BHA discussion

[jackelope]

Josh,

Hmmm...I'm not so sure.  To a certain extent, doesn't the overall concept already exist?  Take special permit tags for example, if you don't have a big bull tag you can't hunt the public area for one.  Didn't draw a doe tag or cow tag for the kiddo?  Same thing...can't hunt that public ground for that animal.

You lost me here, but I'm easily confused sometimes.
If the land is public, I can access it whether I have a special permit or not. I can't kill a big bull without a permit, but I'm still free to access that public land.

[bearpaw]

Just a matter of time.........


The Associated Press

PORT ANGELES, WASH.
Washington's Fort Flagler State Park is one of two in the system that could be part of a pilot program to bring in more private business development.

The Peninsula Daily News reports (http://bit.ly/27SBljJ ) that the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission is considering seeking proposals for private development of some park amenities, like cabins or food service, at Fort Flagler or Millersylvania.

Fort Flagler is on Marrowstone Island and Millersylvania is about 10 miles south of Olympia.

State parks spokeswoman Virginia Painter says the system already has concession agreements without outside vendors, but the pilot program would let the parks reach out to companies for development at a specific spot.

The soonest the commission could take action on the pilot proposal is September.

Read more here: http://www.theolympian.com/latest-news/article79814937.html#storylink=cpy

The problem is that State Parks are under funded. They do not have enough funding to be maintained. If we want to keep our parks we must find a way to fund them, allowing private vendors and services is a way to bring in badly needed funds.

This issue is much different than the wilderness issue.

[jackelope]

Just a matter of time.........


The Associated Press

PORT ANGELES, WASH.
Washington's Fort Flagler State Park is one of two in the system that could be part of a pilot program to bring in more private business development.

The Peninsula Daily News reports (http://bit.ly/27SBljJ ) that the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission is considering seeking proposals for private development of some park amenities, like cabins or food service, at Fort Flagler or Millersylvania.

Fort Flagler is on Marrowstone Island and Millersylvania is about 10 miles south of Olympia.

State parks spokeswoman Virginia Painter says the system already has concession agreements without outside vendors, but the pilot program would let the parks reach out to companies for development at a specific spot.

The soonest the commission could take action on the pilot proposal is September.

Read more here: http://www.theolympian.com/latest-news/article79814937.html#storylink=cpy

The problem is that State Parks are under funded. They do not have enough funding to be maintained. If we want to keep our parks we must find a way to fund them, allowing private vendors and services is a way to bring in badly needed funds.

This issue is much different than the wilderness issue.

How is it different?
Transfer of public lands to private ownership. Who's to say that the next big chunk of the Marckworth state forest doesn't get sold to Weyerhauser because the state doesn't want to pay to maintain it? Then that big and public chunk of land is now pay to play just like the state park 2MANY mentioned.
P.S. there is a lot more to the public land transfer debate than just wilderness.

[dan11011]

BHA has a niche where they can make connections with both hunters and non-hunters that have a passion for getting outside.
The NRA is an "all or nothing" group. They don't allow any discussion. They are no longer an organization for gun owners and are now truly focussed on the profit of the manufacturers. They are just another "Big Tobacco" at this point. They are now hurting the image of hunters more than representing a group of people with the same passion.
I love hunting, but can't believe that people think the NRA is the answer.

[WAcoyotehunter]

Welcome Dan-

I agree with that.  NRA is a gun organization, not a hunting group.  I do not associate the 2nd amendment to hunting rights and do not like the divisive positions many take within the NRA... I do not feel like Ted Nugent represents me as a hunter at all....

[Bushcraft]

No worries Josh...let me try a different tact.

Let's take Area #1 and Area #2.  Both of the land holdings are in the same GMU.

Area #1 is federal land under Forest Service management.  There is almost zero accountability to hunters and the public at large.  Roads are gated or tank trapped.  Campgrounds are closed or run down. There is comparatively little wildlife due to a lack of effective hands-on management in terms of food/water/shelter availability for the critters that call it home.  Since it's public land, you are free to roam it whenever you like and hunt it if you have the requisite license and tags to do so.

Area #2 is private land owned and operated by Farmer Bill.   It holds an abundant amount of game birds, deer and elk given the habitat, water and feed the landowner has put in place and carefully managed over the years as ancillary bi-products of the cash crops he raises to make his living.  Unless someone knows Farmer Bill, people are expressly prohibited from trespassing on his property, much less hunt it even if they have the requisite license and tags for the GMU.

Let's say that there are 2 big bulls on the public land, and 10 big bulls on the private property.  WDFW issues a quota of 5 big bull tags for the GMU.  If you luck out and draw one of the five big bull tags, you are effectively competing with 4 other hunters for the 2 public land bulls.

What I'm curious about is what would happen if the Forest Service was effectively replaced as "the managers and stewards" of those public lands by the highest bidding private organization willing to take on the roles of providing improved road and trail access for everyone (it's still public property!) and improve the food/water/shelter aspects such that there would eventually be a significantly higher and sustainable number of big bulls...thereby equating to more big bull tags and more hunting opportunities for John Q. Public.

So, in the example above, instead of OUR tax dollars being inefficiently allotted to the Forest Service's annual procurement of brand new fleets of vehicles, it's paid to a private entity that over time works efficiently to manage the land and increase the number of big bulls on public land to 10 (for a total of 20 big bulls in the GMU).  The WDFW looks at the population figures and determines that increasing the tag quota in the GMU to 10 big bulls is sustainable.  Now there are 8 more hunting tags available to draw and John Q. Public gets to hunt them.

Mind you, I'm not pounding the table as this being the be-all end-all approach we should do.  It's just an idea I'm throwing out there for discussion.  Maybe there's merit.  Maybe there's not.  I'm generally not a fan of reinventing the wheel so I'd look to see if there are other similar programs being attempted elsewhere so we could review if it is or isn't working, and why.

Does that help explain where I'm coming from?

Regards,

Allen 

[WAcoyotehunter]

Why would "Farmer Bill" make all of these improvements at no cost, while paying for a lease?

[2MANY]

No worries Josh...let me try a different tact.

Let's take Area #1 and Area #2.  Both of the land holdings are in the same GMU.

Area #1 is federal land under Forest Service management.  There is almost zero accountability to hunters and the public at large.  Roads are gated or tank trapped.  Campgrounds are closed or run down. There is comparatively little wildlife due to a lack of effective hands-on management in terms of food/water/shelter availability for the critters that call it home.  Since it's public land, you are free to roam it whenever you like and hunt it if you have the requisite license and tags to do so.

Area #2 is private land owned and operated by Farmer Bill.   It holds an abundant amount of game birds, deer and elk given the habitat, water and feed the landowner has put in place and carefully managed over the years as ancillary bi-products of the cash crops he raises to make his living.  Unless someone knows Farmer Bill, people are expressly prohibited from trespassing on his property, much less hunt it even if they have the requisite license and tags for the GMU.

Let's say that there are 2 big bulls on the public land, and 10 big bulls on the private property.  WDFW issues a quota of 5 big bull tags for the GMU.  If you luck out and draw one of the five big bull tags, you are effectively competing with 4 other hunters for the 2 public land bulls.

What I'm curious about is what would happen if the Forest Service was effectively replaced as "the managers and stewards" of those public lands by the highest bidding private organization willing to take on the roles of providing improved road and trail access for everyone (it's still public property!) and improve the food/water/shelter aspects such that there would eventually be a significantly higher and sustainable number of big bulls...thereby equating to more big bull tags and more hunting opportunities for John Q. Public.

So, in the example above, instead of OUR tax dollars being inefficiently allotted to the Forest Service's annual procurement of brand new fleets of vehicles, it's paid to a private entity that over time works efficiently to manage the land and increase the number of big bulls on public land to 10 (for a total of 20 big bulls in the GMU).  The WDFW looks at the population figures and determines that increasing the tag quota in the GMU to 10 big bulls is sustainable.  Now there are 8 more hunting tags available to draw and John Q. Public gets to hunt them.

Mind you, I'm not pounding the table as this being the be-all end-all approach we should do.  It's just an idea I'm throwing out there for discussion.  Maybe there's merit.  Maybe there's not.  I'm generally not a fan of reinventing the wheel so I'd look to see if there are other similar programs being attempted elsewhere so we could review if it is or isn't working, and why.

Does that help explain where I'm coming from?

Regards,

Allen

I recommend you don't pound the table or you might spill your glass.

[Bushcraft]

Sorry Dan11011 and WAcoyotehunter, but I beg to differ based on the grounds of the language clearly spelled out in the 2nd Amendment of our Bill of Rights.  "Shall not be infringed"...ends the discussion on the matter.  Any "discussion" or "compromise" is an erosion of that inalienable right.

Now, with regard to the NRA, I've walked the halls in D.C. and can tell you that when that 800 lb. gorilla gets angry, Representatives and Senators absolutely take notice and tend to quickly fall in line more often than not.

Regards,

Allen

[Bushcraft]

Why would "Farmer Bill" make all of these improvements at no cost, while paying for a lease?

They aren't a direct cost, but are ancillary to his normal course of growing crops.

I bring up the issue because I see state wildlife agencies wanting to buy up very nice private ranches that hold lots of game, only to buy or procure them and through the usual government waste and educated idiocy invariably wind up turning them into crap that wildlife no longer frequent.  I have seen the first hand way too many times.

[jackelope]

No worries Josh...let me try a different tact.

Let's take Area #1 and Area #2.  Both of the land holdings are in the same GMU.

Area #1 is federal land under Forest Service management.  There is almost zero accountability to hunters and the public at large.  Roads are gated or tank trapped.  Campgrounds are closed or run down. There is comparatively little wildlife due to a lack of effective hands-on management in terms of food/water/shelter availability for the critters that call it home.  Since it's public land, you are free to roam it whenever you like and hunt it if you have the requisite license and tags to do so.

Area #2 is private land owned and operated by Farmer Bill.   It holds an abundant amount of game birds, deer and elk given the habitat, water and feed the landowner has put in place and carefully managed over the years as ancillary bi-products of the cash crops he raises to make his living.  Unless someone knows Farmer Bill, people are expressly prohibited from trespassing on his property, much less hunt it even if they have the requisite license and tags for the GMU.

Let's say that there are 2 big bulls on the public land, and 10 big bulls on the private property.  WDFW issues a quota of 5 big bull tags for the GMU.  If you luck out and draw one of the five big bull tags, you are effectively competing with 4 other hunters for the 2 public land bulls.

What I'm curious about is what would happen if the Forest Service was effectively replaced as "the managers and stewards" of those public lands by the highest bidding private organization willing to take on the roles of providing improved road and trail access for everyone (it's still public property!) and improve the food/water/shelter aspects such that there would eventually be a significantly higher and sustainable number of big bulls...thereby equating to more big bull tags and more hunting opportunities for John Q. Public.

So, in the example above, instead of OUR tax dollars being inefficiently allotted to the Forest Service's annual procurement of brand new fleets of vehicles, it's paid to a private entity that over time works efficiently to manage the land and increase the number of big bulls on public land to 10 (for a total of 20 big bulls in the GMU).  The WDFW looks at the population figures and determines that increasing the tag quota in the GMU to 10 big bulls is sustainable.  Now there are 8 more hunting tags available to draw and John Q. Public gets to hunt them.

Mind you, I'm not pounding the table as this being the be-all end-all approach we should do.  It's just an idea I'm throwing out there for discussion.  Maybe there's merit.  Maybe there's not.  I'm generally not a fan of reinventing the wheel so I'd look to see if there are other similar programs being attempted elsewhere so we could review if it is or isn't working, and why.

Does that help explain where I'm coming from?

Regards,

Allen 

It makes sense where you're coming from, but it doesn't make sense to me where you're going with it. There are state parks in SE Washington, and probably other parts of the state, that were shut down. They tried to get private companies to take them over and nobody will take them on. These parks sit vacant now. Overgrown with weeds and unused. What makes you think anyone would want to do this on a huge scale chunk of national forest if they can't get someone to run a small state park/campground? Would it be less expensive to spend the money maintaining said chunk of NF ourselves or less expensive to pay an outside company to do it?




 

[JimmyHoffa]

Welcome Dan-

I agree with that.  NRA is a gun organization, not a hunting group.  I do not associate the 2nd amendment to hunting rights and do not like the divisive positions many take within the NRA... I do not feel like Ted Nugent represents me as a hunter at all....

Hunting is generally a gun owners activity, though.  What is the status of hunting without gun owners? 

[bearpaw]

Just a matter of time.........


The Associated Press

PORT ANGELES, WASH.
Washington's Fort Flagler State Park is one of two in the system that could be part of a pilot program to bring in more private business development.

The Peninsula Daily News reports (http://bit.ly/27SBljJ ) that the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission is considering seeking proposals for private development of some park amenities, like cabins or food service, at Fort Flagler or Millersylvania.

Fort Flagler is on Marrowstone Island and Millersylvania is about 10 miles south of Olympia.

State parks spokeswoman Virginia Painter says the system already has concession agreements without outside vendors, but the pilot program would let the parks reach out to companies for development at a specific spot.

The soonest the commission could take action on the pilot proposal is September.

Read more here: http://www.theolympian.com/latest-news/article79814937.html#storylink=cpy

The problem is that State Parks are under funded. They do not have enough funding to be maintained. If we want to keep our parks we must find a way to fund them, allowing private vendors and services is a way to bring in badly needed funds.

This issue is much different than the wilderness issue.

How is it different?
Transfer of public lands to private ownership. Who's to say that the next big chunk of the Marckworth state forest doesn't get sold to Weyerhauser because the state doesn't want to pay to maintain it? Then that big and public chunk of land is now pay to play just like the state park 2MANY mentioned.
P.S. there is a lot more to the public land transfer debate than just wilderness.

It sounds as if you are addressing three issues which are quite different?

1. Designation of Additional Wilderness Areas
This issue is primarily green groups and BHA wanting additional areas designated as wilderness. This impacts recreationists who have used the forests and mountains for decades. If these areas were previously designated as multiple use areas where there has been any logging or oil and gas exploration then a change to wilderness also impacts local economies, business, and even the cost of fuel at the gas pump for every American.

2. Funding State Parks (WA)
This has nothing to do with wilderness. These are highly accessible state lands which are in our state park system. Examples include Mount Spokane with the popular ski area and Riverside State Park in the city of Spokane. While I served on Inslee's State park's Task Force I became well informed, the parks are under funded and have cut maintenance and staff to the point they are unsustainable. At the same time people are asking for more state parks and services on these parks. We listened to citizens all over the state, people want to use these parks but the legislature does not want to fully fund them. The task force recommended increasing private venders and service providers to increase revenue to support the parks which at the same time provides more products and services to the public visiting our state parks. It was recommended to find ways to fund current parks and find ways to expand state parks and their usage. This issue caused the creation of the Discover Pass which has fallen short of fully funding state parks.

3. Debate over Federal or State Control of USFS & BLM Lands
This issue is mostly in regards to USFS and BLM limiting grazing, logging, mining, and recreational use on multiple use public lands. Several western states legislators have proposed that states take over control of federal lands to maintain historic public and private usage. Concerns have been that states may not be able to fund the administration of additional lands and some states may sell off public lands. There certainly are valid concerns on both sides of this issue.

[Karl Blanchard]

Just curious Bushcraft, but what organization are you affiliated with?

[dan11011]

Thanks for the welcome. Happy to finally have joined the page.