Utah land board threaten outfitter leasing

How can that be? The Utah purveyors of Federal Land disposal have told us that state takeover of Federal lands would never impact hunting access. I'd expect more of this in Utah, and other western states, rather than less of it.
 
Finally get it? The kings in UT want their forest back. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Except it never was theirs.

Not one nickel of my US currency goes to that state, or businesses that operate there. I will continue to enjoy the national parks and monuments in UT.
 
Last edited:
Some of the "facts" stated in the comment section will make your head hurt. No wonder so many in the general "non-hunting" public think the whole Public Land Transfer is a good idea with the misinformation that is going around. Also noticed that Peay is a SITLA board member. He seems to have his hands in everything.
 
Wow.... Too bad some of the people in Utah still refuse to open their eyes.
When reading the comment section....what I'm seeing is hunters vs. hikers, birdwatchers, skiers, etc. For the good of all, they'd better get together ASAP and jump on the same side of the fence for this fight.
Govt & their lobbyists are really good at dividing groups to help them push thru their often times BS agendas. Looks like its working well here on this subject. Just sickening what Utah wants to do with public land & even more sickening is the sheep that follow this idea as being good.
 
the outfitters will pay $$$$$ for the lease of this land so that impacts hunters. If the lease is for the hunting seasons this will not be a 'big' impact on hikers, bird watchers, etc so they may not be impacted, now.......
 
Utah is awful. I wish their weren't a few decent hunting related companies (hoyt, Easton) based there so I could have absolutely nothing to do with that place.
 
Would a boycott of Utah by non resident hunters have any impact whatsoever?
 
Would a boycott of Utah by non resident hunters have any impact whatsoever?

I believe it would. Businesses in a state have much more influence w legislators than individuals, resident or non. Business is very competitive and closely monitored by the data counters. If your company's sales start to slip @ the same time your customer service inbox has a stack of "I'm boycotting everything UT due to PLT," you make it known to your legislator buddies ASAP. That has a much greater chance of being heard in the hallowed halls of SLC, than more emails.
 
I believe it would. Businesses in a state have much more influence w legislators than individuals, resident or non. Business is very competitive and closely monitored by the data counters. If your company's sales start to slip @ the same time your customer service inbox has a stack of "I'm boycotting everything UT due to PLT," you make it known to your legislator buddies ASAP. That has a much greater chance of being heard in the hallowed halls of SLC, than more emails.

It SHOULD have an effect, but in Utah, that doesn't mean anything. Hell, my state reps and governor chased away Outdoor Retailer with their anti-public-land stance. If that doesn't faze them, I'm not sure that anything will.
 
To bad one of The General Authority's doesn't speak out either privately or publicly. Some are hunters. GJ
 
To bad one of The General Authority's doesn't speak out either privately or publicly. Some are hunters. GJ
That may be the best/only way to have an appreciable reversal of opinion on the PLT issue in that state. Then again, that's the same entity that is the largest private landholder in the state (possibly the nation) and the one best positioned to acquire lands should PLT happen...
 
Back
Top