Trump - shrinking bears ear and escalante

[Where's Bruce?]

Jason Chaffetz is to public lands what Elizabeth Warren is to 2nd amendment rights, so I hope anyone reading this thread takes that source's bias into account.

You must be a liberal. Jason is of the few conservatives who is constantly grinding on Republicans for their shortcomings and has been particularly vocal with the current administration. Show me any proof the creation of massive monuments has improved access. Any modern day example will do. Trump is right, there are crumbling roads and buildings throughout our nation that would be better served by resolving the debt crisis that has left our recreation area billions of dollars in the red. You don't add a wing to your home when the plumbing doesn't work...you use your budget to fix the stuff that needs fixing first. It's just common sense. The change is hardly a change given how recently Obama signed this deal anyway. No doubt there was some sweetheart deal in it for those filing suits but the media won't reveal those facts anytime soon...maybe Wikileaks will.

 

[bigeasygator]

"Arizona State Trust lands are not "public lands", as are Federal lands under the management of the U.S. Forest Service or the Bureau of Land Management. Federal "public lands" are managed for the benefit and use of the public, while State Trust lands are managed for the benefit of 13 Trust beneficiaries, which include the public schools and prisons. The Land Department's trust management responsibilities include requiring a permit or lease and charging a fee for use of Trust land. Exceptions to this requirement are licensed hunters and fishers, actively pursuing game or fish, in-season, and certain archaeological activities permitted by the Arizona State Museum."

Straight from the website of the Arizona State Land Department. Use of state lands requires permits and permissions and is not open access. The exception looks to be around hunting and fishing. NOTE: Edited to include the part related to hunting and fishing. Not sure if this means all State Trust land is open to hunting and fishing in AZ or just that a permit isn't required for those that are.

General FAQ | Arizona State Land Department

 

[HuntHarder]

This depends on the state, have you looked into Arizona state trust land? From what I know of AZ trust land its open to the public and the land manager using the land has very little say in the matter.

Yes and no, we have a bunch of State trust land that is open to hunting, but there is also state trust land that is not open to any kind of recreating.

 

[MontanaMarine]

"Arizona State Trust lands are not "public lands", as are Federal lands under the management of the U.S. Forest Service or the Bureau of Land Management. "

Straight from the website of the Arizona State Land Department. Use of state lands requires permits and permissions and is not open access. General FAQ | Arizona State Land Department

Same goes for MT state-owned lands.

 

[gelton]

I'm obviously not from Utah, but the "Special Federal Lands" in Alaska (The orange is federal........) are my least favorite places for recreation.
View attachment 62333

While unlikely in Utah, federally directed harassment of hunters with a helicopter is not remotely in the interest of sportsmen.
(A personal experience while hunting in the "orange parts...)

Another fun example: Feds defend aiming shotgun at elderly Alaskans on Yukon River - Anchorage Daily News

The attachment isnt linked right, but would love to see it, that is one hell of a story from the Anchorage News though...

 

[tkaldahl2000]

You must be a liberal. Jason is of the few conservatives who is constantly grinding on Republicans for their shortcomings and has been particularly vocal with the current administration. Show me any proof the creation of massive monuments has improved access. Any modern day example will do. Trump is right, there are crumbling roads and buildings throughout our nation that would be better served by resolving the debt crisis that has left our recreation area billions of dollars in the red. You don't add a wing to your home when the plumbing doesn't work...you use your budget to fix the stuff that needs fixing first. It's just common sense. The change is hardly a change given how recently Obama signed this deal anyway. No doubt there was some sweetheart deal in it for those filing suits but the media won't reveal those facts anytime soon...maybe Wikileaks will.

9th grade was a long time ago for me, but I'm pretty sure that one of the powers of the House is control over appropriations. Representative Chaffets has never, to my knowledge, proposed funding the back log of maintenance in the national forests. He has, however, proposed transferring them to the states and eliminating federal law enforcement on them.

We need to get back to the doctrine of the greatest good for greatest number of users, and remind ourselves that absolute preservation or complete extraction are contrary to the principles of conservation.

Not going to say anything more about the politics on this because both sides are wholly owned subsidiaries of the corporations that finance their campaigns.

 

[nexus]

Having been following this thread since its inception, I want to just take a moment to thank all of those members that have posted actual links and verifiable sources of information related to the subject matter. Whether you like to have an "R" or a "D" next to your voter registration (or an "I" for myself), I think it is important to do as much research as possible in order to develop an informed opinion.

Okay, that being said, if compensation was not provided to Utah for 109,000 acres of state school trust lands at Bears Ears in accordance with the earlier post; does this mean we the public may have actual lost access to this acreage?

 

[Where's Bruce?]

9th grade was a long time ago for me, but I'm pretty sure that one of the powers of the House is control over appropriations. Representative Chaffets has never, to my knowledge, proposed funding the back log of maintenance in the national forests. He has, however, proposed transferring them to the states and eliminating federal law enforcement on them.

We need to get back to the doctrine of the greatest good for greatest number of users, and remind ourselves that absolute preservation or complete extraction are contrary to the principles of conservation.

Not going to say anything more about the politics on this because both sides are wholly owned subsidiaries of the corporations that finance their campaigns.

His commitment to allowing access and seeking public approval regarding the establishment of monuments are well documented, he even drafted legislation in 2013 to ensure voters had the final say. His record is an open book. Jason Chaffetz's Voting Records on Issue: - The Voter's Self Defense System - Vote Smart

 

[mtwarden]

His commitment to sell said public lands is also well documented- he wouldn't last session in Montana, you can keep him.

 

[WV Mountaineer]

Remember that hunting laws, and wildlife management is still the responsibility of the state of Utah. From the FS Fact sheet I referenced earlier - "The monument does not change the State of Utah’s jurisdiction as it relates to fish and wildlife management."

This is only correct if hunting is permitted on the NM. Which some do and some do not allow. The problem exhibited is that the rules of any NM can change with the whim of Congress. Mandatory pubic input is no longer guaranteed under any NM because the laws defining a particular NM is statutory. They stand alone law wise and, the only way to legally change a NM law is through Congress.





The end of the world scenario you are painting is incorrect. As is your understanding of NM law. Before you ask, I got my info from Chief of the FS. Thomas Tidwell. So, I'm not winging it nor, am I guessing on one thing concerning NM's.



God Bless men

 

[vdeal]

This is only correct if hunting is permitted on the NM. Which some do and some do not allow. The problem exhibited is that the rules of any NM can change with the whim of Congress. Mandatory pubic input is no longer guaranteed under any NM because the laws defining a particular NM is statutory. They stand alone law wise and, the only way to legally change a NM law is through Congress.





The end of the world scenario you are painting is incorrect. As is your understanding of NM law. Before you ask, I got my info from Chief of the FS. Thomas Tidwell. So, I'm not winging it nor, am I guessing on one thing concerning NM's.



God Bless men

I don't believe I ever painted an end of the world scenario. Also, saying that you got your info from Tidwell is hearsay since there is no supporting documentation and even if he did say it that does not make it law.

 

[bigdesert10]

I guess where I'm at, currently, is that I trust the folks in my local field office a whole heck of a lot more than somebody in D.C. far removed from the area, and I feel like NM's and NP's are far more prone to the whims of long distance politicians and bureaucrats than other public lands. Perhaps that is an ignorant assumption, though. In any case, I am absolutely committed to doing what it takes to maintain public access and sustainable herds. I just would like to hear some reassuring evidence that the larger monument size does that without the risk of abridged hunting rights down the road before I jump on the wagon with Patagonia, et al.

 

[mtwarden]

^ no one knows for sure; it’s in the realm of possibilities that everything will be just fine with this reduction- however what makes many very nervous is the same folks that pushed for the reduction also happen to be the same folks that have pushed for transfer of federal lands to state ownership which significantly increases the chance for lost public lands. The NM status makes it much more difficult process to transfer ownership (and increased chance of loss)

 

[PMcGee]

Secretary Zinke Recommends Keeping Federal Lands in Federal Ownership, Adding Three New Monuments | BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[seldomseensmith]

I'm embarrassed that some of you believe that this is anything other than a move toward getting this land in the hands of "his friends", as he mentioned in the speech. Trump values one thing only. Wealth. He doesn't make moves randomly and he sure didn't do it for the benefit of sportsman. This thread is embarrassing. Shameful that some of you would allow yourselves to believe this is the right thing to do. I guess if the goal is to build and grow at all cost then yes this is the right thing for America. That is clearly the goal of our president.

 

[bigdesert10]

I'm embarrassed that some of you believe that this is anything other than a move toward getting this land in the hands of "his friends", as he mentioned in the speech. Trump values one thing only. Wealth. He doesn't make moves randomly and he sure didn't do it for the benefit of sportsman. This thread is embarrassing. Shameful that some of you would allow yourselves to believe this is the right thing to do. I guess if the goal is to build and grow at all cost then yes this is the right thing for America. That is clearly the goal of our president.

What's shameful is your assumption of the role of moral arbiter in a discussion that clearly has a lot of complexity. We all want public lands to remain public and we all want healthy populations of animals that we can sustainably hunt. Having some disagreement on the best path there doesn't make bad guys and good guys. This type of dialogue is important in uniting efforts for the greater good and you're not helping with comments like that.

 

[seldomseensmith]

What's shameful is your assumption of the role of moral arbiter in a discussion that clearly has a lot of complexity. We all want public lands to remain public and we all want healthy populations of animals that we can sustainably hunt. Having some disagreement on the best path there doesn't make bad guys and good guys. This type of dialogue is important in uniting efforts for the greater good and you're not helping with comments like that.

I assume no role. Just my opinion and I agree that the discussion is important but I also believe there isn't full support for keeping public lands public here and that's what embarrasses me.

 

[MuleyFever]

Interesting read

The Massive Land Deal That Could Change the West Forever | Outside Online

 

[bigdesert10]

I assume no role. Just my opinion and I agree that the discussion is important but I also believe there isn't full support for keeping public lands public here and that's what embarrasses me.

The problem is that when you come out of the gate insulting others' intelligence and questioning their motives and morality, you've already lost the battle. You've steeled their resolve against your position. It's not the least bit constructive and doesn't engender principled debate. If you don't have a compelling perspective to add, just excuse yourself from the conversation, because you don't win allies like that.

 

[seldomseensmith]

The problem is that when you come out of the gate insulting others' intelligence and questioning their motives and morality, you've already lost the battle. You've steeled their resolve against your position. It's not the least bit constructive and doesn't engender principled debate. If you don't have a compelling perspective to add, just excuse yourself from the conversation, because you don't win allies like that.

No doubt you are right. I stand by what I said but agree with you that it wasn’t constructive. I’ve been soft on Trump to this point but have lost my mind with this one. I will excuse myself. Hopefully others can do a better job explaining how this is no good. (Still embarrassed )


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk