406LIFE
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2016
- Messages
- 3,130
Thanks for pointing this out BF. Always hate to hear this stuff.
UT State Trust Lands selling 28,000 acres of prime hunting land
- Thread starter Big Fin
- Start date
elkduds
Well-known member
If Utahns won't advocate for their public lands @ the polls, all the rest of us can do is learn from their sellout example. And boycott everything UT.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
Such as ???.
elkduds
Well-known member
I boycott these:
Everything manufactured or shipped from UT. All hunting and fishing licenses, outfitters, guides, internet forums, lodging, conferences/conventions, raffles, fundraising efforts, skiing, dining, travel to and in UT. Union Pacific railroad. Every corporation owned by LDS, worldwide.https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-07-18/how-the-mormons-make-money
https://outdoorindustry.org/state/utah/
http://www.utahbusinesshub.com/
Any business that has a UT address or location.
That has to be pretty tedious and exhausting boycotting any business that has a location in Utah.
buckhunterhart
Member
I hate to see Utah lose any public land, but isn't the point of selling State Trust Lands to benefit schools? I have always heard them referred to as School Trust Lands. I may be wrong, but our schools need to be funded.
On another note, if The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints wants to buy the land, I can assure you from first hand experience that they are GREAT stewards of land in this state, at least from what I have personally seen on DLL.
There are definitely worse entities that could acquire these lands. That said, I still hope that SFW steps up and somehow keeps it public.
On another note, if The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints wants to buy the land, I can assure you from first hand experience that they are GREAT stewards of land in this state, at least from what I have personally seen on DLL.
There are definitely worse entities that could acquire these lands. That said, I still hope that SFW steps up and somehow keeps it public.
elkduds
Well-known member
Quite the opposite. When I read forum comments about how "UT leads PLT efforts, but what can one public land owner do about it," I know what I have done and will do about it. I take action by supporting the good guys, or @ least by not supporting the bad ones. The more outdoorsmen and women who do that, the louder the message gets to PLT honchos in UT. They noticed when they lost their big Expo over PLT.
Cordially invite anyone to join in voting against UT PLT w your $ choices.
shoots-straight
Well-known member
SFW should really step up to the plate on this one. With what they are making off of the hunt expo they should be able to foot the bill.
I think they'd rather the lands be in private hands. I know you're being facetious but people are gullible.
Last edited:
grizzly_
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2013
- Messages
- 1,246
I'm not so sure. They could've stopped OR from leaving and chose not to. If anything I think they'd rather have the land grab opponents out of the state than in it to silence their voices to the voters. OR gave them the bully pulpit by leaving to Colorado.
As for the businesses, the far majority of outdoor companies in Utah support public land, I only know of one major company that supports the land grab and they're a surplus retailer on I-15 north of SLC and more of a farm supply store than outdoor related.
Utah-based companies such as Camp Chef are big donors to BHA and shouldn't be harmed for something out of their control, especially when they're using their money for good.
buckhunterhart
Member
Most people I rub shoulders with in Utah where happy to see the OR show leave.
The Obama overreach of designating national monuments was appeasing the non-hunting end of the outdoor consumers. The hikers, bikers, and rock climbers would have had their way while those of us who enjoy ATV's, motorcycles, and UTV would be segregated. This was also limiting hunting opportunities on these lands based on the new designations.
It has turned into an us vs them approach of policy making, with nobody willing to seek a middle ground. I find it honorable that Trump only reduced the size of Bears Ears to the areas that actually contained artifacts, and did not blindly close the entire thing without seeing it. They had Zinke on a horse visiting the artifact rich areas, and viewing the vastness of the land via helicopter. I believe one swipe of Obamas signature, site unseen, as a lame duck president, was a slap in the face of the conservative basis that makes up Utah.
By all means though, boycott license sales, I am sure a lot of people will be very happy when their draw odds improve.
The Obama overreach of designating national monuments was appeasing the non-hunting end of the outdoor consumers. The hikers, bikers, and rock climbers would have had their way while those of us who enjoy ATV's, motorcycles, and UTV would be segregated. This was also limiting hunting opportunities on these lands based on the new designations.
It has turned into an us vs them approach of policy making, with nobody willing to seek a middle ground. I find it honorable that Trump only reduced the size of Bears Ears to the areas that actually contained artifacts, and did not blindly close the entire thing without seeing it. They had Zinke on a horse visiting the artifact rich areas, and viewing the vastness of the land via helicopter. I believe one swipe of Obamas signature, site unseen, as a lame duck president, was a slap in the face of the conservative basis that makes up Utah.
By all means though, boycott license sales, I am sure a lot of people will be very happy when their draw odds improve.
Not all church owned lands are managed like DLL... Different business models depending on the objectives. The "welfare" farms/ranches are tasked with a higher level of commodity production than DLL, which could produce a lot more than it does. I do agree, that the church is a pretty good steward of the properties that I've experience with.
I'd like to know whom that individual might be. Biggest landowner I knew outside of the LDS church wasn't even close to the acreage owned by the church. That said, my experience was north of I-70.
Mallardsx2
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2015
- Messages
- 2,772
Questioin slightly off topic but I am wondering in this case if this land currently huntable/accessible or is it like the school trust lands in Nebraska that you cannot hunt without permission from the rancher who leases it?
If UT funds schools anything like ID they have plenty of money to do so, they just choose to spend it on other junk and force paying for schools on local levees. Heck we just gave our new millionaire governor an increased housing stipend, I'm sure schools could benefit from that money.
I bet I could by some great land to if I had tons of people giving me 10% and I didn't pay much in taxes and be a great land steward.
If SFW acquires it I'm sure it has a better chance of being a rich man's pay to play CMWU than it does public. As you referenced DLL, a guided elk hunt there is listed at $19,000 certainly not a great model for the average guy.
My point in making this post was to show a large example of the end goal of those promoting "State Transfer" as a model for better land management. This disposal is the goal that theses anti-public landers have and they are heavily supported by those who hope to someday acquire those lands. They have no interest in proper land management.
These anti-public lands want to use the State Land Boards as their agents to accomplish the goal of disposing of public lands. Anyone doubting that should read speeches, sponsored legislation, and private presentations of Utah Senator Mike Lee, the guy who has gladly climbed in the driver's seat of the anti-public land bus.
Add to that, the Utah legislature being an agent for funding the promoters of these schemes, via their support of the American Land Council (ALC) and funding most any hair-brained idea ALC puts in front of them. The fringe in Montana is very excited to be a part of the program, as evidenced by the fact that the Montana Republican Party put the CEO of ALC, Senator Jennifer Fielder, as Chair of the Senate Fish & Game Committee in the upcoming legislative session.
These anti-public lands want to use the State Land Boards as their agents to accomplish the goal of disposing of public lands. Anyone doubting that should read speeches, sponsored legislation, and private presentations of Utah Senator Mike Lee, the guy who has gladly climbed in the driver's seat of the anti-public land bus.
Add to that, the Utah legislature being an agent for funding the promoters of these schemes, via their support of the American Land Council (ALC) and funding most any hair-brained idea ALC puts in front of them. The fringe in Montana is very excited to be a part of the program, as evidenced by the fact that the Montana Republican Party put the CEO of ALC, Senator Jennifer Fielder, as Chair of the Senate Fish & Game Committee in the upcoming legislative session.
Maybe there are some new folks on here since Randy produced a great PLT series by state.
I enjoyed watching the Utah one again.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7toJnLTCO8
I enjoyed watching the Utah one again.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7toJnLTCO8
High Desert
Member
From reading the State Institutional and Trust Lands website, it sounds like this sale resulted from a request by the state Department of Natural Resources to purchase the land in order to maintain its availability to the public. Am I mistaken in this? The SITLA procedures require that in such circumstances they put the land up for competing bids. One thing to keep in mind is that SITLA views itself as having a legal (and inflexible) mandate to extract the most money it can from school trust land either through sale or leasing. To date, no one has successfully convinced them otherwise. In the past, this has created tension between SITLA and DNR as the latter wants to maintain access for hunters while SITLA has proposed leasing its land to outfitters or charging the state a significantly higher use fee than it already pays. I hope this sale is an attempt by DNR to avoid a bad outcome resulting from SITLA policy but I don't know the backstory and it sounds like most or all who have commented don't know the backstory either. Long story longer: This situation differs from the usual PLT debate though if public access is lost the lousy outcome will be the same. If access is preserved, then DNR should get some credit.
Browning, Black Ovis, Camo fire, Kings Camo, Christensen Arms, Barnes, Hoyt, Easton. Those are some of those Utah companies your proposing to punish?
I have no problem with boycotting the $fw expo, they are supporters of the powers in Utah gov pushing transfer.
U have to understand their is a deep cultural mistrust of the fed gov that runs through Mormon history. The US gov sent the army against Mormon Utah. The evil genius is that the grabbers used anti fed propaganda from the start, which is a natural fit. Combine that with the obidient culture that doesn't question authority and you have a winner. But there are a ton of us who are fighting it here. So boycotting would accomplish zero. Utah is the result of one party rule, that party makes hay by being the "conservative" party in a conservative state. However, for all the yapping, all the finger pointing, Rob Bishop was up for election this year. BHA(of which I'm a member) hid up in Boise, a Rendevous in Bishops district would have sent a message and helped a challenger. RMEF(also a member) stayed away. Patagonia ran away. Black Diamond ran. My bet, Chaffetz is running for gov. If I'm right, you make a point by defeating him. You ain't doing that hiding in Montana, or running to Colorado. Unfortunately my state is the battleground, if your not ENGAGING here, your just noise.
I can't see not patronizing some great outdoor companies from Utah. No sense cutting off your nose to spite your face. However I can see pursuing any push back we can against the Utah delegation and SFW, both which poison the well every chance they get.
Last edited:
Irrelevant
Well-known member
As Mr Bishop was kind enough to point out when I spoke to his regarding the LWCF, I'm not one of his constituents, so he really didn't care what I thought. And he's right, his job is to represent his constituents. So if I can't have any political sway in the matter then I'm left to try to impact the topic with my money.
Similar threads
- Locked
