Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Sale of public lands and drilling everywhere

Skinner

You seem to poo-poo the land sales posted because they were done since statehood - r.e over a 'long' period of time. I find that a bit short-sighted to say the least. Death by a thousand cuts sounds like an appropriate analogy. In fact, I wasn't aware that much public land had been sold - and find it alarming. I abhor those that buy up land connected to access points and post them to keep others out.

You also seem to dismiss the idea of the effect of a smaller decision pool. Have all the outfitter associations get together and approach the USFS about restricting hunting in the wilderness only to guides and people using guides. Will never gain traction.

I'll go back to watching now.

That's a great question Dave, but not for the reasons you think it is. It's a great question because it highlights your true abilities as a "journalist" and in on-line debates like this one.

Your true abilities lie in tossing out questions like that, questions you're not really interested in the answers to. It's clear you're not interested in the answer because if you were, you wouldn't be asking a bunch of strangers on the internet. If you were interested in the answer you'd go straight to the source and get your information. Isn't that what journalists do Dave, gather information from the source and report on it?

But you didn't. Just as you'd didn't go to Randy for information when you wrote about him.

Do you see a pattern here Dave?

I think I know why you're not interested in the answer to that question though. It's because a question like that is more valuable to you unanswered, hanging in the air. A question like that is not designed to get at the truth, it's designed to cast aspersions and create doubt with no real information behind it. It's called innuendo Dave, and it's not a fact or an argument, it's really just the second oldest profession and frankly it's less honorable than the first. Near as I can tell, that's your primary stock in trade--wild-ass conspiracy theories supported not by fact, but by innuendo and unanswered questions that you like to pose to people who have no way of answering them.

Besides Dave, you asked the wrong question. The question should be, why did this wealthy benefactor decide to give money to BHA? The donor is the one with the motive and the reason for giving, not the recipient. Your question is a false canard Dave, because all non-profits get donations from a variety of sources including wealthy benefactors and none of them return the donations because of political affiliation.

But I have a question for you Dave. This is one you can sink your teeth into:

Why would Donald Trump Jr. become a life member of an organization (BHA) that is as nefarious and leftist as you want people to think it is?

Could it be that he's a hunter, and wants to preserve the tradition as well as our second amendment rights? Or is he part of the conspiracy?

Dave,

The only people I heard bitch when seasonal road closures started on FS land were those who felt entitled to drive ANYWHERE on public land. But most them quit complaining after ATV's became popular, because they could then drive around locked gates.

One of the interesting things was that the management of some National Forests immediately clamped down on ATV use when they first appeared and very few people owned them. Those forests didn't receive many complaints at all, because ATV's never became a hunting "tradition."

Most complaints came from people who hunted forests where off-road ATV use was banned AFTER a number of years. And there were plenty of good reasons to ban them, including severe erosion from illegal trails and, of course, big game not having any place to hide--except, of course, private land where hunting was either non-existent or severely restricted.

However, none of my many hunting friends complain about the closures because, like me, they've found big game does indeed learn to avoid constant vehicle traffic. Plus, the closed roads (whether seasonal or permanent closures) provide excellent paths for access and game retrieval, whether on foot, horseback or, sometimes, even mountain bikes.

It sounds like you firmly believe Forest Service lands are a total disaster for everybody, in every way imaginable. You're of course entitled to your opinion, but I know a pile of people in various western states that believe otherwise.

BW,
We're talking ten percent over nearly a century. A lot has happened in the past century and you can't tell me that selling a section of state land (1 or 36) near town where it's needed is necessarily a terrible thing, especially if the funds go to buy some "better" land further out, which does happen. Or, the money is invested in some other, higher rate of return that better funds education and lowers the tax burden for citizens. It is rational to buy, sell and consolidate in order to "optimize" holdings. You know, like BLM likes to do, and USFS likes. Why shouldn't states do the same?

Smokey -- I take it you didn't take a look at those links or read through any of the documents available.
This Wyss guy, a foreign national, uses a loophole in American law to fund the progressive left, the anti-gun, anti-economic, anti-freedom Left, at an order of magnitude that ranks him firmly alongside Soros.
I've got a file from the John Podesta leaks that is a remarkable revelation of how politics are truly funded and orchestrated inside the Beltway, I've not had time to fully explore it -- it's basically a "Don't Call My Donors, You Poaching Weasel" message from one high-dollar funding bundler to another. Just amazing.
Just in Montana, Wyss funds Montana Wilderness Association, Montana Wildlife Federation, Friends of Missouri Breaks, Greater Yellowstone Coalition, and yep, BHA. Are any of those really sportsman groups?
And what about Defenders of Wildlife? Or Sierra Club Foundation, or Earthjustice, or Wild Earth Guardians et cetera, ad nauseam? Do any of those groups care if another game animal is ever harvested? I really doubt it.

Skinner, what fantasyland do you live in? Ten percent? That depends on the State. Wyoming has sold 700,000 acres of its trust lands, closer to 20% of their state land.

Its not just the loss of those lands that is of concern, its also that the mandate to manage State trust lands is much different. For starters, there is no multiple use mandate on state lands in Wyoming. Its ILLEGAL to camp on trust lands here. Its ILLEGAL to start a campfire here on trust lands.

I can also tell you that recreational value is of ZERO legal concern to the OSLI in Wyoming, as in, it is the very last consideration that they give in a land swap, exchange, or in a sale. Plus, in Wyoming, land trades are NOT required to show an increase in revenue for the State School trust to move forward.

This creates a system that is prime for the plucking for those that want to do things like trade key pieces of state lands for the purpose of blocking access to other public lands.

Case in point: http://www.backcountryhunters.org/stop_the_bonander_state_land_exchange

As the Chair of the WYBHA board, staying on top of, and stopping this kind of chit, would be an everyday thing if the State of Wyoming was all of a sudden granted all the BLM and FS lands. It took a lot of work, by a lot of good people, to save access in the Laramie Range ands stop this exchange.

Again, there was NO legal obligation for the Land Board to even consider the recreational value of the land in the Laramie Range. This, in a county (Albany), that relies on recreation for its main economy.

Finally, don't let the legal argument slow you down on your PLT fantasy, or the fact that 11 of 12 States Attorney Generals in the West, have determined that there is no legal path forward for Public Lands Transfer. Of course, there's also those pesky Enabling Acts that the States agreed to as well...

Governor Mead (R), here has come out in opposition to PLT, for both legal reasons, and also because he recognizes the States simply cant afford to manage it. The State Legislature paid $75,000 for an independent study...and the study concluded that legally, and financially, there is no way forward.

Myself and other WYBHA chapter leadership, along with representative of WYSA, met with Governor Mead a couple weeks ago. He has a clear vision for public lands in Wyoming. A vision that keeps them intact with an eye to the future that includes recreation as the leading industry in the State. He also appointed an outdoor recreation task force to further the economy based on same.

While I have no problem with extractive, reasonable, and sensible use of natural resources (in particular renewables), its just plain ridiculous to ignore other appropriate uses of Federal Lands.

You carry on about "multiple use", yet appear to not even understand what that means. Perhaps try researching that...

I'm actually shocked anyone reads your bullchit...I've found more facts in the National Enquirer than anything you've ever scribbled. Give any arsehole a computer and they think they're a free-lance "journalist"...good grief.

John,
Again, I'm talking seasonal. I don't have much truck for road hunting, or using an ATV to hunt from, or driving everywhere just because it's possible. It goes back to the bad range behavior I've seen at so many informal public lands shooting sites. There are slob shooters and slob hunters and I think the gates should go up during the times of the year that mechanized use becomes a problem, or where irresponsible morons tear stuff up.

And I also want to put "hunting" in perspective. I understand where you make your living, and I'm glad you can do that, it's a cool thing.
But tourism, including hunting, is seasonal and its also discretionary. It's play money.
It's not an economic core, not a foundation for a stable economy. Tourism is just the gravy on top of the meat.
Even in Montana, hunting can't carry a community year round, although it helps in some places. Sure, there's five weeks, but what about the other 47 in the year?
A classic example of this is northwest Colorado. There are coal mines, oil and gas, ranches, and some of the finest mule deer I've ever had a chance to shoot. Yes, the hunters book Rangely and Meeker rock solid, flood the country with orange, but the rest of the year, the motels are full of resource-company people. That's what really carries these towns, and that's true for just about anywhere in rural America.
If hunters support policies that make these towns more dependent on the hunter dollar, the hunting experience WILL become less accessible to hunters in general, more elitist, and reduce the numbers needed at the voting booth to keep hunting alive for the average American.

Finally, Donald Trump Jr. I am glad he and his brother had a grandfather who turned them onto hunting. But his exposure is not typical. Africa? Asia? These are all guided trips to exotic locales, it's not Joe Average Weekend getting his deer. Both the brothers routinely take trips that for the rest of us are once in a lifetime things, if ever.
They can afford anything they want. Go anywhere they want, any time. Lucky them, but it's a rather uncommon state of affairs compared to the prosaic needs of the average person who needs to find both the time, and the money, which doesn't necessarily happen at the same time.
For that reason, their exposure to the larger issues regarding public lands and their role in the non-sporting economy, limits their perspective. They come for an escape, then go back to their "real world" in New York City.

Buzz,
Would you support changes to the Endangered Species Act to say, delist wolves? Or encourage captive breeding of sage grouse? Or perhaps changes to NEPA so that EIS's are, like Scoop Jackson said, would actually be less than a hundred pages, instead of thousands?

And, did you KNOW your group takes money from a foreigner who has dumped millions into the Center for Biological Diversity, which is just one of the opponents to wolf delisting in Wyoming? I mean, don't Americans hate it when outsiders play in our sandbox?

Environmentalists are bitterly opposed to state control of public lands for one reason only. Federal laws give them unjust, undue power, the power to inflict costs upon the public at large. With that power comes funding and paychecks, which means these activists don't have to suffer the consequences of their tampering.

Skinner,

Would I support reasonable changes to the ESA and NEPA? Sure, but I'm not going to support gutting them. There's a difference. What you would have in mind, probably not, which is likely a total repeal of both. Nothing in your "writing" would suggest you're in favor of keeping NEPA or the ESA intact and reasonable.

No, I do not support raising greater sage grouse in captivity, largely because it doesn't work. Sage grouse aren't Plymouth or Rhode Island Reds. There is mountains of science that show that it doesn't work, its extremely expensive, and likely would do more harm than good. That's another topic that we discussed with Governor Mead (R). He is 100% opposed to the idea and the bill introduced by the Legislature to do that. He is 100% committed to the collaborative process that Wyoming has adopted. The process that has produced results and kept sage grouse off the list. The Wyoming model of dealing with Sage grouse has buy in from industry, landowners, sportsmen, conservationists, and the public in general. Mead understands its about the habitat and collaboration, protecting core habitat and having broad support for sage grouse management. We are the envy of the West in regard to sage grouse management, no question.

Yes, I did know that my group takes money from a foreigner, so what? Wealthy donors contribute to a lot of different groups, causes, etc...not sure what your point is, or if you actually have one.

When was the last time you dove into who Jennifer Fielder, Ken Ivory, Jason Chaffetz, and the rest of the PLT wing-nuts take money from? Some real noble sources of funding there. But, you probably haven't researched or wrote much about that I bet.

As to wolf delisting, if you want to study up on that, you'll realize that the Ag community in Wyoming is why delisting was delayed. Why Jon Tester and Mike Simpson had to introduce legislation to unhitch itself from Wyoming and their unapproved federal plan. The blame isn't with the ESA or the process, the blame is with the State of Wyoming not complying with the FEIS.

I disagree that Federal Laws regarding land management are unjust and give undue power. I like the idea that if the Agencies ignore the laws, OUR REPRESENTATIVES, passed, that groups like BHA and others have the ability to file objections and lawsuits to make them comply.

I also believe that without the threat of objections and lawsuits, there is no system of checks and balances. Further, there is no way to hold the Agencies accountable for ensuring equal consideration is given to ALL resources, for the greatest good, for the most people, for the longest time, without impairment to the productivity of our Federal Lands.

You know...real multiple use.

I agree with you about politicians generally not connecting the dots with the habitat. But, I'm not so sure oil extraction hurts the wild life per se, unless it damages the water.
I hunted on a ranch where the owner had done a deer helicopter survey that revealed most of the deer were just below the cap rock areas where there were three active drilling rigs going 24/7.

My concerns about public land sales is the LDS wanting it state control so LDS judges and jury can oversee the outcomes.

Dave: Podesta? Soros? That's all you've got, more innuendo? Dave, what's the difference between fact, and innuendo masquerading as fact?

Ooops, sorry, didn't mean to ask a question you obviously can't answer.

Dave,

You're absolutely right. All "wildlife advocates," including hunters, are lefty radicals out to destroy the economy of rural America.

Dave, I can understand why you would want to discredit Don Jr., since he's been very vocal about being against the sale of public lands.

But jeez, do some homework before you go spouting off about how he has no perspective and is an elitist. Just like with Randy, you haven't bothered to do any homework or actually talk to the man, you just come with your own "facts" that support whatever conclusion you've come up with. Starting to see a pattern here Dave?

Here are the man's own words, in response to the question "If you could only do one type/species of hunting for the rest of your life, what would it be? This is from Petersen's Hunting magazine, it's on-line Dave:

DT Jr: That’s a very, very tough question. Perhaps because about the time I’m getting a bit tired of one season, you go into the next and it reinvigorates you.

When turkey season’s over, I’m into trout fishing. When trout fishing starts winding down, it’s fall with early season goose, then deer season. The diversity that we are offered in the outdoors is what keeps things exciting for me.

If I could only choose one, it would be something that gives me a lot of time outdoors—the more the better. I would have to say bowhunting for whitetails because it is easy for me to roll out of bed and be in a tree stand only a few hundred yards from home. In New York, we have a long bow season. It’s convenient because it’s right there. I can do it on a lot of weekends.

Although if I could only do one as a vacation-type hunt, it would have to be something in the mountains, probably a sheep or elk hunt, something that’s an incredible exertion kind of hunt. I really just love being out in true wilderness. I love the test. You versus the mountain, you versus the animal, in those tricky environments, where you are gone for two weeks at a time, with no communication with the rest of the world.

Depending on the circumstances, it would be one of those two things. Again, it’s hard to think that I wouldn’t be able to do any more waterfowling, any more upland shooting, or many of the other numerous things I like to do. It would be a tough call.


Read more: http://www.petersenshunting.com/con...uld-vote-for-donald-trump/#ixzz4ZsbsajKa

So again my question Dave: Why would Don Jr. become a lifetime member of an organization (BHA) that is as leftist and nefarious as you want people to believe it is?

Is Don Jr. a closet Bolshevik Dave? Maybe you''re onto something. I can smell a Pulitzer here if you play your cards right, LOL!!!

Buzz - good series of posts.

John,
No, not all wildlife advocates are commie pinkos, but an increasing number of sporting groups are being coopted completely by large checks from the same entities that fund Big Environmentalism.
The fact is, BHA is more an environmental group than it is a sportsman's group. Its main funders fund Big Stupid Green. That's a fact. The entire hunter and angler narrative epitomizes how the progressive Left and Greens frame issues. Sportsman is sexist, hunter or fisherman is sexist, so be PC and say "hunter and angler."

Hunter and Angler wasn't even in the lexicon until roughly 2001, and it wasn't spontaneous. Pew Trusts gave a bunch of money to those bird-hunting loonies at Audubon in order to "support" the Clinton roadless initiative, which was the administrative creation of wilderness-in-fact on 58 million acres that Congress hadn't designated.
Pew did a post-mortem and noted that NRA had opposed Clinton's move, and found a huge power vacuum inasmuch as NRA is the "sportsmens voice" largely by default.
Sporting groups are almost by nature fractured. Sportspeople join regional groups, or species-oriented groups that help our favorite prey. MDF, RMEF, TU -- about the only umbrella out there is Safari Club, and by default, the National Rifle Association.
So Pew Trusts decided to create an umbrella group it could control with money. Pew turned around and cut Trout Unlimited a big check to "sponsor" an entity called the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Alliance (now Partnership). The Izaak Walton League and a couple other entities also took up the same "roadless" cause at the same time, I think with Pew/TU funding, although I'd have to look way back in my records to be sure.
If you look at TRCP's record, the positions they take are primarily Green with a little lip service to gun rights and "access," usually only for walk-in hunting, not other forms of recreation and definitely not for resource production.
Also about that time, in 2002, the Outdoor Writers (or at least a faction) jumped all over NRA in Spokane because NRA's guy was critical of Sierra Club.
As for BHA, it was started by Trout Unlimited staffers in Oregon, and Trout Unlimited is taking huge amounts of money from foundational sources that are active primarily on the nonprofit Left. That TU staff began BHA and that it works closely with purely environmental groups that have similar funding streams is not coincidence. It's a narrative strategy, funded and designed by some of the best political minds inside the Beltway.
Who wins? Not the NRA, that's for sure. Sportspeople? Well, the sporting life is muy bueno if you're well employed, not so much if you can't afford the time and expense. Wildlife? Um, that goes back to that vegetation and habitat management we were bickering about earlier.

Smokey,
Don Jr. was a registered Democrat as of primary season 2016. And the only statements he's made came from the SHOT junket where he gave interviews for that.
Never mind his Dad was all over the map on guns over the years, and is absolutely not an outdoorsman. The SHOT episode was a way to bulk up DJT's change of heart to the gun rights people. The outdoors are just an abstraction to the President. And, the reality is, Trump was an abstraction to voters, who saw what they wanted to see.
Otherwise, he's busy hunting and making money, and he orbits in his circles -- not mine. He is, at core, an urban New Yorker who sees the world like that New Yorker cover. He's a creature of his environment.
Never mind that Ivanka, according to multiple reports, is into climatechangeism. I doubt she's seen the Lake Missoula shorelines or the Columbia scablands, which put a bit of perspective on changing climate.
Keep in mind that the Trumps have to make deals on both sides of the aisle and their only ideology is, um, Trump.

Glenn Beck posts here?

Smokey,
The FACT is that John Podesta took an 87,000 consulting fee from Hans Wyss while at the same time he was drawing 200,000 plus as head of the Left's most influential "think tank" -- Center for American Progress, of which Mr. Wyss was an original funder.
The FACT is, BHA is funded by a Swiss billionaire who replaced Ted Turner as the Daddy Greenbucks of the environmental movement. He ranks right up there. Sorry if you can't accept that.

Buzz,
I happen to know a number of people in the transfer movement, including Fielder and Ivory.
I'd like to suggest something to others, since you won't bother with it -- there's been an entity called the Campaign for Accountability that has been jumping all over Fielder's Emails, trying to discredit her, or at least keep her too busy to work on the lands transfer campaign.
Anything to kill the idea of state management in its cradle, right?
Well, CfA turns out to be staffed exclusively by former staffers from the Campaign for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington -- which in turn is a "nonprofit watchdog" focusing on Washington evil. What evils?
If you go to their site, to their "what's new" page --
http://www.citizensforethics.org/whats-new/
Out of 15 investigations, not one is aimed at Democrats, in fact, it's all about (and against) Donald Trump -- and another line is "Something Strange About the NRA's Tax Filings."
Nonpartisan, right. Oh, you bet.
Anyway, these CREW alumni work for CfA, which doesn't even exist by itself, it's a "project" of something called the New Venture Fund, which I think got 6 million from Wyss in either 2013 or 2014. Wyss was NVF's first substantial donor back in 2004 or 5, funding an anti-ORV campaign.
There's no information on CfA's budget or existence anywhere on NVF's tax forms, but the CfA website is registered at NVF's office address in Washington, DC.
Nothing to see there, either, kids. Move along.