Utah Land Transfer- Randy Newberg

BrowningRage

BrowningRage

Long Time Member
Messages
4,558
LAST EDITED ON Jul-29-16 AT 04:36PM (MST)[p]Anyone else seen this about Utah and the recent "land grab" from the feds..?? It's pretty concise and informative. I wonder if it is all accurate..? It seems pretty much exactly how I've understood it... And Utah has set a precedent of selling off public land.

If anyone knows of inaccuracies, maybe you could enlighten us..?? I'd like to be informed, and informed correctly.

EDIT: Here's the link:

"Therefore, wo be unto him that is at ease in Zion!" 2 Ne. 28: 24
 
But We Have JACK-ASS Republicans here in TARDville Trying to Get the Land Grab!

Exactly as Randy Mentions!

If the State got ahold of Our Public Ground they'd start Selling it in a New York Second!

Wake Up America!









[font color="blue"]ONE OF THE ALL TIME STUPID POSTS OF 2016 By
Nemont:That mileage sucks. Off the lot my brother's 2016 Chevy
3500 Diesel got 20 mph and he drives 75 mph every where he goes.
He took the boxes off it and gets about 24. Doesn't matter if he
is towing anything or not.! (((Ya! I Want a Truck Like that
too!)))
[/font]
 
I've been trying to share the whole series with those that I can.

A lot are unaware of the proposed transfer and some don't believe the states would sell it.

I can certainly think of a many great other ways to spend 14 million fighting for the dang thing.
 
Please share this video on social media. Everybody needs to see it, and not just hunters.

Send the video to your elected officials (county, state, and federal) and tell them Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Backcountry Hunters & Anglers, Boone & Crockett Club, and Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership all reject the land grab and so do you... and so should they.

Grizzly
 
So as Randy says at the end of the video that there is no way that the state can win. No way at all. If that's the case, why all the complaining. What is there to worry about.
 
That's a pretty self centered statement saying educating kids shouldn't be his problem.

Also I am trying to understand that apparently all the state land that Utah still has has a pump jack on it???
 
Here's my take on this bull$hit mess.

Every time, politcians lean on our emotions to wager deals. Most often they claim it's for the children. We need to do this for the children. Think of your children. On and on and on. They always claim that they need more money to fund the education system to help the children.

They never say, we need to figure out our budget, we need to maximize our current budget. It is always and will always be, we need more budget. THERE WILL NEVER BE ENOUGH MONEY TO SATISFY THEM.

Here's the questions people should be asking. Who's in charge of our education system? OH, it's the same people that are telling us that they need to take our land and tax it, sell it, etc.....to fund the education system they are running!!!!!!!

Here's the solution. Do away with public, government run education, eliminate property tax. Go back to private education. You could end government run education on a wednesday and by the following monday the schools would still have teachers. They'd still have football teams. The education would be much greater. And the teachers would make more money.

But sadly. None of that will happen. People believe the government has their best interests in mind. They'll vote to have our lands taxed and sold. And when that money runs out, what will they come after next to fund their failing education system? All under the guise of, it's for the children.

wake up.
 
>That's a pretty self centered statement
>saying educating kids shouldn't be
>his problem.
>
>Also I am trying to understand
>that apparently all the state
>land that Utah still has
>has a pump jack on
>it???


It isn't his problem! He's not a Utahn and I don't blame him one bit for being pissed about it. I would be outraged if I lived in a different state and knew the BS going on! I live in Utah and it pisses me off. Every damn year my taxes get increased for new schools but yet we can't have something as simple as a lottery to supplement the funding.
 
>So as Randy says at the
>end of the video that
>there is no way that
>the state can win.
>No way at all.
>If that's the case,
>why all the complaining.
>What is there to worry
>about.

They've now said they're putting the lawsuit on hold pending a new Supreme Court Justice since they know the court is likely to rule against them, especially with Scalia dead.

Instead, they're trying to take over public land via Republican-led legislation. That, they could actually win and needs to be fought. This is a "cold dead hands" moment to save public lands.

Grizzly
 
More and more this is really becoming a single issue election for me. I will simply vote for whomever will keep public land public. All politicians are crooked and they are destroying our county IMO.
 
I am quite surprised you say that Utah400. With all of the bigger issues out there, Islamic terrorists, illegal immigration, new world order trade agreements, abortion, synthetic market bolstering, collapsing infrastructure, supreme court justice appointments, failing criminal justice system, government over reach, disease, etc, etc....... It takes a while before I get to the really important stuff like whether I have to pay money to access hunting land or not.


Regarding whether education is Randy's problem or not why don't you go look at the literacy rates in the past two countries we invaded and tell me Randy isn't being a little "short sighted".
 
Tri,

Glad you are worried about bigger issues (to you)...I guess you can stop posting about land transfer.

I will pick an choose the issues that are important to me. I really don't need a taxidermist from Texas to tell me what to think, believe or say.

Now back to the topic at hand.
 
Utah400,

Don't get your panties in a twist. I am not telling you which side of the coin to be on or to pick one of these issues I listed. I am just surprised to see any person boil all of their politics down to just one thing which is often controlled by multiple larger issues.
 
Much has been made of the ?Public Land Transfer? debate this political season by both sides of the political spectrum in the last 12-18 months. There are so many reasons the transfer is a bad idea, I can't list them all in the space I am allowed. It is curious to me why practically no one is addressing the real issues creating this debate. It is as if neither side wants to face the responsibility of addressing, let alone fixing the core issues for fear of the political fallout.

Specifically, public land and forest management are the core, root issues. Changing ownership, thus changing management authority over our public lands from federal to state governments doesn't really address the problems or solutions. I know it sounds good to many of us to take an anti-federal government stance and there are certainly issues with how federal land agencies go about managing public lands. However, merely calling for another form of government to assume these duties because that government is ?more local? in nature is not enough.

Multiple times we have asked for any kind of ?business plan? framework from those who call for states to takeover public land management; to date none has been provided. How are states going to actually take on additional management of millions of acres of public lands? What new resources are states going to need and most of all at what additional costs? Who pays for these new costs (I bet I know, got a mirror?!!!). Do people actually think the federal government is giving us money back for this concept? When was the last time that happened?

The biggest concern of all in this regard is why have these questions not been addressed for the public in this debate? It is as if transfer of public lands will just be some kind of magical, smooth transition from federal to state and things will improve. This is not how one runs a business, especially a billion dollar business.

Let's look at a couple of key public land management issues. There is an extreme element of environmentalists who want little to no use allowed of our public lands. They execute their agenda with exaggerated rhetoric, slanted science and heavy use of lawsuits to stall and delay any proactive management policies. No one from either side of the political aisle seems willing to address this factor or promote legislation to bring this into balance with common sense use of public land resources. It should be part of Congress? job but neither party wants to tackle it.

There is an element of staff at some levels (not all but many) of our federal land agencies that do not subscribe to common sense; multiple use of public lands either. It seems they would prefer public lands were substantially restricted to limited use, more like a giant national park. As this philosophy grows within government agencies (federal and/or states) sportsmen will continue to lose access, recreation opportunities and eventually major pieces of our hunting/fishing culture. We need to reach a point where as a society we decide to allow a hunting and fishing culture to thrive (or not) and if so, what are the terms and conditions that we all will live by? This slow chipping away at the American wildlife system will reach critical mass from where it will crash. Is that what we want? And yes, this does involve our public lands. The sportsmen and women of America are being played.

How many of us stop to consider how a group like the HSUS (and others) will react if states like California, Oregon, Washington and Colorado (I could list others) take control of 100% of the public lands in those states? How long before ballot initiatives are calling for the abolishment of hunting and fishing? Sounds far-fetched to you? That threat is so real is turns my stomach. You cannot camp on state lands in NM and Wyoming now. You cannot hunt on most of Colorado?s state lands now; do you want to include all public lands in these states? I don't.

Sportsmen and women must come together for the sake of this way of life or we are going to lose it. We have to stop buying into these political shell games (played by both parties) that divert our attention. Transferring ownership of public lands in and of itself solves little to nothing; actually it makes public lands one-step closer to becoming private lands. Additionally, allowing the environmental extremists to set the agenda is not working either.

Both political parties have much work to do on our behalf, so we call on both sides to get together and fix this problem. We will become like Europe in terms of wildlife and outdoor recreation if both parties don't do their job. We need courage to call for real solutions from both Republicans and Democrats; stop letting them use us in their games. And ALL sportsmen?s groups should stop running interference for the political machines, it isn't helping either. We as citizens need to get together and demand answers, demand results. Never forget, ?a government by the people, for the people?.?

-M. David Allen, President and CEO
Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation
 
HSUS can put forth anti-hunting ballot initiatives no matter who owns the public lands. Any one of those states can decide hunting is %100 illegal at any moment and lock it down if they decide no matter who owns the land.
 
>
>
>Let's look at a couple of
>key public land management issues.
>There is an extreme element
>of environmentalists who want little
>to no use allowed of
>our public lands. They execute
>their agenda with exaggerated rhetoric,
>slanted science and heavy use
>of lawsuits to stall and
>delay any proactive management policies.
>No one from either side
>of the political aisle seems
>willing to address this factor
>or promote legislation to bring
>this into balance with common
>sense use of public land
>resources. It should be part
>of Congress? job but neither
>party wants to tackle it.
>
>
>There is an element of staff
>at some levels (not all
>but many) of our federal
>land agencies that do not
>subscribe to common sense; multiple
>use of public lands either.
>It seems they would prefer
>public lands were substantially restricted
>to limited use, more like
>a giant national park. As
>this philosophy grows within government
>agencies (federal and/or states) sportsmen
>will continue to lose access,
>recreation opportunities and eventually major
>pieces of our hunting/fishing culture.
>We need to reach a
>point where as a society
>we decide to allow a
>hunting and fishing culture to
>thrive (or not) and if
>so, what are the terms
>and conditions that we all
>will live by? This slow
>chipping away at the American
>wildlife system will reach critical
>mass from where it will
>crash. Is that what we
>want? And yes, this does
>involve our public lands. The
>sportsmen and women of America
>are being played.

>

>-M. David Allen, President and CEO
>
>Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation

David makes two very valid arguments here for why we are seeing a movement by the states to try and mitigate the ever growing problem of environmental and federal government overreach. Our rural economies have and are being ruined by the radical environmental movement and the Federal usurpation of the ability of the rural people to make a living in the west.

I think it is an honest movement by most state officials to come up with solutions to correct the problem. It concerns me to think that there may be no solution to the problem. The Democratic Party is in bed with the tree and bunny huggers and as a result we see the Republican Party fighting back but actually we are in a no win situation.

The first thing that would help turn the tide would be a total revamp of the Endangered Species Act, but then again that is a hot potato and Hillary and the Dems won't let that happen.

Most all of us outdoors men have come to love our Public Lands and want to protect our rights to use the land but we are losing ground everyday in that political and environmental arena. The State's movements are an attempt to correct the situation and by far it is by well meaning individuals and not the reap, pillage and sell off the land individuals in the minority, that so many here seem to imagine.

Most State Trust Lands are managed at a mere fraction of the cost than does the BLM and Forest Service lands. Those two Federal Agencies are the most "do nothing" wasteful Government Agencies in all of Government.
 
In this case "do nothing" is the only thing that will save public land for hunting.

If the Dems will close it to hunting, the Reps will sell it to their buddies.

If one wants to consider worst-case scenarios, then do it evenly.

The difference is the Dems have no plan or bills in Congress to ban hunting nationwide. The Reps do have pending legislation and litigation to sell public land, and the recently-enacted Utah law even opened a bank account to hold the funds once the land is sold. The writing is on the wall, you just have to find the small print and take the time to read it.

Grizzly
 
The Fed's have done huge damage to hunting and never once do they introduce a bill to congress. You need to understand the powers of USFWS and how they are being abused to screw all of us over.
 
Damn Tri could you be right at least once in your life??

Pittman Robertson
Dingell Johnson
CRP
LWCF

The list goes on.
Fire suppression
Range rehab
Law enforcement

As far as rural economies... Take a trip out to the Basin. Ain't nobody preventing drilling and it ain't exactly great times.

It comes down to this. Do you trust a guy like Gary Herbert, the same guy that closed a thousand miles of River, that has every intent of closing more if he ever gets control, or do you trust the status quo?

Speaking of rural economies, anybody wanna venture a guess what an AUM is on FS land? State Land? Private Land?

Be careful where your anti fed sentiments lead.






"If the DWR was just doing its job, and
wildlife and hunting were the actual focus,
none of this process would even matter.
But that is not the focus or the goal in any
of this. The current DWR regime, and
SFW were born out of wildlife declines,
and are currently operated and funded
under that paradigm. Those 200 Expo
tags would not even be worth anything if
the focus was where it was supposed to
be, and wildlife and tags were plentiful.
But under the current business model,
that is how the money and power is
generated. It is generated through the
rising "value"(monitization) of a declining
resource. A resource that is supposed to
be being beneficially managed for the
masses that own that resource, ie. US.
The problem is obvious, hedging is not a
long term sustainable strategy, and
others have to lose, for some to win. In
this case it is us, the many, and our
resources, that are being forced to lose,
because there is a minority who's power
and money is derived from our loses."

LONETREE 3/15/16
 
I'm with on this one. I think its a bad Idea for the states to try to take Federal land.
 
Wiley,

The anti Fed sentiment comes from many years of Fed overreach and regulation mostly fueled by the ESA.

Grazing, logging, energy development and mining and many other consumptive uses have been extremely negatively affected. One of the latest and greatest is the Mountain Meadow Jumping Mouse fiasco in NM and AZ. The extreme environmentalists won't stop until they get rid of all consumptive uses on the public land. They have the current Administration in bed with them as well as more importantly many Federal Judges whom are sympathetic to the environmental movement.

Hunting is on their agenda. Never forget that. At least in Catron County NM the hunting industry is the number two economic driver with the logging and grazing a mere fraction of what they used to be. We continue to see our elk herds expanding and opportunity better than most states along with all of the other species NM has to offer. Our public lands are very important to the hunting industry and their is a strong sentiment to keep it that way.

At least in NM and AZ the State Game & Fish Departments are on the side of the hunter. I realize Utah has somewhat of a different problem or set of circumstances but all of the western state's movements stem from the same thing, Federal Government and Environmental overreach.

I for one think local control always trumps the Federal anti consumptive mode.
 
Stoney, land ownership will in no way impact the Mountain Meadow Jumping Mouse or any other potential Endangered Species Act rulings. The ESA powers are blind to whomever owns the land and the authority is the same, except now the State has to pay the legal bills.

If you want to change the ESA, then tell the Reps to do it instead of leaving that alone and selling public land. The Reps are flat out lying about their true agenda and what this land grab will actuality accomplish.

Grizzly
 
The biggest problem we have with the ESA is the Federal Agencies i.e USFWS and EPA for examples, are wielding the Federal power against the wishes of the most affected people whom rely on the natural resource for their livings. The rural people of the West are tired of the Feds overreach against us. These Agencies are a big part of the problem and the extreme environmental organizations are the energy and money behind this move to rid the public land of all consumptive uses.

I for one don't think the US Congress will ever let the states gain control of the Federal land. I think there are much greater things to put our energy fighting against than the possibility of the state's selling off the Federal land. A good start would be a huge effort to revamp the ESA.
 
So?

We're back to this F'N Thing/Choice of the Lesser of 2 Evils again?










[font color="blue"]ONE OF THE ALL TIME STUPID POSTS OF 2016 By
Nemont:That mileage sucks. Off the lot my brother's 2016 Chevy
3500 Diesel got 20 mph and he drives 75 mph every where he goes.
He took the boxes off it and gets about 24. Doesn't matter if he
is towing anything or not.! (((Ya! I Want a Truck Like that
too!)))
[/font]
 
Has been from the beginning CAT.

Curious if SFW and MDF are ready to pick a side yet??






"If the DWR was just doing its job, and
wildlife and hunting were the actual focus,
none of this process would even matter.
But that is not the focus or the goal in any
of this. The current DWR regime, and
SFW were born out of wildlife declines,
and are currently operated and funded
under that paradigm. Those 200 Expo
tags would not even be worth anything if
the focus was where it was supposed to
be, and wildlife and tags were plentiful.
But under the current business model,
that is how the money and power is
generated. It is generated through the
rising "value"(monitization) of a declining
resource. A resource that is supposed to
be being beneficially managed for the
masses that own that resource, ie. US.
The problem is obvious, hedging is not a
long term sustainable strategy, and
others have to lose, for some to win. In
this case it is us, the many, and our
resources, that are being forced to lose,
because there is a minority who's power
and money is derived from our loses."

LONETREE 3/15/16
 
LAST EDITED ON Jul-31-16 AT 03:45PM (MST)[p]Stoney never wants to talk about the damage many of these consumptive user do to our public land and wildlife? Come on stoney.
One of the big founding entities in the land transfer privatization scheme is the Elko county Nevada commissioners.
Nevada is actually the birthplace of the sagebrush rebellion. Which is the maternal mother of all this sickening stuff.

I knew this was coming decades ago, I know all about it, "federal overreach" thats just the latest catchword. It's actually about lots money for the few and a big loss for people who love the freedom of public lands.

Consumptive uses are not always conductive to wildlife and healthy land, that's been proven time and time again.
But more importantly people need to know that these same people who push lands transfers are also the ones who push for Elk kill offs, bighorn sheep dieoffs, and many if them are the ones who lock their gates to those who would like to access rivers, streams , and blocked off public land.
 
Piper the public land was founded on the principle of wise use. It was a multiple use managed on a sustainable basis. For the most part that has happened. Sure there were and are some bad managers but a huge share of that has been gone for years. I'm talking about grazing. The public land only supports a fraction of the cattle it used to run and the present day land managers have learned how to manage grazing to benefit the environment.

The problem has been the over zealous public land managers whom have greened and want all livestock off. They are backed by the extreme enviros and the huge amount of funding they have to try and stop all grazing on the public land.

People like you Piper are why we see the consumptive users losing the battle. Never forget, hunting is in their crosshairs also. Maybe you ought to join some public lands cattlemen's association and chip in to help battle the antis.

Your definition of "freedom of the public lands" seem to imply it to be your own personal playground to recreate. That is only a part of the mission of the management of the public land. You are narrow minded and selfish.
 
>
>Curious if SFW and MDF are
>ready to pick a side
>yet??


Not as long as $FW is suckeling off the teats of the Utarted legislators.
 
Stoney-- you said:
"I for one don't think the US Congress will ever let the states gain control of the Federal land. I think there are much greater things to put our energy fighting against than the possibility of the state's selling off the Federal land. A good start would be a huge effort to revamp the ESA."

The State of Utah has already put the avenue in place to sell the public lands. (HB0276 lines 468-493) They have said selling public lands will be part of the strategy in taking over public lands. And the citizens of Panguitch won't be buying the Panguitch Lake lands or people in Duchesne won't be buying the South Slope-- it will be large corporations, land acquisition funds, or the extreme wealthy who will purchase those properties. And then you won't have to worry about "consumptive use". You won't get to worry about any use.

That brings me to your last statement above-- the State is causing us to fight against the Guaranteed disposal of some of those lands. I personally would rather fight to change management policies. But the State has made me choose-- So I'd rather have Federal public lands with some burdensome restrictions rather than have those lands become private with complete restrictions.

The irony is let's say the State wins-- they will still have to deal with the ESA and FWS and EPA. So you lose the public lands and still have the burdensome restrictions. If the Lands are private, what incentive is there for the public to want to change those burdensome policies?
 
Knowing only the intimate details on how lawmakers and statute handle state lands in Wyoming, I can say this with 100% certainty; no possible good would come to sportsman and recreational public land users in Wyoming should federal lands be transferred to the state.
 
http://www.postregister.com/articles/opinions/2016/08/02/guest-column-fantasy-litigating-public-land

Guest column: Fantasy of litigating for public land
Post Register (Idaho Falls, ID) - Tuesday, August 2, 2016
Author: Jim Key
The only winners to litigation for state ?rights' to public lands will be the lawyers and PR firms, writes Jim Key.

By Jim Key

George Morrison's guest opinion presents an excellent rationale for the federal government retaining ownership of federal lands and restrictive policies on their limited disposition. This commentary provides a summary of the law that justifies this point of view.

Several western states are laying the foundation for suing the federal government for ownership/control of federal public lands-again. Other states are thinking about joining this boondoggle. For example, Utah has spent $1 million so far and may obligate up to $14 million. Their current expenses include $341,513 for unexplained "public relations." Quite frankly, legal consultants are picking the pockets of legislatures by telling them what they want to hear.

The remainder of this commentary relies heavily on two analytical papers. The first is a University of Utah Stegner Center White Paper No. 2015-01, "A Legal Analysis of the Transfer of Public Lands Movement," by Robert B. Keiter. The second paper is "To Transfer or Not to Transfer, That Is the Question: An Analysis of Public Lands Title in the West," by Andrea Collins, Montana Law Review, 76 Mont. L. Rev.309. Both papers are available online. Anyone interested in this subject should read both as they contain the history, development of foundational law, and seminal U.S. Supreme Court cases. The writing is clear, concise, interesting, and avoids "legalese."

The Property Clause in the U.S. Constitution (Article 4) gives Congress absolute control, including disposal, of federal lands. It follows that Congress also may retain property in federal ownership. These transactions occurred before the relevant states acquired statehood. Therefore, states cannot demand return of property they never owned.

Congress, who has the exclusive authority to negotiate the terms and conditions of statehood, passed agreements conferring statehood commonly referred to as Enabling Acts which, among other things, required states to? "forever disclaim any right to more land" ? than contained in the agreement.

The Equal Footing principal does not guarantee every state equal portions of federal property. It does guarantee equal political representation. This point has been purposely misunderstood by legal consultants to Utah.

The Federal Public Lands Protection Act of 1976 consolidated 3,000 separate laws dealing with different aspects of public lands into one act, greatly simplifying management. It says that Congress holds these lands as a public trust for all citizens and may only dispose of selected parcels in the interest of the United States. As a trust, the public and/or the U.S. Treasury would expect revenue for disposition of federal lands. Thus the door may be open a crack if states want to buy the lands, but the sale must be at fair market value. The purchase price plus maintenance of lands, including fire protection, would bankrupt states. Rosy economic analyses by consultants are discredited by Mr. Keiter. Since these states had the option to get them for free in 1932 and declined because they would lose associated federal reclamation funding, they are unlikely to buy them now.

There have been a number of challenges to parts of these laws, including the Sagebrush Rebellion, and the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the federal government in each case.

The legal hurdles to forcing an act(s) through Congress, fighting challenges in the courts through the Supreme Court, and amending the federal and relevant state constitutions is simply a "hill too far." The apparent strategy of the legislators promoting this exercise is to launch a massive PR campaign to create a broad public outcry that demands the transfer.

The only winners in the failed effort will be the cadre of lawyers and public relations agencies that don't really care what happens to public lands, but rather, care about jumping on the gravy train.
 
My own state that would immediately restrict access to these lands, or sell them outright, and so I am obviously opposed to any such lands transfers. As a matter of principle, these lands belong to every resident, of every state, by merit of the lives and capital sacrificed in their acquisition. Whether it was the Louisiana Purchase or the battles for the Western States, the money and military might that made them possible was provided by citizens across every state, and so it was only right (and agreed upon by the territorial applicants) that all citizens would receive some value in return in the form of land and resources. In suggesting that it is entitled to these lands, the State of Utah dishonors the sacrifices of my forefathers.
 
It's Time We make a 'STAND'!

Past Time to be Honest!

People like dude Think that anybody that makes a Stand against Our Government should be Quickly LaVoyed!

Dude & Others that Think Like that are Very Wrong!

When I Was Young(A Long Time ago!)If Our Government said something/Told us something I Took it to Heart!

Now in Today's World if Our Government Tells/Says something You gotta wonder how Much BS/Lieing/False Info is involved in what they're Babling!











[font color="blue"]dude has his Resume turned in to be Hillary's
Intern[/font]
 
Seems like a trustworthy guy to me.


http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/4181572-155/editorial-herbert-discounts-local-input-when



"If the DWR was just doing its job, and
wildlife and hunting were the actual focus,
none of this process would even matter.
But that is not the focus or the goal in any
of this. The current DWR regime, and
SFW were born out of wildlife declines,
and are currently operated and funded
under that paradigm. Those 200 Expo
tags would not even be worth anything if
the focus was where it was supposed to
be, and wildlife and tags were plentiful.
But under the current business model,
that is how the money and power is
generated. It is generated through the
rising "value"(monitization) of a declining
resource. A resource that is supposed to
be being beneficially managed for the
masses that own that resource, ie. US.
The problem is obvious, hedging is not a
long term sustainable strategy, and
others have to lose, for some to win. In
this case it is us, the many, and our
resources, that are being forced to lose,
because there is a minority who's power
and money is derived from our loses."

LONETREE 3/15/16
 
I messaged Randy on YouTube- or whomever manages that particular channel I guess. Here's my short conversation:

"I live in Utah... And I have to agree with this video. We're in a situation here in Utah where everyone is clamoring to reduce the federal government's reach... And they are misplacing their distrust and crying out to give the state the land to manage... And unfortunately, corruption abounds here too, and the rich will buy up our public lands..."

Response:

Randy Newberg, Hunter1 week ago

"They have the easy message to sell, but we have the better message for long-term solutions. Every problem that exists could be fixed by Congress. We need to put their feet to the fire and make them do the job we elected them to do. Selling/transferring our lands is a bail out by them. Can't let it happen. Best of luck."



"Therefore, wo be unto him that is at ease in Zion!" 2 Ne. 28: 24
 
" Every problem that exists could be fixed by Congress. "


Randy can make a lot of good sense at times but that statement there is one of the least accurate statements I have ever seen posted on these forums.

The USA is in a spiral and has been for several years. The land issue is a little pimple on the back of an ogre. As the plane gets closer to smacking the ground how much attention is that pimple going to get that has cost them nothing but discomfort and only costs them time and energy?
 
>" Every problem that exists could
>be fixed by Congress. "
>
>
>
>Randy can make a lot of
>good sense at times but
>that statement there is one
>of the least accurate statements
>I have ever seen posted
>on these forums.
>
>The USA is in a spiral
>and has been for several
>years. The land issue
>is a little pimple on
>the back of an ogre.
> As the plane gets
>closer to smacking the ground
>how much attention is that
>pimple going to get that
>has cost them nothing but
>discomfort and only costs them
>time and energy?

I see you're still making foolish statements! Randy was right on the button because if the various agencies that control the public lands were allotted the money needed things would be in much better shape. One in particular is the ridiculously low grazing fees that are strictly controlled by Congress. The agencies don't get enough money from those fees to begin to take care of everything mandated them just in that one program. The fees have been raised this year, but are still not even in the ballpark of what is needed and, therefore, Congress needs to redo the system to make it even close to a break even scenario.
 
The elected Congressmen from Utah drive around the state and tell the sheep, "Blame the Feds" and the sheep lap it up like puppies. Then the sheep look up with their big dumb sheep eyes towards the Congressmen and wait for the shepherd to tell them what else to believe because obviously these Congressmen are wonderful and have done such an amazing job of running the country for the last two decades and should be listened to. And obeyed.

The sheep don't realize these very same Congressmen are actually the "Feds" they so often deride. The Congressmen write the federal laws, appoint the federal bureaucrats, and fund the federal agencies that they claim to hate (with our tax dollars, of course). If Bishop hates the EPA, BLM, FS, etc... he could spend his time changing the rules and regulations that govern each agency so it runs the way he sees fit. Instead he wants to throw out the baby with the bathwater so there is nothing left for those agencies to manage. (PS. Much of this is a farce since the EPA has the exact same authority over state/private land that they do over federal land, which makes the entire argument involving endangered species provably fallacious.)

Instead, Bishop has taken $100,000 from Big Oil in this election cycle alone and is using that money to give OUR public land to those very same Big Oil contributors. Hmmm.

And this is all to pay off a debt that the Republicans ran up while they controlled either the White House or both houses of Congress nearly continuously for the last 22 years.

The Republicans are like a homeowner that lives outside their means so brilliantly decides to sell their cars and house to pay off credit card debt. They do nothing to cut back their spending, but now they have nowhere to live and nothing to drive. And a few short years later the credit cards balances are back up, the family is homeless, and they lost their jobs because they can't get to work without a car.

A few of us are sitting in the dark with fingers in our ears thinking nothing bad will happen. But not me, my eyes are wide freaking open, and this year I am a "single-issue voter" to save public lands.

Grizzly
 
And there's part of the problem folks. Every body looking for a solution that doesn't involve them actually paying for them to exploit resources.
 
Exactly! Utah trying to get control of property that does not belong to them...I mean looking for a solution that doesn't actually involve them paying for them to exploit the resources.

I sorry I think you were actually endorsing the welfare grab by Utah.

My bad!

Prayers to allow enforcemet!
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

SAM_2932.JPG
ADE3BC16-EC26-4B97-96FF-7FD32B62FB53.jpeg
me 2016 deer.jpg
tempImageSEglmZ.png
3384E0E0-4892-470A-86FC-6FD2CD00D0A8.jpeg
IMG_9710.JPG
IMG_3164.jpeg
Screenshot_20201103-093513_SPYPOINT.jpg
SAM_2891.JPG
Screenshot_20211109-150949_Messages.jpg
IMG_3143.JPG
IMG_2688.jpeg
Back
Top Bottom