# Piute county sheriff threatens arrest of Forest Service Personnel



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

http://fox13now.com/2016/02/23/piute-county-sheriff-threatens-arrest-of-forest-service-personnel/

This complete and utter BS has to be reeled in. Welfare ranchers aren't the ones who are going to be calling the shots and undermining federal land managers trying to do their job. Yeah there's problems, and stupidity like this only makes relationships worse. These fools and pocket book professionals standing and kicking our constitution into the dust to further their agenda is sickening. They obviously do not understand the constitution or history of this country with their pathetic and self serving interpretation of the constitution.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

I've got to hand it to you young man. You sure have conviction when it comes to the glorious Feds vs the evil ranchers.


----------



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

When it's the same guys who went to the April wildlife board meeting and bashed the DWR for elk numbers that I see in this video...... It seems they are selfish, entitled men, who need a reality check that they are only one user of the land. They don't have to like it, but yes I applaud the hard working forest service employees defending the rest of our rights on Monroe mountain. I also thought that better forest managment was what people's complaint was about....Now the forest service is doing a large scale aspen regeneration project and nothing but complaints..... Seems these are very hard men to keep happy.


----------



## Hoopermat (Dec 17, 2010)

Everyone believes they are an expert. Until a real expert comes along with the facts. 

And the facts here are these ranchers know the best way to raise their cows. But that doesn't make them a expert in the management of the land their cows are on. 

Just because they have been doing it for hundreds of years doesn't mean they are doing it correctly. They could be doing it wrong for hundreds of years also. 

The problem is these idiots believe they know what's best and they are not willing or smart enough to listen to the experts. 

I heard a funny quote today
"Just because you own a ford truck it doesn't make you an expert at fixing it"


----------



## mtnrunner260 (Feb 15, 2010)

Well said Hoopermat.

There has been a long tradition of thought that every blade of grass on the mountain that is not consumed is a wasted blade of grass. This belief is not held by every rancher but there are some and I think that number continues to shrink as grazing practices improve but just because your daddy's daddy grazed the mountain one way it doesn't mean that that is still the best practice. There are so many resources out there showing better/improved ways to graze that result in better habitat for wildlife and cattle along with better production in the weight department for the cows. Just need to educate.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Hoopermat said:


> "Just because you own a ford truck it doesn't make you an expert at fixing it"


But you are probably good at fixing it.. or have AAA.... They break a lot :-o


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

I hope when people listen to him talk they also think he sounds silly. There are a number of flaws with what he is saying. But, let him try and arrest a government employee on federal land. Further, he said he will deputize people.... would love to see a regular citizen arrest a gov worker. That should work out great.


----------



## bowgy (Oct 10, 2007)

Just to play devils advocate;-)

First they came for the Socialists,(_Ranchers_) and I did not speak out-
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists,(_Off roaders_) and I did not speak out-
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, (_hikers/campers)_ and I did not speak out-
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me-(_a hunter/fisherman_) and there was no one left to speak for me.


----------



## Kingfisher (Jul 25, 2008)

about grazing...
usfs 1940: 2,700,000 aum's, 2012 - 840,000
blm 1949: 2,775,163 aum's, 2012 - 1,190,000

right, wrong or indifferent - this is likely the source of much discontent with ranchers. that is a lot of cows and sheep that are no longer there. a little tuffer to make a go of it.


----------



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

I don't think any of us here are opposed to grazing on public land, I'm not. I don't support unregulated grazing, or dumb statements like your going to start arresting forest service personnel and make a bad situation worse.


----------



## blackdog (Sep 11, 2007)

Looks like another poor ol' oppressed rancher who has no problem cashing his Gubment subsidies welfare checks one minute then going to war with the same Gubment the next. 

Hopefully the sheriff and his pocket constitution packing rancher uncle end up like Lavoy.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

The thing that the Constitution totin' cowboys don't do - is read the rest of it. I'm all about the Constitution - I carry the pocket booklet myself. But they need to read the rest of it. That part about Congress having authority to make laws - kind of a big deal. 

And the equal footings clause they love to quote about eastern states being all privatized, but not the western states. NO Constitutional scholar shares that opinion. The equal footings clause ONLY addresses representatives in the House and Senate. Meaning, a vote from the 50th state to enter the Union carries the same weight as a vote from one of the original 13 states. 

The reality of the matter is that the cow business has changed, as has every other business. Cattle ranching is no longer a profitable business. It has given way to beef manufacturing. That is the economic reality that is a direct result of capitalism. And much as socialized ranching has worked to slow the death of open lands grazing as an industry by 90% subsidization, it still doesn't bank roll. And those still trying to make it are pissed, and looking for someone to blame. The truth is, beef production is still a very lucrative industry. Just not the way that open land grazers want to do it. That may be good, it may be bad, depending on what point of view you choose to take. But that is the reality of it. So the public land grazers have a few options. Blame themselves for the failure, blame the organization tasked with managing the lands you graze on at 10% of the market value, or stick your head in the sand and ignore the reality of the industry you choose to function in to earn a living. And most are taking those last two options.


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

Ranchers need to step up and make the government an offer for the ground. Let me see some capitalist vigor from them. You don't see The Donald begging for free stuff from the Government. But no...they just want to use the ground for their personal profit at a fraction of what their brother ranchers, not in the west, on private property, are paying for their ground. 
In the real world of free market economics, Western ranchers are getting a real good deal and need to shut up and stop looking a gift horse(cow) in the mouth.


----------



## hemionus (Aug 23, 2009)

Kingfisher said:


> about grazing...
> usfs 1940: 2,700,000 aum's, 2012 - 840,000
> blm 1949: 2,775,163 aum's, 2012 - 1,190,000
> 
> right, wrong or indifferent - this is likely the source of much discontent with ranchers. that is a lot of cows and sheep that are no longer there. a little tuffer to make a go of it.


I love when those numbers get thrown out. You know what the range conditions were during those periods....they were absolutely disgusting in a lot of cases. I doubt anybody wants to go back to that. There is so much more to the story than just those numbers. It's much less "tuffer to make a go of it" now than it was under some of the historic conditions. If we held those numbers constant we'd of destroyed the industry and resource. Grazing is a complex evolving target. The need for hard working agricultural communities to make a living on the land is real and commendable and so many work collaboratively and are stewards. Sad when the minority continue to be at the forefront.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

A few thoughts.

1.


Kingfisher said:


> about grazing...
> usfs 1940: 2,700,000 aum's, 2012 - 840,000
> blm 1949: 2,775,163 aum's, 2012 - 1,190,000


Garyfish already covered this to a large extent, but there were/are obvious free market reasons why many cattle operations have gone belly-up since the 40's and hence public land grazing usage reduced. When I received my graduate education for my current profession, I had the opportunity to rub shoulders with a lot of cattle producers and those that work in the industry. It was apparent that there were multiple reasons why cattle ranches failed and the "eeevil gubmint" was a part of very few of them. Similarly, some progressive operations could still be successful, again largely *not* due to the said gubmint.

2. Re "Just to play devils advocate"

Not a bad verse to bring up. In it, you don't come out and say who "they" are. I assume from the examples that "they" is the US government. I like to hunt, fish, and recreate on the Monroe, just like 1-I and Iron Bear. When I evaluate if I can still do that with my 7 yr. old boy in 15 years, here are the "Theys" is see.

a) The Feds; Certainly they are not pure as the wind driven snow. I was no fan when they closed a small ATV path into a canyon where I harvested 2 of the first 3 deer in my life and the last one I harvested on that unit on the 1 year anniversary of my fathers passing. (Its a sentimental place for me) Can they do their job better with less arbitrariness? Absolutely. Are they likely to completely shut me out of the Monroe? Far less likely.

b) These local ranchers. As things are now, they really don't pose a threat to my recreation. I'm used to hunting and fishing around free range cattle. However, these guys, as part of their battle against the Feds, have reportedly decided to claim that their leases of this land constitute a "beneficial use" of the land and that the Feds are obligated hand the land over to them at no cost, similar to how the old Homestead Act worked. I'm anxious to try this for my business land lease and see how far I get with it. ;-) Were "they" ,the ranchers, able to somehow get control of the mountain by some means, how likely would I to be shut out? Very likely.

c) The State; We have talked at great length that if the State acquired federal land, it would likely be sold to the highest bidder. Nuff said. (although in auction, I do not believe our maligned welfare ranchers would be able to compete in bidding against the Chinese, Hollywood types, energy companies, and the Mormons. (just for you IB) If this "they" got control, what would my chances be of continued current access? Abysmal.

d) The sheriff and locals; It seems in listening to folks like this sheriff, not to mention Bundy types, that they almost seem to want to secede from the union. The increasing hostility to outsiders, even to those with some ties to the 435, make it worrisome that anti government activities would make it unsafe to recreate down there, even if official control is still with the Feds. Is it that way now? No. Could it get that way? Definitely. Just ask the Malheur bird watchers.

Thinking about all of these "theys" kind of gets me down. I need to go fishin.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Watching the newsreel on this causes me to wonder just the level of legal understanding the good sheriff really does have. His ability to articulate his opinion calls into question not only his ability to understand the law, but more importantly, his ability to read. Good luck Pitute County. You need it in so many ways.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Just thinking out loud here....let's say for a minute that these ranchers and their ilk get their way and the state gains controls of forest service and blm land. What happens when we have a lightning-caused fire (or any other fire) erupt on the Monroe around all those private cabins and on all that state owned land...who puts it out? Do we really think that the state of Utah has the means to fight any kind of wildfire on a large-scale? Who do those private land owners come calling in that situation?


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> Just thinking out loud here....let's say for a minute that these ranchers and their ilk get their way and the state gains controls of forest service and blm land. What happens when we have a lightning-caused fire (or any other fire) erupt on the Monroe around all those private cabins and on all that state own land...who puts it out? Do we really think that the state of Utah has the means to fight any kind of wildfire on a large-scale? Who do those private land owners come calling in that situation?


Can we say, "feel the burn?"


----------



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

GaryFish said:


> Watching the newsreel on this causes me to wonder just the level of legal understanding the good sheriff really does have. His ability to articulate his opinion calls into question not only his ability to understand the law, but more importantly, his ability to read. Good luck Pitute County. You need it in so many ways.


I agree, Piute county needs all the luck it can get. Even Sevier county needs some luck soon. I do feel bad for spite county. There's simply not much of anything going on there. I get the feeling most times I stop in Juncion, Circleville, and Panguich these days they are not too far from drying up completely. It would help if when you walked into their gas stations or markets you got treated decently but its always the same bad attitudes from the locals. I live about 40 minutes from most of these places, I can't imagine what a real tourist feels like in those towns.

An unwillingness to change and stage of denial has dug the grave for Piute county and the sad part is they just keep digging it deeper. The continual blame of the Forest Service, BLM, and even DWR at times is complaining with very little merit. Is it really the federal land managment agencies in the area putting these small communities ranches out of business? Or is it in part due to the capitalistic developments of their industry where 3 main corporations own 82% of the market on beef? There so many things that have led to the struggle of these small communities and the BLM and Forest Service are a very small part of what's taken place. While it's sad it's time to break out of that egg shell or never hatch. The clock is ticking on a lot of these small communities and the transfer of federal lands and undermining federal land agencies is not going to save them. They must open their eyes and adapt, and get leaders who are not stuck decades past. Sevier countys struggles are just beginning as they are having budget shortfalls because coal royalties stopped pumping in. We also need refreshed leadership and new ways of thinking. It's a sad story for what's happening to Piute county, but it's only going to get sadder the longer they are unwilling to change to the world we live in today.


----------



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

wyoming2utah said:


> Just thinking out loud here....let's say for a minute that these ranchers and their ilk get their way and the state gains controls of forest service and blm land. What happens when we have a lightning-caused fire (or any other fire) erupt on the Monroe around all those private cabins and on all that state owned land...who puts it out? Do we really think that the state of Utah has the means to fight any kind of wildfire on a large-scale? Who do those private land owners come calling in that situation?


You go running to the Feds to save the day with their money and equipment!


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

just a couple of comments:

A. fires. Forget the costs of fighting a fire. Think for a minute about the cost of litigation from groups that continually sue the Federal Government over other environmental issues. This is a never ending battle the Feds constantly fight. Could the State of Utah afford a never ending barrage of legal battles over issues that nobody at present can identify?

B. Elk. This fight over grazing comes down to ELK. That's why grazing permits are being pulled. Our elk populations have grown. We've already had numerous cases of elk being killed in Piute Co. The cattlemen want the elk gone. What they fail to want to accept is Federal land isn't just "their" land, but it is "our" land also! My land. Your land. So, why do they get to determine that cattle should be dominant species on Mine and Yours land?? They shouldn't. Sportsmen should be furious over these guys and we should be speaking out in opposition to them over our wildlife.

C. If they don't have legal permits to graze cattle on public land, does the public have any right to harvest those "wild" illegal cattle on our public lands? I like elk. But I think a nice beef might be a nice addition to the feezer this fall....


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

You guys worried about forest fires figure that forest won't be logged out. I hear Don Peay is going to build a wood fired power plant in Sigurd.


----------



## colorcountrygunner (Oct 6, 2009)

I even come from a ranching family and I think these guys need to swallow rocks and go for a swim.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> You guys worried about forest fires figure that forest won't be logged out. I hear Don Peay is going to build a wood fired power plant in Sigurd.


That's about all that wood is good for. That is one of those great lies that locals choose to accept - that the Forest Service killed the logging business on National Forests. But the reality of it is, the local logging business went to pot as soon as railroads could bring in wood from places that could grow it better, faster, and cheaper. And once lumber products could be shipped in from somewhere else, local log mills died. It had nothing to do with spotted owls, pine beetles, or spotted tree frogs. But more to do with southern forests that could cut year round and ship around the country, Alaskan tribes with more wood on tribal lands than there are trees in all the rocky mountain states combined. And once the local farms and ranches built their cross buck fences, rough sawn plank barns and sheds, and a few cabins scattered around, what local demand is there for crappy timber? The Forest Service didn't kill the timber industry in these small towns. The timber industry and economic realities of no market for the product that is there, killed it. I can tie some killer tarpon flies, but not many people here in eastern Idaho are going to buy them.


----------

