Post by: Bushcraft on May 24, 2016, 09:51:22 AM
Not to get too political, but I'd encourage you to reflect on in it in terms of what I try and describe as "The Holy Trinity".
1: You need to belong to the NRA to protect your gun rights (and/or GOA, NSSF, etc).
2: You need to belong to SCI to protect your hunting rights.
3: You need to belong to the "Critter Club" of your choice (RMEF, WSF, RMGA, MDF, DU, etc.)
In. That. Order.
Unfortunately, unlike the first two 501c4 organizations, most people join one of the critter clubs not realizing that nearly all of their 501c3 non-profit statuses expressly prohibit them from working to directly influence legislative issues. (I was on of them!) So, they inadvertently give their time, money and energy towards land preservations and species specific conservation issues. Don't get me wrong here because I'm absolutely all for them, but what good does wild thing and wild place conservation ultimately accomplish if we are prohibited from owning firearms and hunting?
Regards,
Allen
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on May 24, 2016, 03:01:01 PM
I can't and won't find fault with anyone that wants to get involved, but IMHO there are much better organizations at the local, state and national levels with considerably more influence (than BHA) that need our help. Plus, as an aside, those organization's leadership tend not be left-leaning Obama supporters.Thank you for your thoughts Allen. I understand your opinion, but do not share it.
Not to get too political, but I'd encourage you to reflect on in it in terms of what I try and describe as "The Holy Trinity".
1: You need to belong to the NRA to protect your gun rights (and/or GOA, NSSF, etc).
2: You need to belong to SCI to protect your hunting rights.
3: You need to belong to the "Critter Club" of your choice (RMEF, WSF, RMGA, MDF, DU, etc.)
In. That. Order.
Unfortunately, unlike the first two 501c4 organizations, most people join one of the critter clubs not realizing that nearly all of their 501c3 non-profit statuses expressly prohibit them from working to directly influence legislative issues. (I was on of them!) So, they inadvertently give their time, money and energy towards land preservations and species specific conservation issues. Don't get me wrong here because I'm absolutely all for them, but what good does wild thing and wild place conservation ultimately accomplish if we are prohibited from owning firearms and hunting?
Regards,
Allen
I like BHA because they fight for the landscapes that I treasure. I hunt in wilderness areas and backcountry areas because I enjoy being away from the crowds and roads associated with "frontcountry" hunting (though I hunt some in the frontcountry too- and enjoy that) . BHA is the only group that provides that organized collective voice for backcountry hunters. I also am pretty left leaning...I'm a democrat. I don't know the leadership's political affiliations, but considering the right wing is the group supporting public land sell off and development, I suspect (and hope) they are left leaning.
I also belong to Sportsman's Alliance, they do my bidding against the anti hunters and I like their message and public perception. They seem to represent hunters, trappers ect. pretty well and are well organized politically to lobby.
I don't support the NRA and do not consider them a "hunting group". If they would be a bit more reasonable with some of their positions I would be more likely join.
There are lots of groups out there and a lot of them are filling niche markets that people feel strongly about. BHA is the group that provides a collective voice for my style of hunting and recreating.
Regards,
Bart
Post by: Bushcraft on May 24, 2016, 05:36:11 PM
As primarily a DIY wilderness backpack hunter, I absolutely share your passion for wild places and the wild things that inhabit them.
With that being said, and no disrespect intended whatsoever, the bigger picture we are confronted with isn't merely about our preferred style of hunting or recreating.
I'm sorry, but you are woefully misinformed with regard to BHA being the "only group that provides an organized collective voice for backcountry hunters". Sure, they'd like you to believe that, but it's a gross fabrication. I can name a few handfuls of organizations right here in Washington that have been doing both frontcountry and backcountry related legislative and conservation stuff for many, many decades. BHA strives to keep federal land open to the public, not necessarily for hunting. Note the subtle but important difference. As for BHA’s leadership’s political affiliations, it’s well known that Land Tawney is an avid left-leaning Obama supporter. That is a rather damning inconvenient truth that BHA would just as soon sweep under the rug lest it turns off both current and potential BHA membership.
"Backcountry Hunters and Anglers" is undeniably one of the catchiest sportsmen's groups names going for those of us that like to hunt & fish in wild and scenic places. It's an awesome marketing angle that I wish I'd come up with...but, when you look past the catchy name and dig into what they are legally restricted from doing by their 501c3 charter, they are but an ant compared to the 800 lb. 501c4 gorillas of SCI, NRA and to a lesser extent the Sportsmen's Alliance (which I applaud you for belonging to BTW). Particularly when it comes to the IRS's definition of "attempting to influence legislation if it contacts, or urges the public to contact, members or employees of a legislative body for the purpose of proposing, supporting, or opposing legislation, or if the organization advocates the adoption or rejection of legislation." Point being, there are bigger, better, stronger more legislatively influential pro-gun, pro-hunting and pro-wildlife/wildland conservation organizations that you could lend your support to besides/before BHA. I won’t even go into their Green Decoy issues relating to their core financial supporters. Ugh.
And you are absolutely correct that there are indeed lots of groups out there filling niche markets that people feel strongly about. HSUS, PETA, Born Free and Defenders of Wildlife are but a few that immediately come to mind. It just so happens that ALL the anti-gun and anti-hunting groups are run by left-leaning democrats that are very politically influential that would love nothing more than to take away your firearms and stop hunting altogether – regardless of whether it’s in the frontcountry or the backcountry...and they won’t rest until they accomplish those mandates.
By extension, it stands to reason that supporting and voting for democrats that share their beliefs at the local, state and national level ultimately makes someone part of the anti-hunting problem. I don’t say that with any malice or mean spiritedness, but I’d appreciate it if you let that last part sink in a bit. It matters.
If we hunters don’t circle the wagons soon with organizations that have real meaningful clout and vote our base principles, we won’t be hunting in 10-15 years. Perhaps much sooner.
Regards,
Allen
P.S. – For what it’s worth, I beg you to open the NRA’s latest monthly issue of “American Hunter” magazine and tell me the NRA isn’t the largest and most politically influential hunting group on the face of the planet. ;)
Post by: dreamingbig on May 24, 2016, 07:47:32 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: JasonG on May 24, 2016, 08:12:00 PM
Post by: Bushcraft on May 24, 2016, 08:14:23 PM
Let's take your situation for example...an important component of what I referred to earlier as the Holy Trinity is missing. You've got your gun rights and critter club of choice covered with the NRA and RMEF (both outstanding organizations BTW), but I'd encourage you to join the world's foremost hunting rights organization as well (SCI). Depending upon where you live in the state, I'd be happy to introduce you to some outstanding local chapter members that are doing great things here in the state, region and beyond. Clearly, you understand the value sportsmen's organization provide and we need your help!
I'm pushing a deeply discounted multiple choice annual membership at the national level whereby a person is a member of the NRA, SCI and then the critter club of their preference. It's a tall order bringing a concept like it to fruition. We'll see if it pans out.
Anyway, thanks for being a member of some great organizations. I wish more sportsmen would do so and get more involved at the grassroots level.
Best regards,
Allen
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on May 25, 2016, 07:31:33 AM
Bart,Thanks Allen-
And you are absolutely correct that there are indeed lots of groups out there filling niche markets that people feel strongly about. HSUS, PETA, Born Free and Defenders of Wildlife are but a few that immediately come to mind. It just so happens that ALL the anti-gun and anti-hunting groups are run by left-leaning democrats that are very politically influential that would love nothing more than to take away your firearms and stop hunting altogether – regardless of whether it’s in the frontcountry or the backcountry...and they won’t rest until they accomplish those mandates.
By extension, it stands to reason that supporting and voting for democrats that share their beliefs at the local, state and national level ultimately makes someone part of the anti-hunting problem. I don’t say that with any malice or mean spiritedness, but I’d appreciate it if you let that last part sink in a bit. It matters.
If we hunters don’t circle the wagons soon with organizations that have real meaningful clout and vote our base principles, we won’t be hunting in 10-15 years. Perhaps much sooner.
Regards,
Allen
P.S. – For what it’s worth, I beg you to open the NRA’s latest monthly issue of “American Hunter” magazine and tell me the NRA isn’t the largest and most politically influential hunting group on the face of the planet. ;)
I recognize that most anti hunting groups are led by left leaning democrats. It's true. My problem with the right has more to do with their outright attack on land conservation actions (i.e. LWCF, Development, lands transfer ect) and the apathy towards species conservation (i.e. attacks on the ESA). BHA focuses on those issues that I feel are as important to the future of hunting as gun rights. Without places to hunt and wildlife worth hunting our future is bleak.
I'm not attacking those other groups, they fill an important role. BHA is politically savvy and spends time lobbying with the right people protect wild places. I have been to Wa DC to talk to representatives on behalf of BHA and also represent them in a collaborative effort in NE WA that is working to increase logging yield on the National Forest. It's a good grass roots group that way.
I like that I can describe BHA to a 'hipster' or non hunter and they understand it. We're not 'species centric' like DU or RMEF, we are just a group of people that love the backcountry and quiet places and want to keep some of it that way.
I have been a member of RMEF and DU in the past, and could join them again. I like those groups too. The NRA is not one that I can buy into. I can't stand the hard core right wing attitudes of the group. I don't identify with people like Ted Nugent and don't care to have him represent me. I am not really a gun enthusiast, but appreciate that there is a group to represent my need to own a few.
Post by: 2MANY on May 25, 2016, 07:45:32 AM
Nothing will stop it other than limiting the amount of people we let in the country and/or limiting our population growth.
Anyone that thinks different is an idiot.
I do respect everyone's individual efforts to keep it from happening.
Vasectomy is the answer.
Post by: jackelope on May 25, 2016, 07:46:53 AM
Allen-you know my wife and I have volunteered for SCI in the past. We're also members of BHA. I am a member of the NRA as well as a couple other species specific org's.
Post by: Bushcraft on May 25, 2016, 09:08:03 AM
I can't speak for the higher ups in the NRA, but I haven't heard a peep from anyone in the rank and file or upper echelons of SCI that have even mentioned public land transfer, much less be proponents of it. Same goes for the Republican leadership throughout our state. I'm fairly certain that given how involved many of us are on the conservation side that there would be a widespread severe allergic reaction and that it would be shot down in flames.
That said, I have wondered at times if there are some federal public lands that could be better managed for wildlife and hunting on a hybrid public/private system. We have state and federal agencies that we have essentially hired to be stewards of both the land and the animals that inhabit them, but we know all too well some of the drawbacks of those agencies efforts, or complete lack thereof sometimes. >:( Perhaps "hiring" a more directly accountable private organization to manage them for the benefit of the public might help increase access, habitat, wildlife populations and hunt quotas. :dunno: It's not a transfer of public land to private ownership, it would a transfer of management lease to a more directly accountable entity.
Regards,
Allen
Post by: jackelope on May 25, 2016, 09:37:17 AM
That's a good question Josh.
I can't speak for the higher ups in the NRA, but I haven't heard a peep from anyone in the rank and file or upper echelons of SCI that have even mentioned public land transfer, much less be proponents of it. Same goes for the Republican leadership throughout our state. I'm fairly certain that given how involved many of us are on the conservation side that there would be a widespread severe allergic reaction and that it would be shot down in flames.
That said, I have wondered at times if there are some federal public lands that could be better managed for wildlife and hunting on a hybrid public/private system. We have state and federal agencies that we have essentially hired to be stewards of both the land and the animals that inhabit them, but we know all too well some of the drawbacks of those agencies efforts, or complete lack thereof sometimes. >:( Perhaps "hiring" a more directly accountable private organization to manage them for the benefit of the public might help increase access, habitat, wildlife populations and hunt quotas. :dunno: It's not a transfer of public land to private ownership, it would a transfer of management lease to a more directly accountable entity.
Regards,
Allen
My initial concern with that would be the gateway effect. That step could be the gateway to privatized land that we as hunters would no longer have access to.
:dunno:
Post by: Bushcraft on May 25, 2016, 10:04:36 AM
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.
For the sake of clarity, I'm not talking about a leasing type of arrangement that would restrict public access and hunting opportunities any more than those things already exist. It ultimately doesn't matter who the managing entity or agency is, but if a more private type of organization that is more directly accountable for managing the land can be compensated based on the quantifiable performance of better access, better habitat, better poaching enforcement and more wildlife quantities for the benefit of the public that are lucky enough to draw...then we John Q. Public guys would have more quality hunting opportunities.
I dunno. :dunno: Makes me wonder if the concept has been tried elsewhere.
Regards,
Allen
Post by: bearpaw on May 25, 2016, 10:39:23 AM
1. NRA
2. SCI
3. Your favorite specialty group(s)
I fully support keeping all our public lands publicly accessible as they currently are. I do not support expanding wilderness as it limits too many recreational users from using public land that they used to have access to. Every time you create new wilderness you force more users into a smaller accessible area. The problem with BHA, it was established by other left leaning groups who needed to figure out a way to get some hunters and anglers to support their underlying agenda. They came up with a catchy name and well meaning hunters have signed on not knowing the potential underlying ramifications.
BHA wants to expand wilderness, sounds great but that really limits most Americans for the benefit of a few who most likely will never even see all of this wilderness in their lifetime. We have almost 110 million acres of wilderness in the US that most people can't or don't have the ability to access! How much wilderness do we need? I'd like to hear an honest answer to that question, "How much wilderness do we need?"
It seems much wiser to carefully manage all the wild areas that we currently have and maintain access as we know it now with the current opportunities for all Americans to continue enjoying the outdoors the way we do now. I hate to see a bunch of physically fit young guys who are well intentioned, but who simply are not considering, realizing, or caring how their actions will impact millions of other Americans, many who are older or physically limited.
Washington’s 31 wilderness areas
When the Wilderness Act passed in 1964, three areas in Washington were awarded the status. Fifty years later, the state has 31 Wilderness Areas totalling 4.5 million acres.
Read more here: http://www.thenewstribune.com/outdoors/article25878187.html#storylink=cpy
List of U.S. Wilderness Areas
Four federal agencies of the United States government administer the U.S. Wildernesses, which includes 759 Wildernesses and 109,754,604 acres (444,161.12 km2). These agencies are:
United States Forest Service
United States National Park Service
United States Bureau of Land Management
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
This is an area larger than Iraq or the state of California.
Read more here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._Wilderness_Areas
Post by: 2MANY on May 25, 2016, 11:49:58 AM
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
Post by: Special T on May 25, 2016, 01:03:27 PM
Post by: jackelope on May 25, 2016, 01:58:21 PM
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.
Post by: bearpaw on May 25, 2016, 02:25:25 PM
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.
Post by: jackelope on May 25, 2016, 02:33:57 PM
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.
Post by: dan11011 on May 25, 2016, 02:52:46 PM
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.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on May 25, 2016, 03:01:54 PM
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....
Post by: Bushcraft on May 25, 2016, 03:04:16 PM
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
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on May 25, 2016, 03:09:18 PM
Post by: 2MANY on May 25, 2016, 03:18:02 PM
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.
Post by: Bushcraft on May 25, 2016, 03:18:06 PM
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
Post by: Bushcraft on May 25, 2016, 03:25:09 PM
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.
Post by: jackelope on May 25, 2016, 03:27:37 PM
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?
Post by: JimmyHoffa on May 25, 2016, 03:29:36 PM
Welcome Dan-Hunting is generally a gun owners activity, though. What is the status of hunting without gun owners?
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....
Post by: bearpaw on May 25, 2016, 03:38:41 PM
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.
Post by: Karl Blanchard on May 25, 2016, 03:51:41 PM
Post by: dan11011 on May 25, 2016, 03:54:13 PM
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on May 25, 2016, 03:59:53 PM
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.
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....
Post by: Bushcraft on May 25, 2016, 04:06:44 PM
Just curious Bushcraft, but what organization are you affiliated with?
I'm not employed by any if that's the nature of you question. The organizations I belong to and/or support with my time money and energy are in my signature below.
Regards,
Allen
Post by: bearpaw on May 25, 2016, 04:10:22 PM
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.
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....
That was very clever! :chuckle:
The green groups like Conservation Northwest which BHA is very close to has strangled timber businesses. Vaagens has been forced to come to agreement in order to try and keep logs roilling into the mill.
Quote
On the Colville (for example) the only pieces that are eligible to be listed as potential wilderness is already designated roadless and somewhat protected.Local people do not want more wilderness, if this land is already off limits to development then why does it need to be made wilderness? The proposal is actually to remove some existing roads and access, let's please be truthful! ;)
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on May 25, 2016, 04:24:02 PM
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.
Post by: bearpaw on May 25, 2016, 05:36:39 PM
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.
For decades green groups have been stopping logging, mining, public access, and forcing more and more wilderness on Americans, this is no secret, it needs to stop. "We have enough land of no use".
Thankyou for agreeing that we need more logging. Green groups have caused logging to be almost non-existent on federal lands this has hurt rural Washington. I honestly know of very few local residents who want more wilderness. Most of that seems to come from groups like CNW and BHA!
If you do a google search this is some of what you find about BHA:
http://libertynews.com/2016/01/exposed-backcountry-hunters-who-protested-standoff-and-ripped-down-temporary-sign-at-oregon-refuge-are-bankrolled-by-big-foreign-special-interest-money/
Quote
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 – $30,000
It’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.
Backcountry Hunters and Anglers
https://www.greendecoys.com/decoys/backcountry-hunters-and-anglers/
Here are more numbers regarding BHA's major donors. What's important is to look at who is being funded by who: BHA, Earthjustice, Greenpeace, just to name a few! Read and watch for yourself: :dunno:
Quote
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.org
Read more: http://www.ammoland.com/2014/08/irs-complaint-targets-backcountry-hunters-anglers/#ixzz49iNN3xLX
I answered your questions. Please answer these three questions:
If this land we speak about in NE WA is already off limits to development then why does it need to become wilderness?
Do you agree with closing the roads that are proposed to be closed as part of the wilderness deal in NE WA?
How much wilderness is enough?
Post by: JasonG on May 25, 2016, 06:01:40 PM
Post by: bearpaw on May 25, 2016, 06:02:10 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on May 25, 2016, 06:30:19 PM
Strange BHA anti Gun, They give you one when you become a life member!I don't think that was directly stated. It is a group that tends to run in circles with green groups. Green groups are almost exclusively backing liberal/left/dem politicians. I don't think I need to explain much about how 'guns' have basically turned into a binary issue attached to one party or the other.
I was just about to join BHA years ago. I figured they would've been more the advocacy I would've preferred. At about the same time I heard of the group, there was an issue that popped up near the coast called the Wild Olympics Campaign. The campaign was trying to shift a bunch of acreage to the national park (unhuntable). BHA was along with the campaign, being touted along as how it was going to be a great deal for all the forest, fish, wildlife and animals and even hunters and anglers were supporting the cause. But it would've eliminated HUNTING !!! on a lot of land. I just can't seem to want to back a group that makes bed fellows with the left.
Post by: dreamingbig on May 25, 2016, 08:34:42 PM
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
Post by: Bushcraft on May 25, 2016, 09:33:08 PM
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
But keeping the supposed transfer of public lands at bay shouldn't be enough for you if you profess to be a hunter and value hunting as a key component of sustainable, science-based wildlife management! Glomming onto this aspect alone is just incredibly short sighted, which is my point regarding the need to belong to the 800 gorilla organizations like the NRA and SCI before you belong to a critter club or the likes of BHA.
Honestly, if all you want to prevent is the transfer, just join the Sierra Club or their ilk and sell your hunting gear on Craigslist. From what I've seen, BHA just comes across like a carefully crafted hunting themed cover page for the Sierra Club curriculum.
Regards,
Allen
Post by: dreamingbig on May 25, 2016, 09:40:12 PM
All things that keep me up at night. I know that 80% of my neighbors could care less.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Bushcraft on May 25, 2016, 10:28:02 PM
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
Simply put, SCI is the preeminent hunting rights organization on the planet. We are a proponent of sustainable science-based management of wildlife and firmly believe that hunters and hunting are critical components of that management process.
To answer you questions, public lands are where most of us hunt, so it stands to reason that we naturally want to have those ecosystems efficiently and effectively managed.
Yes, they are the leader in actively lobbying to delist wolves (I've personally helped in this regard at the state and national level). See the advertisement below I designed and had placed in the 2013 Washington Game Regs on behalf of all the SCI chapters in Washington State. Believe me, there is a MAJOR story to tell behind getting the go-ahead from WDFW to allow this in the regs. We work hand in hand and assist WDFW with conservation projects all the time (and legislative issues behind the scenes), but we will also not hesitate to hold their feet to the fire if the situation warrants it.
The ESA is of course valuable, but it's oversight should be based on science, not public emotions...see the theme here? ;)
RMEF is a 501c3 and at it's core works to conserve habitat for elk and other wildlife. Clearly that's wonderful, additive and valuable, but they don't claim to do anything that directly protects hunting rights and they are prohibited by their 501c3 charter to get too political.
Not sure I understand the legal question you posed...please reframe with an example.
There are already vast tracts of public land locked up in local, state and federal land. SCI works hard at the local, state and federal level to make sure access is improved or at least maintained and they are POUNDING the table with regard to predator management.
Here's our problem as I see it, SCI is incorrectly perceived as being a club for rich white guys that go on safari hunts in Africa. Nothing could be further from the truth. You would be amazed at the millions of dollars and legislative arm bending that occurs right here in Washington year around. We need to a better job of getting the word out and we need help from hunters that value their hunting heritage.
I'd be happy to send you more information or get you in touch with a local chapter if you like. There are a number of casual summer chapter events around the state you could attend with like minded people that care deeply about the future of hunting in this state and beyond.
Best regards,
Allen
Post by: Bushcraft on May 25, 2016, 10:35:11 PM
Post by: dreamingbig on May 25, 2016, 10:44:17 PM
Listen to Randy Newberg. He has an excellent podcast on the lovely legislation that is being abused by attorneys to get paid for litigating regardless of they win or lose.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Bushcraft on May 25, 2016, 10:46:00 PM
Post by: Bushcraft on May 25, 2016, 11:15:41 PM
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?
The same baseline reason people do anything...their own personal interests...which invariably comes down to dinero. The new high dollar Forest Circus federal buildings and their giant parking lots seemingly always full of brand new vehicles is indicative of the money currently being spent by one (public) entity that I know could be much more efficiently allocated/spent under a (private) entity.
Post by: mfswallace on May 26, 2016, 12:04:56 AM
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.
For decades green groups have been stopping logging, mining, public access, and forcing more and more wilderness on Americans, this is no secret, it needs to stop. "We have enough land of no use".
Thankyou for agreeing that we need more logging. Green groups have caused logging to be almost non-existent on federal lands this has hurt rural Washington. I honestly know of very few local residents who want more wilderness. Most of that seems to come from groups like CNW and BHA!
If you do a google search this is some of what you find about BHA:
http://libertynews.com/2016/01/exposed-backcountry-hunters-who-protested-standoff-and-ripped-down-temporary-sign-at-oregon-refuge-are-bankrolled-by-big-foreign-special-interest-money/QuoteIn 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 – $30,000
It’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.
Backcountry Hunters and Anglers
https://www.greendecoys.com/decoys/backcountry-hunters-and-anglers/
Here are more numbers regarding BHA's major donors. What's important is to look at who is being funded by who: BHA, Earthjustice, Greenpeace, just to name a few! Read and watch for yourself: :dunno:QuoteAlong 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.org
Read more: http://www.ammoland.com/2014/08/irs-complaint-targets-backcountry-hunters-anglers/#ixzz49iNN3xLX
I answered your questions. Please answer these three questions:
If this land we speak about in NE WA is already off limits to development then why does it need to become wilderness?
Do you agree with closing the roads that are proposed to be closed as part of the wilderness deal in NE WA?
How much wilderness is enough?
Tag for answers
Post by: dreamingbig on May 26, 2016, 06:14:46 AM
Sure...do you have a youtube link or do I need to subscribe to his podcast to download it?It is episode 17 of his podcast. Randy Newberg unfiltered which can be found on iTunes.(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fuploads.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F20160526%2Fbb6a7b63b72d68a4340d375427d18dce.jpg&hash=c364ebdcfb1a62381fe70c2679ab4b8cbbcb1c01)
Post by: mburrows on May 26, 2016, 06:54:14 AM
Post by: Tim in Wa. on May 26, 2016, 07:06:12 AM
I'm coming around to your point of view on BHA.I jumped on the bandwagon early when there was allot of hype on the kifaru forums but as I read more and more in their quarterly magazine I think I will let my membership expire
Tim
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on May 26, 2016, 07:07:21 AM
Of course industry wants to discredit BHA. Who do you suppose put the Green Decoy stuff together? See if you can find much about that group.... you won't, because it's Rick Berman, a 'hired gun' for big industry that wants to develop everything. BHA has taken an open position about protecting public lands from unsustainable development. We support timber/mining/liquid mineral when it's done properly. Industry could absolutely not care less about wildlife or our hunting; BHA took a position against that and stepped on their toes. They hired Berman to discredit us among hunters and appear to be "antis" in some way.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.
For decades green groups have been stopping logging, mining, public access, and forcing more and more wilderness on Americans, this is no secret, it needs to stop. "We have enough land of no use".
Thankyou for agreeing that we need more logging. Green groups have caused logging to be almost non-existent on federal lands this has hurt rural Washington. I honestly know of very few local residents who want more wilderness. Most of that seems to come from groups like CNW and BHA!
If you do a google search this is some of what you find about BHA:
http://libertynews.com/2016/01/exposed-backcountry-hunters-who-protested-standoff-and-ripped-down-temporary-sign-at-oregon-refuge-are-bankrolled-by-big-foreign-special-interest-money/QuoteIn 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 – $30,000
It’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.
Backcountry Hunters and Anglers
https://www.greendecoys.com/decoys/backcountry-hunters-and-anglers/
Here are more numbers regarding BHA's major donors. What's important is to look at who is being funded by who: BHA, Earthjustice, Greenpeace, just to name a few! Read and watch for yourself: :dunno:QuoteAlong 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.org
Read more: http://www.ammoland.com/2014/08/irs-complaint-targets-backcountry-hunters-anglers/#ixzz49iNN3xLX
I answered your questions. Please answer these three questions:
If this land we speak about in NE WA is already off limits to development then why does it need to become wilderness?
Do you agree with closing the roads that are proposed to be closed as part of the wilderness deal in NE WA?
How much wilderness is enough?
The funding sources are interested in protecting public land too. I'm not sure that it's a terrible thing that HUNTERS align some with CONSERVATIONISTS.... after all, without habitat we won't be hunting at all. If BHA gathers 500k from a group that might otherwise give it to some anti hunting group, I guess that should go in the 'win category'.
Post by: bearpaw on May 26, 2016, 07:25:24 AM
Of course industry wants to discredit BHA. Who do you suppose put the Green Decoy stuff together? See if you can find much about that group.... you won't, because it's Rick Berman, a 'hired gun' for big industry that wants to develop everything. BHA has taken an open position about protecting public lands from unsustainable development. We support timber/mining/liquid mineral when it's done properly. Industry could absolutely not care less about wildlife or our hunting; BHA took a position against that and stepped on their toes. They hired Berman to discredit us among hunters and appear to be "antis" in some way.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.
For decades green groups have been stopping logging, mining, public access, and forcing more and more wilderness on Americans, this is no secret, it needs to stop. "We have enough land of no use".
Thankyou for agreeing that we need more logging. Green groups have caused logging to be almost non-existent on federal lands this has hurt rural Washington. I honestly know of very few local residents who want more wilderness. Most of that seems to come from groups like CNW and BHA!
If you do a google search this is some of what you find about BHA:
http://libertynews.com/2016/01/exposed-backcountry-hunters-who-protested-standoff-and-ripped-down-temporary-sign-at-oregon-refuge-are-bankrolled-by-big-foreign-special-interest-money/QuoteIn 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 – $30,000
It’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.
Backcountry Hunters and Anglers
https://www.greendecoys.com/decoys/backcountry-hunters-and-anglers/
Here are more numbers regarding BHA's major donors. What's important is to look at who is being funded by who: BHA, Earthjustice, Greenpeace, just to name a few! Read and watch for yourself: :dunno:QuoteAlong 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.org
Read more: http://www.ammoland.com/2014/08/irs-complaint-targets-backcountry-hunters-anglers/#ixzz49iNN3xLX
I answered your questions. Please answer these three questions:
If this land we speak about in NE WA is already off limits to development then why does it need to become wilderness?
Do you agree with closing the roads that are proposed to be closed as part of the wilderness deal in NE WA?
How much wilderness is enough?
The funding sources are interested in protecting public land too. I'm not sure that it's a terrible thing that HUNTERS align some with CONSERVATIONISTS.... after all, without habitat we won't be hunting at all. If BHA gathers 500k from a group that might otherwise give it to some anti hunting group, I guess that should go in the 'win category'.
Thank you for your response. We have established where large parts of BHA funding comes from and it's known that Land Tawney (representing BHA) openly supports Barack Obama (who wants to take away our guns) and other left wing politicians who's policies would likely limit hunting, I'm sorry but this is why I can't get on the BHA bandwagon. If these green groups are supporting BHA then it appears BHA is aligned with them enough to cause concern and appears to be a green decoy as charged in the video.
UNANSWERED QUESTIONS:
If this land we speak about in NE WA is already off limits to development then why does it need to become wilderness?
Do you agree with closing the roads that are proposed to be closed as part of the wilderness deal in NE WA?
How much wilderness is enough?
Post by: Karl Blanchard on May 26, 2016, 07:30:12 AM
Also, I asked who you were affiliated with and you said know one. But obviously you do work and are active with SCI? Whole point of the post was to drag BHA through the mud, from someone who "works" for a different organization competing for the same dollars......
Post by: jackelope on May 26, 2016, 07:30:47 AM
Of course industry wants to discredit BHA. Who do you suppose put the Green Decoy stuff together? See if you can find much about that group.... you won't, because it's Rick Berman, a 'hired gun' for big industry that wants to develop everything. BHA has taken an open position about protecting public lands from unsustainable development. We support timber/mining/liquid mineral when it's done properly. Industry could absolutely not care less about wildlife or our hunting; BHA took a position against that and stepped on their toes. They hired Berman to discredit us among hunters and appear to be "antis" in some way.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.
For decades green groups have been stopping logging, mining, public access, and forcing more and more wilderness on Americans, this is no secret, it needs to stop. "We have enough land of no use".
Thankyou for agreeing that we need more logging. Green groups have caused logging to be almost non-existent on federal lands this has hurt rural Washington. I honestly know of very few local residents who want more wilderness. Most of that seems to come from groups like CNW and BHA!
If you do a google search this is some of what you find about BHA:
http://libertynews.com/2016/01/exposed-backcountry-hunters-who-protested-standoff-and-ripped-down-temporary-sign-at-oregon-refuge-are-bankrolled-by-big-foreign-special-interest-money/QuoteIn 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 – $30,000
It’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.
Backcountry Hunters and Anglers
https://www.greendecoys.com/decoys/backcountry-hunters-and-anglers/
Here are more numbers regarding BHA's major donors. What's important is to look at who is being funded by who: BHA, Earthjustice, Greenpeace, just to name a few! Read and watch for yourself: :dunno:QuoteAlong 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.org
Read more: http://www.ammoland.com/2014/08/irs-complaint-targets-backcountry-hunters-anglers/#ixzz49iNN3xLX
I answered your questions. Please answer these three questions:
If this land we speak about in NE WA is already off limits to development then why does it need to become wilderness?
Do you agree with closing the roads that are proposed to be closed as part of the wilderness deal in NE WA?
How much wilderness is enough?
The funding sources are interested in protecting public land too. I'm not sure that it's a terrible thing that HUNTERS align some with CONSERVATIONISTS.... after all, without habitat we won't be hunting at all. If BHA gathers 500k from a group that might otherwise give it to some anti hunting group, I guess that should go in the 'win category'.
Thank you for your response. We have established where large parts of BHA funding comes from and it's known that Land Tawney (representing BHA) openly supports Barack Obama (who wants to take away our guns) and other left wing politicians who's policies would likely limit hunting, I'm sorry but this is why I can't get on the BHA bandwagon. If these green groups are supporting BHA then it appears BHA is aligned with them enough to cause concern and appears to be a green decoy as charged in the video.
UNANSWERED QUESTIONS:
If this land we speak about in NE WA is already off limits to development then why does it need to become wilderness?
Do you agree with closing the roads that are proposed to be closed as part of the wilderness deal in NE WA?
How much wilderness is enough?
Just curious. What is the primary reason you're opposed to this piece of land becoming wilderness?
Post by: 300rum on May 26, 2016, 07:35:32 AM
Notice a few things. Terms like "Public Land", "Public Access" and "Federal Land" are thrown out regularly and used almost interchangeably. They do not mean the same thing, they do not even mean what you think they mean.
Find out where the money is coming from and also search out who the champions of the cause are. You have to poke around a bit but you will be able to find out who the liberal leaners are, they tell us (ever so slightly), every single time.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on May 26, 2016, 07:42:41 AM
It doesn't necessarily need to become wilderness, but there are few designations that provide protection in perpetuity from development or 'sell off'. We have also supported some sort of backcountry recreation area designation.
I don't know how much wilderness is enough. it's not up to me to decide. you seem to think that we have enough.... i can walk across the Salmo Priest in one day (and have). So i can tell you that we currently do not have enough.
You didn't answer my question earlier about BHA is "very close" to CNW.
Have you looked at the Forest Plan?? I suspect you didn't realize that BHA's likely (still drafting) position supports LESS wilderness designation than the FS proposed alternative.... seriously, why are you so anti BHA?
BTW- the fact that Land Tawney supports President Obama is fine with me. I do too. The fact that we supported Tester in Mt is GREAT with me. Otherwise there would be more flammable water pouring into rural residents kitchen sinks.... seriously- we need to have some hunters that care about the environment.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on May 26, 2016, 07:44:03 AM
Anyone on the fence on this needs to listen to what Bearpaw is saying, I personally know he has researched this as I have. If you are on the fence you need to search it out too, for yourself.You might want to reconsider your avatar picture if you are so suspicious of "liberal leaners" LOL
Notice a few things. Terms like "Public Land", "Public Access" and "Federal Land" are thrown out regularly and used almost interchangeably. They do not mean the same thing, they do not even mean what you think they mean.
Find out where the money is coming from and also search out who the champions of the cause are. You have to poke around a bit but you will be able to find out who the liberal leaners are, they tell us (ever so slightly), every single time.
TR was the champion of public land protection from industry.
Post by: Karl Blanchard on May 26, 2016, 07:46:46 AM
Post by: grundy53 on May 26, 2016, 08:01:27 AM
I'm sorry, but what in the world does it matter if you are liberal or conservative? Didn't know protecting public lands, gun rights, hunting rights, etc., was exclusive to one party :dunno:Honestly, when it comes to politicians, gun rights are pretty much a conservative deal. Liberals are against gun rights. When it comes to non profit organizations, I would say every group suing and moving the goalposts on wolves and grizzly are liberal. The group's suing the FS and making proper land management impossible are liberal. So yes I'm leary of joining a group that appears to be ran by liberals. I've really contemplated joining bha. Listening to Randy Newberg, Steve rinella, and the gritty bowman has almost convinced me. I agree with the basic philosophy, but every time I am about to pull the trigger I get uneasy. By the way I'm totally against the transfer of public land.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Post by: Bushcraft on May 26, 2016, 08:06:15 AM
I'm sorry, but what in the world does it matter if you are liberal or conservative? Didn't know protecting public lands, gun rights, hunting rights, etc., was exclusive to one party :dunno:
What does it matter? Didn't know gun rights and hunting rights was exclusive to one party? Seriously??? That is one of the most utterly naïve things I've read in quite some time. The anti-gun and anti-hunting agendas almost exclusively belong to one party....and that party would be the Democrats. Supporting their side of the aisle in any way shape or form is a one-way ticket to eventual firearm confiscation and the end of hunting. Anyone that thinks or believes otherwise is a damn fool.
Post by: grundy53 on May 26, 2016, 08:08:44 AM
Strange BHA anti Gun, They give you one when you become a life member!
I was just about to join BHA years ago. I figured they would've been more the advocacy I would've preferred. At about the same time I heard of the group, there was an issue that popped up near the coast called the Wild Olympics Campaign. The campaign was trying to shift a bunch of acreage to the national park (unhuntable). BHA was along with the campaign, being touted along as how it was going to be a great deal for all the forest, fish, wildlife and animals and even hunters and anglers were supporting the cause. But it would've eliminated HUNTING !!! on a lot of land. I just can't seem to want to back a group that makes bed fellows with the left.
Things like this worry me. A lot.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Post by: grundy53 on May 26, 2016, 08:14:26 AM
BTW- the fact that Land Tawney supports President Obama is fine with me. I do too. The fact that we supported Tester in Mt is GREAT with me. Otherwise there would be more flammable water pouring into rural residents kitchen sinks.... seriously- we need to have some hunters that care about the environment.
Yes, but you have to remember if you are wanting to recruit more hunters that a lot of them do not support Obama.... to put it mildly.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on May 26, 2016, 08:22:41 AM
I'm sorry, but what in the world does it matter if you are liberal or conservative? Didn't know protecting public lands, gun rights, hunting rights, etc., was exclusive to one party :dunno:It shouldn't matter, but the right wing folks are puppets to industry and the left wing are all tree hugging hippies j/k mostly....
The partisan divide has basically made people believe that and has alienated any moderate person. We need more people that could vote either way depending on the issues, buy that's not in fashion with the candidates anymore.
BHA is a grassroots, local group. The WA chapter members decide what to get involved in. The folks that are crumbing on BHA have never been involved in anything the WA chapter has worked on. I'm not sure why they are so opposed really.
Post by: turbo on May 26, 2016, 08:27:15 AM
NRA - No thanks. They hung Washington out to dry to sell membership in less liberal places IMO. The send more trash junk mail than a membership is worth asking for more. Done with them for now.
RMEF - Do they still support wilderness expansion?? Didn't they partner up with the Sierra club on a few projects only to have the Sierra club claim RMEF supporters as members way back?
BHA - LOL! Fools.. We have enough wilderness!! It's the gateway drug to "Park" = No hunting. You're naïve to think anything else IMO.
SCI - I have no clue but the (I) really bothers me. It should be (L) for local. I need to research them, ignorance on me here.
Bottom line is thanks to all in the know in this thread. I need a place to spend some money for the cause and so does my hunting group and you have inspired me to get back involved. We gave up.
Post by: jackelope on May 26, 2016, 08:33:18 AM
This is an interesting topic and very frustrating. My money sits on the sidelines because it takes so much work to find a place to spend it that actually supports my beliefs. Just my hunting group alone has a ton of money going nowhere.
NRA - No thanks. They hung Washington out to dry to sell membership in less liberal places IMO. The send more trash junk mail than a membership is worth asking for more. Done with them for now.
RMEF - Do they still support wilderness expansion?? Didn't they partner up with the Sierra club on a few projects only to have the Sierra club claim RMEF supporters as members way back?
BHA - LOL! Fools.. We have enough wilderness!! It's the gateway drug to "Park" = No hunting. You're naïve to think anything else IMO.
SCI - I have no clue but the (I) really bothers me. It should be (L) for local. I need to research them, ignorance on me here.
Bottom line is thanks to all in the know in this thread. I need a place to spend some money for the cause and so does my hunting group and you have inspired me to get back involved. We gave up.
When it comes to money, local is too limiting.
:twocents:
Post by: Karl Blanchard on May 26, 2016, 08:38:43 AM
I'm not even taking a side on this short of I do not like to sit back and watch stuff like this. Got a guy who obviously works with a certain organization, paid or not, come on here acting like just another concerned citizen, when they most certainly are more than that.
I sent BHA an email so they could possibly have an opportunity to defend themselves.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on May 26, 2016, 08:41:47 AM
Here's our problem as I see it, SCI is incorrectly perceived as being a club for rich white guys that go on safari hunts in Africa.Maybe it has to do with the name... :sry:
Post by: bearpaw on May 26, 2016, 08:44:50 AM
Of course industry wants to discredit BHA. Who do you suppose put the Green Decoy stuff together? See if you can find much about that group.... you won't, because it's Rick Berman, a 'hired gun' for big industry that wants to develop everything. BHA has taken an open position about protecting public lands from unsustainable development. We support timber/mining/liquid mineral when it's done properly. Industry could absolutely not care less about wildlife or our hunting; BHA took a position against that and stepped on their toes. They hired Berman to discredit us among hunters and appear to be "antis" in some way.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.
For decades green groups have been stopping logging, mining, public access, and forcing more and more wilderness on Americans, this is no secret, it needs to stop. "We have enough land of no use".
Thankyou for agreeing that we need more logging. Green groups have caused logging to be almost non-existent on federal lands this has hurt rural Washington. I honestly know of very few local residents who want more wilderness. Most of that seems to come from groups like CNW and BHA!
If you do a google search this is some of what you find about BHA:
http://libertynews.com/2016/01/exposed-backcountry-hunters-who-protested-standoff-and-ripped-down-temporary-sign-at-oregon-refuge-are-bankrolled-by-big-foreign-special-interest-money/QuoteIn 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 – $30,000
It’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.
Backcountry Hunters and Anglers
https://www.greendecoys.com/decoys/backcountry-hunters-and-anglers/
Here are more numbers regarding BHA's major donors. What's important is to look at who is being funded by who: BHA, Earthjustice, Greenpeace, just to name a few! Read and watch for yourself: :dunno:QuoteAlong 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.org
Read more: http://www.ammoland.com/2014/08/irs-complaint-targets-backcountry-hunters-anglers/#ixzz49iNN3xLX
I answered your questions. Please answer these three questions:
If this land we speak about in NE WA is already off limits to development then why does it need to become wilderness?
Do you agree with closing the roads that are proposed to be closed as part of the wilderness deal in NE WA?
How much wilderness is enough?
The funding sources are interested in protecting public land too. I'm not sure that it's a terrible thing that HUNTERS align some with CONSERVATIONISTS.... after all, without habitat we won't be hunting at all. If BHA gathers 500k from a group that might otherwise give it to some anti hunting group, I guess that should go in the 'win category'.
Thank you for your response. We have established where large parts of BHA funding comes from and it's known that Land Tawney (representing BHA) openly supports Barack Obama (who wants to take away our guns) and other left wing politicians who's policies would likely limit hunting, I'm sorry but this is why I can't get on the BHA bandwagon. If these green groups are supporting BHA then it appears BHA is aligned with them enough to cause concern and appears to be a green decoy as charged in the video.
UNANSWERED QUESTIONS:
If this land we speak about in NE WA is already off limits to development then why does it need to become wilderness?
Do you agree with closing the roads that are proposed to be closed as part of the wilderness deal in NE WA?
How much wilderness is enough?
Just curious. What is the primary reason you're opposed to this piece of land becoming wilderness?
Then it becomes land of no use with access limited to most Americans. As an outfitter it would be a boom to my business, I could capitalize on recreationists and hunters needing packed in. But as a human being with kids and grandkids, I don't weant to see these places limited to most Americans who can't physically hike in 10-15 miles with a pack on their back, or afford horses, or an outfitted trip.
What is so wrong with keeping the access and the wild areas how we have it now? We don't want to develop them, we just want access and use as we know it now.
The proposal for the Kettle Crest is to remove certain roads which currently get you within walking distance of the Kettle Crest. They want to close the Albion Hill Road which connects Sherman Pass to Boulder Pass. Hundreds, probably thousands of recreationists and hunters get walking distance access to the Kettle Crest from that road.
It is one thing after another with the greenies, they are never satisified. There are three areas they currently want for wilderness in NE WA, if they get these wilderness then they will want more. Read the answer to my questions by WAcoyotehunter, he confirmed what I am saying.
Quote
I don't know how much wilderness is enough. it's not up to me to decide. you seem to think that we have enough.... i can walk across the Salmo Priest in one day (and have). So i can tell you that we currently do not have enough.
Post by: turbo on May 26, 2016, 08:45:01 AM
Sorry, but I continue to disagree. Plenty of liberal minded folks that hunt and fish and shoot.
Not for long if you continue to support people who hate you (if) you're a gun owner....
I wonder what percentage of BHA "hunters" are archery?
Post by: Karl Blanchard on May 26, 2016, 08:52:15 AM
Post by: bearpaw on May 26, 2016, 08:54:18 AM
I agree with Allen 100% regarding groups, if you own guns and hunt he has it exactly right. :tup:
1. NRA
2. SCI
3. Your favorite specialty group(s)
I fully support keeping all our public lands publicly accessible as they currently are. I do not support expanding wilderness as it limits too many recreational users from using public land that they used to have access to. Every time you create new wilderness you force more users into a smaller accessible area. The problem with BHA, it was established by other left leaning groups who needed to figure out a way to get some hunters and anglers to support their underlying agenda. They came up with a catchy name and well meaning hunters have signed on not knowing the potential underlying ramifications.
BHA wants to expand wilderness, sounds great but that really limits most Americans for the benefit of a few who most likely will never even see all of this wilderness in their lifetime. We have almost 110 million acres of wilderness in the US that most people can't or don't have the ability to access! How much wilderness do we need? I'd like to hear an honest answer to that question, "How much wilderness do we need?"
It seems much wiser to carefully manage all the wild areas that we currently have and maintain access as we know it now with the current opportunities for all Americans to continue enjoying the outdoors the way we do now. I hate to see a bunch of physically fit young guys who are well intentioned, but who simply are not considering, realizing, or caring how their actions will impact millions of other Americans, many who are older or physically limited.
Washington’s 31 wilderness areas
When the Wilderness Act passed in 1964, three areas in Washington were awarded the status. Fifty years later, the state has 31 Wilderness Areas totalling 4.5 million acres.
Read more here: http://www.thenewstribune.com/outdoors/article25878187.html#storylink=cpy
List of U.S. Wilderness Areas
Four federal agencies of the United States government administer the U.S. Wildernesses, which includes 759 Wildernesses and 109,754,604 acres (444,161.12 km2). These agencies are:
United States Forest Service
United States National Park Service
United States Bureau of Land Management
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
This is an area larger than Iraq or the state of California.
Read more here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._Wilderness_Areas
The problem is that every wilderness lover wants more wilderness! If areas equal in size to the state of California is not enough, it should be pretty obvious they will never have enough. The only option is to stop the nonsense now or keep losing access and opportunity for most Americans. We have huge areas designated as National Forests and BLM public lands where millions of people access and enjoy the outdoors. If the greenies have their way most of this would become wilderness with no access for most Americans. Stop the nonsense now or keep losing access to hunt and play.
What's even worse is that the (D) party leaders want to make much of it parks that will not even be open to hunt even if you are a young guy that is able to walk in from the exterior boundary. Wake up and smell the coffee, stop the greeners before they stop you from hunting and shooting completely!
Post by: grundy53 on May 26, 2016, 08:56:31 AM
Sorry, but I continue to disagree. Plenty of liberal minded folks that hunt and fish and shoot.
On an individual level I agree. I'm talking groups. policy, politics, and organizations.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Post by: JimmyHoffa on May 26, 2016, 08:58:46 AM
Sorry, but I continue to disagree. Plenty of liberal minded folks that hunt and fish and shoot.True and I've met a few too. I've even run into one of the state reps a few times way back in the forest hunting elk, and he's a Dem. Can you find a rep more knowledgeable of a hunting issue? :o
But the unfortunate reality is that party line voting and party platforms have made voting local issues into national issues become more about selecting a party rather than a candidate. You can pick almost any issue and find it backed by one side and opposed by the other--doesn't seem to be much that they have common ground (except for fleecing the people economically).
Post by: sirmissalot on May 26, 2016, 09:04:25 AM
I've really contemplated joining bha. Listening to Randy Newberg, Steve rinella, and the gritty bowman has almost convinced me. I agree with the basic philosophy, but every time I am about to pull the trigger I get uneasy. By the way I'm totally against the transfer of public land.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
This is right where I'm at. So many good things are said, then threads like this get brought up making me question if I should wear my BHA shirts proudly or toss them in the trash. Those podcasts really get me wanting to support them, all three of those guys seem like guys like us. I love wilderness, but having grown up in a small logging community, and hunting timberlands, seeing what kind of benefits logging creates for us and wildlife I'm really not sure I want MORE untouchable land. Especially if there's even a question of whether we can hunt it or not. :dunno:
I sent BHA a link to this thread hoping they would reply and answer our concerns, but I did the same a few weeks ago about a similar thread and never heard back...
Post by: Karl Blanchard on May 26, 2016, 09:09:53 AM
Post by: bearpaw on May 26, 2016, 09:11:50 AM
I've never once voted for a democrat, but demonizing and alienating people based on political leanings is a sure fire way to ensure our doom. There are more of them then their are of us, and that gap will continue to grow. Champion the open minded to our cause, don't call them names and dismiss them.
I agree it's wrong to demonize individual Democrats. My sister and my dad are democrats, how can I hate them? But, I can honestly say most leaders in the (D) party are anti gun and anti hunting. Hillary, Barack, Chuck Shumer, some even in our state, etc, etc!
I think the challenge is to get people to look at each issue individually rather than making guns and hunting a party line issue. For the record I'm pretty fed up with the (R) party too, the leadership is controlled by big international business that gets cheap labor in third world countries and pushes out American business.
I wished there was a better way to be in the middle because most of us are probably somewhere in the middle.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on May 26, 2016, 09:12:27 AM
Post by: bearpaw on May 26, 2016, 09:13:13 AM
The second that privatization is mentioned the discussion ends for me. How is private land ownership working out for the Westside of oregon and washington? $300 access passes and the like.
Also, I asked who you were affiliated with and you said know one. But obviously you do work and are active with SCI? Whole point of the post was to drag BHA through the mud, from someone who "works" for a different organization competing for the same dollars......
I really don't think that's the case. If you read his post I think Allen meant he volunteers his time, he held an elected position in his chapter, he was not paid. In case you didn't know, many groups pay employees. For example NWTF, RMEF, and MDF have paid positions and SCI and BHA probably do too, but Allen was an elected officer who volunteered his time. I think he said he belongs to other organizations as well. Please correct me if I am wrong Allen?
I also think you are confusing privatization of services or administration with ownership. I would adamantly oppose any selling off of public lands unless it was merely an exchange of lands, which is already commonly done. However, I agree that a private contractor might provide much better administration of some public lands. I also think a private contractor might be much more efficient at fire suppression. Let me repeat, I would never support, nor should any citizen, the selling off of public lands.
Post by: Karl Blanchard on May 26, 2016, 09:24:04 AM
Thank you for articulating that better for me Dale! That was more what I was trying to get at. :tup:I've never once voted for a democrat, but demonizing and alienating people based on political leanings is a sure fire way to ensure our doom. There are more of them then their are of us, and that gap will continue to grow. Champion the open minded to our cause, don't call them names and dismiss them.
I agree it's wrong to demonize individual Democrats. My sister and my dad are democrats, how can I hate them? But, I can honestly say most leaders in the (D) party are anti gun and anti hunting. Hillary, Barack, Chuck Shumer, some even in our state, etc, etc!
I think the challenge is to get people to look at each issue individually rather than making guns and hunting a party line issue. For the record I'm pretty fed up with the (R) party too, the leadership is controlled by big international business that gets cheap labor in third world countries and pushes out American business.
I wished there was a better way to be in the middle because most of us are probably somewhere in the middle.
Post by: Bushcraft on May 26, 2016, 09:25:56 AM
The second that privatization is mentioned the discussion ends for me. How is private land ownership working out for the Westside of oregon and washington? $300 access passes and the like.
Also, I asked who you were affiliated with and you said know one. But obviously you do work and are active with SCI? Whole point of the post was to drag BHA through the mud, from someone who "works" for a different organization competing for the same dollars......
Nop
I really don't think that's the case. If you read his post I think Allen meant he volunteers his time, he held an elected position in his chapter, he was not paid. In case you didn't know, many groups pay employees. For example NWTF, RMEF, and MDF have paid positions and SCI and BHA probably do too, but Allen was an elected officer who volunteered his time. I think he said he belongs to other organizations as well. Please correct me if I am wrong Allen?
I also think you are confusing privatization of services or administration with ownership. I would adamantly oppose any selling off of public lands unless it was merely an exchange of lands, which is already commonly done. However, I agree that a private contractor might provide much better administration of some public lands. I also think a private contractor might be much more efficient at fire suppression. Let me repeat, I would never support, nor should any citizen, the selling off of public lands.
You've got it exactly correct on all accounts Dale. My response to him left exactly zero room for confusion. Is the information in our "signatures" not visible for everyone?
Post by: HighCountryHunter88 on May 26, 2016, 09:27:44 AM
The second that privatization is mentioned the discussion ends for me. How is private land ownership working out for the Westside of oregon and washington? $300 access passes and the like.
Also, I asked who you were affiliated with and you said know one. But obviously you do work and are active with SCI? Whole point of the post was to drag BHA through the mud, from someone who "works" for a different organization competing for the same dollars......
I really don't think that's the case. If you read his post I think Allen meant he volunteers his time, he held an elected position in his chapter, he was not paid. In case you didn't know, many groups pay employees. For example NWTF, RMEF, and MDF have paid positions and SCI and BHA probably do too, but Allen was an elected officer who volunteered his time. I think he said he belongs to other organizations as well. Please correct me if I am wrong Allen?
I also think you are confusing privatization of services or administration with ownership. I would adamantly oppose any selling off of public lands unless it was merely an exchange of lands, which is already commonly done. However, I agree that a private contractor might provide much better administration of some public lands. I also think a private contractor might be much more efficient at fire suppression. Let me repeat, I would never support, nor should any citizen, the selling off of public lands.
who's going to pay for the private contractor?
Post by: bearpaw on May 26, 2016, 09:29:31 AM
Go to a BHA event and get involved. If you want to guide the direction of the group, be involved in it. This is a distant group of people directing a state chapter. There is great autonomy among state chapters and if you want to make a meaningful change, get involved.
If BHA had a major change in leadership and financial support by green groups looking to lock up lands and eliminate hunting disappeared I might get involved to try and encourage multiple use of our lands for all Americans, the way we have it now, but I'm sorry, if your leader Land Tawney supported Barack then I'm almost certain he is supporting Hillary. I'm not going to give one penny of support to the woman who started her presidential campaign on gun control and who has said we need to eliminate the 2nd Amendment, and who will appoint anti-gun justices to the SCOTUS. :sry:
I've tried to understand my dad and to reason with him, he is totally about his guns but loves Obama and Hillary. He thinks they will keep his social security coming. He thinks the NRA is lieing, that Obama really doesn't want to take our guns, I've learned that I simply have to avoid talking politics with him.
Post by: Karl Blanchard on May 26, 2016, 09:30:27 AM
Post by: dreamingbig on May 26, 2016, 09:36:23 AM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: bearpaw on May 26, 2016, 09:38:36 AM
The second that privatization is mentioned the discussion ends for me. How is private land ownership working out for the Westside of oregon and washington? $300 access passes and the like.
Also, I asked who you were affiliated with and you said know one. But obviously you do work and are active with SCI? Whole point of the post was to drag BHA through the mud, from someone who "works" for a different organization competing for the same dollars......
I really don't think that's the case. If you read his post I think Allen meant he volunteers his time, he held an elected position in his chapter, he was not paid. In case you didn't know, many groups pay employees. For example NWTF, RMEF, and MDF have paid positions and SCI and BHA probably do too, but Allen was an elected officer who volunteered his time. I think he said he belongs to other organizations as well. Please correct me if I am wrong Allen?
I also think you are confusing privatization of services or administration with ownership. I would adamantly oppose any selling off of public lands unless it was merely an exchange of lands, which is already commonly done. However, I agree that a private contractor might provide much better administration of some public lands. I also think a private contractor might be much more efficient at fire suppression. Let me repeat, I would never support, nor should any citizen, the selling off of public lands.
who's going to pay for the private contractor?
Many people don't realize that the USFS is funded by taxpayers. Logging is alsmost non-existant, logging used to pay more of the cost. That means you and I are paying. It has been proven many times over that private industry can generally do a better job at less expense. It is my opinion that the right private contracter could do a better job of keeping forest roads maintained, effectively fighting forest fires, etc, etc. These various things could be on a bid basis and awarded to different contractors. Then we would not be paying for all the huge buildings and parking lots full of new trucks. Something like that might save millions of taxpayer money and be more effective.
Post by: Karl Blanchard on May 26, 2016, 09:39:19 AM
I'd be saying the same things about someone from BHA if they came on here slinging mud about sci
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on May 26, 2016, 09:43:34 AM
We do that with a stewardship contract. The logs are sold to high bidder and a portion of the money is then earmarked for roads/trails/campgrounds.... whatever a group of stakeholders decides. Its a great day to move timber and meet local needs on USFS landThe second that privatization is mentioned the discussion ends for me. How is private land ownership working out for the Westside of oregon and washington? $300 access passes and the like.
Also, I asked who you were affiliated with and you said know one. But obviously you do work and are active with SCI? Whole point of the post was to drag BHA through the mud, from someone who "works" for a different organization competing for the same dollars......
I really don't think that's the case. If you read his post I think Allen meant he volunteers his time, he held an elected position in his chapter, he was not paid. In case you didn't know, many groups pay employees. For example NWTF, RMEF, and MDF have paid positions and SCI and BHA probably do too, but Allen was an elected officer who volunteered his time. I think he said he belongs to other organizations as well. Please correct me if I am wrong Allen?
I also think you are confusing privatization of services or administration with ownership. I would adamantly oppose any selling off of public lands unless it was merely an exchange of lands, which is already commonly done. However, I agree that a private contractor might provide much better administration of some public lands. I also think a private contractor might be much more efficient at fire suppression. Let me repeat, I would never support, nor should any citizen, the selling off of public lands.
who's going to pay for the private contractor?
Many people don't realize that the USFS is funded by taxpayers. Logging is alsmost non-existant, logging used to pay more of the cost. That means you and I are paying. It has been proven many times over that private industry can generally do a better job at less expense. It is my opinion that the right private contracter could do a better job of keeping forest roads maintained, effectively fighting forest fires, etc, etc. These various things could be on a bid basis and awarded to different contractors. Then we would not be paying for all the huge buildings and parking lots full of new trucks. Something like that might save millions of taxpayer money and be more effective.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on May 26, 2016, 09:43:47 AM
Same people paying the gov workers now. In a previous job (fed gov), we would have to identify positions to cut from time to time for budgeting concerns. Generally, it was more of a trade--cutting one gov employee got back two contractors.The second that privatization is mentioned the discussion ends for me. How is private land ownership working out for the Westside of oregon and washington? $300 access passes and the like.
Also, I asked who you were affiliated with and you said know one. But obviously you do work and are active with SCI? Whole point of the post was to drag BHA through the mud, from someone who "works" for a different organization competing for the same dollars......
I really don't think that's the case. If you read his post I think Allen meant he volunteers his time, he held an elected position in his chapter, he was not paid. In case you didn't know, many groups pay employees. For example NWTF, RMEF, and MDF have paid positions and SCI and BHA probably do too, but Allen was an elected officer who volunteered his time. I think he said he belongs to other organizations as well. Please correct me if I am wrong Allen?
I also think you are confusing privatization of services or administration with ownership. I would adamantly oppose any selling off of public lands unless it was merely an exchange of lands, which is already commonly done. However, I agree that a private contractor might provide much better administration of some public lands. I also think a private contractor might be much more efficient at fire suppression. Let me repeat, I would never support, nor should any citizen, the selling off of public lands.
who's going to pay for the private contractor?
Post by: jackelope on May 26, 2016, 09:45:23 AM
The second that privatization is mentioned the discussion ends for me. How is private land ownership working out for the Westside of oregon and washington? $300 access passes and the like.
Also, I asked who you were affiliated with and you said know one. But obviously you do work and are active with SCI? Whole point of the post was to drag BHA through the mud, from someone who "works" for a different organization competing for the same dollars......
I really don't think that's the case. If you read his post I think Allen meant he volunteers his time, he held an elected position in his chapter, he was not paid. In case you didn't know, many groups pay employees. For example NWTF, RMEF, and MDF have paid positions and SCI and BHA probably do too, but Allen was an elected officer who volunteered his time. I think he said he belongs to other organizations as well. Please correct me if I am wrong Allen?
I also think you are confusing privatization of services or administration with ownership. I would adamantly oppose any selling off of public lands unless it was merely an exchange of lands, which is already commonly done. However, I agree that a private contractor might provide much better administration of some public lands. I also think a private contractor might be much more efficient at fire suppression. Let me repeat, I would never support, nor should any citizen, the selling off of public lands.
The biggest reason I support BHA is their fight against federal land transfer. Who else is fighting that fight?
http://www.backcountryhunters.org/colorado_bha_op_ed
http://www.backcountryhunters.org/top_five_reasons
Top Five Reasons Why Transferring Our Public Lands to State Ownership is a Bad Idea
Posted by Backcountry Hunters & Anglers | March 08, 2016
1.States manage their lands to make money, not to provide opportunities for recreation.
2.States can’t afford to manage our public lands and would be forced to either raise taxes (a nonstarter) or sell them to corporations or wealthy individuals.
3.Public lands are good for the economy.
4.Currently, many state lands across the country don’t allow hunting or camping…or even hiking.
5.You already own them. As a U.S. citizen, you own our public lands. The government is just the caretaker. Once you lose them, you’ll never get them back.
If you’re angry that some politicians and special interests are trying to steal your public lands, here's three easy ways that you can help push back against this public land seizure.
1.Sign BHA’s sportsmen’s pledge and join the fight to keep public hands in public hands.
2.Show your public land pride with one of BHA's "public land owner" t-shirts.
3.Contact your elected officials and let them know where you stand on this issue.
Quote
Guy Eastman, Eastman’s Hunting Journal. August. 2014 (Live chat).
“It’s a very stupid idea.... I think we can all agree that protecting our public lands is probably more important than anything else ... once the public land is gone, we can never get it back again. Public land loss is permanent, period."
Post by: bearpaw on May 26, 2016, 09:45:33 AM
That's great that you volunteer but how about starting a thread about how great sci is and how much good they are doing? Why start a sling fest thread about a different organization who competes for the same dollars? I don't care if an individual is paid or not, the point is there is almost always an agenda when dollars are involved. My guard went up half way through the first post :twocents:
Allen had commented in another topic regarding BHA and I had commented too as well as a few others. It was decided that it wasn't appropriate to have these posts in the other topic, so I moved these posts to a new topic. That is how this topic came to be, Allen didn't started this topic.
Post by: jackelope on May 26, 2016, 09:48:59 AM
The second that privatization is mentioned the discussion ends for me. How is private land ownership working out for the Westside of oregon and washington? $300 access passes and the like.
Also, I asked who you were affiliated with and you said know one. But obviously you do work and are active with SCI? Whole point of the post was to drag BHA through the mud, from someone who "works" for a different organization competing for the same dollars......
I really don't think that's the case. If you read his post I think Allen meant he volunteers his time, he held an elected position in his chapter, he was not paid. In case you didn't know, many groups pay employees. For example NWTF, RMEF, and MDF have paid positions and SCI and BHA probably do too, but Allen was an elected officer who volunteered his time. I think he said he belongs to other organizations as well. Please correct me if I am wrong Allen?
I also think you are confusing privatization of services or administration with ownership. I would adamantly oppose any selling off of public lands unless it was merely an exchange of lands, which is already commonly done. However, I agree that a private contractor might provide much better administration of some public lands. I also think a private contractor might be much more efficient at fire suppression. Let me repeat, I would never support, nor should any citizen, the selling off of public lands.
who's going to pay for the private contractor?
Many people don't realize that the USFS is funded by taxpayers. Logging is alsmost non-existant, logging used to pay more of the cost. That means you and I are paying. It has been proven many times over that private industry can generally do a better job at less expense. It is my opinion that the right private contracter could do a better job of keeping forest roads maintained, effectively fighting forest fires, etc, etc. These various things could be on a bid basis and awarded to different contractors. Then we would not be paying for all the huge buildings and parking lots full of new trucks. Something like that might save millions of taxpayer money and be more effective.
The state can't even find someone to run a state park. What makes you think they'll find a private contractor able to manage a giant swath of forest, do it well, and not charge for and/or limit access otherwise?
Post by: bearpaw on May 26, 2016, 09:59:34 AM
The second that privatization is mentioned the discussion ends for me. How is private land ownership working out for the Westside of oregon and washington? $300 access passes and the like.
Also, I asked who you were affiliated with and you said know one. But obviously you do work and are active with SCI? Whole point of the post was to drag BHA through the mud, from someone who "works" for a different organization competing for the same dollars......
I really don't think that's the case. If you read his post I think Allen meant he volunteers his time, he held an elected position in his chapter, he was not paid. In case you didn't know, many groups pay employees. For example NWTF, RMEF, and MDF have paid positions and SCI and BHA probably do too, but Allen was an elected officer who volunteered his time. I think he said he belongs to other organizations as well. Please correct me if I am wrong Allen?
I also think you are confusing privatization of services or administration with ownership. I would adamantly oppose any selling off of public lands unless it was merely an exchange of lands, which is already commonly done. However, I agree that a private contractor might provide much better administration of some public lands. I also think a private contractor might be much more efficient at fire suppression. Let me repeat, I would never support, nor should any citizen, the selling off of public lands.
The biggest reason I support BHA is their fight against federal land transfer. Who else is fighting that fight?
http://www.backcountryhunters.org/colorado_bha_op_ed
http://www.backcountryhunters.org/top_five_reasons
Top Five Reasons Why Transferring Our Public Lands to State Ownership is a Bad Idea
Posted by Backcountry Hunters & Anglers | March 08, 2016
1.States manage their lands to make money, not to provide opportunities for recreation.
2.States can’t afford to manage our public lands and would be forced to either raise taxes (a nonstarter) or sell them to corporations or wealthy individuals.
3.Public lands are good for the economy.
4.Currently, many state lands across the country don’t allow hunting or camping…or even hiking.
5.You already own them. As a U.S. citizen, you own our public lands. The government is just the caretaker. Once you lose them, you’ll never get them back.
If you’re angry that some politicians and special interests are trying to steal your public lands, here's three easy ways that you can help push back against this public land seizure.
1.Sign BHA’s sportsmen’s pledge and join the fight to keep public hands in public hands.
2.Show your public land pride with one of BHA's "public land owner" t-shirts.
3.Contact your elected officials and let them know where you stand on this issue.QuoteGuy Eastman, Eastman’s Hunting Journal. August. 2014 (Live chat).
“It’s a very stupid idea.... I think we can all agree that protecting our public lands is probably more important than anything else ... once the public land is gone, we can never get it back again. Public land loss is permanent, period."
First and foremost to me is our constitution and bill of rights. When that is gone you'll have no rights! Politicians like Obama and Hillary are opposed to our founding documents, I cannot support anything that supports them.
We have a multitude of politicians who are not going to allow public land to be sold off. SCI, NRA, and all the other groups would be all over that. I know that I don't need to belong to a group supporting Obama and Hillary to save our public lands from being sold off.
If you are OK with that I understand, I know that we don't all share the same views and I was never trying to chastise anyone for that. I was trying to show where the financial support comes from and what the leadership of this group supports. I think that has been accomplished for those who didn't know.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on May 26, 2016, 10:11:59 AM
=196037.msg2599943#msg2599943 date=1464279844]The second that privatization is mentioned the discussion ends for me. How is private land ownership working out for the Westside of oregon and washington? $300 access passes and the like.
Also, I asked who you were affiliated with and you said know one. But obviously you do work and are active with SCI? Whole point of the post was to drag BHA through the mud, from someone who "works" for a different organization competing for the same dollars......
I really don't think that's the case. If you read his post I think Allen meant he volunteers his time, he held an elected position in his chapter, he was not paid. In case you didn't know, many groups pay employees. For example NWTF, RMEF, and MDF have paid positions and SCI and BHA probably do too, but Allen was an elected officer who volunteered his time. I think he said he belongs to other organizations as well. Please correct me if I am wrong Allen?
I also think you are confusing privatization of services or administration with ownership. I would adamantly oppose any selling off of public lands unless it was merely an exchange of lands, which is already commonly done. However, I agree that a private contractor might provide much better administration of some public lands. I also think a private contractor might be much more efficient at fire suppression. Let me repeat, I would never support, nor should any citizen, the selling off of public lands.
t Let me repeat, I would never support, nor should any citizen, the selling off of public lands.
That's good to hear. I wish more Republicans would reel into their representatives that are supporting the federal land transfers.
Post by: jackelope on May 26, 2016, 10:23:26 AM
The second that privatization is mentioned the discussion ends for me. How is private land ownership working out for the Westside of oregon and washington? $300 access passes and the like.
Also, I asked who you were affiliated with and you said know one. But obviously you do work and are active with SCI? Whole point of the post was to drag BHA through the mud, from someone who "works" for a different organization competing for the same dollars......
I really don't think that's the case. If you read his post I think Allen meant he volunteers his time, he held an elected position in his chapter, he was not paid. In case you didn't know, many groups pay employees. For example NWTF, RMEF, and MDF have paid positions and SCI and BHA probably do too, but Allen was an elected officer who volunteered his time. I think he said he belongs to other organizations as well. Please correct me if I am wrong Allen?
I also think you are confusing privatization of services or administration with ownership. I would adamantly oppose any selling off of public lands unless it was merely an exchange of lands, which is already commonly done. However, I agree that a private contractor might provide much better administration of some public lands. I also think a private contractor might be much more efficient at fire suppression. Let me repeat, I would never support, nor should any citizen, the selling off of public lands.
The biggest reason I support BHA is their fight against federal land transfer. Who else is fighting that fight?
http://www.backcountryhunters.org/colorado_bha_op_ed
http://www.backcountryhunters.org/top_five_reasons
Top Five Reasons Why Transferring Our Public Lands to State Ownership is a Bad Idea
Posted by Backcountry Hunters & Anglers | March 08, 2016
1.States manage their lands to make money, not to provide opportunities for recreation.
2.States can’t afford to manage our public lands and would be forced to either raise taxes (a nonstarter) or sell them to corporations or wealthy individuals.
3.Public lands are good for the economy.
4.Currently, many state lands across the country don’t allow hunting or camping…or even hiking.
5.You already own them. As a U.S. citizen, you own our public lands. The government is just the caretaker. Once you lose them, you’ll never get them back.
If you’re angry that some politicians and special interests are trying to steal your public lands, here's three easy ways that you can help push back against this public land seizure.
1.Sign BHA’s sportsmen’s pledge and join the fight to keep public hands in public hands.
2.Show your public land pride with one of BHA's "public land owner" t-shirts.
3.Contact your elected officials and let them know where you stand on this issue.QuoteGuy Eastman, Eastman’s Hunting Journal. August. 2014 (Live chat).
“It’s a very stupid idea.... I think we can all agree that protecting our public lands is probably more important than anything else ... once the public land is gone, we can never get it back again. Public land loss is permanent, period."
First and foremost to me is our constitution and bill of rights. When that is gone you'll have no rights! Politicians like Obama and Hillary are opposed to our founding documents, I cannot support anything that supports them.
We have a multitude of politicians who are not going to allow public land to be sold off. SCI, NRA, and all the other groups would be all over that. I know that I don't need to belong to a group supporting Obama and Hillary to save our public lands from being sold off.
If you are OK with that I understand, I know that we don't all share the same views and I was never trying to chastise anyone for that. I was trying to show where the financial support comes from and what the leadership of this group supports. I think that has been accomplished for those who didn't know.
http://www.petersenshunting.com/conservation-politics/uncle-sam-public-land/ from December 2014......
Quote
..........If some members of Congress get their way, the Breaks, along with millions of acres of other public land, may go on the auction block.
Impossible? The sale of national forest and BLM land may seem like little more than an environmentalist’s conspiracy theory or a far-fetched plan that would never get past public outrage. However, seven Western states have passed legislation asking the federal government to turn federal lands over to state governments.
If that’s not frightening enough, Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI), the chairman of the House Budget Committee, mentioned the “sale of unneeded federal property” in his 2012 budget proposal. Utah Representative Jason Chaffetz (R) introduced H.R. 2657, titled “The Disposal of Excess Federal Lands Act of 2013.” It directs the Secretary of the Interior to sell millions of acres of land in 10 Western states. The proceeds would go toward decreasing the federal debt. Fortunately, the bill is stalled in committee.
Even if Chaffetz’s legislation goes nowhere, it signals a disturbing trend, says Backcountry Hunters and Anglers Executive Director Land Tawney. A number of state and federal legislators have long pushed for the return of federal land to the states. They insist individual states can manage the land better than the federal government. Tawney isn’t buying it.
“The management of national forests and BLM lands is expensive. Road maintenance and firefighting budgets alone can add up to millions. If states took control of federal land, how would they pay for the upkeep? They would either raise taxes or sell land, and we know how unpopular the idea of raising taxes is,” says Tawney.
One study found that Montana would lose $200 million per year managing what is currently federal land, even after various revenue streams were taken into account. Aside from the direct monetary loss, selling even small blocks of federal land, tracts deemed “surplus” or “unneeded” by legislators, could have disastrous consequences for hunters. Any loss of public land translates to fewer opportunities.
Read more: http://www.petersenshunting.com/conservation-politics/uncle-sam-public-land/#ixzz49meE6WHK
Post by: bearpaw on May 26, 2016, 10:40:46 AM
The second that privatization is mentioned the discussion ends for me. How is private land ownership working out for the Westside of oregon and washington? $300 access passes and the like.
Also, I asked who you were affiliated with and you said know one. But obviously you do work and are active with SCI? Whole point of the post was to drag BHA through the mud, from someone who "works" for a different organization competing for the same dollars......
I really don't think that's the case. If you read his post I think Allen meant he volunteers his time, he held an elected position in his chapter, he was not paid. In case you didn't know, many groups pay employees. For example NWTF, RMEF, and MDF have paid positions and SCI and BHA probably do too, but Allen was an elected officer who volunteered his time. I think he said he belongs to other organizations as well. Please correct me if I am wrong Allen?
I also think you are confusing privatization of services or administration with ownership. I would adamantly oppose any selling off of public lands unless it was merely an exchange of lands, which is already commonly done. However, I agree that a private contractor might provide much better administration of some public lands. I also think a private contractor might be much more efficient at fire suppression. Let me repeat, I would never support, nor should any citizen, the selling off of public lands.
who's going to pay for the private contractor?
Many people don't realize that the USFS is funded by taxpayers. Logging is alsmost non-existant, logging used to pay more of the cost. That means you and I are paying. It has been proven many times over that private industry can generally do a better job at less expense. It is my opinion that the right private contracter could do a better job of keeping forest roads maintained, effectively fighting forest fires, etc, etc. These various things could be on a bid basis and awarded to different contractors. Then we would not be paying for all the huge buildings and parking lots full of new trucks. Something like that might save millions of taxpayer money and be more effective.
The state can't even find someone to run a state park. What makes you think they'll find a private contractor able to manage a giant swath of forest, do it well, and not charge for and/or limit access otherwise?
First of all you must look at each issue rather than try to lump it as one question, that's impossible to deal with in one answer.
Running State Parks
As you know I spent one summer donating my time to serve on the state parks and recreation task force, we held public meetings in towns across the state taking public input and trying to resolve issues such as funding for state parks. To say it's a very complex issue is an understatement. The legislature has a funding shortfall and will not fully fund state parks, it would take away from other areas that need funding. So there is partial funding. Next the state created the Discover Pass, but many hunters and citizens now avoid going to state land and don't buy it, so Parks are still underfunded. If you start charging an admission to enter state parks people will simply quit using parks and they will still be underfunded. Short of an improving economy or increasing taxes for better legislative funding there are not many alternatives other than finding funding from private sources such as venders who will to pay to offer services on state parks. Another consideration might be to use private contractors for maintenance and administration, but that wasn't a recommendation of the group and I doubt will ever happen. Most people with jobs at state parks want to keep their jobs and don't want private contractors. No business is going to run a state park unless they can see a way to turn a profit, the public probably will oppose that, so there is no answer for this question at this time!
Managing Sections Of Forest
I will use myself and other outfitters as an example. Outfitters pay the USFS and BLM to conduct all types of recreational activities on the forest. Often times the USFS contracts with outfitters to open up and repair sections of trail because we generally have the pack animals and experience to do it cheaper than if the USFS had to assemble a crew, gear, and animals. Another example is logging, when the USFS decides to log an area they open it to bids by private logging companies that have the experience and equipment to do the logging more efficiently and less costly. I really think the USFS should look at additional functions and responsibilities that private contractors could do for less cost to taxpayers. Fire supression is a perfect example, I think there are logging companies who would gladly bid on fire suppression which could be incorporated into logging operations to reduce fuel load. There are probably lots of answers if people are willing to ask the question of how can we save money with private contractors.
Post by: bearpaw on May 26, 2016, 10:46:55 AM
The second that privatization is mentioned the discussion ends for me. How is private land ownership working out for the Westside of oregon and washington? $300 access passes and the like.
Also, I asked who you were affiliated with and you said know one. But obviously you do work and are active with SCI? Whole point of the post was to drag BHA through the mud, from someone who "works" for a different organization competing for the same dollars......
I really don't think that's the case. If you read his post I think Allen meant he volunteers his time, he held an elected position in his chapter, he was not paid. In case you didn't know, many groups pay employees. For example NWTF, RMEF, and MDF have paid positions and SCI and BHA probably do too, but Allen was an elected officer who volunteered his time. I think he said he belongs to other organizations as well. Please correct me if I am wrong Allen?
I also think you are confusing privatization of services or administration with ownership. I would adamantly oppose any selling off of public lands unless it was merely an exchange of lands, which is already commonly done. However, I agree that a private contractor might provide much better administration of some public lands. I also think a private contractor might be much more efficient at fire suppression. Let me repeat, I would never support, nor should any citizen, the selling off of public lands.
The biggest reason I support BHA is their fight against federal land transfer. Who else is fighting that fight?
http://www.backcountryhunters.org/colorado_bha_op_ed
http://www.backcountryhunters.org/top_five_reasons
Top Five Reasons Why Transferring Our Public Lands to State Ownership is a Bad Idea
Posted by Backcountry Hunters & Anglers | March 08, 2016
1.States manage their lands to make money, not to provide opportunities for recreation.
2.States can’t afford to manage our public lands and would be forced to either raise taxes (a nonstarter) or sell them to corporations or wealthy individuals.
3.Public lands are good for the economy.
4.Currently, many state lands across the country don’t allow hunting or camping…or even hiking.
5.You already own them. As a U.S. citizen, you own our public lands. The government is just the caretaker. Once you lose them, you’ll never get them back.
If you’re angry that some politicians and special interests are trying to steal your public lands, here's three easy ways that you can help push back against this public land seizure.
1.Sign BHA’s sportsmen’s pledge and join the fight to keep public hands in public hands.
2.Show your public land pride with one of BHA's "public land owner" t-shirts.
3.Contact your elected officials and let them know where you stand on this issue.QuoteGuy Eastman, Eastman’s Hunting Journal. August. 2014 (Live chat).
“It’s a very stupid idea.... I think we can all agree that protecting our public lands is probably more important than anything else ... once the public land is gone, we can never get it back again. Public land loss is permanent, period."
First and foremost to me is our constitution and bill of rights. When that is gone you'll have no rights! Politicians like Obama and Hillary are opposed to our founding documents, I cannot support anything that supports them.
We have a multitude of politicians who are not going to allow public land to be sold off. SCI, NRA, and all the other groups would be all over that. I know that I don't need to belong to a group supporting Obama and Hillary to save our public lands from being sold off.
If you are OK with that I understand, I know that we don't all share the same views and I was never trying to chastise anyone for that. I was trying to show where the financial support comes from and what the leadership of this group supports. I think that has been accomplished for those who didn't know.
http://www.petersenshunting.com/conservation-politics/uncle-sam-public-land/ from December 2014......Quote..........If some members of Congress get their way, the Breaks, along with millions of acres of other public land, may go on the auction block.
Impossible? The sale of national forest and BLM land may seem like little more than an environmentalist’s conspiracy theory or a far-fetched plan that would never get past public outrage. However, seven Western states have passed legislation asking the federal government to turn federal lands over to state governments.
If that’s not frightening enough, Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI), the chairman of the House Budget Committee, mentioned the “sale of unneeded federal property” in his 2012 budget proposal. Utah Representative Jason Chaffetz (R) introduced H.R. 2657, titled “The Disposal of Excess Federal Lands Act of 2013.” It directs the Secretary of the Interior to sell millions of acres of land in 10 Western states. The proceeds would go toward decreasing the federal debt. Fortunately, the bill is stalled in committee.
Even if Chaffetz’s legislation goes nowhere, it signals a disturbing trend, says Backcountry Hunters and Anglers Executive Director Land Tawney. A number of state and federal legislators have long pushed for the return of federal land to the states. They insist individual states can manage the land better than the federal government. Tawney isn’t buying it.
“The management of national forests and BLM lands is expensive. Road maintenance and firefighting budgets alone can add up to millions. If states took control of federal land, how would they pay for the upkeep? They would either raise taxes or sell land, and we know how unpopular the idea of raising taxes is,” says Tawney.
One study found that Montana would lose $200 million per year managing what is currently federal land, even after various revenue streams were taken into account. Aside from the direct monetary loss, selling even small blocks of federal land, tracts deemed “surplus” or “unneeded” by legislators, could have disastrous consequences for hunters. Any loss of public land translates to fewer opportunities.
Read more: http://www.petersenshunting.com/conservation-politics/uncle-sam-public-land/#ixzz49meE6WHK
It appears to me that the other legislators stalled it in committee, it didn't even make it out of committee, I don't see an issue, the process is working as it should? Be sure and vote for legislators who represent your values!
Which comes back to the reason I cannot support BHA as long as they support Barrack and Hillary! :dunno:
Post by: jackelope on May 26, 2016, 11:27:52 AM
The second that privatization is mentioned the discussion ends for me. How is private land ownership working out for the Westside of oregon and washington? $300 access passes and the like.
Also, I asked who you were affiliated with and you said know one. But obviously you do work and are active with SCI? Whole point of the post was to drag BHA through the mud, from someone who "works" for a different organization competing for the same dollars......
I really don't think that's the case. If you read his post I think Allen meant he volunteers his time, he held an elected position in his chapter, he was not paid. In case you didn't know, many groups pay employees. For example NWTF, RMEF, and MDF have paid positions and SCI and BHA probably do too, but Allen was an elected officer who volunteered his time. I think he said he belongs to other organizations as well. Please correct me if I am wrong Allen?
I also think you are confusing privatization of services or administration with ownership. I would adamantly oppose any selling off of public lands unless it was merely an exchange of lands, which is already commonly done. However, I agree that a private contractor might provide much better administration of some public lands. I also think a private contractor might be much more efficient at fire suppression. Let me repeat, I would never support, nor should any citizen, the selling off of public lands.
who's going to pay for the private contractor?
Many people don't realize that the USFS is funded by taxpayers. Logging is alsmost non-existant, logging used to pay more of the cost. That means you and I are paying. It has been proven many times over that private industry can generally do a better job at less expense. It is my opinion that the right private contracter could do a better job of keeping forest roads maintained, effectively fighting forest fires, etc, etc. These various things could be on a bid basis and awarded to different contractors. Then we would not be paying for all the huge buildings and parking lots full of new trucks. Something like that might save millions of taxpayer money and be more effective.
The state can't even find someone to run a state park. What makes you think they'll find a private contractor able to manage a giant swath of forest, do it well, and not charge for and/or limit access otherwise?
First of all you must look at each issue rather than try to lump it as one question, that's impossible to deal with in one answer.
Running State Parks
As you know I spent one summer donating my time to serve on the state parks and recreation task force, we held public meetings in towns across the state taking public input and trying to resolve issues such as funding for state parks. To say it's a very complex issue is an understatement. The legislature has a funding shortfall and will not fully fund state parks, it would take away from other areas that need funding. So there is partial funding. Next the state created the Discover Pass, but many hunters and citizens now avoid going to state land and don't buy it, so Parks are still underfunded. If you start charging an admission to enter state parks people will simply quit using parks and they will still be underfunded. Short of an improving economy or increasing taxes for better legislative funding there are not many alternatives other than finding funding from private sources such as venders who will to pay to offer services on state parks. Another consideration might be to use private contractors for maintenance and administration, but that wasn't a recommendation of the group and I doubt will ever happen. Most people with jobs at state parks want to keep their jobs and don't want private contractors. No business is going to run a state park unless they can see a way to turn a profit, the public probably will oppose that, so there is no answer for this question at this time!
Managing Sections Of Forest
I will use myself and other outfitters as an example. Outfitters pay the USFS and BLM to conduct all types of recreational activities on the forest. Often times the USFS contracts with outfitters to open up and repair sections of trail because we generally have the pack animals and experience to do it cheaper than if the USFS had to assemble a crew, gear, and animals. Another example is logging, when the USFS decides to log an area they open it to bids by private logging companies that have the experience and equipment to do the logging more efficiently and less costly. I really think the USFS should look at additional functions and responsibilities that private contractors could do for less cost to taxpayers. Fire supression is a perfect example, I think there are logging companies who would gladly bid on fire suppression which could be incorporated into logging operations to reduce fuel load. There are probably lots of answers if people are willing to ask the question of how can we save money with private contractors.
So when the state lands are managed by an outside company, do we still need the Discover pass to access them? It's still state land, right? If so, what makes you think anything will change re: nobody is using the parks because of the Discover Pass? You can buy a 1 day pass for $10 I think at most state parks. $10 is cheap entertainment for a family and a day outdoors.
For the record, most of my questions are legitimate questions. I'm learning as I go here.
Post by: bearpaw on May 26, 2016, 12:59:14 PM
The second that privatization is mentioned the discussion ends for me. How is private land ownership working out for the Westside of oregon and washington? $300 access passes and the like.
Also, I asked who you were affiliated with and you said know one. But obviously you do work and are active with SCI? Whole point of the post was to drag BHA through the mud, from someone who "works" for a different organization competing for the same dollars......
I really don't think that's the case. If you read his post I think Allen meant he volunteers his time, he held an elected position in his chapter, he was not paid. In case you didn't know, many groups pay employees. For example NWTF, RMEF, and MDF have paid positions and SCI and BHA probably do too, but Allen was an elected officer who volunteered his time. I think he said he belongs to other organizations as well. Please correct me if I am wrong Allen?
I also think you are confusing privatization of services or administration with ownership. I would adamantly oppose any selling off of public lands unless it was merely an exchange of lands, which is already commonly done. However, I agree that a private contractor might provide much better administration of some public lands. I also think a private contractor might be much more efficient at fire suppression. Let me repeat, I would never support, nor should any citizen, the selling off of public lands.
who's going to pay for the private contractor?
Many people don't realize that the USFS is funded by taxpayers. Logging is alsmost non-existant, logging used to pay more of the cost. That means you and I are paying. It has been proven many times over that private industry can generally do a better job at less expense. It is my opinion that the right private contracter could do a better job of keeping forest roads maintained, effectively fighting forest fires, etc, etc. These various things could be on a bid basis and awarded to different contractors. Then we would not be paying for all the huge buildings and parking lots full of new trucks. Something like that might save millions of taxpayer money and be more effective.
The state can't even find someone to run a state park. What makes you think they'll find a private contractor able to manage a giant swath of forest, do it well, and not charge for and/or limit access otherwise?
First of all you must look at each issue rather than try to lump it as one question, that's impossible to deal with in one answer.
Running State Parks
As you know I spent one summer donating my time to serve on the state parks and recreation task force, we held public meetings in towns across the state taking public input and trying to resolve issues such as funding for state parks. To say it's a very complex issue is an understatement. The legislature has a funding shortfall and will not fully fund state parks, it would take away from other areas that need funding. So there is partial funding. Next the state created the Discover Pass, but many hunters and citizens now avoid going to state land and don't buy it, so Parks are still underfunded. If you start charging an admission to enter state parks people will simply quit using parks and they will still be underfunded. Short of an improving economy or increasing taxes for better legislative funding there are not many alternatives other than finding funding from private sources such as venders who will to pay to offer services on state parks. Another consideration might be to use private contractors for maintenance and administration, but that wasn't a recommendation of the group and I doubt will ever happen. Most people with jobs at state parks want to keep their jobs and don't want private contractors. No business is going to run a state park unless they can see a way to turn a profit, the public probably will oppose that, so there is no answer for this question at this time!
Managing Sections Of Forest
I will use myself and other outfitters as an example. Outfitters pay the USFS and BLM to conduct all types of recreational activities on the forest. Often times the USFS contracts with outfitters to open up and repair sections of trail because we generally have the pack animals and experience to do it cheaper than if the USFS had to assemble a crew, gear, and animals. Another example is logging, when the USFS decides to log an area they open it to bids by private logging companies that have the experience and equipment to do the logging more efficiently and less costly. I really think the USFS should look at additional functions and responsibilities that private contractors could do for less cost to taxpayers. Fire supression is a perfect example, I think there are logging companies who would gladly bid on fire suppression which could be incorporated into logging operations to reduce fuel load. There are probably lots of answers if people are willing to ask the question of how can we save money with private contractors.
So when the state lands are managed by an outside company, do we still need the Discover pass to access them? It's still state land, right? If so, what makes you think anything will change re: nobody is using the parks because of the Discover Pass? You can buy a 1 day pass for $10 I think at most state parks. $10 is cheap entertainment for a family and a day outdoors.
For the record, most of my questions are legitimate questions. I'm learning as I go here.
No worries, I don't mind trying to answer questions.
First I don't see state lands being totally managed by any company in the future. I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I have a strong hunch current WA administrators would not want much outside contracting. I do think that many functions such as road maintenance and fire control could be contracted out and taxpayers would save money and likely see better services but that's only my opinion, I doubt that is the opinion of those running State Lands. Someone else may be able to elorate better on that.
I don't see the Discover Pass going away. Because nearly everyone testifying asked for more state parks and funding I suggested eliminating the DP which unfairly taxes hunters and fishers and adding $10 onto everyone's taxes in WA which would fully fund State Parks, creating much more revenue than the DP, I was shut down pretty hard at our meetings. I figured if everyone wants more and more state parks let everyone pay a little, but that wasn't acceptable. Most want more parks but want someone else to pay for them. And yes, the task force group voted to create more state parks even while we can't maintain what we have! Most people are simply financially irresponsible! :bash:
Here's the thing. We need to get young people outdoors for all types of activities, we also need to get inner city people into the outdoors. Many of these people are financially limited so if there is a DP or admission to pay, they simply don't participate. I really think the only good alternative to increase state parks funding is just make state parks a dedicated portion of our state taxes so the legislature can't rob the money for other purposes. But I doubt this happens.
If any changes are made, I'm guessing it will probably be an increase to the cost of a Discover Pass!
Post by: Special T on May 27, 2016, 09:16:05 AM
The state can't even find someone to run a state park. What makes you think they'll find a private contractor able to manage a giant swath of forest, do it well, and not charge for and/or limit access otherwise?
First off Federal Lands and Parks are not even remotely the same. There are several reason why they cannot find some one to run a park. First and Foremost is that parks that are failing are mostly day use parks in sub prime locations. The only people willing to use/pay for parks are campers. If you cannot convert or add significant spots to a park its not viable who ever runs it. There are huge limitations on what either the Parks Department are allowed to do or have the funds to do. East side parks have a longer camping season and west side have more day use parks. all the parks doing well on the west side offer a significant amount of camping. Since parks were often donated with stipulations they werent really planned out, and the changes are hard to make because its not always possible to renegotiate the stipulations.
If you have not read the book I keep ranting about http://www.amazon.com/Tinder-Box-Politically-Ideology-Destroyed/dp/098277348X/ref=sr_1_8?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1342677309&sr=1-8&keywords=tinder+box
How does a self funding organization that provided so many opportunities end up costing us $ ?
Ive spent a fair bit of time in the back country and in wild places and I dont want them to go anywhere... The real problem is that the USFS owns LOTS of land that they have not logged in a long time due to politics. The USFS wouldnt even have to log very much to make a big funding difference. They are bogged down by lawsuits at every-turn and people who arnt foresters like they used to.
Post by: jackelope on May 27, 2016, 09:54:36 AM
The state can't even find someone to run a state park. What makes you think they'll find a private contractor able to manage a giant swath of forest, do it well, and not charge for and/or limit access otherwise?
First off Federal Lands and Parks are not even remotely the same. There are several reason why they cannot find some one to run a park. First and Foremost is that parks that are failing are mostly day use parks in sub prime locations. The only people willing to use/pay for parks are campers. If you cannot convert or add significant spots to a park its not viable who ever runs it. There are huge limitations on what either the Parks Department are allowed to do or have the funds to do. East side parks have a longer camping season and west side have more day use parks. all the parks doing well on the west side offer a significant amount of camping. Since parks were often donated with stipulations they werent really planned out, and the changes are hard to make because its not always possible to renegotiate the stipulations.
If you have not read the book I keep ranting about http://www.amazon.com/Tinder-Box-Politically-Ideology-Destroyed/dp/098277348X/ref=sr_1_8?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1342677309&sr=1-8&keywords=tinder+box
How does a self funding organization that provided so many opportunities end up costing us $ ?
Ive spent a fair bit of time in the back country and in wild places and I dont want them to go anywhere... The real problem is that the USFS owns LOTS of land that they have not logged in a long time due to politics. The USFS wouldnt even have to log very much to make a big funding difference. They are bogged down by lawsuits at every-turn and people who arnt foresters like they used to.
The examples I've been referring to in my posts in this thread are eastern Washington state owned campgrounds. The pictures I posted of the abandoned campground are of Central Ferry State Park. It used to be a real nice campground in a beautiful location on the shore of the Snake River.
:dunno:
The point I was trying to make is if the state can't find someone to take control of a small state park, what makes us think they'd be any more able to find someone to run a giant swath of national or state forest?
Post by: jackelope on May 27, 2016, 10:37:58 AM
Post by: bearpaw on May 28, 2016, 01:22:36 PM
The state can't even find someone to run a state park. What makes you think they'll find a private contractor able to manage a giant swath of forest, do it well, and not charge for and/or limit access otherwise?
First off Federal Lands and Parks are not even remotely the same. There are several reason why they cannot find some one to run a park. First and Foremost is that parks that are failing are mostly day use parks in sub prime locations. The only people willing to use/pay for parks are campers. If you cannot convert or add significant spots to a park its not viable who ever runs it. There are huge limitations on what either the Parks Department are allowed to do or have the funds to do. East side parks have a longer camping season and west side have more day use parks. all the parks doing well on the west side offer a significant amount of camping. Since parks were often donated with stipulations they werent really planned out, and the changes are hard to make because its not always possible to renegotiate the stipulations.
If you have not read the book I keep ranting about http://www.amazon.com/Tinder-Box-Politically-Ideology-Destroyed/dp/098277348X/ref=sr_1_8?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1342677309&sr=1-8&keywords=tinder+box
How does a self funding organization that provided so many opportunities end up costing us $ ?
Ive spent a fair bit of time in the back country and in wild places and I dont want them to go anywhere... The real problem is that the USFS owns LOTS of land that they have not logged in a long time due to politics. The USFS wouldnt even have to log very much to make a big funding difference. They are bogged down by lawsuits at every-turn and people who arnt foresters like they used to.
The examples I've been referring to in my posts in this thread are eastern Washington state owned campgrounds. The pictures I posted of the abandoned campground are of Central Ferry State Park. It used to be a real nice campground in a beautiful location on the shore of the Snake River.
:dunno:
The point I was trying to make is if the state can't find someone to take control of a small state park, what makes us think they'd be any more able to find someone to run a giant swath of national or state forest?
I'm not sure I understand what you are looking for? It's pretty commonly recognized that a private business can perform the same function as a government agency for less cost. There is not doubt in my mind that if the state or federal government put management of a specified piece of forest up for bid that the cost of management would be lower for taxpayers and that the forest might even financially benefit taxpayers as oil does for Alaskans. Having said that, I doubt we will ever see that happen because there are too many tree huggers.
I'm pretty disgusted with federal management of our National Forests and BLM lands, in fact many people share that view. I certainly would never want to see the sale of our forests or BLM lands, but I would like to see more local influence over management, and wiser management. There is no reason taxpayers should be footing the bill for managing National Forests and fighting massive fires caused by over aged dying forests that should have been logged years ago. If logging was only allowed in the areas that have been logged in the past the USFS could be self supporting and possibly even add to the treasury. It's no accident that private forests are profitable and public forests are not. :twocents: