# Governor Herbert's Outdoor Vision



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

Not sure this is the proper place to post this, but here is our Utah governor's "VISION". I'm all for preserving traditions and fostering outdoor enthusiasm, but creating another state beaurocracy.....I dunno.

Here's the song and dance:

Governor Herbert's Utah Outdoor Recreation Vision


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

Good topic. 

Moved it to Everything Else.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

There's one big problem with Herbert's vision. It is clouded by hallucinations of private property. If he and his buddies get their way the whole state will be private property and no one will be able to afford to recreate.


----------



## richardjb (Apr 1, 2008)

His like minded AG may be in a bit of trouble.


----------



## Watcher (Dec 31, 2008)

Don't you think this is just pandering to the Outdoor Retailer's Association and trying to keep their show in Utah?


----------



## Dukes_Daddy (Nov 14, 2008)

Fishrmn said:


> There's one big problem with Herbert's vision. It is clouded by hallucinations of private property. If he and his buddies get their way the whole state will be private property and no one will be able to afford to recreate.


+1

What I don't understand is why sportsman in this state vote for anyone with an "R" next to their name.

Everyone needs to read the article in the Salt Lake Trib today about the 2010 bill overturning the ruling the public can use the riverbed across private property. Torqued me off and remember this was voted on by your local representatives.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Watcher said:


> Don't you think this is just pandering to the Outdoor Retailer's Association and trying to keep their show in Utah?


Abso-frickin-lutely it is. I suspect though that the Outdoor retailers will ultimately leave if Sherbert and Utah continue with their attempts at the Federal land grab.

This is from the "vision statement" of this document.

"For generations to come, Utah will continue to be recognized as the "right place" for *accessible* outdoor adventures."

How does that correspond to Sherberts other vision to sell all of the States land off to the highest bidder? Kind of hard to have accessible outdoor activities when you are staring at a no trespassing sign.


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel (Sep 7, 2007)

Dukes_Daddy said:


> What I don't understand is why sportsman in this state vote for anyone with an "R" next to their name.
> .


Your right, we should have voted rocky or one of the other democrat wack jobs in for gov

No thanks I like the state I live in and the republican values it holds....the dems are doing wonders for hunting in Cali dukes, maybe you should go and enjoy it first hand


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Herbert has taken off the make-up, and finally fully exposed his true self.....a BIG GOVERNMENT PROGRESSIVE!


----------



## richardjb (Apr 1, 2008)

proutdoors said:


> Herbert has taken off the make-up, and finally fully exposed his true self.....a BIG GOVERNMENT PROGRESSIVE!


So are we to take you have gone 180 on the private land ownership deal on fed land? Curious?


----------



## massmanute (Apr 23, 2012)

Fishrmn said:


> There's one big problem with Herbert's vision. It is clouded by hallucinations of private property. If he and his buddies get their way the whole state will be private property and no one will be able to afford to recreate.


Amen to that brother!

The privatization movement is by far the biggest threat to the future of hunting, fishing, and other outdoor sports in Utah.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

To me, he is formalizing the office that has been in place for years, though it has been supported with temporary funding, just year to year. About 13 years ago, Leavitt set up the Public Lands Office, but he could only do it with temporary funding. They only had one or two staff. their sole purpose was to watch-dog the BLM and Forest Service planning efforts on behalf of the State. They attended all the planning meetings and sat at the table as the State's representative to ensure the State's interests as defined by the Governor were represented. Herbert's move makes that office an on-going thing, not just a year to year position. I think it is a function of practicality really. The folks at DNR just didn't have time to deal with all the BLM and FS planning projects in addition to their other duties, and those that could, were unqualified to address it. This allows the State to get a quality analyst that understands the laws driving public land management to be the ones reviewing plans. I'm all for shrinking government. But creating a permanent liaison for the State to interact with the Federal Agencies is a good move.


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

My issues is how many of those potential new landowners are going to come in a purchase prime hunting and fishing land, deny us access we now take for granted, and then go crying to DWR for mitigation payments or landowner tags? Its proven that when wildlife management between private land owners is properly coordinated, you have positive results but then again, who are those land owners going to be. And then what happens to the funding for DWR when none of us are buying tags in the state anymore? 

As far as negotiating with the federal government being a good move......one example of it working in the state's favor please? It a bad idea. Oddly, the states have everything to gain and loose in that fight but always loose more than they gain.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

The State has two choices when it comes to BLM and FS planning: sit at the table and participate, or sit outside and complain. I've been involved thousands of hours of those discussions. And the weight that the Federal Agencies put on the input from the State Public Land Office is tremendous. Making that a permanent office is a good thing for all of us.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

On the surface it sounds great to have someone on duty to monitor the Feds. The problems come when the department swells to 10, then 20, then 30 employees. A director at $250,000 salary with 8 weeks of paid time off. An assistant director with $200,000 salary, etc. And with nothing to show for it. And that's just the facade of trying to be involved with the discussions from the Feds. The real problems come when they conspire to take away any access to the rivers, streams, and lands of the state, unless you're willing to pay dearly for that access.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

GaryFish said:


> creating a permanent liaison for the State to interact with the Federal Agencies is a good move.


I agree with this action and considering the amount of Federal land in Utah, it is surprising that it hasn't been done earlier.

What I have an issue with when reading this fluff piece is correlating it with the rhetoric coming from Sherbert and many of our legislators regarding the "land grab". If successful, their stated plans run exactly counter to almost every aspect of what is stated in his "vision" statement and the entire document. IMO, it is outright dishonest and nauseating that he is pandering to the outdoor community (esp outdoor retailers) yet his track record shows that, in all likelihood, he will throw us under the bus at every opportunity if the realtors and Farm Bureau tell him to.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Fishrmn said:


> On the surface it sounds great to have someone on duty to monitor the Feds. The problems come when the department swells to 10, then 20, then 30 employees. A director at $250,000 salary with 8 weeks of paid time off. An assistant director with $200,000 salary, etc. And with nothing to show for it. And that's just the facade of trying to be involved with the discussions from the Feds. The real problems come when they conspire to take away any access to the rivers, streams, and lands of the state, unless you're willing to pay dearly for that access.


Outside of college football coaches, no employees of the state make that kind of money. Most Department directors make around $185K (Utahsright.com) And having been in so many of those meetings with the Feds, the state has a constant theme of opposition to any kind of special land designations (Wild & Scenic Rivers, road closures, BLM Wilderness Study Areas and Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC), etc... There is no conspiracy in that part of it.

The bigger issue is what has been mentioned - the State of Utah taking control of the Federal lands within the State of Utah. And in all reality, there are only two things that will make that happen. First, an act of Congress. A bill would have to pass both houses of Congress and be signed by the President to transfer the lands. That is the only legal method a land transfer can occur. Nothing the Utah Legislature can do has any legal standing whatsoever. The other method would be total secession from the United States, and declared autonomy as an independent nation state. So, consider the likelyhood of either of those scenarios, and you'll have your answer to the land grab issue.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

Seems like the Director of the UTA had something in the neighborhood of $360,000 in compensation.

Just searched this:


> Inglish has been appointed to a new role as chief executive officer, with a focus on tracking national transit industry initiatives, promoting transit and influencing national transportation policy. He will retain his $339,179 salary.
> 
> Allegra previously served as assistant general manager and chief capital development officer. He will retain his $250,940 salary.


I'm sure they're worth every penny. _(O)_


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

UTA is not a State entity. It is a separate, quasi-government organization. You can view the salaries of all public employees in Utah at www.utahsright.com .


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

I've found at least 15 employees of the state who make $200,000 or more in less than 5 minutes of looking.

16 in the Department of Human Services ranging from $200,000 to $393,000 alone.

I'm sure Gary can find a couple o' hundred grand in the budget. Probably already decided to appoint his bro-in-law, Steve to the position. You know the one. He's got property on the Provo River. Can't stand to see people fishin' in his stretch of the river.


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

He can't do it. He has to take tickets fir the zipline and spread the pixie dust as you slide down. And keep all those horrible fisherman from riding his cows and defecating on his property.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

He can be the director. Then he'll assign someone else to go to all of the boring meetings. He'll just keep taking tickets and chasing fishermen until there is a "fact finding mission" to some warm, exotic location every winter.


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

Fishrmn said:


> He can be the director. Then he'll assign someone else to go to all of the boring meetings. He'll just keep taking tickets and chasing fishermen until there is a "fact finding mission" to some warm, exotic location every winter.


I'm guessing a key qualification would be another family member. I hear there's no shortage.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

Oops. I forgot the rest of the family. That'll take up the Assistant Director's position. The First Assistant to the Assistant Director. All the way to the Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief. Then they'll hire someone from the street to attend the BLM and USFS meeting.


----------



## HunterDavid (Sep 10, 2007)

I'm not saying the salaries are what they should be for these "State Employees" that you guys are looking at on http://www.utahsright.com, but I can tell you that the salaries listed are extremely inflated. I am a public employee, therefore my salary is listed on this p.o.s. website. It says I make $72,547 a year.... I wish! I make a whopping $21.06 an hour, having 10 years experience and a bachelors degree!! In the salary listed, they include, all insurance benefits paid by the State, retirement monies, taxes paid by the State, and so forth. Again, if they are showing $300k plus, then they actually make $220k plus, which is probably too much....but they don't actually make the amount shown. My gross salary is actually $42k.....


----------



## massmanute (Apr 23, 2012)

When you get right down to it, salaries and the like are irrelevant to the topic of this thread.

The important thing is that if the privatization movement succeeds it will result in the closing of land to hunting, fishing, hiking, camping, birding, and all manner of outdoor activities, and Governor Herbert has his heart on the side of the privatization movement.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

HunterDavid said:


> My gross salary is actually $42k.....


True. But the state of Utah pays out $72,547 a year to you, your insurance policies, your retirement funds, etc.

My point is that Herbert doesn't give a flying rodent's rectum about anyone but those who are rich enough to benefit him and his causes. If he could appoint someone who sees things the way he sees them to a department he would. If he could keep that all in the family, I believe he would.


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

massmanute said:


> When you get right down to it, salaries and the like are irrelevant to the topic of this thread.
> 
> The important thing is that if the privatization movement succeeds it will result in the closing of land to hunting, fishing, hiking, camping, birding, and all manner of outdoor activities, and Governor Herbert has his heart on the side of the privatization movement.


+100


----------



## richardjb (Apr 1, 2008)

klbzdad said:


> massmanute said:
> 
> 
> > When you get right down to it, salaries and the like are irrelevant to the topic of this thread.
> ...


+1000


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

richardjb said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > Herbert has taken off the make-up, and finally fully exposed his true self.....a BIG GOVERNMENT PROGRESSIVE!
> ...


Hell no! That is why I am against Herbert's plan. It calls for MORE government intrusion, I want LESS!!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

massmanute said:


> When you get right down to it, salaries and the like are irrelevant to the topic of this thread.
> 
> The important thing is that if the privatization movement succeeds it will result in the closing of land to hunting, fishing, hiking, camping, birding, and all manner of outdoor activities, and Governor Herbert has his heart on the side of the privatization movement.


Pure hyperbole based on fear-mongering and little else! I am truly baffled at how people trust the government (made up of individuals) more than individuals (.....made up of individuals.....). :?


----------



## massmanute (Apr 23, 2012)

proutdoors said:


> richardjb said:
> 
> 
> > proutdoors said:
> ...


What do you mean by the phrase "government intrusion"?

I am not sure what your political views are, but one thing you need to be aware of is that if the State of Utah is somehow able to wrest Federal land away from the Federal government it won't be long before the land is parceled off to various economic interests (mining, property developers, agriculture, energy developers, resort developers, etc.) When that happens you can say "good bye" to access to most hunting and fishing in this state.

Of course, some of the owners of the newly privatized land might grant access to outdoor sportsmen... for a hefty fee that is. This happened in places like Texas long ago. There's good hunting there, if you have the money, but not so much for the average Joe. Others will simply cut off all access.


----------



## richardjb (Apr 1, 2008)

Glad to see Pro sticking to his guns. Doesn't mean he is right. I stayed in Utah BECAUSE we have access to public land. There is no way the Feds give up public land, UNLESS, it's to give it to CHINA for our debt. What do you think about that PRO?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

massmanute said:


> What do you mean by the phrase "government intrusion"? I mean, when the government INCREASES in size or influence. Pretty basic concept....or so I thought.
> 
> I am not sure what your political views are, but one thing you need to be aware of is that if the State of Utah is somehow able to wrest Federal land away from the Federal government it won't be long before the land is parceled off to various economic interests (mining, property developers, agriculture, energy developers, resort developers, etc.) When that happens you can say "good bye" to access to most hunting and fishing in this state. My political views are libertarian, as in I trust the individual FAR more than I trust ANY government entity. I strongly dispute the repeated assertion that privatization of land will lead to a decrease in hunting/fishing opportunities. I have gone over this repeatedly on here, so I see little purpsoe in posting facts AGAIN!
> 
> Of course, some of the owners of the newly privatized land might grant access to outdoor sportsmen... for a hefty fee that is. This happened in places like Texas long ago. There's good hunting there, if you have the money, but not so much for the average Joe. Others will simply cut off all access. More fear-mongering!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

richardjb said:


> Glad to see Pro sticking to his guns. Doesn't mean he is right. I stayed in Utah BECAUSE we have access to public land. There is no way the Feds give up public land, UNLESS, it's to give it to CHINA for our debt. What do you think about that PRO?


 If the Feds refuse to give up land, they are proving we are under tyranny! As for giving government owned land to China and other creditors....its already happening. This is yet another reason the federal government should NOT be the largest property owner in a state. So now, this government land....lets at least be accurate and call it what is, government land, NOT public land.......that you love so much is likely to be handed over to China or other foreign interests. I wonder how they will view your 'right' to access THEIR land to hunt/fish/camp on? Do you trust that government more than individuals as well? After all, you trust our tyrannical government more than individuals..........


----------



## Daisy (Jan 4, 2010)

proutdoors said:


> massmanute said:
> 
> 
> > Others will simply cut off all access. More fear-mongering!


And how did that work out for the hunters/fishermen in Utah regarding Stream Access. Access denied.


----------



## massmanute (Apr 23, 2012)

Pro,

I agree that you can trust the individual property owner... to do what is in his best interest that is. It is not in his interest to let you have free access to his land. What do you think a gas well owner is going to do when he sees you wandering across his land with a gun? He's going to think "time to call the sheriff" isn't he? If it's not what you would do, it's certainly what most people would do.

Have you tried hunting on Kennecot-owned land? How did that go for you?

What if a home owner sees you walking across HIS land as you fish a stream? He might let you do it, but more likely not on HIS land, unless he decides to charge you for the privilege.

How about letting you hunt grouse in his front yard? Nope, guess again!

Want to hunt elk on someone else's ranch? Good luck with that idea.

Very few property owners are going to give YOU access to THEIR property.

You say you have gone over the "facts" on this repeatedly. I don't know where you are getting your so-called facts on this, but they certainly don't conform to most people's experience, or with common sense for that matter.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

massmanute said:


> Pro,
> 
> I agree that you can trust the individual property owner... to do what is in his best interest that is. It is not in his interest to let you have free access to his land. What do you think a gas well owner is going to do when he sees you wandering across his land with a gun? He's going to think "time to call the sheriff" isn't he? If it's not what you would do, it's certainly what most people would do. Is the government made up of individuals or aliens? Why trust individuals within the government more than your neighbors? This truly baffles me!
> 
> ...


----------



## massmanute (Apr 23, 2012)

Proutdoors,

You are a generous land owner and I salute you for that.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

massmanute said:


> Proutdoors,
> 
> You are a generous land owner and I salute you for that.


I don't consider myself generous. I feel I gain more than I lose. I get unwanted animals removed from my land, I get to meet new folks....many of whom become friends, I get to know I am helping fellow sportsmen enjoy the outdoors. All while losing only a few minutes to show people the layout and give them some pointers on the habits of the critters they are after.


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

Those in the Southern Region.....just a question. How many have been given access to property owned by the Clark or Bullock family who own HUGE swaths of dirt in this area? 

The reason land owners in Utah are stingy is because of a few bad eggs who didn't respect them and over the years, it wore the landowner out. Same in Grand and San Juan counties. The landowner tags are the popular way to gain access to some private property but good luck with that joke. Public hunters get the shaft on that deal while the big ticket punchers with $$$ are coddled. Both sides have something to gain or loose in the land ownership battle.


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel (Sep 7, 2007)

I wouldnt let most of you morons hunt on my land either, y'all a bunch of yuppie bastards..... 8) 

But seriously, if most of you spent as much time out meeting property ownders as you do on here, you could be huntin some bitchin stretches of land, just sayin :mrgreen:


----------



## massmanute (Apr 23, 2012)

It's not easy for us city slickers to meet land owners.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Private landowners only get high trespass fee's because the gov has mismanaged the public resource. And getting quality is in short supply and high demand. Not completely the gov fault because they have plenty of outside help. 

We don't need general hunting. One Denny Austed can supplement what 8500 deer hunters contribute. How much revenue does Monroe mtn produce to the DWR in tag sales all species included? I don't even know the figure but I will double it. By the end of the month I could raise millions for the exclusive rights to all the wildlife in that unit. 

Only since the 90s would this be a good business prospect. We haven't needed a general hunt since the 90s.

There's is no biological reason to have a general hunt. :mrgreen:


----------

