Randy Newberg, aka Big Fin, has recently appeared on TEDEx Helena w/ a short presentation on the meaning and value of Public Land to Americans. I saw it on You Tube and I am sure it is on other platforms and should be watched and commented on by everyone who care about the outdoors.

Thanks Big Fin, you represent us well. Public speaking is tough and should not be left to politicians and actors.


mike r

I think this might be it.

That's the one, thanks Hammerdown, what did you think?


mike r

ahh I ain't worried about no public land - nothing out there to see except a bunch of nothing . . I got better things to worry about , if somebody can come up with something to do with it then let them have it - it won't effect me .

I thought Randy addressed lots of good points. He made it clear he wants public land to stay public. I'm with him on that. It's there (the public land) for our generations and generations to come, to use. Use it as outdoor recreations to hike, camp, hunt and fish. To be able to explore just like our fathers before us did.
I don't think, we need to have the mind set "it wont effect me" It's all of lands and we should all care about what happens to it.
Take care

sarcasm .

Copy-10-4

Randy is a great guy...a great represtative of our sport.
Proud to call him friend.

Randy is a class act. Has a good website, too.

Randy is top notch for sure I have a ton of respect for that man.

I am living in Randy's dads old house right now.Dabble

Doesn't speak for me at all. He talks about the "recreation economy" of which his particular niche is a small part of the whole, to the exclusion of that same natural resource economy he also mentioned. Cleverly done, all wrapped in the flag, of course. But he ignores the millions of acres burnt, again, ignores the fact that he's opposed to certain kinds of recreational use.

If you had said I spoke for you Dave, I would have completely failed in my message.

Facts are facts. Neither outdoor rec or natural resource extraction has to be "to the exclusion" of the other. Maybe some see it that way if they need the simplistic binary vision to tame this scary, complicated, big adult world we live in. Might want to take another listen at 5:46 where I say the following, with no implication that one is at the exclusion of the other.

1. Outdoor Rec economy is 2% of GDP.

2. Natural Resource economy is 1.5% of GDP and critical to our national defense.


Where did I ignore that millions of acres burnt? I didn't. Factoid you might benefit from - Millions of acres burn every year. Millions of acres have burned every year in the western US since Moby Dick was a minnow and will continue to burn so long as we manage/mismanage fire, forests, and landscapes the way we do.

Tell me what "certain kinds of recreation" I'm opposed to?

I'd be interested to hear all the facts you have about me. Fact is, you don't have any. It is more of the standard clueless BS you dream up. Seems like once a year you show up to lob a few volleys from the peanut gallery, hoping someone will take you seriously, then when you're proven to be full of BS, you crawl back under a rock.

Here's an idea for you. Why don't you ask OIDabble, the guy who posted above, about my background in resource economy issues. He spent time working with my Dad's logging operation. He was neighbor with, or worked as a faller and/or skidder operator for, many of my uncles in their logging operations. I worked in a sawmill with Dabble's brother while I was going to college. He sees my brother's current logging operation on a regular basis. It would be funny to see you show up in that small logging town and start blowing your BS stories and see how quickly someone rearranges your "facts."

I'm thankful I don't speak for you. I'm thankful you've never spoke to me, seen me in person, or communicated with me in any manner. Seems such communication would be necessary to acquire all of "what you know" about me, but if facts were currency, you'd be bankrupt. Your BS doesn't work very well with those of us who live in Montana, so I guess it is expected you would try to see what sticks out here on Al Gore's internet. It would be fun to meet you some day when I'm in the Flathead.

I have a favor to ask, Dave; if ever I said something you did agree with, please let me know. I would quickly examine what I wrote/said/represented, as I most likely would have misstated my opinion.


To the rest of you, thanks for posting link and thanks for the support. Hope your mailboxes are stuffed with the tags you've applied for.

So thankful for our forefathers that had the vision and insight to create these public lands, in this great country.

I was bummed out. No sponsorship board anywhere....hell not even a sponsored llama. Lame.

Randy,

While I know you don't need any assistance getting the drop on the Montana version of the late Art Bell...just keep up the great work for us lowly hunters, fishermen, trappers, hikers, etc. etc. that place high value on our public lands.

Well done and we'll see you in the trenches.

Randy for President 2020.

Thanks Randy,

The short talk was laid out well, very understandable and well thought out.

Unfortunately, it likely won't have fallen on many of those who hold differing beliefs ears. My feeling over the years: many of those folks who oppose public lands (and their management by ".gov" ) for a variety of reasons don't listen to TED talks, which I've only ever heard on NPR, PRI, JPR and associated radio which is anathema to them.

I appreciate your insightful analysis.

Geno

Awww so cute

Im kinda bummed randy didn't ask the real hard hitting questions during his turdcast with you. "Buzz how is it you breath with your head so far up your rectum" "buzz, does anyone from bha call you and tell you to stfu?" "Buzz, how great is it to get paid by the people to go scouting, act like you actually work?"

Sorry, Randy,
But the reality is, you're hunting and fishing uber alles. I'd bet you think the current release bill for the Metcalf WSA's, none of which cut the mustard in the original mandated 1964 review, is a bad thing. All the Greens know those WSAs are bargaining chips, a hostage-taking, potential future territorial gains, and its more ground for you to film your videos. Don't tell me you're not self interested, I certainly am.
I sure like to hunt, but I also love to ride vast distances of summer singletrack on my dirt bike. I like to camp, hike, fish, but I also like to see the local mill full of logs that won't go up in smoke and that will build fine homes. I like multiple use, land of many uses, that gives my community a diverse and good paying economic base. I even like wilderness, there's no question the Bob Marshall should have been designated. The add ons? No. That wasn't the original, reasonable, decent intent of the Wilderness Act. Even Bob Marshall himself envisioned no more than 20 million acres in the end.I'm sort of glad there is more than that, like 100 million acres, but more? At the expense of literally everything else great about public lands? Heck no.

The fact is, recreation jobs don't pay. The Outdoor Industry Association bragged up the jobs last year, like 7.1 billion of which 2 billion was wages. But those wages were across 70,000 jobs that paid a lousy $25 grand a year, well below the already-rotten Montana average.
You claim "outdoor recreation" as being 2 percent of GDP. What you DON'T say is the Feds just did an initial analysis, and the "outdoor recreation" that you (and the idiots at OIA) claim as all yours -- basically, the politically-corrected kind, is only a tiny part of that two percent.
The total sector is 374 billion -- bigger than ag (farms, fish, forests) at 177 billion, bigger than Hollywood (124 billion).
Yet, $59 billion of this sector is credited to the manufacture of motorized vehicles. Yep! Of those, $30 billion are “recreational vehicles” as in fuel-guzzling motor homes and (likely) camping trailers. Boating and fishing? $38 billion – and you can bet those aren’t just kayaks, canoes and rafts. Hunting, shooting and trapping? $15.4 billion, with hunting being 60 percent, or $9.2 billion. Horses? About $10 billion. In sum, as GearJunkie put it, “hunting, fishing, and motorized vehicles contributed the most among outdoor activities. And RVs contributed more than half of the motorized vehicle value.”
What’s left over? You guessed it -- backpacking, hiking and climbing (plus gear), which certain special interests insist is the only appropriate “outdoor industry” deserving top policy priority on public lands. As Outside reported, all that remains is “$10 billion, well behind the hook-and-bullet industries.”

That dovetails with a lot of other things I've learned over the years about public lands recreation (and I'm not counting the "work" uses of grazing, forestry and yep, mining). The last Recreation Visitor Day analysis I looked at for Montana boiled down foot and horse visitors to about two percent of total visitation, while modern means of "outdoor recreation" using motorized toys of all kinds was the rest of it: Pleasure driving day trips, camping (with all the stuff), sledding, downhill skiing, et cetera, of which most was local people living within 50 miles. When it came to wilderness use, that again boiled down in interesting ways. Fully half of all wilderness visits were hunting-related, meaning occuring during five weeks of fall. The other 47 weeks (actually, more like 20 weeks when there's open ground, not snow) covered the rest of the "human-powered" visitation.
So my point is, large areas are already set aside for each of a relatively few elite or purist users that seek the experience you want, while there is less and less for the other 98 percent who, for whatever reason, fall in the full spectrum of "outdoor recreation." You guys can have Randy speak for you, that's fine, but Randy doesn't speak for the other 98 percent who have been shafted, and are in fact still being shafted by bad public lands policies set by Big Stupid Green.

So entertaining!

Again the fresh breath of truth wafts in!

Thanks for reminding me why I have you on ignore.

I can’t imagine you actually listen to Randy because if you did you’d recognize the foolish transparency of the straw man you build and then tear down when speaking of him.

As a guy who considers himself lucky to get our West once every other year I’m deeply grateful for all the public land we have and for guys who are willing to speak against those who would liquidate mine & my sons’ & grandsons’ inheritance to those who’d lock it up and force us back to the European model our forefathers rejected.

Dave, these discussions with you are entertaining, if nothing else. You working towards a career in comedy, or you just like to spin your own ideas without a grain of truth by which to weave them?

Want more proof of how ignorant your comments are and how uninformed you are? I'll help the readers by examining your quote here.




New flash, Dave - I can't get a public land film permit for Wilderness Area filming in USFS Region One. More Wilderness in any part of Region One means less ground for me to "film my videos," which is the least of my concerns, given I've found ample public lands to film videos for ten years without doing it in Region One Wilderness Areas.

If you had a clue what you were talking about, you would know that. So tell me again, why I am advocating for more Wilderness Area (which I am not) in Montana, and how that gives me more land to "film my videos." I pay about $15-20K per year in the form of public land film permit fees to "film my videos," but not a single one of them are in a Region One USFS Wilderness Area.

Next.....





Before I school you on my position of that topic, how much you wanna bet? I'm good for $500 on that bet, how about you? I'll bet you any amount you want.

You would lose that bet. Taking money from you would be like shaking down the neighbor kids at their Kool-Aid stand.

I've been in three meetings on the topic this winter/spring. Guess who else was at those meetings? B&C, WSF, and a few others. Provide me your email address and I'll send you a copy of the draft white paper these groups have put together, supporting release of those WSAs and developing a process to determine their best use. And guess what, the Senator thinks the idea is a good process.

Here's even a better idea. Call Daines' staff, particularly Spenser, and ask him what groups are working with him on ideas for those WSA lands he has proposed releasing. Once you do that, report back here as to the groups and who among those groups is in the mix of it. When you find out that I am is one of those people and I am on record that the time has long since passed we decide the fate of these lands.

I suspect you won't call Spenser and you won't report back here, as it will again show the world you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

On top of that, ask the folks you call "Big Green," what I've told them as to my thoughts on WSAs. It will be completely counter to what you profess above. I've publicly stated we have enough "big W." Because of those statements, "Big Green" doesn't invite me to dinner any more than you do. I'm fine with that.

With you losing the bet, I'll send you my address for payment. I take cash, check, or PayPal.

Next........


Every single thing you have stated above, about me, and my positions, is fabrication; figment of your creative imagination. Can hardly imagine what the next pivot will be to your argument.

Your ability to analyze economics and understand what outdoor recreation represents seems to be as much of a fantasy world as your conclusions about me and my positions. If you want to slice and dice it down to state park admission fees, to try support your ignorance, knock yourself out. Outdoor related recreation is 2% of GDP and public lands are, as I said in the video, at the core of that part of the economy. Argue all you want, but being a CPA who has spent 30+ years involved in numbers and economic data, I'm comfortable with my ability to comprehend such data.

Now that I pointed out in the last post that there are people on this thread who can dispel your fairy tale that I have no experience in the natural resources economy, it seems you've dropped that lie from your quiver. I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate how disconnected I am from the logging and natural resource economy. I suspect I'll be dead before you can gin up any facts to support that fairy tale from your last thread.

Before you get off on some embarrassing tangent that I have no use for mining, grazing, or other natural resources, I'll also save you the embarrassment of that false claim. I can give you the names of my cousins who are in the mining industry in Nevada and Alaska, or family involved in the iron mine/taconite industry of Minnesota, and more people involved in logging, mills, and paper than you could contact in a month (not that you would do any fact checking).

And if you think I have no interest in public land grazing, call the USFS office and see who handles the largest USFS grazing allotment that is in a Montana Wilderness Area. Call the Livingston office of the Custer-Gallatin and ask about the Lost Creek Allotment. I can save you the call. They will tell you the person who handles that grazing allotment is a CPA in Bozeman who is an officer of the corporation and the business manager of the ranch using that allotment.

Next...... (I'll spare your further embarrassment of publicly proving your ignorance, until your next post)


A good part of you posting these things, is that it will not be read by just the folks in Montana who already know your propensity for being a "big mouth-small facts" guy. Nope, now all members of the Dave Skinner Fan Club here on 24CF can see the folly in listening to anything you write or say.

You do impress me with each of your rebuttals, as I did not know people would be willing to hold themselves as "in the know" when they reach such impressively low levels of being "in the dark." So far you've posted two pieces about me, a person you've never spoken to, stating what you claim as fact. Both of those pieces have been shown as complete fabrications.

If you still wonder why I am such a big advocate of public lands, look at all the things I've posted of me and my family members being involved in public lands for employment, lifestyle, food, and the place my family has used as our get away. Like most, we can't afford the huge private playground. The communities I grew up in and currently live in economically benefit from abundant public land. I come from a long line of deplorables who have had "to make due" with the public lands. So long as I have a breath in my body, expect me to be advocating for public lands and productive management of those lands. If that annoys you, I guess you have the two options my Grandma always gave me - 1) get over it, or 2) die pissed off.

My name is in the book, Dave. Pick up the phone and save yourself further embarrassment. Until then, you might want to do a bit more fact checking before you offer up any additional bets or assumptions.

Trying really hard to bite my tongue!


Thanks for saving Montana...lol

EFW,
The problem is, those of us here can't base an economy on the off chance that you'll visit. As for the inheritance, that's pretty much been burned away during the last 25 years or so of utter paralysis inflicted by eco-litigants on the planning and more important, ACTION missions of both BLM and the Forest Service. These are living habitats that need active management over time, period, or mother nature takes over and the result doesn't fit human desires.
As for liquidation, I guess you've fallen for THAT line of hooey. To hear Greens talk, anything not wilderness will be bulldozed flat. Not true. But believe what you want, enjoy your visit.

Randy, the fact that you're CPA for a ranch, or related to people who have resource jobs, doesn't excuse the fact that you're up to your eyebrows with the Backcountry Hunters people, who are mostly funded by the same environmental foundations that support Big Green, to the tune of hundreds of millions a year. You are an advocate of a certain, and very narrow, public lands model that, in addition to the "roadless lands are the BEST EVER" meme, opposes oil and gas production, minerals development, forestry, off-road or off-pavement motorized recreation -- and really might not be too upset if the last wilderness grazing rights went away, or were converted to bison.
So, I'm honestly surprised you'd support release of the Metcalf cluster. However, I'll still have to wonder about the conditions imposed "post-WSA."
I'll also wonder about your declaration that you support "productive management?" Toward what goals, especially when you are clearly aligned with those funded by the non-use crowd? One thing I keep hearing from groups like BHA, TRCP, even RMEF when it was nearly coopted by the ecos, was -- "We support (activity), just not HERE." That's the same as the gun control people going, oh, I support the Second Amendment, just not for (insert hated firearm). Guess what? The minerals are where they are, the trees are where they are, the graze is where it is, the animals are where they are. I mean, who died and made BHA God?
And don't tell me I misread that federal report. That document clearly shows, even to a dummy like me, on public lands and on the water, most Americans like their toys, far more than those who hike in to a spike camp with their rifle, or walk in with their REI freezedry bought elsewhere. Americans who like modern recreation, the real "outdoor economy," deserve to be welcomed to public lands, at least seasonally, not shut out year round.
Finally, you may claim to be a "big advocate of public lands," well, so am I. But I'll advocate for multiple use of those public lands, up to the standard sign back in the old days of "Land of Many Uses." I like cows, not just elk . I like pumpjacks, not just sage grouse. I like trees, but I like logs too. I like hiking, but there's something to be said for a nice summer cross-country trail ride on a good enduro. Mining? Well, it's not pretty, but it is, in the end, necessary for the modern lives we lead when we're not pretending to be back in 1805. If mining could happen only in ugly places, that would be grand, but the ore is where it is. Never mind the jobs, which pay well enough to raise families when it would be otherwise impossible.
I've even okay with wilderness, legitimately outstanding as intended by the Wilderness Act as Bob Marshall envisioned it. But the last 40 years of hostage-taking and administrative jiu-jitsu, to the point now where old mines and logged areas now are included in wilderness designations? Really?

I think we all hold him in high regard.