# Mike Lee: The worst enemy of public lands



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

Not even trying to hide it anymore. Time to sale everyone....keep punching that check mark in the voting booth for this man though. Just keep punching that check mark that says, "sale my public lands, please Mr. Lee won't you?"

https://www.ksl.com/article/4635256...tahs-federal-lands-lee-proposes-trio-of-bills


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

He will be out of office soon enough.... as the new supreme court justice.




-DallanC


----------



## Bax* (Dec 14, 2008)

DallanC said:


> He will be out of office soon enough.... as the new supreme court justice.
> 
> -DallanC


Amy Barrett seems more likely to me.

Back on topic though, we had better vote this jerk off out of office.


----------



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

Also this

https://www.outdoorlife.com/senator-mike-lee-pledges-long-term-attack-on-public-lands

At one point during his speech he readily admits that it can't be accomplished overnight, and it will need to be taken peace by peace. Death by a thousand cuts. If you are a sportsman, if you enjoy public lands, and you continue to check the box with this mans name on it, you are ready and willing to watch your public estate be auctioned off. Every vote for Mike Lee is a vote to sale public lands or death by a thousand cuts as he openly admits is his goal. We knew this was the point all along, and of course now it's finalky being openly admitted to. And to every one of those saying transfer, Lee is showing their hand that it so obviously means sale.


----------



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

Also, call his office, go to his Instagram page and leave your opinions in the comments. If you want to change politicians minds on an issue, scare the **** out of them.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

You guys can borrow one of ours if you like...

Choose between M. Heinrich or T. Udall


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

This problem won't be solved in the voting booth in November. It needs to be addressed in the primaries in June. Either beat him in June or put someone on the ballot with a (D) who can actual stand a chance.

..


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

There are consequences and consessions to voting (D). They may be for the common ownership of [public] land, but they also believe in commonality for everything else as well...


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Bax* said:


> Amy Barrett seems more likely to me.


I read something today that said both Barrett and Lee were strong members of Trumps "A" list. I wouldn't mind if it was Lee though. Supreme Court Justice is a position I might be able to stomach him a little more than as Senator.

As you said though, back on subject.

From the article.

"We all know the impact federal lands have on everyday Utahns. And we all know the solution is to actually transfer these lands to the people," he said."

Hmmm, I thought the land already belonged *to the people* as it is now? And most "impacts" I see are positive.

Maybe the quote should be fixed, like this?

We all know the impact federal lands have on everyday Utahns. And we all know the solution is to actually transfer these lands *to the rich, developers*, and* large corporations*," he said.


----------



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

Packout said:


> This problem won't be solved in the voting booth in November. It needs to be addressed in the primaries in June. Either beat him in June or put someone on the ballot with a (D) who can actual stand a chance.
> 
> ..


There are certain trade offs to both, but when you have a state full of career republican politicians pushing this agenda that are never voted out of office in this state until they retire there is no way to hold them accountable. If they feel like they have no chance of losing they will never change their agenda. Voting for one D doesn't hurt anything in a state so red. Voting for Mike Lee is completely shooting any sportsmen in their own foot, as well as your fellow sportsmen's foot. At some point he needs to hear you, not speak at you. We as sportsmen need to do what we can to get Mike Lee out of office. At some point, a point has to be made or we don't have one. He is starting right towards making those small cuts that become wounds that will never heal in our public lands system. He's openly admitting it's time to tear it down bit by bit because he knows an outright auction is political suicide but a little here a little there, just as long as he gets closer to his end goal....which is no public land. Not state public land, not federal public land....private land! It's exactky who he is and is his rigid political religious view. And tbh, with him you'll never change this, so you have to vote him out.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

Out of all the (D)'s in the Senate, how many are actually for public lands to be used traditionally as they are now, or are they for a different form of privatization of them...?

If you think a (D) will do well for you for public lands, that is a short sighted approach to what all the damage that could be done long term. What piggy-backs onto the initiative to public land preservation is a detriment to your state's economy, education system, and other rights you currently now enjoy.

No one person from a blue state likes the blue politics that go along with it. Public lands are actually just a really small piece to it. The best solution is to back a candidate that is actually more libertarian than "staunch" conservative. Romney will not do many favors either for public lands I'm afraid...


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

High Desert Elk said:


> There are consequences and consessions to voting (D). They may be for the common ownership of [public] land, but they also believe in commonality for everything else as well...


Not true. A vote for Lee, or Romney, or any other "R" is a vote for dirty air, polluted water, and more exploitation. In short, Trump's policies implemented by the likes of people like Pruitt.


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

paddler said:


> Not true. A vote for Lee, or Romney, or any other "R" is a vote for dirty air, polluted water, and more exploitation. In short, Trump's policies implemented by the likes of people like Pruitt.


Fair to say that there are consequences for voting both R and D, so yeah it is true.

It's hard to ignore those consequences when both party platforms contain ideas and aims that I couldn't be more opposed to. Blanket statements like the above come from both sides and they make me laugh, even understanding there is some truth to what you are saying.

Public lands and our ability to recreate on them are one of the things I treasure most, so it may be easier for me to make up my mind than for others. However, I don't automatically dismiss someone who believes the government should operate in a different manner as wanting "dirtier air, polluted water, and more exploitation."

Nuance is important unless we're only interested in the blind partisanship that isn't doing sportsmen any favors from either side. Alas, I remember who I'm responding to.....-O\\__-

Also, Lee's comments are scary, but unsurprising. I certainly don't share his sentiments, and I do find it interesting that he's not trying to disguise his intentions at all. This fight isn't going away any time soon.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

Kwalk3 said:


> Fair to say that there are consequences for voting both R and D, so yeah it is true.
> 
> It's hard to ignore those consequences when both party platforms contain ideas and aims that I couldn't be more opposed to. Blanket statements like the above come from both sides and they make me laugh, even understanding there is some truth to what you are saying.
> 
> ...


You mistake calling it like it is with partisanship, which is a common error. I expect others to join in soon, but the facts support my statement right down the line. Scott Pruitt has intentionally damaged the EPA, which isn't surprising given he made his living repeatedly suing it as attorney general of Oklahoma. Trump's naming him to head the agency was especially cynical, and a poke in the eye to conservationists and sportsmen everywhere. It is the "Environmental Protection Agency", after all, and so logically should be a good thing for hunters, fisherman, hikers, campers, photographers, tourists, etc. Pruitt simply implemented the Trump agenda, which is supported by most Republicans and our entire congressional delegation. If you have any information that suggests our congressional representatives actually support conservation, preserving our public lands or support sportsmen over the extraction industries, I'm all ears. Prove me wrong, I'm waiting. Anybody. Anybody at all.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

paddler said:


> Not true. A vote for Lee, or Romney, or any other "R" is a vote for dirty air, polluted water, and more exploitation. In short, Trump's policies implemented by the likes of people like Pruitt.


You didn't read what I wrote, again, and choose to argue for the sake of arguing. Until you live in a blue state, you know not of which I speak - so don't try.

My dear sir, there are A LOT of other things at stake besides keeping public lands public. The enjoyment of public lands is what you do in your spare time as a luxury experience when all other aspects of your life are good.

Not one (D) will promote for a better aspect of your life and just when you think they are on your side, you'll find out just how anti public lands, clean air, and water they are if the collective good can benefit from exploitation - after all, how else will you be able to pay for all the social wellfare programs when average household earnings drop?

The short of it is, *NO* politician can be trusted to do what is right with most policies as their main concern is granting favors and winning the next election. They play the constituency like a fine tuned violin...


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

High Desert Elk said:


> You didn't read what I wrote, again, and choose to argue for the sake of arguing. Until you live in a blue state, you know not of which I speak - so don't try.
> 
> My dear sir, there are A LOT of other things at stake besides keeping public lands public. The enjoyment of public lands is what you do in your spare time as a luxury experience when all other aspects of your life are good.
> 
> ...


Wrong again. I read what you wrote, but confined my response to the issues of public lands and conservation, because this is an outdoor forum.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Well, it doesn't look like he made the final 3 for SCOTUS, so we are still stuck with him.  I agree with Bax now that it will be Barrett.



High Desert Elk said:


> You guys can borrow one of ours if you like...
> 
> Choose between M. Heinrich or T. Udall


One thing to remember is that any substantial land transfer bill would have to pass through Congress. Thus, your delegations vote will count just as much as Utah's. In this one case (only), I thank you. ;-)

As for there being caution about politicians form both sides of the aisle, I absolutely agree. As the (D)'s careen farther to the left and the (R)'s go farther to the right, I get more nauseated and depressed regarding good governance in our country. (OK, off the soapbox)


----------



## steepandeep (Sep 6, 2017)

Catherder said:


> Well, it doesn't look like he made the final 3 for SCOTUS, so we are still stuck with him.  I agree with Bax now that it will be Barrett.
> 
> One thing to remember is that any substantial land transfer bill would have to pass through Congress. Thus, your delegations vote will count just as much as Utah's. In this one case (only), I thank you. ;-)
> 
> As for there being caution about politicians form both sides of the aisle, I absolutely agree. As the (D)'s careen farther to the left and the (R)'s go farther to the right, I get more nauseated and depressed regarding good governance in our country. (OK, off the soapbox)





Catherder said:


> Well, it doesn't look like he made the final 3 for SCOTUS, so we are still stuck with him.  I agree with Bax now that it will be Barrett.
> 
> One thing to remember is that any substantial land transfer bill would have to pass through Congress. Thus, your delegations vote will count just as much as Utah's. In this one case (only), I thank you. ;-)
> 
> As for there being caution about politicians form both sides of the aisle, I absolutely agree. As the (D)'s careen farther to the left and the (R)'s go farther to the right, I get more nauseated and depressed regarding good governance in our country. (OK, off the soapbox)


I think this gets at the heart of why I am exhausted with politics as a whole. I was raised a democrat, but came from wyoming and a background of balance between left and right. My family believed in many of the principles of the democratic party, but also found truth in aspects of the right, and more importantly, respected views that we didn't always agree with, and believed in the balance between the two halves to find a middle ground. I continue to call myself a democrat, though in the current environment, I am realistically what would be labeled either a centrist, or even a moderate republican. The degree to which both sides of the aisle have moved apart in viewpoints has only been superseded by the apparent desire to fight tooth and nail to see the other side lose. What happened to having a set of beliefs, but being willing to both make compromise, and being okay with others partaking in activities that may not fit into my own desires? What happened to the middle? It seems each election I am faced with choosing someone equally far from where I stand, and I know that there will be no middle ground. On some stances, I fall into the republican camp, and others the democrat, and it seems that I have to make a choice to get some of what I want at the expense of others. As it pertains to hunting and fishing (trying to keep this in the realm of this forum): I love to hunt and fish, but I am faced with the choice of an official that either supports public land (but has certainly shown hostility to hunting/fishing), or is supportive of hunting and fishing (but seems hell-bent on eliminating the public land we cherish).


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

paddler said:


> Wrong again. I read what you wrote, but confined my response to the issues of public lands and conservation, because this is an outdoor forum.


Not really, hidden behind the curtain is the disdain for any development which can happen on both private and public ground. When it is public, the chances are actually greater because now it falls within the definition of multiple use for the common good.

Stating that certain candidates are bad because of speculating to the endangerment of clean air, water, and land has nothing really to do with conservation and public lands and its use but has everything to do with what practices industry does and is a by product because of sloppy behavior. Those same things can happen on private just as easily as public. The counter can be said to renewable resources and the expansive footprints they have - may be clean, but is lousy for land use. How do renewable's stack up in the conservation debate? Land use?

I think you just like to troll my comments just because - prove me wrong by remaining silent...:grin:


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

steepandeep said:


> I love to hunt and fish, but I am faced with the choice of an official that either supports public land (but has certainly shown hostility to hunting/fishing), or is supportive of hunting and fishing (but seems hell-bent on eliminating the public land we cherish).


Excuse me, but to whom are you referring? Which public officials do you think are hostile to hunting and fishing?



High Desert Elk said:


> Not really, hidden behind the curtain is the disdain for any development which can happen on both private and public ground. When it is public, the chances are actually greater because now it falls within the definition of multiple use for the common good.
> 
> Stating that certain candidates are bad because of speculating to the endangerment of clean air, water, and land has nothing really to do with conservation and public lands and its use but has everything to do with what practices industry does and is a by product because of sloppy behavior. Those same things can happen on private just as easily as public. The counter can be said to renewable resources and the expansive footprints they have - may be clean, but is lousy for land use. How do renewable's stack up in the conservation debate? Land use?
> 
> I think you just like to troll my comments just because - prove me wrong by remaining silent...:grin:


Not trolling, but rather correcting. I am not speculating when I say that the Republican administration is bad for the environment. Look at what they have done to the EPA. Look at what they've done to mining regulations, air quality and water quality. These actions damage the environment on both public and private land. The fact that they favor privatization of our public lands is a separate but also very important issue. Guilty on both counts. Go ahead and argue till you turn blue in the face, but voting for "R" will just get you more of what Pruitt (and his successor, BTW) and Lee bring to the table. If you like pollution and selling off public lands, the choice could not be more clear.


----------

