grizzly_
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2013
- Messages
- 1,242
I just found out that Cache County, Utah (where I live) gave $10,000 to American Lands Council, the group working to take over public land.
The following Utah counties also gave to ALC... Beaver, Box Elder, Dagget, Duchesne, Garfield, Iron, Juab, Kane, Millard, Morgan, Piute, Rich, San Juan, Sanpete, Sevier, Tooele, Uintah, Utah, Washington, and Weber.
(Not in Utah? See if your county gave money to ALC at: http://www.hcn.org/articles/the-taxpayer-money-behind-local-control-demands)
I will let you know if I get a response, but I urge everybody to write their county councils and let them know you are a hunter and you want public land to remain public. The way to beat this may be at the local level.
------------------
Here is the letter I wrote to my County Executive...
Mr. Buttars, I wanted to quickly let you know how adamantly I oppose your donation of my tax dollars to fund this crusade. According to 2013 taxes, American Lands Council paid 50% of its income to Mr. Ivory and his wife, and after expenses about 10% was actually spent on lobbying. Thankfully they appear to be very poorly run and inefficient because the pursuit of this land grab, which was precarious even with a projected crude oil price of $120/bbl, is an idea that should be wholly rejected by any fair-minded individual (and has been rejected by just about every Western state, except Utah).
Conservation groups that have already come out against the land grab include Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Backcountry Hunters & Anglers, and Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership (I can provide you with the press releases if you would like). I doubt the Cache County Council wants to stand behind this land-grab position once the average local sportsman finds out the hunting groups they support are working against it.
Sportsmen's groups have done the math and figured out that this land grab cannot leave public land as-is. In the most basic sense... public land remaining status-quo must leave public revenue status-quo, which defeats the land-grabs stated purpose. Unless you are prepared to either sell or develop the land through mining, logging, grazing, drilling, etc., you are seeking nothing but a liability for the people you are supposed to represent... it would be impossible to increase revenue any other way. Hunting groups have one concern, wild places. A vote for the land-grab, is a vote against wild places.
One final thought, the idea of proposing your current tax increase, erstwhile giving tax dollars to groups seeking to close the public land of the people who paid those very taxes in the first place, seems a very dubious position to be in.
I think Theodore Roosevelt said it best, "Defenders of the short-sighted men who in their greed and selfishness will, if permitted, rob our country of half its charm by their reckless extermination of all useful and beautiful wild things sometimes seek to champion them by saying the 'the game belongs to the people'. So it does; and not merely to the people now alive, but to the unborn people. Our duty to the whole, including the unborn generations, bids us restrain an unprincipled present-day minority from wasting the heritage of these unborn generations."
The following Utah counties also gave to ALC... Beaver, Box Elder, Dagget, Duchesne, Garfield, Iron, Juab, Kane, Millard, Morgan, Piute, Rich, San Juan, Sanpete, Sevier, Tooele, Uintah, Utah, Washington, and Weber.
(Not in Utah? See if your county gave money to ALC at: http://www.hcn.org/articles/the-taxpayer-money-behind-local-control-demands)
I will let you know if I get a response, but I urge everybody to write their county councils and let them know you are a hunter and you want public land to remain public. The way to beat this may be at the local level.
------------------
Here is the letter I wrote to my County Executive...
Mr. Buttars, I wanted to quickly let you know how adamantly I oppose your donation of my tax dollars to fund this crusade. According to 2013 taxes, American Lands Council paid 50% of its income to Mr. Ivory and his wife, and after expenses about 10% was actually spent on lobbying. Thankfully they appear to be very poorly run and inefficient because the pursuit of this land grab, which was precarious even with a projected crude oil price of $120/bbl, is an idea that should be wholly rejected by any fair-minded individual (and has been rejected by just about every Western state, except Utah).
Conservation groups that have already come out against the land grab include Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Backcountry Hunters & Anglers, and Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership (I can provide you with the press releases if you would like). I doubt the Cache County Council wants to stand behind this land-grab position once the average local sportsman finds out the hunting groups they support are working against it.
Sportsmen's groups have done the math and figured out that this land grab cannot leave public land as-is. In the most basic sense... public land remaining status-quo must leave public revenue status-quo, which defeats the land-grabs stated purpose. Unless you are prepared to either sell or develop the land through mining, logging, grazing, drilling, etc., you are seeking nothing but a liability for the people you are supposed to represent... it would be impossible to increase revenue any other way. Hunting groups have one concern, wild places. A vote for the land-grab, is a vote against wild places.
One final thought, the idea of proposing your current tax increase, erstwhile giving tax dollars to groups seeking to close the public land of the people who paid those very taxes in the first place, seems a very dubious position to be in.
I think Theodore Roosevelt said it best, "Defenders of the short-sighted men who in their greed and selfishness will, if permitted, rob our country of half its charm by their reckless extermination of all useful and beautiful wild things sometimes seek to champion them by saying the 'the game belongs to the people'. So it does; and not merely to the people now alive, but to the unborn people. Our duty to the whole, including the unborn generations, bids us restrain an unprincipled present-day minority from wasting the heritage of these unborn generations."
