Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > Rep. Chaffetz to step down in 2018
 Reply to topic
Previous :: Next Topic
Author Message
Dave Workman
Member
Member


Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Posts: 3699 | TRs | Pics
Location: In the woods, by the big tree
Dave Workman
Member
PostThu Apr 20, 2017 8:30 pm 
Doppelganger wrote:
Well, that didn't last long for you, did it? rolleyes.gif lol.gif lol.gif Hey, as long as you get to say and see what you want, right? Gee, I wonder what topics you might have agreed with Chaffetz on. Ignoring it is how we ended up here, btw. The no politics rule should not apply in light of the current administration.
Why should the rule not apply to the current admin? As for saying and seeing what I want...I haven't said a thing since the first page. You, on the other hand, have been rather busy. BTW, just what is it you *think* I might agree with Chaffetz about?

"The essential American soul is hard, isolate, stoic, and a killer. It has never yet melted." - D.H. Lawrence
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Tom
Admin



Joined: 15 Dec 2001
Posts: 17835 | TRs | Pics
Tom
Admin
PostThu Apr 20, 2017 9:00 pm 
Politics is fine in stewardship as long as it is outdoor related. The current administration has provided more to discuss in that regard, for sure.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
drm
Member
Member


Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 1376 | TRs | Pics
Location: The Dalles, OR
drm
Member
PostFri Apr 21, 2017 8:16 am 
fairweather friend wrote:
Now the rumor is that Chaffetz will resign by Friday.
With this, almost nobody following it believes he simply wants to be at home more. While some wonder if there is a hidden scandal about to break, remember that Chaffetz was one of the Republicans who withdrew his endorsement of Trump after that tape came out, and then re-endorsed when they saw that Trump supporters didn't care. So it's possible that he simply doesn't like Trump and sees a completely dysfunctional and incompetent Republican government that he doesn't want to waste time on. And a Republican government that does not seem that interested in giving land back to states, as both Trump and Zinke have stated. It would make complete sense for a Utahn tired of dysfunction in WDC to decide to move eventually to Utah state government. Whatever it's ideology, it is fairly functional as things go these days.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
trestle
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Aug 2008
Posts: 2093 | TRs | Pics
Location: the Oly Pen
trestle
Member
PostFri Apr 21, 2017 8:56 am 
Greed is not a human constant, more like a human condition. Were it a constant, our world would likely have already ended. Chaffetz will likely become a uranium extraction lobbyist and he will probably have the Prez sign him a secret executive order so he can bypass the waiting period and go to work right away.

"Life favors the prepared." - Edna Mode
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
fairweather friend
Member
Member


Joined: 31 May 2012
Posts: 322 | TRs | Pics
Location: Not so dispersed
fairweather friend
Member
PostFri Apr 21, 2017 9:10 am 
I agree with your comments about Utah's state government. They certainly don't share my views regarding well, many things, but at least the government functions... unlike Kansas and many states in the South. What concerns me the most about congressional bills like the '"land disposal" bill introduced by Chaffetz is that Congress seems completely unconcerned with public input and polling data. For example, the bill (now law) that allows internet companies to sell your search history and browsing history was universally disliked by the public. 72% of Democrats opposed the bill, but it was also opposed by 72% of Republicans, too. Subtract out the useless "No Opinion" types and there was essentially no support for this bill by the public whatsoever. No matter. The Republican majority in the House passed the bill. The Republican majority in the Senate passed the bill. And President Trump signed the bill. Done. Done. And Done! Congressional Republicans no longer care what the public wants, even their own constituents, they only want to please their big donors. That's what matters most. This is why I am still concerned about these bills attacking public lands. Even though they are opposed by Democrats and Republicans alike, they still might get passed into law.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Malachai Constant
Member
Member


Joined: 13 Jan 2002
Posts: 16088 | TRs | Pics
Location: Back Again Like A Bad Penny
Malachai Constant
Member
PostFri Apr 21, 2017 10:01 am 
One reason Utah state government seems to work is the influence of the LDS church. The state is the descendant of a socialist theocracy. Say what you will about them but they take care of their own. This aleaviates much of the pressure for social welfare in many ways.

"You do not laugh when you look at the mountains, or when you look at the sea." Lafcadio Hearn
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Dave Workman
Member
Member


Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Posts: 3699 | TRs | Pics
Location: In the woods, by the big tree
Dave Workman
Member
PostFri Apr 21, 2017 5:50 pm 
Doppelganger wrote:
Dave Workman wrote:
BTW, just what is it you *think* I might agree with Chaffetz about?
Not retirement unfortunately wink.gif If your memory is flagging on your stance: some help for you.
So, you link to a bunch of stuff I've written, and one thing that was written about me recently in Forbes. So what? I thought we were talking about public land, not what I do for a living.

"The essential American soul is hard, isolate, stoic, and a killer. It has never yet melted." - D.H. Lawrence
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
treeswarper
Alleged Sockpuppet!



Joined: 25 Dec 2006
Posts: 11272 | TRs | Pics
Location: Don't move here
treeswarper
Alleged Sockpuppet!
PostSun Apr 23, 2017 1:47 pm 
MtnGoat wrote:
They're the American public too, and they *live* there. This disdain from a distance is exactly why people support him.
That's it in a nut shell. If you don't live in a small community surrounded by federal land, it can be hard to understand. Seeing more and more restrictions placed on land that is kind of your backyard, and placed there by people who are not local, who don't even go there, and care only about emotions and votes, can lead to extremism going the other way. If you've never lived there, you won't understand or most likely won't even try. And no, I am not in favor of selling off lands, unless there is a good reason, but I do understand where part of the sentiment comes from. I do wish the pendulum would even out a bit. Maybe some access would even be "restored".

What's especially fun about sock puppets is that you can make each one unique and individual, so that they each have special characters. And they don't have to be human––animals and aliens are great possibilities
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Kim Brown
Member
Member


Joined: 13 Jul 2009
Posts: 6900 | TRs | Pics
Kim Brown
Member
PostSun Apr 23, 2017 11:12 pm 
treeswarper wrote:
If you don't live in a small community surrounded by federal land, it can be hard to understand.
It's my land too. I have a say. City dwellers most certainly do know what it's like to live with a lot of laws and regulations.

"..living on the east side of the Sierra world be ideal - except for harsher winters and the chance of apocalyptic fires burning the whole area." Bosterson, NWHiker's marketing expert
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
treeswarper
Alleged Sockpuppet!



Joined: 25 Dec 2006
Posts: 11272 | TRs | Pics
Location: Don't move here
treeswarper
Alleged Sockpuppet!
PostMon Apr 24, 2017 6:58 am 
Kim Brown wrote:
treeswarper wrote:
If you don't live in a small community surrounded by federal land, it can be hard to understand.
It's my land too. I have a say. City dwellers most certainly do know what it's like to live with a lot of laws and regulations.
Yes, and you certainly don't understand or know the small ecosystems like some locals do. Yes, you have a say and cuz there's more of you voters that don't know the land, you get to have all the say. Understand yet?

What's especially fun about sock puppets is that you can make each one unique and individual, so that they each have special characters. And they don't have to be human––animals and aliens are great possibilities
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Seventy2002
Member
Member


Joined: 19 Jul 2008
Posts: 512 | TRs | Pics
Seventy2002
Member
PostMon Apr 24, 2017 9:13 am 
treeswarper wrote:
If you don't live in a small community surrounded by federal land, it can be hard to understand. Seeing more and more restrictions placed on land that is kind of your backyard,
Help me understand. Give me examples of "more and more restrictions."

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
trestle
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Aug 2008
Posts: 2093 | TRs | Pics
Location: the Oly Pen
trestle
Member
PostMon Apr 24, 2017 9:47 am 
Seventy2002 wrote:
Help me understand. Give me examples of "more and more restrictions."
Remember, we're talking about rural Utah, not WA. Some citizens there feel the Bears Ears National Monument was "more and more restrictions". The only recourse (in their minds) was to vote for candidates who were openly against such designations, thus pushing them towards Trump on the national level. While you may embrace national monument designations, others are just as likely to reject such designations. Both of you are freely entitled to your differing opinions and both are just as free to vote for those whom you think best represent your ideals.

"Life favors the prepared." - Edna Mode
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
contour5
Member
Member


Joined: 16 Jul 2003
Posts: 2962 | TRs | Pics
contour5
Member
PostMon Apr 24, 2017 10:31 am 
Quote:
land that is kind of your backyard
Except you don't own it because it's not yours- it's public land. That means it's my back yard, too, and everybody else's as well. Proximity does not confer ownership or special privilege. It's precisely this sense of entitlement that will probably doom most of our public lands: "We been usin' it so long it's practically ours"... "We live right next to it- that means we should get to make all the rules"... "If only we could replace these awful federal regulations with sweet, sweet corporate control, the board and shareholders would straighten this mess out in a jiffy"...

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
fairweather friend
Member
Member


Joined: 31 May 2012
Posts: 322 | TRs | Pics
Location: Not so dispersed
fairweather friend
Member
PostMon Apr 24, 2017 10:34 am 
Perhaps someone who is in favor of selling public lands to private interests could explain this to me: How does private ownership of this land benefit you in terms of increased access to the land or freedom from rules & regulations? I can understand arguments that we need to allow resource extraction on public lands (timber, grazing, even mining) because the US economy needs these resources and it creates a least a handful of jobs. (Just to be clear, I'm not conceding that argument, I'm just saying that I can at least understand your rationale, and I even agree with it within limits.) However, if public lands are sold to private companies, especially for the purposes of mining, I can guarantee that you will have LESS access to the land than before because of gated roads, chain link fences topped with barbed wire, security cameras, and security personnel patrolling the area in white trucks. You won't get anywhere near that land ever again, unless you get a job as a security guard or low level worker. (All the high-paying jobs in management, engineering, even high-level technicians will be filled by company men brought in from elsewhere. Please don't kid yourself that these jobs will go to locals, because they won't.) So instead of a bunch of rules and regulations from the government prohibiting things like target practice or ORV's or dumping trash or hunting out of season there will be only one rule: NO TRESPASSING. Violators will be punished to the full extent of the law. I guess you could call that a "reduction" in government rules in regulations, but if that counts as "winning" in your view, then count me out.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Malachai Constant
Member
Member


Joined: 13 Jan 2002
Posts: 16088 | TRs | Pics
Location: Back Again Like A Bad Penny
Malachai Constant
Member
PostMon Apr 24, 2017 11:27 am 
Here it is pretty simple just compare hiking in National Forests and Wilderness Areas to hiking on most of our private "Tree Farms". A pass for $30/yr for all forests in the surrounding states vs several hundred for a year pass for one particular owners "Farm" and another pass for every other owner and farm. Another example compare access to Mount Percis to Glacier Peak.

"You do not laugh when you look at the mountains, or when you look at the sea." Lafcadio Hearn
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
   All times are GMT - 8 Hours
 Reply to topic
Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > Rep. Chaffetz to step down in 2018
  Happy Birthday speyguy, Bandanabraids!
Jump to:   
Search this topic:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum