# KUIU steps up for public lands



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

Well, it has been great to see companies stepping up. First Lite has been the most vocal, Sitka and First Lite support TRCP and BHA. Finally KUIUs founder Jason posted a video both on instagram and Facebook making it clear KUIU and himself oppose transfer or sale of public lands. It's good finally hear. Let not turn this tread into who they're too close to or sitting by at a show. It was great of him to do this and it deserves some thanks.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

I buy allot of Kuiu gear, and have ribbed Jason about his "associations", as have others. Having known some of the circle when he was first building Kuiu, I understood that much of this is just business. He has some very pro public lands people around him. Kuiu was BHAs biggest sponsor several years ago, with no one else touching their sponsorship level for quite some time.


----------



## gdog (Sep 13, 2007)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Well, it has been great to see companies stepping up. First Lite has been the most vocal


...thats why my next camo purchase will be with First Lite.


----------



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

gdog said:


> ...thats why my next camo purchase will be with First Lite.


It's who I have been supporting the last 6 months, and they are who I will continue to support. If you haven't tried First Lite, it's amazing.


----------



## LanceS4803 (Mar 5, 2014)

The more that join, the better. 
This is going to be a serious battle, one we can't afford to lose.


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

I'm glad that KUIU has joined the fight. I do not understand why they were not the first to the party. Their gear is mountaineering hunting gear and without access to the mountains people would not buy their gear.


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

Maybe we ought to just create your own oneye forum about public lands transfer; have you posted about anything else in the last few months? Why not just add to your existing threads rather than create a new thread on the exact same topic every few days? Just curious.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Same reasons for carpet bombing, scatter gunning..............


----------



## colorcountrygunner (Oct 6, 2009)

Huge29 said:


> Maybe we ought to just create your own oneye forum about public lands transfer; have you posted about anything else in the last few months? Why not just add to your existing threads rather than create a new thread on the exact same topic every few days? Just curious.


This is just my very own little humble opinion, but I appreciate what one eye is doing, and I think his threads are different enough to warrant there own distinct thread. I don't mind the numerous threads at all, and I think he does a good job of keeping us all informed and up to speed on important issues that effect us as hunters. And as a plus he has even become a little more level headed since the days of talking about napkin meetings!


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

Perhaps I-1 is creating threads every few days because the public land issue is a very salient issue. There are very real threats posed to the public lands that the majority on this forum use for hunting and fishing. These threats are coming in new and changing packages. I don't think its a bad thing to have new thread discussing new happenings pertaining to the public land debate.

In my opinion, if we don't talk about the public land issue and recognize how real the threats to our pastimes are, eventually there will be little need for all of us to convene together on the good ol' UWN. I appreciate the constant updates of what we are up against. Those who wish to transfer and dispose of our public lands aren't taking a break from their plans. I say it's a good thing that 1-I doesn't take a break either.


----------



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

Huge29 said:


> Maybe we ought to just create your own oneye forum about public lands transfer; have you posted about anything else in the last few months? Why not just add to your existing threads rather than create a new thread on the exact same topic every few days? Just curious.


__________... that's all I have to say about that.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

gdog said:


> ...thats why my next camo purchase will be with First Lite.


It's good stuff.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

If anyone has any question what Jason Hairston's position is today, and always has been, on public lands, go listen to him on Jay Scott's podcast.

https://jayscottoutdoors.podbean.com

If you don't want to listen to all the Kuiu talk, the public land stuff is about the last 20-30 minutes (ball park, I didn't mark it) of the podcast. I'm not a big podcast guy. I've only listened to a couple ever. But for some reason I listened throughout the day as I had time and was working, and this one left me very encouraged.


----------



## Hoopermat (Dec 17, 2010)

Keep it up 1eye. Some of us actually care about our public lands and love to hear more people involved. Unlike some certain MOD


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

*concurrence*



colorcountrygunner said:


> This is just my very own little humble opinion, but I appreciate what one eye is doing, and I think his threads are different enough to warrant there own distinct thread. I don't mind the numerous threads at all, and I think he does a good job of keeping us all informed and up to speed on important issues that effect us as hunters. And as a plus he has even become a little more level headed since the days of talking about napkin meetings!


I agree, this is a distinctively different thread than the others. If it's something new on an old tired theme it doesn't matter, it's news, something new.

There are no limit here on posts about a given subject, just try to avoid redundancy, bump a thread if you have to instead of starting another one that's exactly the same.

Thanks
.


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

Vanilla said:


> If anyone has any question what Jason Hairston's position is today, and always has been, on public lands, go listen to him on Jay Scott's podcast.
> 
> https://jayscottoutdoors.podbean.com
> 
> If you don't want to listen to all the Kuiu talk, the public land stuff is about the last 20-30 minutes (ball park, I didn't mark it) of the podcast. I'm not a big podcast guy. I've only listened to a couple ever. But for some reason I listened throughout the day as I had time and was working, and this one left me very encouraged.


Thanks for the link vanilla. Good stuff

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

Thanks 1-I, keep it coming. This battle simply can not be lost and your efforts are vital.


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

Kwalk3 said:


> Perhaps I-1 is creating threads every few days because the public land issue is a very salient issue. There are very real threats posed to the public lands that the majority on this forum use for hunting and fishing. These threats are coming in new and changing packages. ....


Read this clip over again, slowly. One of the new packages is the land grabbers attempt to re-direct our thinking to "access", instead of transfer and ownership. If you notice, they are promising "public access forever" to all state owned land...BUT what good is that public access if they have sold off all or most of the land. Yeah, they'll be technically keeping their promise, you'll still have access to the few remaining scrub parcels they where unable to sell.

Don't be fooled, don't be tricked, don't just assume you know what they are saying is what you hope they are saying...

We must keep up the fight for NO TRANSFER TO STATE OWNERSHIP fight!


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

While we're splitting hairs, I would say that access is way more important to me than ownership. I couldn't care less who owns it between the state or the feds, if access would remain. 

I know what you're saying is that the state will sell it, which I agree they likely would. But if we're going to quibble over words, access is what is important to me. It does me no good for any public ownership of land if I can't access it.


----------



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

Vanilla said:


> While we're splitting hairs, I would say that access is way more important to me than ownership. I couldn't care less who owns it between the state or the feds, if access would remain.
> 
> I know what you're saying is that the state will sell it, which I agree they likely would. But if we're going to quibble over words, access is what is important to me. It does me no good for any public ownership of land if I can't access it.


Agreed,but we are a step closer to sale with a transfer to state jurisdiction. Our efforts to keep the transfer from ever occurring are vital to retaining access and to retaining public lands. If we allow a transfer, there will be no stopping a sale when the budgets have no choice but to sale. I'm not in the game of moving a step closer to sale. I would like improved managment of the current system that has worked for access and retention of public lands for over 100 years now as opposed to the systems that have sold 50%+ of the land they were given. Our polticians should be told absolutely NO to transfer and be told YES to improving the current system. In the end a transfer of ownership does nothing to address the root causes that are making people frustrated. Transfer has nothing to do with managment and they can sugar code it all they want but transfer is sale plain and simple.


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

Vanilla said:


> While we're splitting hairs, I would say that access is way more important to me than ownership. I couldn't care less who owns it between the state or the feds, if access would remain.
> 
> I know what you're saying is that the state will sell it, which I agree they likely would. But if we're going to quibble over words, access is what is important to me. It does me no good for any public ownership of land if I can't access it.


Not splitting hairs at all. They, the land grabbers(call them land transfer guys if you prefer) are trying to get you to focus on the access issue and maybe you'll forget that that only applies to land that is actually owned. 
The are two different issues here and by far and away the most important is that we do not allow the state to gain ownership. No matter how bad management is under the federal government as it is now, the fact is that they are not selling land to cover expenses as the state of Utah will be forced to do if they ever gain ownership. 
Don't think for one minute that "oh, we promise to always grant access" is the same as a promise that the "land will always be there for your enjoyment".
Vanilla, don't drink the coolaide. These guys are trying to fool you into relaxing your guard while they quietly transfer the land. You'll be quietly sitting by with a smile on your face because of the promised access to nothing but the scraps that are left over after the nice stuff is sold off to their buddies. Another little interesting note for you "all we need is access guys", did you know that the state owned SITLA land is "private property" owned by the state and that the only reason you have any access is because they charge the DWR an access fee so you can hunt and recreate there? You have NO access to the millions of acres that the state has already sold because Private Property =No Trespassing!


----------



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

Maybe before state polticians tell us they can provide access, they should do it first:

https://goo.gl/images/l0OZbx

https://goo.gl/images/PsJ4QF

https://goo.gl/images/lYN3NM

https://goo.gl/images/jlQ7TF

http://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/op...ting-land-that's-closed-public-hunting#page-3


----------



## grizzly (Jun 3, 2012)

I feel this is pertinent since the discussion has gone to a tangent related to access of State Land... 

____________________

HB0407 2017 Utah Public Lands Management Act

63L-8-204. Exchanges and sales.
(1) (a) *It is the policy of this state that exchanges of public land are preferred to any sale of public land, and that when pursuing an exchange, an exchange with the School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration is preferred to an exchange with any other party.*

And then take a look at the ramifications of transferring that land to SITLA

*"Public land" means any land or land interest:
(a) acquired by the state from the federal government pursuant to Section **63L-6-103**, except:
*(i) areas subsequently designated as a protected wilderness area, as described in Title 63L, Chapter 7, Utah Wilderness Act; and
(ii) *lands managed by the School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration *

This law, signed by Governor Herbert just last week, seeks to transfer Federal Land to SITLA, where it will no longer be considered "public land". SITLA also openly seeks to convert their land to a CWMU, which certainly does not help the public land hunter.

And the funny thing about this law is that it was actually emailed to me by an SFW-supporter as proof that the land grab won't hurt hunters and part of the reason that SFW won't oppose the land grab and the attempted transfer of public lands to the State.

This bill was sponsored by Mike Noel, who also happened to be the person named in this article (http://www.sltrib.com/news/4936797-155/utah-groups-pushing-greater-local-control) as attempting to give $2,000,000 to SFW-offshoot Big Game Forever.

...hmmm...


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

You guys don't have to talk down to me and assume I don't understand what we're up against here. I've been fighting the Utah legislature for 8+ years on this. Really, I don't need a lecture. 

Grizzly, I'm not aware of any CWMU that SITLA operates. Care to expand?

SITLA land, by constitutional mandate, is required to be managed for maximum profit. So yes, extraction, lease, grazing, and even putting it up for sale. Nobody is ever going to change that. If federal lands were transferred to the State of Utah as SITLA lands, that would bad.


----------



## grizzly (Jun 3, 2012)

Vanilla said:


> Grizzly, I'm not aware of any CWMU that SITLA operates. Care to expand?
> 
> SITLA land, by constitutional mandate, is required to be managed for maximum profit. So yes, extraction, lease, grazing, and even putting it up for sale. Nobody is ever going to change that. If federal lands were transferred to the State of Utah as SITLA lands, that would bad.


Right now, SITLA does not currently operate a CWMU. What I said was that they openly seek to do so. They have been lobbying for that statute change, and to the benefit of SFW, they have actually been fighting to keep SITLA land from being switched into a CWMU. My point is that the overall effect of SITLA gaining more land, as the land grabbers desire, is bad for hunters.

You are correct that SITLA is required to sell land in which they can't maximize a profit. In fact, the rally cry of the land grabbers is that we must seize the land "for the kids". If land is seized and then kept open for you and me to hunt/fish as we do currently there is no additional revenue "for the kids" and thus it must be sold or developed commercially. There is no other option. And all of this is bad for anybody that loves the outdoors.


----------

