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

[Billinsd]

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.

That is an EXCELLENT explanation!!! There are a couple/few issues that I am moderate/liberal on. I just really don't like/trust the feds AT ALL. So, it is a HUGE leap for me on this. I'm conservative and often disagree with republicans. I really almost never disagree with conservatives, not because I want to because we all pretty much think a like. I also do not believe is supporting something JUST because it benefits me. It's a very complex issue to me and I am being pulled in both directions by my gut. I do not believe in giving all or most Fed land, however, I would be fine with some, I'd actually like that. On the other hand I would hate to see states sell fed land for silly things. California would certainly do that!!

 

[Billinsd]

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

Maybe you could help me out. I can't find that anywhere. If you are talking about Theodore Roosevelt, he was very liberal, progressive, and big government at the time. He was a conservationist, not conservative on anything I can think of, though.

 

[Billinsd]

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.

I have NEVER, EVER agreed with moonbeam on anything, anything that I can remember. Moonbeam does not want to sell the lands off to pay for his supertrain to nowhere or other silly projects. California is rich and can still pay a lot more taxes, before everyone that has a job leaves.

 

[Billinsd]

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"

In California it is pretty bad in general. New Mexico is one of or the most corrupt Western State I can think of when it comes to their fish and game department.

 

[airlocksniffer]

Conservation/conserve/conservative

One of these things is not like the other.

 

[1signguy]

I have NEVER, EVER agreed with moonbeam on anything, anything that I can remember. Moonbeam does not want to sell the lands off to pay for his supertrain to nowhere or other silly projects. California is rich and can still pay a lot more taxes, before everyone that has a job leaves.

CA has unfunded liabilities it can never hope to cover. Prop 13 is on its way out!

 

[1signguy]

My position on Utah is that it should see some public land put to better use. If that can be done while it is in federal hands great! If it needs to go to the state and or private than so be it. There is a ton of poverty in the state- especially in the more rural areas. If a portion of the land can be put to use and create jobs- I am 100% in support of that. The danger is in finding that balance...

Again- As a hunter I share the concerns of others regarding keeping public land open and available to camping, hunting, mountain biking etc. However, my interest in the land from a recreation standpoint should be balanced with the needs and interest of others who may need a better job. Real hard for me to enjoy hunting when I get to hotel room after a week in the bush that was just cleaned by a 70 year old lady.

Balance- anyone who says they are 100% against getting some of that land into hands that can create jobs is just as wrong as the person who would develop it all.

 

[tipsntails7]

My position on Utah is that it should see some public land put to better use. If that can be done while it is in federal hands great! If it needs to go to the state and or private than so be it. There is a ton of poverty in the state- especially in the more rural areas. If a portion of the land can be put to use and create jobs- I am 100% in support of that. The danger is in finding that balance...

Again- As a hunter I share the concerns of others regarding keeping public land open and available to camping, hunting, mountain biking etc. However, my interest in the land from a recreation standpoint should be balanced with the needs and interest of others who may need a better job. Real hard for me to enjoy hunting when I get to hotel room after a week in the bush that was just cleaned by a 70 year old lady.

Balance- anyone who says they are 100% against getting some of that land into hands that can create jobs is just as wrong as the person who would develop it all.

That sounds all well and good, but look at states that already have little to no public land (state or federal), there is still poor people. Giving special interests cheap land is not going to cure poverty in Utah.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[1signguy]

There is nothing wrong with special interest groups. The NRA, the hunting lobby... are all special interest groups... In a country of 350 million it's how we get our voices heard.

You are right that opening some of the public land is not going to end poverty in Utah- Of course not. But the economic development will help some in need and create a stronger tax base which benefits the whole state.

As a hunter I am more than willing to sacrifice a little in an effort to help those less fortunate.

I applaud your efforts to keep lands open to hunting. I just think your message needs to incorporate the needs and wants of others.

And Yes- some people will get rich(er). But then who ever gets a job from a poor person?

Great we can have these discussions in America!

 

[Jason Snyder]

Who cares whether a conservative voter believes in public lands? Or a liberal voter? I don't give a rip what any party affiliation tells me is good or bad. I believe in the legacy of public lands and wang to see my kids and grandkids enjoy them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[tipsntails7]

There is nothing wrong with special interest groups. The NRA, the hunting lobby... are all special interest groups... In a country of 350 million it's how we get our voices heard.

You are right that opening some of the public land is not going to end poverty in Utah- Of course not. But the economic development will help some in need and create a stronger tax base which benefits the whole state.

As a hunter I am more than willing to sacrifice a little in an effort to help those less fortunate.

I applaud your efforts to keep lands open to hunting. I just think your message needs to incorporate the needs and wants of others.

And Yes- some people will get rich(er). But then who ever gets a job from a poor person?

Great we can have these discussions in America!

SFW, who basically raped Utah wildlife is a special interest group. Gas, oil and mineral miners that buy up massive swaths of land or lease land then close it to public access are special interests, ranchers who graze cattle for pennies on the dollar on public land could be considered special interest.

Why should I give up something to people who will never see the value of open spaces?

Why should my children not have the pleasure of using public lands so people who don't value wilderness areas can use them for other causes.

Why should I be ok with allowing even more habitat destruction and encroachment on wildlife that I pay to help manage?

Why should I support the transfer of public land to an entity that once that land ceases to be profitable, it's sold to the highest bidder?

The state of Utah set aside I believe 10+ million in tax payer dollars to be used for the sole purpose of suing the federal government for all the land that lies within the boundaries of Utah. Do you think that's the best thing to do with that money?

 

[Billinsd]

That is an EXCELLENT explanation!!! There are a couple/few issues that I am moderate/liberal on. I just really don't like/trust the feds AT ALL. So, it is a HUGE leap for me on this. I'm conservative and often disagree with republicans. I really almost never disagree with conservatives, not because I want to because we all pretty much think a like. I also do not believe is supporting something JUST because it benefits me. It's a very complex issue to me and I am being pulled in both directions by my gut. I do not believe in giving all or most Fed land, however, I would be fine with some, I'd actually like that. On the other hand I would hate to see states sell fed land for silly things. California would certainly do that!!

Thanks I watched some of Randy Newberg's video. He seems like a nice guy and REAL slick. Tough to watch, though. Lots of strawmen arguments and red hearings. Tough choice, but I'm with all the other Republicans, except for the one that's with the Democrats. If this is a single issue, you really should vote Democrat.

 

[realunlucky]

It's ok Bill some people just don't get it but the tide is turning and when it does the Republicans will run and hide from it like all politicians do with tough issues.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

[1signguy]

Yes- that is money well spent. The land belongs to everyone in the state and the state can best incorporate different views about how that land should be used.

 

[tipsntails7]

Yes- that is money well spent. The land belongs to everyone in the state and the state can best incorporate different views about how that land should be used.

The land actually belongs to everyone in the country...
I don't think you understand the ramifications of ridding States much less Utah of federal land.

Your tourism, which is one of the biggest drivers in your state, gone.

Your wildlife management, which is buoyed by non resident hunters dollars, gone.

Your, Businesses that thrive because of people that utilize their products on public lands, gone.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[dotman]

The land actually belongs to everyone in the country...
I don't think you understand the ramifications of ridding Utah of federal land.

Your tourism, which is one of the biggest drivers in your state, gone.

Your wildlife management, which is buoyed by non resident hunters dollars, gone.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Unless he has millions to spend he may not fully understand until he has no lands to hunt on.

 

[tipsntails7]

Unless he has millions to spend he may not fully understand until he has no lands to hunt on.

I should have added that one as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Takem]

The job creation argument has always interested me. I'm sure in some instances their may be some jobs created in oil and gas but what about all of he jobs that would be lost if hunting, fishing, hiking etc. activity is decreased? The state trust lands I've hunted around in Colorado didn't look like they we're putting a lot of people to work. It just looked like a big rancher being able to keep more land locked up because he had a lease from the state trust.

I consider myself to be very much in the middle when it comes to politics but this issue will keep me on the left until republicans let up.

 

[1signguy]

I do understand exactly what is at stake. But I think an all or nothing approach on either side is obtuse thinking.

And if I had a bunch of money how would that change the argument?

All I have said is that there should be a balanced approach to land use. If hunters and outdoor enthusiast take an all or nothing approach my fear is that we will wind up with nothing.

You can't put the self interest of a small minority group ahead of the economic interest of a state and or country. So, rather than stepping in front of a train with a crossing guard stop sign I say we help layout the tracks.

No one can possibly think that development will be stopped or is not coming. That's fantasy land... It is going to happen. So put control of it in the hands of people who live, eat and drink the water.

Real hard to steer from the very back- and the bus has already left the station.

 

[pwsINC]

See but that's where the very basis of misunderstanding of public lands comes in.

State's are incorporated entities. The Public is us the citizens.

The concept of public ownership largely grew with George Bird Grinnel encouraging people to realize Yellowstone was "their land". At the time an organization call the Yellowstone improvement company to help drive tourism was going to build hotels.... they were timbering and kill elk and bison to feed to staff etc.... politicians wouldn't shut them but our boone Crockett hunting forefathers put a lot into making sure general public..... individuals very very far from Yellowstone realized it was THEIR land.... This was the heart of the land preservation argument and always has been. And sometimes progress does get stopped.


Like at big cypress national preserve..... approx 600,000 acres, mostly private in the 60s president nixon wanted it turned in a mega airport.... would of the been the world's largest with 24 hour rail systems.... no politician would Challenge the president... there was and still remains a proof of concept trial jetway. Through a number of land advocacy campaigns of non-profits and a big part by the Smithsonian...and alligator poaches(in that moment interests alligned) this land was bought back and turned in national preserve. What they didn't understand at the time is draining and developing this place would have been an ecological disaster. This happened recently in the 1970s.

We are somewhat to conditioned to accept "progress" but we as a supremely designed species do need decide that there are some places the footprint of civilizations will just not be allowed to go, in the same way we looking at thievery and violence with universal disapproval.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk