12 states join Utah

[SAJ-99]

I sent a letter to our Montana AG and it seemed to be positively received.

I would like to see him go on the record with his views, and GG for that matter. Silence is acceptance.

 

[elkduds]

Every american consumer is benefitted by the low prices of commercial leasing/activity on public land. It seems pretty clear the economic benefit of the low federal rates exceeds what the typical person pays in taxes.

Respectfully disagree. Subsidies by gov't reduce competition, favor chosen industries over their potential competitors, Charging market price for grazing, extraction, wind and solar on federal lands would provide a great increase in income for USFS and BLM (grossly and chronically underfunded), reduce other (income) taxes for Americans. It would reveal true market costs of each subsidized industry and allow the market to choose based on value, not gov't influence. Costs of oil, gas, minerals and grazing would increase, benefitting their competitors including private landowners and 'greener' energy. The gov't heavily subsidizing big oil is bad for the planet. 2024 was the hottest year in recorded history, by a wide margin. Another year of record profits for big oil, profits directly attributed to these gov't subsidies. The most important question in public policy is Qui Bono, Who Benefits? Taxpayers are generously donating to big oil profits through subsidies of discounted lease rates, as well as paying for fuel. That is how the game is rigged.

 

[Hunting Wife]

Respectfully disagree. Subsidies by gov't reduce competition, favor chosen industries over their potential competitors, Charging market price for grazing, extraction, wind and solar on federal lands would provide a great increase in income for USFS and BLM (grossly and chronically underfunded), reduce other (income) taxes for Americans. It would reveal true market costs of each subsidized industry and allow the market to choose based on value, not gov't influence. Costs of oil, gas, minerals and grazing would increase, benefitting their competitors including private landowners and 'greener' energy. The gov't heavily subsidizing big oil is bad for the planet. 2024 was the hottest year in recorded history, by a wide margin. Another year of record profits for big oil, profits directly attributed to these gov't subsidies. The most important question in public policy is Qui Bono, Who Benefits? Taxpayers are generously donating to big oil profits through subsidies of discounted lease rates, as well as paying for fuel. That is how the game is rigged.

True. The subsidies also reduce potential income for state and local entities that could be benefiting via revenue sharing. Thus, once again, the folks in Washington suing and squawking about local folks getting screwed are the ones doing the screwing.

 

[rogerthat]

Respectfully disagree. Subsidies by gov't reduce competition, favor chosen industries over their potential competitors, Charging market price for grazing, extraction, wind and solar on federal lands would provide a great increase in income for USFS and BLM (grossly and chronically underfunded), reduce other (income) taxes for Americans. It would reveal true market costs of each subsidized industry and allow the market to choose based on value, not gov't influence. Costs of oil, gas, minerals and grazing would increase, benefitting their competitors including private landowners and 'greener' energy. The gov't heavily subsidizing big oil is bad for the planet. 2024 was the hottest year in recorded history, by a wide margin. Another year of record profits for big oil, profits directly attributed to these gov't subsidies. The most important question in public policy is Qui Bono, Who Benefits? Taxpayers are generously donating to big oil profits through subsidies of discounted lease rates, as well as paying for fuel. That is how the game is rigged.

BLM manages and collects oil and gas leasing for the public lands. It collects over $8 billion annually the lions share from oil and gas leasing while its budget is a fraction of that. It is only underfunded because congress does so choose. That has no relevance to your point other that at fair market value revenues collected would be even higher but I keep seeing the argument by others that the federal management of the public lands is so costly when in fact it probably already pays for itself including the Usfs which comes out of usda budget. Hence why utah was so selective on which lands they wanted. Clowns they are for sure.

 

[Nameless Range]

Looks like SCOTUS rejected Utah's lawsuit.

U.S. Supreme Court won't hear Utah's public lands lawsuit

The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected Utah's petition in a lawsuit staking claim to millions of acres of public lands in the state.

www.fox13now.com

 

[Big Fin]

In effect, it tells Utah they have to file in a lower Federal Court, then Appeals Court, if they want the USSC to rule on it. I doubt they will do that, as the Federal Courts ruled on most of this stuff in the 1980s and 1990s when the Sagebrush Rebels tried to make similar claims.

This was all a marketing campaign to get the attention of Congress. And now they have that attention. Look at how many in Congress are talking about selling public lands, whether to lower housing costs, to pay down Federal debt, of whatever other reasons they have expressed.

Point being, this is not going away. This is likely the beginning steps, not the last steps.

 

[TOGIE]

let's talk more about the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance and other orgs like them.

i've got money to give.

 

[quarterhorse]

let's talk more about the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance and other orgs like them.

i've got money to give.

Any entity that is against transfer gets my support. Any politician that wants to sell/transfer land does not. I don't care who they are.

 

[Matthew57]

let's talk more about the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance and other orgs like them.

i've got money to give.

Yeah, also I was wondering if any hunting or angling groups filed lawsuits against. If not, I wonder why.

 

[SAJ-99]

Yeah, also I was wondering if any hunting or angling groups filed lawsuits against. If not, I wonder why.

Not sure what any lawsuit would be based on. I’m guessing it would be dismissed for lack of standing. The Federal government represents the people and would need to fight the legal battle in court.

 

[COEngineer]

Any entity that is against transfer gets my support.

Join BHA in staying the course and ensuring that public lands remain in public hands. Visit UtahIsNotForSale.org today to learn more and take action against future attempts to privatize our shared heritage.

https://www.backcountryhunters.org/supreme_court_rejects_utah_s_land_grab_lawsuit_a_victory_for_public_land_owners?utm_campaign=2025_1_13_pressrelease_utahsup&utm_medium=email&utm_source=backcountryhunters

 

[Treeshark]

Join BHA in staying the course and ensuring that public lands remain in public hands.

BHA leadership is overtly hostile towards NR hunters. I would steer clear if you enjoy hunting states other than the one in which you live.

 

[jryoung]

BHA leadership is overtly hostile towards NR hunters. I would steer clear if you enjoy hunting states other than the one in which you live.

That's weird, was just in AZ with leadership and that wasn't discussed at all, but Utah was for sure. Nice attempt to continue this argument in every thread though.

 

[COEngineer]

BHA leadership is overtly hostile towards NR hunters. I would steer clear if you enjoy hunting states other than the one in which you live.

Can you provide any information to support this statement? I'm pretty involved as a volunteer and I can't recall BHA at the national level, and certainly not in CO, getting involved in R/NR issues. We work on access, habitat, and protecting our hunting heritage.

 

[Treeshark]

and certainly not in CO

I’m happy to hear that about Colorado (and apparently Arizona as well).

Montana and Wyoming have issues- many posts from board chairs from each state right here on Hunt Talk should give any sportsman cause for concern before joining.

 

[Matthew57]

I’m happy to hear that about Colorado (and apparently Arizona as well).

Montana and Wyoming have issues- many posts from board chairs from each state right here on Hunt Talk should give any sportsman cause for concern before joining.

Do you have any quotes or links to places I can read about that?

 

[jryoung]

Do you have any quotes or links to places I can read about that?

Weird that one is "happy to hear" 10% is okay in AZ but not MT or WY.

 

[Treeshark]

Weird that one is "happy to hear" 10% is okay in AZ but not MT or WY.

Good point. Screw you, Arizona BHA!

 

[Forkyfinder]

I’m happy to hear that about Colorado (and apparently Arizona as well).

Montana and Wyoming have issues- many posts from board chairs from each state right here on Hunt Talk should give any sportsman cause for concern before joining.

Thats laughable. Common man. Theres 20+ years of posts from @BuzzH

People have wrong takes sometimes.

 

[Hunting Wife]

BHA leadership is overtly hostile towards NR hunters. I would steer clear if you enjoy hunting states other than the one in which you live.

You could always start your own organization that holds 100% of your own viewpoints, since it is exceedingly unlikely that any organization in the planet is going to agree with your views on 100% of issues.

IMO, people use this talking point as a convenient excuse to sit on the sidelines and avoid taking a stand that holds their “team” accountable.