Hunters Beware: Landlocking Public Access

[Mudman]

Hmm, yet Idaho voted something like 82% Rep.  Your argument is flawed to me.  It seems its about 80-90% Rep support eh?

[NumaJohn]

Mudman,

jmscon wrote "If you start to vote hunting and public lands first you will start to get out of the deep blue and deep red and see that both sides of the [aisle] can find common ground on things."

That 82 percent of Idahoans could mean very little or very much in terms of jmscon's reminder to us because there's no evidence that 82 percent voted "hunting and public lands first." It would be interesting to know how many did, however, but I guess we'll never know. My hope would be that many people who vote red do so, as I believe all of us, regardless of our political affiliations, need to band together to save public land, especially federal land owned by all Americans. Here's Steve Rinella, talking to reds, blues, and anyone else who cares about public lands: https://www.backcountryhunters.org/steven_rinella_public_land_owner

John

[jmscon]

Hmm, yet Idaho voted something like 82% Rep.  Your argument is flawed to me.  It seems its about 80-90% Rep support eh?

They are accurately 48% rep, 11% dem and 40% in affiliated.
http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/boise/2017/may/22/gop-still-posting-strong-numbers-idaho-full-sunday-column/
Also in 2013 they voted to demand that the feds hand over all land to Idaho control.
https://legislature.idaho.gov/wp-content/uploads/sessioninfo/2013/legislation/HCR022.pdf

Utah has similar demographics 48% rep and 12% dem where republican rep. Bob Bishop has been on his train to divest all of the federally managed public lands in the entire country.

[dwils233]

For those who want to know more! From SCI regarding BHA and it's leadership and funding streams...

GUNS & HUNTING, WITHIN SCI
GREEN DECOYS EXPOSED
https://huntforever.org/2018/09/20/green-decoys-exposed/?utm_source=HunterPride&utm_medium=Newsletter&utm_campaign=Advocacy2&utm_content=GreenDecoysExposed

I'd say that's not new information- it's literally almost word for word what the greendecays site says.

Honestly I think I've made some important clarifications through out this thread that are either intentionally being ignored or overlooked and it's applicable to this conversation.
1. BHA is not MHA and Land Tawney is not the end all be all of either
2. BHA legally cannot do some of the things (accidentally or intentionally) it has been accused of doing in regards to politics
3. If BHA takes money from "radical environmentalist" sources- is that a bad thing? As long as BHA continues doing it's mission, that's less money they would give to org's working against that mission. There's only so much money in that pie and it's much better if BHA gets it over say Greenpeace
4. Finally, it behooves people accusing BHA of this conspiracy to undermine hunting and access to play the story out all the way. Once again- are all these companies secretly anti-hunting or just so  niaive and stupid they all got conned into GIVING PROFITS away to destroy their own busnet by funding an anti-hunting organization?? Rinella, Newberg, Trump Jr. Then would all have to be stupid or anti-hunting? I don't even want that to sound sarcastic, seriously asking to know what anti-bha'ers think is the rationale.

There's a significant amount of "listening to respond and not to comprehend" in this thread. I've heard criticisms and concerns of BHA. I'm trying to ask questions to clarify, understand and push this conversation forward instead of us digging into our own positions. I'd would love if people who are vocally anti-bha'ers or hyper critical of bha could answer these questions and move the conversation forward.

[dwils233]

And I'm going to add one more- if you cant get behind BHA because of land Tawney but can get behind any other organization or group while occassionally disagreeing with actions or statements of it's leader- then you are being unfair and holding a group and person to a higher standard than you hold yourself to because of bias.

Just an example: voted for Trump now even after he gave money to Democrats in the past ( or more recently, insulted a POW.) This is just an easy example for this crowd. Obviously, I can produce them for the other side of the aisle too.

[bearpaw]

Hmm, yet Idaho voted something like 82% Rep.  Your argument is flawed to me.  It seems its about 80-90% Rep support eh?

They are accurately 48% rep, 11% dem and 40% in affiliated.
http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/boise/2017/may/22/gop-still-posting-strong-numbers-idaho-full-sunday-column/
Also in 2013 they voted to demand that the feds hand over all land to Idaho control.
https://legislature.idaho.gov/wp-content/uploads/sessioninfo/2013/legislation/HCR022.pdf

Utah has similar demographics 48% rep and 12% dem where republican rep. Bob Bishop has been on his train to divest all of the federally managed public lands in the entire country.

I think the majority will vote for whomever they perceive can win and who will benefit their well being and values.

Also in 2013 they voted to demand that the feds hand over all land to Idaho control.

There was a fear during the Obama years of discontinued access and use of Federal lands. Some people (including some sportsmen) do not want any mining, no logging, and no oil or gas production on public lands. These activities and others are important to the security and wealth of America, especially rural America. Under Trump we have gone from being energy dependent on the middle east to being an energy export country, we have more jobs, and a booming economy.

Obama's policies were strangling local economies, I myself supported the transfer of federal lands to state control as public lands. I would never support any net loss of public lands! But at the time Obama was strangling many rural areas, Obama was killing rural America, so transferring federal lands to state control was gaining a lot of traction. Currently I see it as a non-issue, under the Trump administration we are seeing an emphasis on energy and resource independence, local rural economies are flourishing. The Trump Admin has reversed the usurping of lands into monuments and so you see the push for transfer of lands to state control has diminished. However, the reality is that if we get another president like Obama who starts impacting rural areas by trying to make huge swaths of land into parks/monuments, I expect the push to transfer federal lands to state lands will gain steam again.

Idahoans, Utahans, and other western residents love their public land, but I can personally tell you, "and I deal with all the state and federal agencies every year in multiple states and districts" the USFS and BLM were taking away recreational use, access, and industrial use on a regular basis. I think most westerners want to use the public lands for recreation and for economic benefit, they do not want their use taken away by federal bureaucrats sitting in far away offices making monuments and parks that shut down local economies and block public use of the lands. So my advice to the liberals is to look for more reasonable candidates if you want to keep from making state/federal land control an issue again in the future!

And I'm going to add one more- if you cant get behind BHA because of land Tawney but can get behind any other organization or group while occassionally disagreeing with actions or statements of it's leader- then you are being unfair and holding a group and person to a higher standard than you hold yourself to because of bias.

Just an example: voted for Trump now even after he gave money to Democrats in the past ( or more recently, insulted a POW.) This is just an easy example for this crowd. Obviously, I can produce them for the other side of the aisle too.

I don't think it's at all unreasonable to question the motives of certain leaders of certain groups who are spending large amounts of money to impact political elections. It's not at all unreasonable to see that if a group could dupe large numbers of sportsmen into supporting them that it would give them more political leverage. In fact, it likely gave groups in Montana the leverage to impact the election results. Public lands is the issue that has been propped up by certain group leaders, what other ulterior motivations do they have. By getting Tester elected it gave Obama more congressional control over all issues in America. By electing more liberals from numerous states it could completely change the political landscape and land use issues.

It's very naive to think that very liberal organizations are contributing very large amounts of money to certain "hunting" groups to insure there are lands open for hunters to hunt. Obviously some of you must believe that or else you think you can dupe the rest of us into thinking that? At any rate, there is much more at play than keeping public lands open to hunting. If liberal leaning groups were successful at getting enough liberals elected I would expect big changes in land use. I would expect huge expansions to National Parks, larger and increased numbers of monuments, and access reduced to many lands currently being used by millions of Americans, that's what these liberal leaning groups who give money to BHA advocate for. The bottom line is that there are plenty of groups we can support that advocate for public land use for all, or you can take your chances and support groups who's leaders appear to be very friendly, very supportive, and accepting large amounts of money from the very groups who want to stop hunting and using that money to support liberal candidates who will vote the way the liberal groups desire.

Just some food for thought, think about it then follow your conscience!

(For the record, I support nearly all hunting groups, but I have asked BHA questions regarding their funding and political goals, they did not even reply to those questions!)

[bigtex]

Hmm, yet Idaho voted something like 82% Rep.  Your argument is flawed to me.  It seems its about 80-90% Rep support eh?

They are accurately 48% rep, 11% dem and 40% in affiliated.
http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/boise/2017/may/22/gop-still-posting-strong-numbers-idaho-full-sunday-column/
Also in 2013 they voted to demand that the feds hand over all land to Idaho control.
https://legislature.idaho.gov/wp-content/uploads/sessioninfo/2013/legislation/HCR022.pdf

Utah has similar demographics 48% rep and 12% dem where republican rep. Bob Bishop has been on his train to divest all of the federally managed public lands in the entire country.

I think the majority will vote for whomever they perceive can win and who will benefit their well being and values.

Also in 2013 they voted to demand that the feds hand over all land to Idaho control.

There was a fear during the Obama years of discontinued access and use of Federal lands. Some people (including some sportsmen) do not want any mining, no logging, and no oil or gas production on public lands. These activities and others are important to the security and wealth of America, especially rural America. Under Trump we have gone from being energy dependent on the middle east to being an energy export country, we have more jobs, and a booming economy.

Obama's policies were strangling local economies, I myself supported the transfer of federal lands to state control as public lands. I would never support any net loss of public lands! But at the time Obama was strangling many rural areas, Obama was killing rural America, so transferring federal lands to state control was gaining a lot of traction. Currently I see it as a non-issue, under the Trump administration we are seeing an emphasis on energy and resource independence, local rural economies are flourishing. The Trump Admin has reversed the usurping of lands into monuments and so you see the push for transfer of lands to state control has diminished. However, the reality is that if we get another president like Obama who starts impacting rural areas by trying to make huge swaths of land into parks/monuments, I expect the push to transfer federal lands to state lands will gain steam again.

Idahoans, Utahans, and other western residents love their public land, but I can personally tell you, "and I deal with all the state and federal agencies every year in multiple states and districts" the USFS and BLM were taking away recreational use, access, and industrial use on a regular basis. I think most westerners want to use the public lands for recreation and for economic benefit, they do not want their use taken away by federal bureaucrats sitting in far away offices making monuments and parks that shut down local economies and block public use of the lands. So my advice to the liberals is to look for more reasonable candidates if you want to keep from making state/federal land control an issue again in the future!

It wasn't just during the Obama era, it's been going on since the early 80s through both D and R presidencies. Some states (especially UT and NV) want to take control of federally managed land so they can manage it themselves or sell it off. But, and thankfully so, all studies done by states have shown that the states don't have the financial ability to manage the lands.

Fact is, there are still a lot of Republicans in Congress who want to get rid of federal lands even with Trump in power. People like Rob Bishop (in reality the entire UT delegation), Dan Newhouse, Doug LaMalfa, Ted Cruz, etc. all want the federal government to no longer manage federal lands.

FYI, the president can only turn current federal land into monuments, he can't on his own designate them as parks. Only congress can create parks.

[cbond3318]

It amazes me how some will blind themselves so deeply by making this a Republican/ Democrat issue.

Public land in states hands is the worst possible scenario.

[bigtex]

It amazes me how some will blind themselves so deeply by making this a Republican/ Democrat issue.

Public land in states hands is the worst possible scenario.

I think part of it is also we live in WA where we have pretty much unlimited access to our state (DNR and WDFW) lands. Well not all states are like us. Go to Colorado where state lands are closed to public use unless they are opened to the public, and most aren't open to the public. States like Idaho which has sold off most of their state land since statehood. Oregon where the state was in a financial crisis so they decided to sell a large state forest to a timber company only to have the citizens revolt against the move.

I understand people don't like the bureaucracy of the federal government (I don't either) but it's not going to get better if the keys are turned over to the states. Some states will sell off the land because there's simply too much for them to manage, some states will close it off (like Colorado), and others (like WA has said) will vehemently fight the transfer to them because they don't want to take on the extra burden.

[jackelope]

Some good points made from both sides here. Me, I'll continue to support BHA because I'd rather not watch the state sell our public lands off to the likes of Weyerhauser. People spend enough time complaining about having to pay for access to lands in SW WA and other parts of the state.

[bradslam]

It amazes me how some will blind themselves so deeply by making this a Republican/ Democrat issue.

Public land in states hands is the worst possible scenario.

I think part of it is also we live in WA where we have pretty much unlimited access to our state (DNR and WDFW) lands. Well not all states are like us. Go to Colorado where state lands are closed to public use unless they are opened to the public, and most aren't open to the public. States like Idaho which has sold off most of their state land since statehood. Oregon where the state was in a financial crisis so they decided to sell a large state forest to a timber company only to have the citizens revolt against the move.

I understand people don't like the bureaucracy of the federal government (I don't either) but it's not going to get better if the keys are turned over to the states. Some states will sell off the land because there's simply too much for them to manage, some states will close it off (like Colorado), and others (like WA has said) will vehemently fight the transfer to them because they don't want to take on the extra burden.

 

[Slamadoo]

I have yet to see/hear an argument (a good one) that explained the benefits to wildlife and sportsmen of the states assuming control of federal public lands.

[csaaphill]

Hunters Beware: Landlocking Public Access


https://redoubtnews.com/2018/09/hunters-beware-landlocking-public-access/

Not sure on if it's 100% true or not but yes there are places that are landlocked. See it around me. The ever loving BLM owns land above or around or behind private land that No one can get to because of the Private owners.
Funny Wolfbait If I'd of defended your story I'd of been called all kinds of names 
but others come to the rescue Golden.
But god stuff thanks for keeping us posted. I care less the source!

[Sandberm]

I agree, do your own research!
When you start to use your vote for hunting and public lands first you will start to find that not all blue is against hunting, guns, Wilderness, roadless areas, pro-wolf and not all red is for public access and federally managed lands where so much of go hunting! If you start to vote hunting and public lands first you will start to get out of the deep blue and deep red and see that both sides of the isle can find common ground on things. Our society is so divided from social media and ultra liberal or conservative sites, news, talk shows, etc. that getting unbiased reporting is almost impossible. Fake news, slandering, selective reporting is rampant and ruining us.
My soap box just brok, I’m done.

Here here.

I approve of this rant 100%.

[Holg3107]

Quote from: jmscon on September 26, 2018, 09:16:36 PM
I agree, do your own research!
When you start to use your vote for hunting and public lands first you will start to find that not all blue is against hunting, guns, Wilderness, roadless areas, pro-wolf and not all red is for public access and federally managed lands where so much of go hunting! If you start to vote hunting and public lands first you will start to get out of the deep blue and deep red and see that both sides of the isle can find common ground on things. Our society is so divided from social media and ultra liberal or conservative sites, news, talk shows, etc. that getting unbiased reporting is almost impossible. Fake news, slandering, selective reporting is rampant and ruining us.
My soap box just brok, I’m done.


Here here.

I approve of this rant 100%.

I also approve of this rant! Too many heads buried too deep in their red and blue sand...