Free: Contests & Raffles.
Quote from: jackelope on May 25, 2016, 02:33:57 PMQuote from: bearpaw on May 25, 2016, 02:25:25 PMQuote from: 2MANY on May 25, 2016, 11:49:58 AMJust a matter of time.........The Associated PressPORT 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=cpyThe 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 AreasThis 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 LandsThis 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.
Quote from: bearpaw on May 25, 2016, 02:25:25 PMQuote from: 2MANY on May 25, 2016, 11:49:58 AMJust a matter of time.........The Associated PressPORT 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=cpyThe 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.
Quote from: 2MANY on May 25, 2016, 11:49:58 AMJust a matter of time.........The Associated PressPORT 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=cpyThe 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.
Just a matter of time.........The Associated PressPORT 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
Just curious Bushcraft, but what organization are you affiliated with?
Quote from: bearpaw on May 25, 2016, 03:38:41 PMQuote from: jackelope on May 25, 2016, 02:33:57 PMQuote from: bearpaw on May 25, 2016, 02:25:25 PMQuote from: 2MANY on May 25, 2016, 11:49:58 AMJust a matter of time.........The Associated PressPORT 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=cpyThe 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 AreasThis 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 LandsThis 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.Land that has roads, been logged, and mined are generally not eligible for wilderness. On the Colville (for example) the only pieces that are eligible to be listed as potential wilderness is already designated roadless and somewhat protected.BHA supports multiple use and has supported additional logging and motorized and non motorized (mtn biking) recreation. I'm not sure why you feel like BHA is just a wilderness group? To put it into perspective, BHA supports the same amount of additional wilderness on the Colville as Vaagen Bros lumber.... We're not exactly asking for the world, and we're encouraging additional opportunity for EVERY other group....
On the Colville (for example) the only pieces that are eligible to be listed as potential wilderness is already designated roadless and somewhat protected.
I wasn't being coy, I was being honest. The timber industry can't access much of the proposed land anyway and has supported the wilderness. The conservation groups have also fought for increased yield on the forest. That is the point of a collaborative effort.Dale can you explain how and where BHA is "very close" to CNW? It's untrue. Some local people do want more wilderness... remember that I live and work here too. We also want more logging and industry. We can have both, and more trails and recreation opportunity. There is enough forest for everyone.
In this case, the money trail leads us to a nasty reality. While it’s likely that a vast majority of the members of Backcountry Hunters & Anglers don’t support policies and regulations that give the federal government more extraordinary power, they need to know the organization itself is completely bankrolled by billionaires who want government control over all backcountry land.And yes, even foreign billionaires.How do we know? Simple. Just take a look at their financial disclosures.The most recent financial disclosure reveals an avalanche of money that starting flowing in back in 2011. In 2011 the organization had only $30,000 coming in from grants. In 2013, just two years later, the group took in a haul of $492,000 in grant money.Wyss Foundation – $300,000 (Additional $50,000 from Wyss Action)The Wyss Foundation exists thanks to 79 year old Swiss billionaire Hansjorg Wyss. To date the Wyss Foundation has dropped a stunning $350 million into various radical environmentalist groups, most of which is designed to mold land use policy in Washington, D.C., and Western states.What kind of policy? The kind that keeps Americans from farming, ranching, building or conducting commerce on backcountry land. The kind that makes for certain the government is constantly gaining more land and more control over land.Wilburforce Foundation – $30,000It’s important to note that Wilburforce Foundation gave Backcountry Hunters & Anglers their first infusion of cash back in 2011. The Wilburforce 2011 grant of $30,000 was the first grant the group ever had and the only grant they received in 2011.What is the agenda of Wilburforce? If you guessed keeping humans away from large swaths of land by keeping it in control of the fed, you would be correct.
Along with receiving nearly $280,000 in 2011 and 2012 from the Western Conservation Foundation—which also funds Natural Resources Defense Council and Earthjustice (the “law firm of the environment”)—BHA has received $165,000 from the Wilburforce Foundation in recent years, a Seattle group that also funds Greenpeace, the Sierra Club Foundation, and others. BHA also received $100,000 from the wealthy, radical, San Francisco-based Hewlett Foundation and nearly $60,000 from the environmentalist Pew Charitable Trusts for “policy” in 2012/13.“Backcountry Hunters and Anglers is just one of several groups funded by Big Green that trips over itself to brag about its ‘sportsmen’ credentials while advocating left-wing interests,” said Coggin. “BHA is nothing more than a new shade of camo to hide an environmentalist agenda.”BHA is one of several “sportsmen” groups that takes substantial money from Big Green. The Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership (TRCP) gets 77% of its contributions from just 8 donors, much of it from San Francisco-area environmentalist foundations. Trout Unlimited, which helped form TRCP, has taken tens of millions of dollars from San Francisco-area foundations that want to shut down major energy sources in America. The Izaak Walton League of America, meanwhile, has taken millions from anti-energy activists, including the anti-gun, Chicago-based Joyce Foundation, on whose board President Barack Obama sat for 8 years.To learn more about environmentalist front organizations and their wealthy funders, visit www.GreenDecoys.com. To schedule an interview, please contact Alex Fitzsimmons at (202) 420-7875 or fitzsimmons@environmentalpolicyalliance.orgRead more: http://www.ammoland.com/2014/08/irs-complaint-targets-backcountry-hunters-anglers/#ixzz49iNN3xLX
Strange BHA anti Gun, They give you one when you become a life member!
BHA is against the transfer of public lands. That is enough for me. I have heard Land Tawney speak 4x minimum and he hasn't mentioned expanding wilderness. Sure they support clean water but who doesn't? Do we want China mining or cutting our timber in our national forests? It will happen if the national forests are given back to the states. The state budgets can't support the management and will be forced to sell. There is enough track record and history to know it is true.So I say I will support any group right now that will stand up to this nonsense of the transfer of public land that we ALL already own back to state ownership. Sure national forests can be managed better but let's fix that. The alternative will be a disaster and it is just what the robber barrons of yesteryear want to happen. They know most of the general public is asleep on this issue. Just ask some of your non hunting friends and family. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I haven't done enough research on SCI. What is their stance on public lands? How do they do more for our ability to hunt than say RMEF? Are they actively lobbying to delist wolves? What is their stance on the ESA? How are they actively fighting to change or close the litigation loophole that allows 501c3 to be paid for litigating? Where are we going to hunt if we don't have any public land and predators such as wolves, grizzly and mountain lions aren't kept in check?All things that keep me up at night. I know that 80% of my neighbors could care less.Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk