Rep. Jason Chaffetz announces he will not run for any office in 2018

Billinsd

WKR
Joined
Aug 25, 2015
Messages
2,464
This!!
The anti-public land supporters like to confuse "Government owned" with "public owned" to suck people in to their propoganda.
Nope. Federal versus State. Both are public. One is controlled by the state, the other the feds. If you like fed control and folks in the East Coast and California having a say in regulating public land in Utah that is liberal. If you think that Utah should run their lands themselves that is conservative. How about having the Feds run state Fish and Game agencies? Thats a bad idea, but it could help someone like me who is a non resident. I'm not in favor of something JUST because it benefits me. People only think of themselves totally and completely.
 

elkduds

WKR
Joined
Jun 22, 2016
Messages
956
Location
CO Springs
Sounds like it's just really one big issue that you guys have against Chaffetz and for that EVERYTHING else he does or says is terrible. Sounds like liberal logic? And the stance on the issue is very liberal. Big Federal Government control, versus local. I'd trust the state far more than the Feds, except in California. We get what we deserve here.

Sounds to me like public land owner/hunter logic, neither nor conservative. I'm on the list of voters for which this one issue overrules all others. Stealing federal lands has been Chaffetz's legislative emphasis for the last 5 years, @ least.
 

Billinsd

WKR
Joined
Aug 25, 2015
Messages
2,464
Sounds to me like public land owner/hunter logic, neither nor conservative. I'm on the list of voters for which this one issue overrules all others. Stealing federal lands has been Chaffetz's legislative emphasis for the last 5 years, @ least.
State control versus Federal is conservative by definition. Wanting to use public land for business and/or selling part or more is also conservative by definition. I don't want all or lots and lots of fed land sold off, especially places that people use alot. However, there is a lot of land sitting around that I think could be put to good use, like mining, and development and provide jobs and income.

It's not stealing fed land it's transfering it from Fed to State control. You can agree or disagree if that is a good thing or not. We elect our representatives to decide for us and you guys can dislike Chaffetz if you like. Just be honest, say you disagree with him on this big single issue. Don't smear him and/or make things up. I'm all in favor of making issues clear so people can decide for themselves. Chaffetz is very conservative, very pro business, pro state control of federal lands, and pro development and/or selling part or a lot of public lands. Those are the issues. You all don't want the fed lands touched and or transfered to state control period.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 1, 2013
Messages
2,638
No offense texas :). As many great outdoorsman there as anywhere else. You guys have the least public land. Term coined due to lack of public land in Texas. And the only would be public land was given to US at admittance to union. Why there's less than 1%. ..... I could be incorrect.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk

We don't have the least amount. There are 26 states with less public hunting land then Texas.

Texas was a Republic before it was a state.

I'm all for retention of public land.

Texas billionaires aren't crying over the lack of smart use of natural resources. Residents of Utah might be since that's an awful lot of job creation that's being held up by greenies at the federal level.

Bears ear was already largely NF now it's forever protected from responsible subsurface exploration via Utah residents...,


Two sides to every coin, it's unfortunate that sensible and Federal control isnt always one in the same. It's also unfortunate that retention and state control aren't always one in the same either.
 
Last edited:

realunlucky

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jan 20, 2013
Messages
12,629
Location
Eastern Utah
State control versus Federal is conservative by definition. Wanting to use public land for business and/or selling part or more is also conservative by definition. I don't want all or lots and lots of fed land sold off, especially places that people use alot. However, there is a lot of land sitting around that I think could be put to good use, like mining, and development and provide jobs and income.
You trust the system way to much. The problem is there will be no turning back. Once your beloved elected officials fill thier personal pockets and sell the best tracts of public owned land maybe or maybe not there will be scraps left for state management. Also this land currently owned by all Americans​ how is it even an option to move all decision making to 2% of the people?

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
 

pwsINC

WKR
Joined
Jul 22, 2015
Messages
354
We don't have the least amount. There are 26 states with less public hunting land then Texas.

Texas was a Republic before it was a state.

I'm all for retention of public land.

Texas billionaires aren't crying over the lack of smart use of natural resources. Residents of Utah might be since that's an awful lot of job creation that's being held up by greenies at the federal level.

Bears ear was already largely NF now it's forever protected from responsible subsurface exploration via Utah residents...,


Two sides to every coin, it's unfortunate that sensible and Federal control isnt always one in the same. It's also unfortunate that retention and state control aren't always one in the same either.
I think I was largely referring to land by percentage.... it is 5th lowest... I grew up in one of the state's with less land. And definitely appreciate the state's with a high percentage public land.


I think a lot goes back to Ted Cruz (who was my pick by the way) but a lot goes back to when he stated that Texas 1 percent was 1 percent to high.

It could have cause me to have flawed opinion.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk
 

Billinsd

WKR
Joined
Aug 25, 2015
Messages
2,464
You trust the system way to much. The problem is there will be no turning back. Once your beloved elected officials fill thier personal pockets and sell the best tracts of public owned land maybe or maybe not there will be scraps left for state management. Also this land currently owned by all Americans​ how is it even an option to move all decision making to 2% of the people? I trust conservative politicians far more than anyone else. I'm also very, very pro development.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
No, I'm extremely Libertarian on most issues. I don't like or trust any government. I dislike, distrust the Feds the most, second is state, third is county. There might not be any turning back, absolutely!!! Right again about possible corruption. Right again about control being given to local folks. I'm all about that. I don't like that states charge exorbitant fees to non residents, but the animals are there's, its their right, even though I hate how it effects me. If Chaffetz and other Conservatives get their way it could effect my hunting dramatically. However, I usually trust conservatives and strive to do what is right. Less government, less reglutions more local control please.
 

realunlucky

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jan 20, 2013
Messages
12,629
Location
Eastern Utah
I really have no room to bitch as he is my representative and I've voted for him. I trust the checks and balances of the federal system more than the corrupt Utah state legislators. Joe average in Utah is slowly learning the down sides of PLT can very quickly change traditional recreation across the state. Public lands transfer has quickly moved into my top 3 voting issues and I'm using my wallet to support lobby groups to make sure it's a voice heard loud and clear.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
 

541hunter

WKR
Joined
Jul 20, 2016
Messages
434
Sounds like it's just really one big issue that you guys have against Chaffetz and for that EVERYTHING else he does or says is terrible. Sounds like liberal logic? And the stance on the issue is very liberal. Big Federal Government control, versus local. I'd trust the state far more than the Feds, except in California. We get what we deserve here.

I guess you would have to know how other states manage. I know first hand in Oregon that my state is incapable of managing the land. The key example is the Elliot state forest that is for sale. The Elliot has some of the best timber production ground in the state and could have been easily managed to meet all regulations and still turn a profit for schools. Then state was unable to do that. And now by constitutional law it has to be sold.

Also please take a look into the history of public lands. You will find public land itself comes from conservative ideals.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Joined
Jul 30, 2013
Messages
3,431
Location
Humboldt county
State control versus Federal is conservative by definition. Wanting to use public land for business and/or selling part or more is also conservative by definition. I don't want all or lots and lots of fed land sold off, especially places that people use alot. However, there is a lot of land sitting around that I think could be put to good use, like mining, and development and provide jobs and income.

It's not stealing fed land it's transfering it from Fed to State control. You can agree or disagree if that is a good thing or not. We elect our representatives to decide for us and you guys can dislike Chaffetz if you like. Just be honest, say you disagree with him on this big single issue. Don't smear him and/or make things up. I'm all in favor of making issues clear so people can decide for themselves. Chaffetz is very conservative, very pro business, pro state control of federal lands, and pro development and/or selling part or a lot of public lands. Those are the issues. You all don't want the fed lands touched and or transfered to state control period.

Utah has already disposed of over 50% of their state land given to them at adoption.

You call it transfer, I call it the eventual loss of that piece of public property. Utah's land board has to make a profit due to state law. That means if they cannot manage them for profit(which they can't) they will dispose of them to even the budget out. Several states have something similar to this, that's why it's a when not if question.

I don't like Chaffetz for the simple fact that every opportunity he has had to take a shot at federal lands he has done. I don't see anyone smearing him or making anything up in this thread either. His list of sponsored and proposed bills reads like a how to guide for land grabbing.

I don't like Chaffetz because he took an Instagram photo in camo with a puppy and portrayed that he is a friend of the sportsmen, he's not, he never has been, and he never will be.

It's not about me, it's about my children, it's about their children, and so on. They deserve to see wild places, they deserve to have a place to go and spend time in the wilderness, just like I do.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

1signguy

WKR
Joined
Oct 6, 2016
Messages
342
Location
Prescott, AZ
Utah has an enormous amount of natural resources- that should be and could be far better regulated to the betterment of its citizens at the state level.

The federal government is a machine who's only interest is sustaining and growing itself. Don't think for one minute the federal government won't change on a dime to serve its own self interest. Your land is far safer in the hands of the men and women who live there and know you!
 

Billinsd

WKR
Joined
Aug 25, 2015
Messages
2,464
I guess you would have to know how other states manage. I know first hand in Oregon that my state is incapable of managing the land. The key example is the Elliot state forest that is for sale. The Elliot has some of the best timber production ground in the state and could have been easily managed to meet all regulations and still turn a profit for schools. Then state was unable to do that. And now by constitutional law it has to be sold.

Also please take a look into the history of public lands. You will find public land itself comes from conservative ideals.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Thanks Good to know!!! Excellent points!!
 

Billinsd

WKR
Joined
Aug 25, 2015
Messages
2,464
Utah has already disposed of over 50% of their state land given to them at adoption.

You call it transfer, I call it the eventual loss of that piece of public property. Utah's land board has to make a profit due to state law. That means if they cannot manage them for profit(which they can't) they will dispose of them to even the budget out. Several states have something similar to this, that's why it's a when not if question.

I don't like Chaffetz for the simple fact that every opportunity he has had to take a shot at federal lands he has done. I don't see anyone smearing him or making anything up in this thread either. His list of sponsored and proposed bills reads like a how to guide for land grabbing.

I don't like Chaffetz because he took an Instagram photo in camo with a puppy and portrayed that he is a friend of the sportsmen, he's not, he never has been, and he never will be.

It's not about me, it's about my children, it's about their children, and so on. They deserve to see wild places, they deserve to have a place to go and spend time in the wilderness, just like I do.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Thanks, I see. That's awful and really shameful!! I'm really, really predudiced against the Feds, that's where I'm coming from. Right we should all have wild places. This is a real hard issue for me!!
 

Billinsd

WKR
Joined
Aug 25, 2015
Messages
2,464
Utah has an enormous amount of natural resources- that should be and could be far better regulated to the betterment of its citizens at the state level.

The federal government is a machine who's only interest is sustaining and growing itself. Don't think for one minute the federal government won't change on a dime to serve its own self interest. Your land is far safer in the hands of the men and women who live there and know you!
You sound like me. I agree with that in principle. However, others are giving examples that seem to show, at least in Utah that fed land is not safer in local hands. I'm extremely torn on this.
 

JWP58

WKR
Joined
Nov 21, 2013
Messages
2,090
Location
Boulder, CO
Thanks, I see. That's awful and really shameful!! I'm really, really predudiced against the Feds, that's where I'm coming from. Right we should all have wild places. This is a real hard issue for me!!

You're also really, really uninformed.
 

Halleywood

Lil-Rokslider
Joined
Dec 26, 2012
Messages
257
Location
North Dakota
Billinsd and 1signguy,
I highly recommend you go to youtube and watch Randy Newberg's video's on public land transfer/sale. Giving millions of acres of Federal public land to the states would be disastrous for the outdoor lifestyle. I'm talking hunting, biking, camping, hiking, etc. In some states, state land is not considered public land. History shows in a ton of states that they will sell lands to cover current budget shortfalls. Once it's gone it's gone. When you give land to a state, it goes from being owned by all of us, to owned by the citizen's of that state only. That's not something I'm comfortable with. The states don't have good track records of keeping public land public. Randy Newberg said something that really stuck with me. He basically said just because you are a conservative or liberal (doesn't matter which), you don't have to support 100% of their position on issues. I consider myself a conservative but I cannot support the official position that Republicans take on federal public lands.
 

tttoadman

WKR
Joined
Oct 3, 2013
Messages
1,735
Location
OR Hunter back in Oregon
I guess you would have to know how other states manage. I know first hand in Oregon that my state is incapable of managing the land. The key example is the Elliot state forest that is for sale. The Elliot has some of the best timber production ground in the state and could have been easily managed to meet all regulations and still turn a profit for schools. Then state was unable to do that. And now by constitutional law it has to be sold.

Also please take a look into the history of public lands. You will find public land itself comes from conservative ideals.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I saw where Gov Brown stopped the sale and is putting a plan in place to guarantee 20M feet of harvest per year and keep it all public. I think there are people who are seeing the sell off light at the end of the tunnel instead of just the short term benefits.
 

MIKEYB

WKR
Joined
Aug 29, 2012
Messages
312
Nope. Federal versus State. Both are public. One is controlled by the state, the other the feds. If you like fed control and folks in the East Coast and California having a say in regulating public land in Utah that is liberal. If you think that Utah should run their lands themselves that is conservative. How about having the Feds run state Fish and Game agencies? Thats a bad idea, but it could help someone like me who is a non resident. I'm not in favor of something JUST because it benefits me. People only think of themselves totally and completely.

Both Are public? Not in New mexico, according to State Land office.. . . .

STATE TRUST LANDS ARE OFTEN MISUNDERSTOOD IN TERMS OF BOTH THEIR CHARACTER AND THEIR MANAGEMENT. THEY ARE NOT PUBLIC LANDS, BUT ARE INSTEAD THE SUBJECT OF A PUBLIC TRUST CREATED TO SUPPORT THE EDUCATION OF NEW MEXICO'S CHILDREN.

New Mexico State Land Office

Held in public trust for profit to benefit education(which is HORRIBLE in new mexico). G&F leases the right to hunt on these lands every year.

So essentially A big hunting lease. . . .I wonder how much the lease would be if the state held all lands.

Now, I guess one could argue that The state control would be different from the Trust land but I don't trust politicians enough (State or Fed) to get that right with the traditions of multi use and conservation at heart.

not sure how your state views "state land"
 

541hunter

WKR
Joined
Jul 20, 2016
Messages
434
I saw where Gov Brown stopped the sale and is putting a plan in place to guarantee 20M feet of harvest per year and keep it all public. I think there are people who are seeing the sell off light at the end of the tunnel instead of just the short term benefits.

She has not stopped anything. She is trying. The board has already voted to sell it and unless they change that l, it goes ahead.

The promise of 20mmbf per year will never happen. They have tried to harvesting timber before in the Elliot and every time it gets tied up in litigation by environmentalists and is dropped. In essence the environmentalists are largely responsible for why it is being sold. They sue to stop any harvesting, which prevents revenue from being produced, which then gives the forest a negative balance sheet and boom the forest is for sale. The land board was only following the state constitution when it put the Elliot for sale.

What needs to happens is a revision to the equal opportunity to just act to prevent these environmental litigation groups from using it as a business model. I firmly believe most our local fed and state land managers want to do what's right, but they can not, due to their hands always be tied up by litigation.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:

Billinsd

WKR
Joined
Aug 25, 2015
Messages
2,464
You're also really, really uninformed.
I'm really, really STUBORN. I'm a little uninformed!!! I don't know what side to believe. The Conservatives say it is not that bad. I can't ever remember disagreeing or getting burned by conservatives. I'm sure it has probably happened, I just can remember.
 
Last edited:
Top