Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Elk Hunting RMEF struggling??????

Some folks think that because govt has not yet done a thing (like closed or seriously restricted certain tracts of land) that it will never happen. I've lived long enough to know, that I don't want my trustworthy/efficient/wise govt having any more power, as they already have far too much and have not used it well. I'm not helping any organizations give more land to the govt. Your mileage may vary and you are welcome to it. I mean, seriously, we are talking about the very same govt that brought you wolves, failed social security, failed dollar, failed borders, failed schools, health care and on and on and on--open your eyes man.

That's why I quit them.

Sundles, it is good to see you posting here again. I don't expect that we'll ever agree on the whole public land issue, but that's why this country is great.

To clarify, I didn't say "it could never happen," I was just responding to your contention that it's unwise to put land in the hands of the federal government. Because if we didn't put land in the hands of the federal government, I'd have nowhere to hunt, and I'd guess that applies to a lot of us.

I choose to worry about other things the federal government is doing.

And yes, I know the government has failed at a lot of things, but man, you need to open your eyes. The government has done a few things right, and hunting on public land in the USA is one of the very best examples; very few places in the world have similar opportunities for hunters. You choose to base your opinion on health care and social security, I choose to look at interstate highways and our armed forces. You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Since you didn't answer my other question, I'm assuming you can't come up with any examples of the thing you're worried about:



So I'll ask another question: Where do you spend most of your hunting time, public (federally-managed) or private land?

If the answer is public land, how do you reconcile that with your opinions stated here?

Hey Smoke,

I'm pretty sure it was the old Kifaru forum where I posted with you many years ago, as I just joined this forum a few months back and I doubt I'll post here much at all as soon as pring comes. I simply run out of time when I can get outdoors more.

Folks ask questions on here (like you did about RMEF aquired land ever becoming closed to the public) and then think that because you didnt spend a whole day doing reasearch in order to give an exhaustive answer, that you could not answer----however, with me it is a matter of time--not having enough and not caring enough to spend hours of reasearch to answer a question it took 30 seconds to type.........

To answer your last question however, I am all over public land, spring, summer and fall and I don't really understand your question about reconciling that with my dislike of public lands being federally managed. The land is suppossedly yours and mine and the land is there, irregardless of the govt and the land will be there for millions of years after this govt and you and I are long gone. So, if I am going to go enjoy the wonders of the Rockies, I have to get up into them regardless of the entitiy currently laying claim to them. I don't know if that makes sense to you or not, but it does to me. It's sort of like when I go visit my daughter that lives in California--I don't like most of CA and I don't like breathing the air in any big city, but if I am going to see my daughter, I'm going to have to breathe the air....

My best to you.

Yup, makes perfect sense, but my point is, if the land were private instead of public (government-administered) you'd most likely either lose access or have to pay for access. And it'd be tough to piece together enough permission slips from private land owners to go very far, like multi-day trips on horseback.

That's all I'm saying.

And on the question I posed, I didn't do it to be a smart-ass, or to cause you to do research. You contend that it's bad for private land to be turned over to the government, so I'm just asking whether your concerns are based on real-life examples or something else.

One other thing--when RMEF acquires land or brokers a deal and turns land over to the the USFS, most of the time it's land that is under development pressure and would likely be lost to hunters/hunting if not acquired and turned over. Either that, or it's critical range, like winter range. Sometimes both.

RMEF doesn't normally step in and acquire private land that's likely to stay undeveloped as wilflife habitat.

You're right it doesn't make sense to me and I was pondering asking you the same question he did. An avid user and one who apparently greatly appreciates public lands doesn't want more public lands. Yep, even after I typed it I don't get it...

Same answer, I love the land, can't you get that? The land and my love of it would be there regardless of who controls it. My issue is that I beleive in less govt control, unlike you guys who think more govt control is good. You ASSUME that if it wasnt for the current bureaucratic management of our federal/public lands, that we would not have access. That is a huge ASSUMPTION, as we have not tried it another way on a large scale, no?

Just because you have access to that public land today, does not mean you will tomorrow as this goofy federal system, that is run by bureaucrats, could close off any part of the national forest they want any time they want. It's been done before, many times. The biggest threat to our freedom is not alqueda, but our own big spending, over regulating, constitution ignoring, freedom stealing govt.. It's really quite simple with me, (and feel free to disagree all you like, I know you will)when it comes to govt., less is more, less land control, less regulation, less taxation, less corruption, etc. I have little faith in a large centralized govt being involved in too many aspects of our lives--simply look at thier track record. Since you admitted you dont get it, I'm not sure I can instill the principles of freedom in your mind, but reliance on govt., is not the answer, because what they can give, they can take and more.

Good diversionary tactic (don't answer the question, cast aspersions in a different direction), but the generalized statement above is nonsense. As I already said, the government gets a few things right, like interstates, our armed forces, and keeping public lands open. That does not equate to thinking "more govt control is good."





No, your assumption that you'd have access to private lands is the bigger leap. Because we have access to public lands and it's been that way since the NFs were established, continued access is a reasonable assumption. The most reasonable assumption.

And I guarantee you that if you or I decided to drive across any western state with good elk hunting--Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, New Mexico, Arizona, or Colorado, and stopped at choice private land to ask permission to hunt elk, more often than not permission would be denied or charged a pretty penny for. So assuming the same thing would happen with public land that went private is a reasonable assumption; the most reasonable assumption.

Good diversionary tactic (don't answer the question, cast aspersions in a different direction), but the generalized statement above is nonsense. As I already said, the government gets a few things right, like interstates, our armed forces, and keeping public lands open. That does not equate to thinking "more govt control is good."




No, it is an ASSUMPTION period. If we did not use our current system, we could find better ones, if we looked.

Further, my last post had no "diversionary" tactics---I posted what I honestly believe, although I understand that a genuine lack of diversionary tactics is beyond your grasp. I recall you and pointer being a tag team on the old Kifaru site as well. Imagine the odds, you both showed up at the same time on this thread. Take care.

Pure, unadulterated nonsense. Your recollection is in error. As a diversionary tactic, this tops even your last effort, a hearty congratulations to you.

But let me get this straight--you're here to tell us that if two people on this forum share the same opinion of hunting on public lands, and question your stance toward those same public lands ("I enjoy them and use the hell out of 'em, but they're a bad idea"), we must be a "tag team?" You don't think the question is what, logical? Proper? Obvious?

Of course, if you want to try and show that pointer and I are a tag team (rather than just cast another aspersion), it would be easy to prove, it's all there to see both on the Kifaru forum and here. If it were true, surely you could just ask the guys at Kifaru and they'd tell you, wouldn't take but a minute.

Oh, I forgot, you don't have time to do "research," but it seems you do have time to toss off stuff like this.

I do enjoy a good debate, one that includes facts, opinions, and even biased points of view. Too bad you're unable to stick to those.

And if you're going to quote previous posts, try to do it accurately. Your post above has things I said that you've re-arranged to look as if you said them.

Take care.

Sorry to hijack guys, but "what if" the State's right to manage wildlife were taken from them by the fed. gov't? What would happen to the ability to hunt on public land? Tim.

Hey Tim,

What the heck is this, a Kifaru reunion?

Best,
Tim

I'm not wanting to divert a thing, but I am wanting to not waste time. You and pointer and I have debated this issue before.....so whats the point in continuing? When the crap hits the fan, you'll be standing there wonndering how/why/what happened, but I, on the ohter hand, don't put my trust in govt., I buy gold/silver, store food and ammo and keep much of it off site, don't put money in a 401K, don't buy stocks any more and don't expect much of ANYTHING to stay constant with this govt.. Our borders are broken and porous, the dollar is ruined (you may not know it yet) most manufacturing jobs have left the US do to regulations and unions, unemployment is huge and if they counted it the way they did 70 years ago, it would be close to 20%, the "war on drugs" is a farce and a lost cause, our school system is by and large a joke, our national debt is unsustainable and even the debt maintanence alone will probably sink us if we quit deficit spending today, which we wont, every program the feds have started is bankrup--ie social sec., medicare, medicade, etc, etc, etc,.

So, lets just put more stuff into govt management. Go for it.

I used to have a wife that would not even know if a bomb went off in our back yard unless she walked out there and fell in the hole a day/week later. I've come to learn that her mind set is in the majority in the good ol USA.

Well, I can't help you with your choice of spouses.

You got me there.

Not surprising that once again, you've missed the point and mis-stated my position. I'm not for indiscriminately putting more land under government control, and neither is the RMEF, the subject of this thread. They'd rather see the land remain intact as working ranches and viable wildlife habitat than have to step in.

What the RMEF does (once again) is acquire or broker deals for land that is under development pressure, or likely to be subdivided. Like the area I hunt in the Blue River valley of Colorado, called Columbine Ranch. (You can google it) A few hundred acres of wintering grounds that would have been developed and off-limits to hunting just like the surrounding areas, had the RMEF not stepped in. I still hunt there, and will for years to come.

It's hard to find a negative there, but I'm sure some can.

Yippy, I'm on a team!!! Being short and fat I am used to not getting picked to be on anyone's team. Dang kickball...

I disagree with your stance on management of govt lands. Sure, management changes and I don't agree with all of them, but I have yet to know of a place completely closed to public access. If you know of one I would appreciate a reference to where and by what agency. IMO, the biggest threat to land access is the removal of them from the federal system. I can garantee you, that in this day and age, that transfer of these lands to a private entity would greatly restrict or eliminate access to these same lands.

I am not as paranoid, or worried if you would like a gentler way of putting it, about the loss of access to these as I am completely aware of the processes involved in closing and managing them. So, I will spend my time using public lands as much as practical (much harder since I moved to a state with little public land) and will comment on all federal land management actions that I feel warrant it. I'm still in favor of more public land as long as it comes from a willing seller/transferee...

You and she would be a perfect match. Would you like her phone #?

Yet another relevant point. You're on a roll, don't stop now.

Any more relevant that this?

Yeah, you're right, that was irrelevant. But how about these, you 've side-stepped all the questions I've asked or points I've made. If you want to talk relevancy, then answer a direct question. If you can. I'm betting you can't:





Please don't say you've responded to the second question, because you haven't. In order to respond, you'd need to reconcile your contempt for "government-controlled" public lands with your tendency to spend most of your hunting time on those same lands. Good luck. Maybe you should consult Webster's, under "hypocrite."




As far as your ex-wife, you know, you're the one who introduced that tangent, not me.

And then you tried to associate the woman with me. Thing is, I didn't marry her, you did.

Personally, I couldn't afford to make a mistake like that, we have three sons in college right now, two in top-tier engineering programs. It's expensive.

You want to whine about the decline of our country and the export of good jobs overseas, well, we're doing something about that by raising some engineers.

But feel free to continue with your tangent, it's hilarious.