think the same could be said of DWR officers. They are also spread very thin, doesn't mean they do not serve a good purpose. My problem is, is the laws are going to be the same whether it's a sheriff, state official, or federal official. The laws should be being enforced either way. There are places in this state that don't think they need to abide by the laws on these lands and this will only embolden them if you completely throw away law enforcement powers of the BLM amd Forest Service.

HDE, if you don't think they'll want the DWR officers out next well, you haven't been to places like Piute county enough. I was with Vance when he was dealing with one of those assholes on the phone once. Let me tell you and anyone who agrees with this bill. Walk a day in the shoes of the officers that patrol these places and enforce land managment laws or game laws and you'll have a new found respect for what they do.


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

http://www.drakemag.com/featured-co...oduces-bill-to-sell-off-utah-congressmen.html

*NOTE-SATIRE* This may be over-the-line and/or too political, so please feel free to delete it if so. However, it is somewhat pertinent to this discussion and the public lands we all enjoy. Also, it gave me a good chuckle, which is all that really matters.


----------



## archerben (Sep 14, 2007)

Just because I agree with the bill does not mean that I don't have respect for law enforcement. Nor does it mean that I don't think the laws should be enforced. It simply means that I prefer local/state law enforcement as opposed to federal law enforcement. In my experience, the local/state guys are generally much easier to deal with than the federal guys. There are exceptions of course, but generally speaking, that is my experience and opinion.

Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk


----------



## archerben (Sep 14, 2007)

Kwalk3 said:


> http://www.drakemag.com/featured-co...oduces-bill-to-sell-off-utah-congressmen.html
> 
> *NOTE-SATIRE* This may be over-the-line and/or too political, so please feel free to delete it if so. However, it is somewhat pertinent to this discussion and the public lands we all enjoy. Also, it gave me a good chuckle, which is all that really matters.


Now that's funny!


----------



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

archerben said:


> Just because I agree with the bill does not mean that I don't have respect for law enforcement. Nor does it mean that I don't think the laws should be enforced. It simply means that I prefer local/state law enforcement as opposed to federal law enforcement. In my experience, the local/state guys are generally much easier to deal with than the federal guys. There are exceptions of course, but generally speaking, that is my experience and opinion.
> 
> Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk


I get where you are coming from, but what about places that don't have serious regard for enforcing laws on these lands? There are plenty of sheriffs in rural Utah who I truly believe with happily turn the other cheek at things. Attitude to me isn't as important as laws being enforced. There are jerks at every level in life. If an agency can't enforce the law, well then there's no reason to write it. So if we can't transfer the lands, at least we can undermine the law on them is how I see this bill. Are there a-holes out there, yeah, but there also all part of our communities and they are just people doing their job like any fashion of law enforcement. There's no good reason to dispose of these agencies, the laws aren't changing from the point of enforcement, so why change the enforcement? Unless you want to disregard or undermine the agencies writing the rules. The guy who introduced it tried to sale 3 million acres of our public lands a week ago and introduced these bill simultaneously. Trust me, this isn't about improving our public lands any more than the other one was.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> I think the same could be said of DWR officers. They are also spread very thin, doesn't mean they do not serve a good purpose. My problem is, is the laws are going to be the same whether it's a sheriff, state official, or federal official. The laws should be being enforced either way. There are places in this state that don't think they need to abide by the laws on these lands and this will only embolden them if you completely throw away law enforcement powers of the BLM amd Forest Service.
> 
> HDE, if you don't think they'll want the DWR officers out next well, you haven't been to places like Piute county enough. I was with Vance when he was dealing with one of those assholes on the phone once. Let me tell you and anyone who agrees with this bill. Walk a day in the shoes of the officers that patrol these places and enforce land managment laws or game laws and you'll have a new found respect for what they do.


What a**holes? The LO or general public? Anyway - there are places I've been to where even federal LO such as BLM or USFS will not interfere with the local town...if the do - they'll be feet up in the desert. And you can forget about the local Game Warden as well!!

I guess I'm confused - aren't DWR state LO and not fed? Isn't this bill trying to put all enforcement interaction back to the states?


----------



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

High Desert Elk said:


> What a**holes? The LO or general public? Anyway - there are places I've been to where even federal LO such as BLM or USFS will not interfere with the local town...if the do - they'll be feet up in the desert. And you can forget about the local Game Warden as well!!
> 
> I guess I'm confused - aren't DWR state LO and not fed? Isn't this bill trying to put all enforcement interdiction back tot he states?


It would direct block grants to local sheriffs. What I'm saying is the people calling for this are the same people who will want state Game Wardens removed. This is essentially a Bundy favor, where the sheriff is the highest law in the land and you don't have to listen to federal or state authority. I've seen the same people hostile towards the BLM and Forest Service be hostile toward DWR employees who they feel have no right to enforce game laws and that should also be a local sheriff matter. This will give all law enforcement power to local sheriffs offices to enforce the laws on federal land. There are sheriffs in this state that will likely turn a blind eye to some things on federal land if the agencies writing the rules don't even have authority to enforce them. It's a ridiculous idea. The next step will be removing state Game Wardens and transferring those powers and responsibilities to local sheriff offices. This is just as ridiculous as that. There's no point in being the managment agency if you can't enforce the rules on the resource you manage.

The state manages wildlife, hence STATE DWR officers. The Feds manage the lands, hence federal law enforcement.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

I have a hard time with disarming/disbanding the people who are supposed to protect "Our" lands. It is easy to say the Fed Govt will give money to local agencies-- but will protecting "Our" lands be a priority for them? I doubt it.

I guess I'm not excited to experiment to find out if the local law enforcement will do anything. Most already aren't so why would I think they will? 

..


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

Dang, had to go back and edit my last post to clean up my grammar. Sheesh!

Unfortunately, it's always a few LO's that walk around with chips on their shoulders that give the rest a bad name. Yeah, I know they can have a difficult and dangerous job. But - they signed up for it too, so don't take it out on the public...


----------



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

High Desert Elk said:


> Dang, had to go back and edit my last post to clean up my grammar. Sheesh!
> 
> Unfortunately, it's always a few LO's that walk around with chips on their shoulders that give the rest a bad name. Yeah, I know they can have a difficult and dangerous job. But - they signed up for it too, so don't take it out on the public...


Don't bother editing your posts for grammar, with the tiny mistakes you make no one will notice them over the hundred I make in every post.

As for the LEO's I agree there are some that have chips on their shoulders and are especially like that when they first get their job. I have met game wardens like that, rangers like that, UHP's like that, and county sheriffs like that. Some of it has to do with that chip you're talking about, and some of it has to do with the fact we all have bad days. While I can agree that BLM and Forest Service rangers sign up for their job, I've sat in public meetings with local land managers and seen the hostility towards them. I've seen the hostility towards local DWR employees. A seasonal person counting deer for the DWR said he got cussed out and threatened in Wayne County for counting deer on someones property. Now, he wasn't even on the guys property, he was just counting the deer that had fed onto it. I think all of our DWR, BLM, and Forest Service officers work in some pretty dangerous situations and some VERY hostile ones in rural Utah. I hope you might consider why they are sometimes a bit edgy. Now that doesn't mean they need to act like Dan Love. I'm sure you know who he is and he created some bad relationships that need some healing, but I don't think a handful of bad relationships around the state and country warrant dismantling the agencies law enforcement powers that manage these lands. I would no more want wildlife related responsibilities turned over to my county sheriff than I would enforcing laws regarding management on federal lands. The managing agency needs to have law enforcement powers or the rules they write are worthless. HDE, in most places it would work out fine, but in many rural locations, don't be surprised if cows don't come off the mountain early enough, or if the sheriffs cousin drives all over in the sage brush and gets away with it. Regardless if the Forest Service and BLM are spread thin, trust me that law enforcement authority just being there helps keep laws on our public lands honored even by those who despise many rules and regulations that are in place on federal land.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

I think some of the disdain for federal law enforcement in rural UT stems from the incident that occured in Blanding a few years back. BLM and FBI DID NOT have to go about it the way they did. At the end of the day, the fed gov't acted stupidly.


----------



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

High Desert Elk said:


> I think some of the disdain for federal law enforcement in rural UT stems from the incident that occured in Blanding a few years back. BLM and FBI DID NOT have to go about it the way they did. At the end of the day, the fed gov't acted stupidly.


I agree with you on that one. They shouldn't have done what they did, but that was in part due to Dan Love who is one of those officers that has that chip you're talking about. That one act though is an isolated incident and has a lot to do with the special agent in charge who also was at the Bundy standoff and escalated it beyond where it needed to be. I believe Dan Love has now been removed and is now under investigation by the BLM. As many have said he's someone you would want to step into battle with, but no one you wanted to go to war with. The problem is, is I just don't think basing two agencies entire law enforcement force off isolated and rare instances is the right way to think. I don't think removing law enforcement power from these agencies is the right knee jerk reaction to a few instances that were the exception not the rule. HDE, I get the sentiment of local control on all these arguments, I get there are isolated issues that need dealing with but all over the west 95% of these agencies work together without issue and there are none. Do we base our decisions off the exception or the rule? One bad cop that kills someone in cold blood does not speak for the 99% of other great men and women who do their job right to serve and protect the public across our country. A few bad instances largely having to do with the same special agent in charge (Dan Love) should not be what we look at when making decisions. Removing law enforcement from these agencies greatly increases the likelihood of lawlessness on our public lands and less legal accountability to those breaking those laws. Are there isolated issues? Yes, like anything in life. Is that reason to strip the agencies managing this resource of the power to enforce laws on those lands? Not in my opinion.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

In my area...and in much of the rural west, the disdain for the BLM and FEDs has to do with grazing rights. Ranchers are not being allowed to graze to the extent that they once did. As a result, they are constantly in battles over their right to graze and the number of cattle they are allowed to graze. Taking law enforcement capability away from the BLM and Forest Service and turning it over to the local sheriff departments will simply allow uncontrolled grazing on public lands. It will also eventually allow ranchers to kill elk and deer that cause damage to fences...even on public land.

I don't understand--especially in light of what the Piute County sheriff has already said about law enforcement in his county--how any hunter could be for this bill. To me, it is a very big threat to the very animals we all love to hunt so much--both from a habitat standpoint and also from a poaching standpoint.


----------



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

wyoming2utah said:


> In my area...and in much of the rural west, the disdain for the BLM and FEDs has to do with grazing rights. Ranchers are not being allowed to graze to the extent that they once did. As a result, they are constantly in battles over their right to graze and the number of cattle they are allowed to graze. Taking law enforcement capability away from the BLM and Forest Service and turning it over to the local sheriff departments will simply allow uncontrolled grazing on public lands. It will also eventually allow ranchers to kill elk and deer that cause damage to fences...even on public land.
> 
> I don't understand--especially in light of what the Piute County sheriff has already said about law enforcement in his county--how any hunter could be for this bill. To me, it is a very big threat to the very animals we all love to hunt so much--both from a habitat standpoint and also from a poaching standpoint.


Agree completely. HDE you really need to come to a meeting down here. If you don't believe all the cattlemen in Piute and Wayne county want every elk dead you've never listened to them. If you think the wildlife board meetings get old listening to the same 5 good ole boys wanting every elk dead, you should come see what our local Forest service, BLM, and DWR guys deal with. At the end of one meeting I heard one of them say "we'll just start shooting the son of bitches." Piute counties sheriff has said he will arrest Forest service employees, will not take any more cuts from the forest service and has been openly hostile to the agency along with many county officials down here. If they do not have law enforcement power I don't think you understand the can of worms that opens.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

High Desert Elk said:


> I think some of the disdain for federal law enforcement in rural UT stems from the incident that occured in Blanding a few years back. BLM and FBI DID NOT have to go about it the way they did. *At the end of the day, the fed gov't acted stupidly*.


But can't the same be said for those individuals that were caught illegally selling indian artifacts they had been stealing???

Isn't that a bit ironic? Do you suppose the local sheriff would have proposed to arrest any of those people (his own family possibly) for those crimes?

Do you suppose Sheriff Gleaves would arrest his own family for killing elk on public land because those elk are grazing on the same feed his family's cattle graze on? Oh, wait -- we already know the answer to this question. It was "no".

And this isn't just law enforcement. It also affects biologists. Because many of those people in those rural areas don't know the difference between a biologists and a law enforcement agent. They also don't know the difference between a State employee and a Federal employee. This bill is just a big can of worms waiting to wriggle all over the place.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

No one ever said selling artifacts without an agent was a smart move, especially if valued above $1000 and taken from federal land.

The SWAT force used did not need to lock down the town and bring terror to everyone. The ones they knew could have been dealt with easily all at once with arrest warrants quietly. What the fed did was a show of "LO strength". They acted stupidly, because now they have a black eye in the view of the public.


----------



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

Here is the subcommittee that HR 622 has now been referred to, contact these representatives and let them know where you stand on this issue:

http://naturalresources.house.gov/federallands/


----------

