# The Bundy types are at it again



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

SHOWDOWN: Utah to seize millions of acres of public lands from fed gov't...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... allenge-f/



> In three weeks, Utah intends to seize control of 31.2 million acres of its own land now under the control of the federal government. At least, that's the plan.
> 
> In an unprecedented challenge to federal dominance of Western state lands, Utah Gov. Gary Herbert in 2012 signed the "Transfer of Public Lands Act," which demands that Washington relinquish its hold on the land, which represents more than half of the state's 54.3 million acres, by Dec. 31.


I would guess those pay to play (hunt) hate public land. We have a high fence operator on this site that doesn't like conservation and hated measure 5. Any guess why? Because he doesn't get paid when you hunt the badlands for free.

We have been putting up with the attempt to steal public land since the sagebrush rebellion who's attorney was James Watt. I voted for Reagan, but his choice of James Watt as head of Interior was a very poor choice. Now they will try other back door tricks to steal the land that belongs to us all. We often hear them complain about the government taking land away. As our nation formed it acquired land westward. It then opened these areas by giving much of it away. Many people on the land now are on land that was given to their ancestors. The public land is land that has simply been retained, or in some cases so poor it was lost back to the government because it could not produce enough to pay taxes. If it happens in Utah it will happen everywhere. Then your at the mercy of the pay to play. This move to take public land is pure greed. Ranchers will support it because it's cheaper to buy a state senator than a U S Senator.


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

I look at it as, the state is taking over the federal land, because the state would know how to manage it better then the feds would. Not that the state will sell all of this public land.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> because the state would know how to manage it better then the feds


That's always a popular line. I think it's bs. It will be supported by those who see an opportunity to shaft fellow citizens for their own benefit. They will use the line that the state can manage it better. They will manage it for ranchers and everyone else will use a little benefit. In North Dakota I'll bet they would let the rancher post it. Say good-by to access.


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

Plainsman said:


> > because the state would know how to manage it better then the feds
> 
> 
> That's always a popular line. I think it's bs. It will be supported by those who see an opportunity to shaft fellow citizens for their own benefit. They will use the line that the state can manage it better. They will manage it for ranchers and everyone else will use a little benefit. In North Dakota I'll bet they would let the rancher post it. Say good-by to access.


Can someone post public land>


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

Some school trust land can be posted closed to public access by the lessee. And I've seen public land in the badlands posted with no hunting signs, not supposed to be done, but that doesn't stop some of them from doing it anyway.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

blhunter3 said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> > > because the state would know how to manage it better then the feds
> ...


They can't post public land that the federal government owns. What do you think would happen when the state gets it? I'll guarantee they will cater to the ranchers, and right now the ranchers are ticked because they can't post the federal land. To many try post it now. Can you imagine what they would do without the feds watching them? The ranchers right here in North Dakota made a power grab about ten years ago. They wanted the feds to turn over management to the grazing associations. We stopped for breakfast at a restaurant in Belfield and they were all put out because we would not sign the petition for the ranchers to gain power. Then ranchers rode on horseback into our hunting camp and were really jerks because we wouldn't sign the petition they had with them.


----------

