12 states join Utah

There's been stirrings about this in NV too. Didn't see it listed in the article.
 
Beignet said:
Surprised Montana's AG didn't hop on this opportunity. Guess it is and election year for him and he has designs on eventually running for governor, so he can't say the quiet part out loud.
Click to expand...
I suspect he'd be run out of Helena on a rail if he proposed it during an election year. I can't imagine such a proposal would go well in areas of the state like region 1 which are overwhelmingly public land. Let's hope I'm correct!
 
I am saddened by this as well.

The Wyoming office of State Lands is run by some really good people, but it is under staffed and has a dollar today and be darn with tomorrow.

Wyoming State Lands are home to the worst of the worst when it comes to oil and gas. Namely produced water evaporator ponds. You may have hunted antelope near one of these ponds. They typically have a Russian Thistle problem. The spray of the ponds in absolutely wrecking the soil. In our arrid environment, that soil will not leach these salts out for centuries.

The OSL typically dosent even on-site potential roads and wells or alteast not that I am aware of.

Anything near a town is a gun range full of shot up appliances and broken glass.

This year we burned through our two year wildland budget by August on year one.

We have outstanding people in our State Parks and the parks themselves are a blessing and extremely well managed.

Say what you will about FS and BLM management, but believe me, it could be a whole lot worse.

I know this plays well in the polls in red states, but as hunters we stand to loss one of the greatest resources of we have as Americans.
 
Last edited:
RuralMT said:
I suspect he'd be run out of Helena on a rail if he proposed it during an election year. I can't imagine such a proposal would go well in areas of the state like region 1 which are overwhelmingly public land. Let's hope I'm correct!
Click to expand...
I’m glad that Montanans have made public lands a third rail issue. I don’t doubt that plenty of our politicians are beyond sympathetic to this lawsuit and to land transfer in general. Heck, a good chunk of our statewide elected officials have had to walk back anti public land sentiments they expressed in the past.

I think we’re all pretty aware that land transfer isn’t a controversial issue in Utah, but curious to know if it is in other states in the Rockies the way it is in MT?
 
Oh, f@ck off. How did I know that Raul Labrador was gonna be a Main Character in this story? This is a Cold Dead Hands issue for most western hunters and outdoors people.

Can we please talk about the Bull Moose Party for like 5 minutes?

1730329910072.png

  • Keep your guns, but you're responsible for what happens with your gun.
  • break up monopolies (Google, Amazon, Oil Companies)
  • secure a border (I've never trusted those damn Canadians...)
  • dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics
  • let women have as much agency over their bodies as men do.
Sorry- I did not mean to get too politically crazy, but it's that time of year.
 
jimh406 said:
I don't understand how this lawsuit is a problem unless you trust the federal government more than the state government. Maybe some of you do when your party is in control.
Click to expand...
If you don't understand the problem with this proposal, I suspect you're not well informed on how things work on state lands in most places in the west.

Let's walk through just a few scenarios as to why it has nothing to do with which party is in control, rather it has everything to do with losing hundreds of millions of acres where we currently can hunt, fish, camp, shoot, hike, etc.

A few examples below, by state, if Federal lands are transferred to the state land boards of the west. This assumes the states wouldn't sell them as Utah wants to do, which is a bad assumption:

Arizona - You just lost 28 million acres on which you can currently recreationally shoot and you will not be able to do so when it is under state ownership.

New Mexico - You just lost 24 million acres where you can no longer camp or recreationally shoot when it is under state ownership. Currently you can do all of that on Federal lands, but you will not be able to do any of that if this Utah land grab goes through. And NM G&F will have to pay a hell of a lot more than it currently pays to allow license holders to hunt on the current state owned lands.

Colorado - You just lost 23 million acres currently open to hunting, camping, hiking, biking, shooting. None of that is allowed on state owned lands unless you are the lessee of such lands.

Wyoming - You just lost camping on 29 million acres of lands currently open to such, as Wyoming doesn't allow camping on state lands. Wanna hunt deer in Region G or H? No backcountry hunts, as you can't camp, so you have to hike in and out each day. No camping at a nearby trailhead, as you can't do that now, so you have to drive from Jackson or Alpine or Daniels or (insert here). Wanna hunt the Thoroughfare? Better have some damn good horses than can ride in/out 20 miles each day, as you can't camp back there once these are state-owned lands.

Nevada - Currently there is unrestricted camping and shooting on 56 million acres in Nevada. Under this proposal, it would require a permit and application for such uses, subject to denial.

California - You just lost shooting and hunting on 45 million acres when the state becomes the owner.

I could go on and on about Utah, Alaska, Oregon, Washington. Not sure it makes any difference to anyone who looks at every issue through the lens of political parties.

The only reason this is partisan is that Rs make up 100% of the people who signed on to the stupid idea that would cost us hundreds of millions of acres of places to hunt, shoot, camp, hike. That is a fact. Everything I have cited above, and a lot more I could write, is fact. None of that is partisan politics as you imply.

I vote for a lot of Republicans, but they are completely wrong on this idea. This pigheaded effort is going to be the focus of my platforms in the coming months. I don't care if they are R or D, if you try to screw us out of places to hunt, fish, camp, hike, shoot, I'm going to make you the focus of my efforts.

Cracks me up when the hyper-partisans want to defend every action of "their guys" even when it would eff them out of their places to hunt and fish.
 
morley.tyler said:
Oh, f@ck off. How did I know that Raul Labrador was gonna be a Main Character in this story? This is a Cold Dead Hands issue for most western hunters and outdoors people.
Click to expand...
Raul must have gotten tired of burning through his budget filing suit against his in state agencies and decided to start finding something new to waste tax money on. He’s the worst
 
It would be interesting to compare the budgets of these state governments against the amount of money expended annually in their states on wildfire over time. I know in Montana, the state pays a very small portion of the total amount of funds spent fighting wildfire and we have had years where wildfire costs(state + federal) were approaching 20% of our total state government budget. Wildfire fighting costs are just gonna go up.

The biggest predictor of the future is the past, and as BigFin points out, the past would make for a terrible future if these snake oil salesmen were at the helm.
 
Big Fin said:
If you don't understand the problem with this proposal, I suspect you're not well informed on how things work on state lands in most places in the west.

Let's walk through just a few scenarios as to why it has nothing to do with which party is in control, rather it has everything to do with losing hundreds of millions of acres where we currently can hunt, fish, camp, shoot, hike, etc.

A few examples below, by state, if Federal lands are transferred to the state land boards of the west. This assumes the states wouldn't sell them as Utah wants to do, which is a bad assumption:

Arizona - You just lost 28 million acres on which you can currently recreationally shoot and you will not be able to do so when it is under state ownership.

New Mexico - You just lost 24 million acres where you can no longer camp or recreationally shoot when it is under state ownership. Currently you can do all of that on Federal lands, but you will not be able to do any of that if this Utah land grab goes through. And NM G&F will have to pay a hell of a lot more than it currently pays to allow license holders to hunt on the current state owned lands.

Colorado - You just lost 23 million acres currently open to hunting, camping, hiking, biking, shooting. None of that is allowed on state owned lands unless you are the lessee of such lands.

Wyoming - You just lost camping on 29 million acres of lands currently open to such, as Wyoming doesn't allow camping on state lands. Wanna hunt deer in Region G or H? No backcountry hunts, as you can't camp, so you have to hike in and out each day. No camping at a nearby trailhead, as you can't do that now, so you have to drive from Jackson or Alpine or Daniels or (insert here). Wanna hunt the Thoroughfare? Better have some damn good horses than can ride in/out 20 miles each day, as you can't camp back there once these are state-owned lands.

Nevada - Currently there is unrestricted camping and shooting on 56 million acres in Nevada. Under this proposal, it would require a permit and application for such uses, subject to denial.

California - You just lost shooting and hunting on 45 million acres when the state becomes the owner.

I could go on and on about Utah, Alaska, Oregon, Washington. Not sure it makes any difference to anyone who looks at every issue through the lens of political parties.

The only reason this is partisan is that Rs make up 100% of the people who signed on to the stupid idea that would cost us hundreds of millions of acres of places to hunt, shoot, camp, hike. That is a fact. Everything I have cited above, and a lot more I could write, is fact. None of that is partisan politics as you imply.

I vote for a lot of Republicans, but they are completely wrong on this idea. This pigheaded effort is going to be the focus of my platforms in the coming months. I don't care if they are R or D, if you try to screw us out of places to hunt, fish, camp, hike, shoot, I'm going to make you the focus of my efforts.

Cracks me up when the hyper-partisans want to defend every action of "their guys" even when it would eff them out of their places to hunt and fish.
Click to expand...

Thanks for using your voice to bring awareness. I’ll be looking forward to listening to and reading all you put out.

What, if anything can we do now since they already are taking this to the highest level?

Pisses me off to no end.
 
Big Fin said:
Let's walk through just a few scenarios as to why it has nothing to do with which party is in control, rather it has everything to do with losing hundreds of millions of acres where we currently can hunt, fish, camp, shoot, hike, etc.
Click to expand...

If I believe your hypotheticals, it could be a big change.

I’m not a lawyer, but from what I read in the article, the reality is the federal govt just needs to define the purpose of the properties and the lawsuit is over.

It seems that’s the solution to keep the status quo which you seem to want. Last I heard, BLM land isn’t managed very well, and I can’t see why the land doesn’t need a defined purpose.

To be clear, all federal property is controlled by whichever party is in control at the time. Obviously, all state land is as well.
 
jimh406 said:
If I believe your hypotheticals, it could be a big change.

I’m not a lawyer, but from what I read in the article, the reality is the federal govt just needs to define the purpose of the properties and the lawsuit is over.

It seems that’s the solution to keep the status quo which you seem to want. Last I heard, BLM land isn’t managed very well, and I can’t see why the land doesn’t need a defined purpose.

To be clear, all federal property is controlled by whichever party is in control at the time. Obviously, all state land is as well.
Click to expand...
It has a defined purpose, just not the purpose that suits the greed of Utah.

Study up...

The Bureau of Land Management's mission is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations.

A Multiple-Use and Sustained Yield Mission​

Congress tasked the BLM with a mandate of managing public lands for a variety of uses such as energy development, livestock grazing, recreation, and timber harvesting while ensuring natural, cultural, and historic resources are maintained for present and future use.

To do this, we manage public lands to maximize opportunities for commercial, recreational, and conservation activities. This promotes healthy and productive public lands that create jobs in local communities while supporting traditional land uses such as responsible energy development, timber harvesting, grazing, and recreation, including hunting and fishing.
 
Whatever happened to "I have a pen". If it was worth a diaper change to the current CIC, he could have already signed an executive order making all unappropriated federal land a national monument, yes?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

K
Utah People, thoughts on this?
2 3 4
Replies
63
Views
3K
terrytheluddite
terrytheluddite
W
Here comes Utah YET AGAIN
2 3 4
Replies
70
Views
3K
Jape
Jape
TheTone
Just more Utah garbage
2
Replies
29
Views
3K
Benfromalbuquerque
Benfromalbuquerque
Big Fin
Podcast - Utah Wants Your Public Lands
Replies
17
Views
953
MTGomer
MTGomer
Sytes
Interesting BLM Alaska "D-1" Land Up For Public Comment
Replies
1
Views
608
44hunter45
44hunter45

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
113,694
Messages
2,029,953
Members
36,286
Latest member
Paraclete

Share this page

Back
Top