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

Thanks guys I am strongly considering a membership in BHA and would be happy to give them as much as I do the NRA each year, if not more.

Don't understand why it's one OR the other?

Very glad for ALL the public lands out west and, just as with wolves, I think the west would be diminished w/o those wild places BHA has made it its goal to protect.

Thanks everybody; I am really dreaming of a day I can get out and do a back country hunt but happy just to know my kids & grandkids can dream of it too!

Members of our community, Smokey?

Let me quote that great Tennesean, Mr. Winters: "We need fewer roads through our NF, not more. I don't go to NF land to see 4-wheelers, oil/gas, mining or any of the other "multi-uses" you seem to favor/champion. In fact, I'm not fond of finding cattle/sheep 5 miles back into the NF either.

First, we might not need more roads just to have roads, but it is the height of folly to destroy existing roads, not merely close them for legitimate reasons, such as damage, seasonal habitat security or even no need. There is a real problem when a fire can't be jumped on because the culvert and fill has been removed and the next line of defense is miles downwind. It's shameful when a large windthrow can't be salvaged, again, because of a destroyed road, and the beetles go nuts and run for miles, killing great forests that will lay to rot and fires.

Second, this 4 wheeler, no petro, no mining. So, how did you get to the trailhead, Mister Perfect? Fly in on your unicorn? No, you killed dinosaurs, rolling on more dinosaurs. And then you walked on even MORE dead dinosaurs. And what did you kill your supper with? Did the steel for your rifle come from the Rifle Fairy or from a hole in the ground?

Third, not fond of cows or sheep? Man, I'd love to see you say that to some rancher and then ask him if you could hunt his or her place. Probably wouldn't go well. Never mind that if that rancher loses the grazing right, he sells to Mister Billionaire, who can afford electric fences, hired guards and hates hunters -- or, even better, hates competition from the riffraff (kinda like in that land exchange fiasco).

Now, I understand you see public land as your "escape" for your special time. And, I've always been respectful of the right of others to use and enjoy public lands in a responsible manner, even if it's different or inconvenient, or bursts my "alone in 1805" fantasy bubble.

And speaking of community, it's ironic that Smoke gripes on the "community" angle. Unless you do the full woo woo, you should be eliminated. In and out by foot or hoof only, don't you dare drive the pickup with your kids in on the weekend. The message to others is, "Do it our way or don't do it at all." If you don't joint the cult, you're to be banned from the temple by the high priests. That's community?

I did my trophy phase, the mountain man stuff, got mine. I'll always support hunting, I love blood and horns in town in front of the bar. But I'm more interested in other things, like making a living the rest of the year besides hunting season. If I have to be a purist, I've got other things I'd rather do with my time, licenses and hardware for other things I'd rather do, another community I'd rather belong to.

Any of you considered that the survival of hunting is a numbers game? What happens when the weekend warrior who can't (or won't) do a guided wilderness hunt, or even a Randy Newberg budget special, stops buying licenses? Finds something else to be interested in? There needs to be a full spectrum of opportunity between easy and hard, between forkhorns and B&C, between wilderness and off-the-porch harvest.

In the short run, I guess the purist cult thinks there will be "more for me, and me only." But down the road, it will come and bite. The enviro foundations that pay to support BHA, TRCP and other "hunter and angler" entities won't be making any grants to preserve hunting once the number of hunters falls below a certain level, meaning a level of political relevance to the larger agenda of environmentalism.
The elites of hunting, the hardest of the core, will find themselves alone once the peasants that don't meet their requirements have left the field for good, left the community.

Or, there aren't enough voting peasants in the field at all -- they never joined the community in the first place. Tell some kid they've got to freeze their cans for two weeks in a tent for five years before they kill a trophy (if you can afford to do that). What happens when they are no longer your dependent, on a limited budget for time AND money? Do they stay in the game, keep a hand in? How do you capture and captivate them? With success! Accessible, realistic chances of success! Success!

If my Dad had only taken me into the Bob Marshall, where we got repeatedly skunked (but had fun anyway), would I be a sportsman in the first place? Probably not. But he did take me road hunting and I got bloody. Was that evil?
How about out for pheasants in the Jimmy on Saturday mornings? We got skunked for real there. And those were on private lands, and yep, the rancher (his sons, actually) still runs cows on the National Forest. Evil!

Community, my foot.

I haven't had time to read this whole thread but could you quote where anybody said specifically that those who do backcountry adventures like I've heard smokepole dies are the only legitimate users of public land out west?

Honest and sincere question because I may well have missed it.

My take on this is that there is a mystique inherent to those wild places that is as American as apple pie and my old fashioned deer camp in the northern LP (no wilderness there by a long shot) and that there is plenty of land upon which all can enjoy, but that we ought to leave what little we have of wild places wild.

Am I wrong?

Roads to trailheads and road less. In the West, road less lands insure prime habitat, prevent the stressing of wildlife in winter, and reduce poaching. The Feds aren't the best at management, especially when local agencies are sabataged, but I sure don't trust state entities with dollar signs in their eyes to do better. What more recently has become a problem in roaded public lands, is the mobile production of meth and other nefarious activities. With roads providing access to secluded but drivable areas, the FS has the added expense and danger of patrolling campsites where illegal activities occur.
Just think for a moment what a mobile meth operation leaves behind at a campsite.....Toxic!

I saw what oil drilling did to ancient wildlife migratory routes, in the Wyoming range area. No thought was done to the development of natural gas wells near Pinedale. And when oil and nat. gas went bust, people lost their jobs, the Natural Gas operation shut down. The structures and rutted roads remained. The elk and deer had already left.
So who actually prospered?

When oil, gas and mining are discussed, many forget about boom/bust, not to mention their history of cutting corners to pollution.
Ancillary structures and operations, that support oil, gas and mining tend to spring up nearby. But its ALL temporary. When it all slows down or stops, the operations end, but the empty buildings, storage yards and refuse remain. Some see dreams in these jobs, but dreams end in those locations, and the die hards move to the next job prospect. I'd prefer to leave the whole scenario out of federal lands. Public land is not expendable.
I agree, we do need to keep the wild in wilderness, not everywhere, but a goodly portion of it.

No, you didn't miss it, it's just not there.

Good grief Dave, you just can't help yourself can you. "You should be eliminated???" Give it a rest, man.

Show me where I said any of that stuff in the quote above and I'll kiss your ass on Main Street.




I agree Dave, there needs to be a full spectrum of opportunities.

The thing is, there already is a full spectrum, and maintaining part of our public lands as roadless ensures the full spectrum. That dog won't hunt, but nice try Dave.





Dave, you can't make a point without pejoratives, can you?





Barking up the wrong tree Dave, once again. We raised three sons, they're grown up and on their own and they all love the outdoors. They like freezing in a tent, they like four-wheelers, they like shooting tannerite bombs at the quarry, and they like camping out of the back of the truck and doing it the easy way same as their old man. Get a clue about who you're talking to Dave.

We partake of the full spectrum, but it sounds like you don't. Which is fine by me, but I'd rather not hear all your pissing and moaning about those of us who actually use the full spectrum.


PS, my elk hunting partner this year owns a logging company. The place we'll be hunting is a designated wilderness, and he's not even pissed about it, imagine that. We'll be hunting this particular spot for no other reason than it has excellent hunting. The only downside is all the sheep that are up there during bow season, they can be a pain in the ass. And no, I'm not saying they shouldn't be there, the rancher has the same right to use that land as I do. But the fact is, when you're elk hunting, they can be a pain in the ass.

Full spectrum Dave, and multiple use.

You need to read the environmentalist literature and take note of what is said outside the press releases.

How many times have you seen offhand comments in other threads about "fat slobs on four-wheelers" or "get off your butt and hunt?" Plenty. And who makes those comments?
And yes, that's a legitimate concern, there ARE lowlifes out there. I've been blown a couple of times by "Mister Oblivious" and it kind of irritated me.
So I would support seasonal, need based restrictions on ATV's, like for game retrieval only, but the reality is, the bans are almost always year-around. Or, when the issues of access are discussed, the only access considered is by foot or hoof.

And yes, there IS a mystique to wilderness, to the idea that "no man has gone before." There's a legitimate role for wilderness areas, for outstanding places. But I've been repeatedly amazed at the actual experience of "wilderness" -- wall to wall horse trailers and mud, all the modern implements as the thundering herds of sportsmen launch themselves into the "wild." Or summertime trailheads, when it's wall to wall Subarus registered in the "big city" from Friday night to Sunday evening, and nothing the rest of the week.
Then, you go one ridge over, and you've got it all to yourself because it's not wilderness.
I had a county judge (basically, a one-person county commission) in Oregon tell me about the Strawberry wilderness use patterns. 90 percent of the visits for the entire 33,000 acres were day hikes on about eight miles of trail during three months. The other ten percent, the fall hunters, used more of the network and some camped overnight.
But the hikers then either drove back home or hit the motel, about half and half, and they of course checked off the Strawberry on their "wilderness bucket lists."
But that's not exactly being in the wild, as users were almost always in sight of others.
That's more the rule than the exception when it comes to wilderness and "opportunities for solitude" -- not a lot of mystique, really.
Oh, and did I mention that most of the wilderness had been burned over by a wildfire and the dead trees were tipping over onto the trail network -- which by LAW have to be cleared by hand tools, and hand tools only? Trust me, jackstraw jungle is not the greatest ungulate habitat.

I'd be interested to know if your logger partner is a Colorado logger or from some other state. I don't even think there's a logging association in Colorado any more, not even a single sawmill, unless the one in Montrose miraculously still exists.

Fine, Smokey, you're all about hunting...but it's clear you care less about the year-round economies of the places you visit, what happens the other 47 weeks of the year -- or what is it down your way, three, three-day rifle seasons preceded by muzzle and bow?

Gal,
You use oil, gas and minerals, AND wood, every day, don't you? And of course you eat stuff you get in a store that you can't grow yourself, and your life is better for it. It's got to come from somewhere, and we aren't allowed to move it out from under pretty places to someplace ugly.
Boom and bust isn't the greatest, but what would you rather have -- bust all the time? Or nothing at all? What would Pinedale be like if nobody could visit because there wasn't a highway or gas pumps or IGA? Would you be there?

What isn't being acknowledged here is that wilderness and "roadless areas" can't be managed for desired outputs in the way that open or "unprotected" lands can be. If the vegetative component of the habitat goes in the wrong direction, then the "output" desired, in your case good hunting, goes away for however long it takes for "Nature" to do whatever SHE, not "hunters and anglers," want.

Dave, we already went over the local drivers of our economy here. Logging is not one of them, with or without roadless areas. Did you forget already?

Nice try Dave. You literally have not the first clue who I am or anything else about me for that matter. I'm entitled to an opinion that differs from yours. I've read your posts now for 2 weeks and a bazziliion words. Without inuendo, inference, and sketchy/fuzzy connections, you have nothing concrete to say.

Feel like a salmon yet? I think I'll call you Salmon Dave.

Good luck getting a straight answer. I tried to give him the benefit of the doubt, researched some of his fuzziness, and concluded he's only got inference and innuendo.

What is interesting to me is that Skinner accuses certain sportsman's groups, and a poster here, of having a "suspect agenda", because of where he thinks their money comes from, and/or who their top organizer is. He discredits others' ways of using public lands; by discrediting others he implies that only his vision of land use is legitimate....hmmm. Either or kinda thing. The Left is notorious for innuendo and fuzzy math, just like him .And in those respects he is sounding like a Lefty himself, or using lefty tactics. And, what does the Left do? They accuse others of doing what they themselves do. I gotta ask.
So Mr Skinner, whose pocket are you in?

Gal,
No one's. I'm actually independently comfortable. Won the lottery.
And you're wrong about my "vision." I am a staunch believer in multiple use, in multiple forms of access to public lands of all kinds, for activities that cover the spectrum from prehistoric play to modern work.
I am a member of a modern culture that needs resources of all kinds to be prosperous and happy. I know where the resources I use come from, having had a hand at various times in producing them, digging them, growing them, and taking them to market so YOU can enjoy their use as well.
The fact is, the groups we've discussed take money from incredibly rich, secretive political players (and not a few trust-fund babies) who not only support left-wing "nonprofit" political activities, but also spend big on Democratic political campaigns.
You may, or may not, know that, but you ARE being pawned. You like hunting -- go ahead and hunt down the fiscal support for BHA and TRCP, it's not that hard to get at least PART of the cash-flow picture. And then, it's really easy to figure out why BHA and TRCP even exist.

'Gal: Keep him going.

We're averaging a new BHA member every 3.5 posts.

Nah...just circular talk.

I know of at least one 😎

Apparently BHA if buffaloing alot of people and credible businesses. Most business people are idiots and invest their money into things and organizations that are counter to their business interest. Or maybe not.

I voted for a Democrat on at least 2 occasions I can remember. According to Salmon Dave, I'm apparently suspect of supporting gun confiscation, federal take over, abortion and ever other contra-issue they support. Probably not (hint).

I know of another, LOL...