Post by: WAcoyotehunter on August 17, 2011, 11:52:16 AM
GOOD NEWS for those of us who enjoy the backcountry!!! Glad they came around! :) :)
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on August 17, 2011, 06:46:51 PM
http://www.grandviewoutdoors.com/predator-hunting/articlecontent/8/2011/2722/groups-ask-court-to-halt-montana-and-idaho-wolf-hunts (http://www.grandviewoutdoors.com/predator-hunting/articlecontent/8/2011/2722/groups-ask-court-to-halt-montana-and-idaho-wolf-hunts)
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on August 17, 2011, 08:46:32 PM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on August 18, 2011, 08:41:15 AM
That bill is about lands that do NOT fit wilderness requirements that are still managed as wilderness (Many already have roads) being restored to their previous management classification. Wolf folks would love to keep us out also.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on August 18, 2011, 09:18:09 AM
BTW- inventoried roadless areas can meet the requirements for wilderness. They can also be the most productive hunting areas and valuable for outfitters, boot hunters, hikers, horseman, and fishermen. Just becasue they're not designated wilderness does not mean they should have roads all over hell and gone. There are enough roads already.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on August 18, 2011, 10:18:52 AM
It doesn't have anything to do with wolves. This is more about resource extraction than wildlife for the people proposing the bill. RMEF is interested in preserving quality wildlife habitat, that's why they retracted their original support. This bill is not good for wildlife. Hunters and conservationists should oppose this kind of crap- we don't need more land development, we need places that provide a quality outdoor experience.
BTW- inventoried roadless areas can meet the requirements for wilderness. They can also be the most productive hunting areas and valuable for outfitters, boot hunters, hikers, horseman, and fishermen. Just becasue they're not designated wilderness does not mean they should have roads all over hell and gone. There are enough roads already.
Yes and many are already in these areas which is why they need to be re-classified. I am not advocating NEW roads, just give us back what already was ours once!
It doesn't have anything to do with wolves.
Don't feel the water getting warm yet? These are the same people supporting both issues on the tree, and bunny (wolf) hugger side.
Post by: turbo on August 20, 2011, 07:59:34 AM
I didn't see anything about the bill in your article...hopefully you weren't comparing RMEF to the anti's that filed the lawsuit!! :chuckle:
RMEF can suck it!! Once they paired up with the Wilderness society, the Sierra Club and other extremist left wing groups in a collaboration to restrict OUR rights on OUR land in the false name of "protection", you just became one of them. Welcome to the extremist club, you are now one of them by number and you are a member of their clubs via the RMEF. They are taking your money and using it against you. Do you think the Sierra Club and the Wilderness Society likes hunters????
Fools... You are restricting your own rights.
If you support them then you support wilderness land closures and are supporting the Sierra club with your money! If you want to take away your rights to public land then continue to give them your money.
http://www.sierraclub.org/planet/199610/huntfish.asp (http://www.sierraclub.org/planet/199610/huntfish.asp)
Quote - Spurred by blatant congressional attacks on America's natural resources, environmentalists are setting aside past differences with hunters and anglers and working together to defend wild lands and habitat from timber and oil companies, mining conglomerates and irresponsible developers.
More than 100,000 Sierra Club members - better than one out of six - are active hunters and anglers dedicated to continuing the sporting tradition through public land conservation. Considering that more than 50 million Americans fish and 15 million hunt, such a coalition makes sense. Most recently, alliances such as Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, run by elk hunters, and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, run by a former National Audubon Society lobbyist, have protected or restored 1.8 million acres north of Yellowstone National Park.
Trout Unlimited has been another powerful force in not only conserving public lands from the threats of grazing reform and irresponsible forestry practices, but preserving the Endangered Species and Clean Water acts. "What has made Trout Unlimited so successful is that it is run by people who are not just sportsmen or environmentalists, but both, " wrote Ted Williams in the September/October issue of Sierra magazine.
"Whenever sportsmen combine with environmentalists, you have 60 to 70 percent of the population, an absolutely irresistible coalition," Chris Potholm, professor of government and legal studies at Bowdoin College in Maine, told the magazine.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on August 20, 2011, 08:27:49 AM
I didn't see anything about the bill in your article...hopefully you weren't comparing RMEF to the anti's that filed the lawsuit!! :chuckle:
keep laughing.
(From sierra club)
" In August 1995, in Greensboro, N.C., a diverse group of hunting and angling organizations, environmental groups and federal wildlife management agencies sat down to rejuvenate the century-old alliance. Over a year later, the Sierra Club is a leading member of the new Natural Resource Summit of America, whose mission is "to inform Americans of the need to make our natural resources a priority and to hold elected leaders and candidates accountable for their positions on these issues."
__________________________________________________________________________
With a combined membership totaling 11 million, the alliance aims to educate the public about congressional attacks on the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act and our public lands.
__________________________________________________________________________
"The foundation for this alliance has always existed," said Dan Smuts, of the Sierra Club's Land Protection Program. "Our partnership has flourished because of the effort put forth by all parties to maximize and highlight common ground, rather than to try to overcome differences.""
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From ARRA August 2011
H.R. 1581
On July 26th, the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands held a rather lengthy hearing on H. R. 1581, the Wilderness and Roadless Area Release Act of 2011. Thirteen witnesses testified at the hearing. Among those testifying in favor were Dan Kleen, President of the National Off-Highway Vehicle Conservation Council, Chris Horgan, Executive Director of the Stewards of the Sequoia and Melissa Simpson, Director of Governmental Affairs, Safari International. One of those testifying against the legislation was former Secretary of the Interior, Bruce Babbitt.
The hearing focused sharp attention on the absurdity of locking up over 42 million acres of federal land classified as Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) and Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) even though the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service long ago determined that these areas did not qualify for designation as Wilderness Areas. A group of environmentalists showed up at the hearing sporting badges with the message "Ban the Great American Giveaway." That may be a cute slogan but it is totally misleading because even if these areas are no longer considered WSAs and IRAs, other federal laws set limits on how management plans can be prepared for these lands.
Our hope, of course, is that many of these areas would be opened up to recreation. Even though that is not an absolute given, there would be an opportunity for local input to federal land managers on how these federal lands should be managed for the benefit of local communities, something that does not now exist.
If you have four hours of extra time, go to this link and enjoy watching this remarkable hearing. It is gratifying that finally some members of Congress are asking tough questions about how our federal lands are being managed, both now and in the future.
http://naturalresources.house.gov/Calendar/EventSingle.aspx?EventID=252577 (http://naturalresources.house.gov/Calendar/EventSingle.aspx?EventID=252577)
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on August 20, 2011, 09:55:58 AM
Why should we want to support a bunch of development of IRA's? I'm not making the connection about how that could possibly be a good thing for hunting or for wildlife.
Post by: bearpaw on August 21, 2011, 08:20:16 AM
One of the enviro's goals is to eventually turn wilderness areas essentually into parks where hunting, horseback riding, and other human use is not allowed. :twocents:
We have had this discussion about more wilderness many times here on the forum, there are a good many people who do not see the need for more wilderness than what we already have. I have to wonder how many more thousands of acres are needed to satisfy the wilderness advocates, will there ever be an end to what they want to take away from the majority of Americans?
Post by: turbo on August 22, 2011, 08:52:51 AM
I have not studied this particular issue but it would not surprise me if environmental groups are trying to sucker any hunting groups to support their agenda which likely has other hidden agendas not known to sporting groups. Watch closely for the knife to be inserted into the back of hunters.
One of the enviro's goals is to eventually turn wilderness areas essentually into parks where hunting, horseback riding, and other human use is not allowed. :twocents:
We have had this discussion about more wilderness many times here on the forum, there are a good many people who do not see the need for more wilderness than what we already have. I have to wonder how many more thousands of acres are needed to satisfy the wilderness advocates, will there ever be an end to what they want to take away from the majority of Americans?
Great post Bearpaw!!
It shows the true colors of people who think it's a good idea to get in bed with left wing extremist groups in the name of "conservation" and there are a lot of liberals among us with hidden agendas. It's a tactic, and people need to wake up and protect their rights!! If you think for one second that the Sierra club and the wilderness society have our hunting rights in mind when trying to designate more wilderness than YOU are OUR enemy. They want to end hunting completely and take away your rights and wilderness will be the first loss for hunters if they get their way. Stop and think for one second about the rules for wilderness, no mechanical devices. What do you think a gun is? In Oregon last year the extremists filed a law suit about snow boarders using kites. They won and they are now banned, kites.......
We have 45 million acres of Wilderness West of the Mississippi, that is more than enough. The agenda is to gain as much land as possible, then file the suit against us and our use. Stand up and protect our rights on our land for the next generation! Don't fall for the hidden agendas and take a hard look at where you get your information and who from. Do your fricken homework!!
http://www.sharetrails.org/magazine/article/?id=1112 (http://www.sharetrails.org/magazine/article/?id=1112)
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on August 22, 2011, 02:23:56 PM
Post by: turbo on August 22, 2011, 04:48:18 PM
It's OUR RIGHT to have a relaxing day in the woods without disruption from ATVs, vehicles, mines, oil exploration... I believe this bill is infringing on those RIGHTS and I am going to oppose it. If you guys would rather hunt around a bunch of development, go hunt the suburbs. I want to keep wild places wild.
Are you just glazing over the fact that there is already 45 million Acres of Wilderness???? GO THERE!!!! It's your right... We don't need any more regulations on our land. Feel free to use your designated area and we will use our ever shrinking designated areas.
You elitists, liberals amaze me. You don't like something so you want a law. Selfish, narcissistic, extremists..
Post by: bearpaw on August 22, 2011, 06:14:38 PM
Are there not many large areas with many square miles of unroaded National Forest in northeast Washington? Plus there are gated areas in Pend Orielle and Stevens counties that are close to where we live.
In minutes we can be at the Salmo Wilderness (roughly 70 square miles of wilderness), the Abercrombie area (roughly 45 square miles of unroaded National Forest), or the Kettle Crest limited-use area. A 4 hour drive west puts you on the edge of the massive Paysayten Wilderness or a 4 hour drive south puts you at the Wenaha Wilderness. If you drive 2 hours east you can visit the remote Cabinet Wilderness in northern Idaho or less than a day drive southeast puts you at the Selway Bitterroot wilderness or the Frank Church Wilderness. You can do a wilderness type hunt in any of these areas.
Honestly, I would say our wilderness type hunting opportunities are quite numerous and extensive here in the inland northwest.
I didn't read the bill and I didn't read all the posts in this topic, so maybe there is something I don't know about. Was there anything in the bill that said current wilderness areas would be developed or removed from wilderness designation?
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on August 22, 2011, 08:39:15 PM
How many people put in for the watershed unit in the blues? It's a premier hunt and one that is truely special for the tagholder. I've helped two guys get elk there and the thing that always amazes more then any other is the absolute lack of human use. There are no stumps, no roads, no blazed trees or ribbon...it's awesome. We have enough land to add some acreage to that category. It's possible to have increased logging and wilderness that can provide a special hunting opportunity.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on August 23, 2011, 07:40:45 AM
It did not say that current wilderness areas would be developed. It said that inventoried roadless areas could be...meaning more roads and development in areas that are currently be logged, hunted, and used responsibly. That's why RMEF pulled support for the bill. We don't need more roads. We need responsible managment on the roads we have.
And THERE ARE ROADS in THESE areas except the greenies in the system re defined roads.
" Many if not all of the “inventoried roadless areas” were once accessible by road. When the green movement really got going in the 80's, many of the definitions of "roads" were changed. No longer were logging roads, historic roads to your mining claims/old mines, or unmaintained forest roads classified as roads. They suddenly became "trails". Then suddenly from the political and "green" point of view, there were all of these "roadless areas” that needed saving"
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on August 23, 2011, 08:15:25 AM
The ATV groups want them opened so they can ride all over hell and gone in our forests, which isn't going to help anything that hunters are interested in. If the ATV groups would make an organized push for opening open roads for legal ATV operation they would have broad support. But they haven't done that yet.
This bill is less about recreation than it is about mineral exploration. I'm not too excited about seeing roads punched into areas for mining or other seriously harmful extraction industries. Those companies will never pay the true cost of their extraction. They get rich and leave the locals to deal with heavy metals in the streams/drinking water (Cominco come to mind? Lake Roosevelt is a mess...) they cause massive sediment and destroy native fish spawning habitat (Sullivan Creek??)...The public pays the true cost of this stuff while a handfull of businessmen (in Canada in this example) get rich on our resources.
It's bad for hunting, bad for the community , bad for our natural resources, and ultimately- bad for the economy. Just because the NRA likes it doesn't mean it's great for our rural communities. They're towing a party line.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on August 23, 2011, 08:35:56 AM
The easiest rights to take away are from those who never had them. I drove my 4x4 (72 Blazers,trucks, even my street automobiles) all over now decommissioned roads that now are in the Wild sky wilderness area. And I fought that one tooth and nail. If they can make unsuitable (as much of it was and is) land wilderness, what can't they do? I have driven hundreds, hell maybe even thousands of miles of now gated roads in my life and very few of them on an ATV. And if you have never done it,you will NEVER miss it.
"The ATV groups want them opened so they can ride all over hell and gone in our forests, which isn't going to help anything that hunters are interested in. If the ATV groups would make an organized push for opening open roads for legal ATV operation they would have broad support. But they haven't done that yet."
Many might like to be able to drive their street vehicles on such roads.
And what about the disabled, Which one of my hunting partners is? Aged? Not just young and fit elete. You will be there some day.
Post by: turbo on August 23, 2011, 09:29:47 AM
I don't want more mines, logging and development. I just want to be able to enjoy my limited riding areas and have no problem staying out of wilderness to give those who don't like the noise their peace. We don't need more restrictions, we just need to respect each others views and quit forcing personal agendas because we disagree. There is plenty of land for everyone. Use it, it's yours.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on August 23, 2011, 09:51:33 AM
Sorry I should have been more clear. I met that the ATV groups have not made a solid push to get the roads that are currently open to street legal vehicles opened for ATV use. Which seems strange. They could open thousands of miles of roads to ATV use if those roads were legal. And they should be.
Many might like to be able to drive their street vehicles on such roads.
And what about the disabled, Which one of my hunting partners is? Aged? Not just young and fit elete. You will be there some day.
I'm trying to get some things for the ATV groups over in NE washington, like a trail that includes all three NE counties, but those things don't happen without some 'deals' including areas that they currently use (illegally) being more protected. This for that.
I know that my day is coming when I can't get around. My body has been abused pretty badly. There are loads of easy low country hunts that I'll be enjoying when I can't hike all over. We need to face the fact the the woods are not necessarily ADA accessible. It's not elitism, it's the truth. We can't have trails and roads leading up every drainage, open to everyone, and expect wildlife populations to remain at sustainable numbers.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on September 12, 2011, 08:34:43 AM
I don't own and ATV or a dirt bike or even a mountain bike (stolen) but I do ride sleds which have ZERO impact on the environment and wild life. Study after study has proven that. This fight for me is about winter recreation. We pay the price when they shut land down to other user groups. Then they squeeze these user groups to confined areas and the impact on the land is exaggerated because of high user numbers in those limited areas. It just strengthens the extremists argument when areas get over-used and abused.:yeah:
I don't want more mines, logging and development. I just want to be able to enjoy my limited riding areas and have no problem staying out of wilderness to give those who don't like the noise their peace. We don't need more restrictions, we just need to respect each others views and quit forcing personal agendas because we disagree. There is plenty of land for everyone. Use it, it's yours.
"This kind of thing decides where my Support will go. NRA =yes
While HR 1581 and RMEF=No" (from my post on " Hunters May be double taxed" thread")
Post by: grundy53 on September 12, 2011, 09:02:13 AM
It doesn't have anything to do with wolves. This is more about resource extraction than wildlife for the people proposing the bill. RMEF is interested in preserving quality wildlife habitat, that's why they retracted their original support. This bill is not good for wildlife. Hunters and conservationists should oppose this kind of crap- we don't need more land development, we need places that provide a quality outdoor experience.
BTW- inventoried roadless areas can meet the requirements for wilderness. They can also be the most productive hunting areas and valuable for outfitters, boot hunters, hikers, horseman, and fishermen. Just becasue they're not designated wilderness does not mean they should have roads all over hell and gone. There are enough roads already.
Until all of the timber grows up and chokes out the feed. Then the animal population plumits... Logging gives deer, elk, and bear their best mix of habitats and feed. logged off areas provide feed, reprod areas provide cover, and stands of timber provide travel routes. Once an area is designated a wildernous area you just hurt your wildlife not helped. Like was said before. You have plenty wilderness areas already. Quit screwing other people over and enjoy the vast areas you already have.
Post by: grundy53 on September 12, 2011, 09:11:04 AM
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on September 12, 2011, 09:37:03 AM
It's OUR RIGHT to have a relaxing day in the woods without disruption from ATVs, vehicles, mines, oil exploration... I believe this bill is infringing on those RIGHTS and I am going to oppose it. If you guys would rather hunt around a bunch of development, go hunt the suburbs. I want to keep wild places wild.
I am torn on this issue. However, I would likely have to side with supporting the bill. The fact is our right to be in the "woods without disruption" does not supersede the right of other taxpayers who chose to ride ATV's etc. Now I do agree that there are some areas that need closing for the wildlife. However the roadless initiative proposed by Clinton does violate our rights. What RMEF is supporting is the continued loss of road access. This creates other issues. One being the fact that those other user groups (ATV riders for example) are then pushed onto smaller and smaller amounts of land. This ultimately concentrates use and does an extreme amount of damage to the environment....ultimately giving the anti's even more fuel to get areas banned due to erosion etc. 15+ years ago I did see people riding where they weren't supposed to in the national forest...however, I never seen it as bad as the past few years..... surprisingly the amount of illegal riding has seemed to increase as the roads have closed.
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on September 12, 2011, 09:39:48 AM
It did not say that current wilderness areas would be developed. It said that inventoried roadless areas could be...meaning more roads and development in areas that are currently be logged, hunted, and used responsibly. That's why RMEF pulled support for the bill. We don't need more roads. We need responsible managment on the roads we have.
How many people put in for the watershed unit in the blues? It's a premier hunt and one that is truely special for the tagholder. I've helped two guys get elk there and the thing that always amazes more then any other is the absolute lack of human use. There are no stumps, no roads, no blazed trees or ribbon...it's awesome. We have enough land to add some acreage to that category. It's possible to have increased logging and wilderness that can provide a special hunting opportunity.
"We don't need more roads. We need responsible managment on the roads we have."
I can agree with that. So lets stop blocking off all the roads and reopen most of the ones that we have closed for no good reason in the past 10-15 years.
Post by: bradslam on September 12, 2011, 10:45:36 AM
One of the things wrong with this country is that people have become so divided that they refuse to work together on areas that could be common ground. If you think we will win out in the end by continually fighting each other, you are seriously wrong. You simply make more enemies and everyone digs their heels in. If other groups can see that we are willing to support things that are good for wildlife, such as preserving habitat, they will be more willing to support our causes. Yes, there are always going to be extremists on either end, but any political battle is won in the middle and they are the ones who are ultimately going to determine our hunting rights.
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on September 12, 2011, 12:43:02 PM
I haven't studied the bill, so I cannot take a definite side, but I would like to comment on a couple of things. To those that talk about the increase in the amount of wilderness areas: Those increases pale in comparison to the amount of habitat that is being destroyed through development. I used to hunt pronghorn near Pinedale, WY. Take a look at that area on Google Earth to see what has happened to it.
One of the things wrong with this country is that people have become so divided that they refuse to work together on areas that could be common ground. If you think we will win out in the end by continually fighting each other, you are seriously wrong. You simply make more enemies and everyone digs their heels in. If other groups can see that we are willing to support things that are good for wildlife, such as preserving habitat, they will be more willing to support our causes. Yes, there are always going to be extremists on either end, but any political battle is won in the middle and they are the ones who are ultimately going to determine our hunting rights.
The reason we dig in our heels is because fellow citizens constantly stand ready and willing to give up our rights. There is not a person on this forum who doesn't enjoy the peace and tranquility of getting away from it all. We certainly need to protect some areas from development and I don't think anyone would argue against that. However, giving up our rights to the government is a one-way trip. Just because I personally don't like to recreationally ride OVHs on these roads doesn't mean I should further limit others right to do so simply because I don't like the sound of a little noise. I think it is important to remember things like wilderness designations and blocking road access takes away rights and privileges of other users on land that is maintained by tax dollars.
I am always against giving up our rights...it doesn't matter that I personally prefer roadless areas. I would never push or support such regulations.
Post by: silverdalesauer on September 12, 2011, 11:00:05 PM
Then, in the last 10 or so years, environmentalists and millionaires bought up thousands of acres of land from struggling paper and timber companies. Now, there is a push from these people, to give that land to the Federal Gov't to create a national park - of 5 to 10 Million Acres of Land! Each state is fighting this same battle.
See here for more info:
The Dark Side of This Problem - http://www.restore.org/index_noflash.html (http://www.restore.org/index_noflash.html)
It seems to me that we need to start reaching out to each state in the union to build forums and networks (like the NRA-ILA) to keep our lands secure. Or one day - we will have nothing. :bash:
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on September 14, 2011, 08:56:11 AM
http://www.maineguides.org/referendum/anti_hunter_quotes.shtml (http://www.maineguides.org/referendum/anti_hunter_quotes.shtml)
than they ever will have with hunters.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on September 15, 2011, 09:02:24 AM
You're confusing IRA's with wilderness. They're different. IRA's are still actively managed and are the most productive hunting areas for deer/elk/moose becuase of the monotypic brush and tree stands created by harvest.It doesn't have anything to do with wolves. This is more about resource extraction than wildlife for the people proposing the bill. RMEF is interested in preserving quality wildlife habitat, that's why they retracted their original support. This bill is not good for wildlife. Hunters and conservationists should oppose this kind of crap- we don't need more land development, we need places that provide a quality outdoor experience.
BTW- inventoried roadless areas can meet the requirements for wilderness. They can also be the most productive hunting areas and valuable for outfitters, boot hunters, hikers, horseman, and fishermen. Just becasue they're not designated wilderness does not mean they should have roads all over hell and gone. There are enough roads already.
Until all of the timber grows up and chokes out the feed. Then the animal population plumits... Logging gives deer, elk, and bear their best mix of habitats and feed. logged off areas provide feed, reprod areas provide cover, and stands of timber provide travel routes. Once an area is designated a wildernous area you just hurt your wildlife not helped. Like was said before. You have plenty wilderness areas already. Quit screwing other people over and enjoy the vast areas you already have.
I disagree that Wilderness is some kind of wildlife 'void'. It's not. There are all kinds of animals there- just because it's not loaded with deer/elk does not mean it's a biological desert. Black bears, wolverines, lynx, lions, mule deer, sheep, goats, griz, fisher, marten... those species love the protection of older stands of trees and the 'rock and ice' that is often found in wilderness.
BTW- how much wildnerness is found east of the Cascades? We have VERY LITTLE over here and could use some more. So for you to tell me to quit " screwing other people" is totally inappropriate. Come on over sometime and we can hike across this "vast" area in one day....
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on September 15, 2011, 11:34:27 AM
The SCI's own Ms. Simpson was formarly a lobbyist for the oil/gas industry in Washington D.C...
Wyoming's Barrasso received 300k in campaign funds from big oil and gas companies... think he has any favors to re-pay?
Yep...these folks are the ones looking out for hunters best interests... :bdid:
Don't be fooled by these people. This bill does not mean more access for hunters, it means more access/abuse by big business.
http://www.hcn.org/blogs/range/sportsmen-beware-of-wolves-cloaked-in-201caccess201d (http://www.hcn.org/blogs/range/sportsmen-beware-of-wolves-cloaked-in-201caccess201d)
Post by: Knocker of rocks on September 15, 2011, 11:43:29 AM
Interesting to hear the the politicians that are pushing this bill are supported by oil and mining interests. McCarthy (S Cal rep...) is heavily backed by contributions from Oil/Gas...
The SCI's own Ms. Simpson was formarly a lobbyist for the oil/gas industry in Washington D.C...
Yep...these folks are the ones looking out for hunters best interests... :bdid:
Don't be fooled by these people. This bill does not mean more access for hunters, it means more access/abuse by big business.
http://www.hcn.org/blogs/range/sportsmen-beware-of-wolves-cloaked-in-201caccess201d (http://www.hcn.org/blogs/range/sportsmen-beware-of-wolves-cloaked-in-201caccess201d)
:yeah:
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on September 15, 2011, 05:54:36 PM
And once again.......
And THERE ARE ROADS in THESE areas except the greenies in the system re defined roads.
" Many if not all of the “inventoried roadless areas” were once accessible by road. When the green movement really got going in the 80's, many of the definitions of "roads" were changed. No longer were logging roads, historic roads to your mining claims/old mines, or unmaintained forest roads classified as roads. They suddenly became "trails". Then suddenly from the political and "green" point of view, there were all of these "roadless areas” that needed saving"
Post by: Knocker of rocks on September 15, 2011, 06:14:47 PM
OK, But wasn't the new head of PETA heading the USFWS previously??
I believe the head of PETA remains that Ingrid lady, with her second in command being that pansy guy
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on September 15, 2011, 10:06:07 PM
OK, But wasn't the new head of PETA heading the USFWS previously??
I believe the head of PETA remains that Ingrid lady, with her second in command being that pansy guy
OK, But wasn't the new head of PETA heading the USFWS previously??
How stupid of me.....
Sorry! Wrong extremist group..... Defenders Of Wildlife!!!!
WASHINGTON – The following is a statement by Jamie Rappaport Clark, executive vice president of Defenders of Wildlife.
http://nctc.fws.gov/History/documents/Clark19970710.pdf (http://nctc.fws.gov/History/documents/Clark19970710.pdf)
Post by: Knocker of rocks on September 16, 2011, 06:52:29 AM
OK, But wasn't the new head of PETA heading the USFWS previously??
How stupid of me.....
Sorry! Wrong extremist group..... Defenders Of Wildlife!!!!
WASHINGTON – The following is a statement by Jamie Rappaport Clark, executive vice president of Defenders of Wildlife.
http://nctc.fws.gov/History/documents/Clark19970710.pdf (http://nctc.fws.gov/History/documents/Clark19970710.pdf)
That link is from 1997!!, and even then I don't find that it contains anything inflammatory.
Here is a Organizational Chart. It seems like most upper positions are filled by career FWS employees, or sometimes lateral transfers from Land Management departments
http://www.fws.gov/offices/orgcht.html (http://www.fws.gov/offices/orgcht.html)
While D.O.W. may do things that you don't agree with, such as the wolf program, they do not really seem like an extremist organization. They are concerned with saving habitat, which benefits all hunters. Can you point me to a stance of theirs, other than the wolf program, which is pointedly against the wishes and needs of hunters, or are your statements strictly knee jerk reactions to any pro-wildlife organization that is not our good friends and fine land stewards in the energy production industry?
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on September 16, 2011, 07:52:05 AM
OK, But wasn't the new head of PETA heading the USFWS previously??That document only outlines her career with the FWS? It doesn't mention defenders.
How stupid of me.....
Sorry! Wrong extremist group..... Defenders Of Wildlife!!!!
WASHINGTON – The following is a statement by Jamie Rappaport Clark, executive vice president of Defenders of Wildlife.
http://nctc.fws.gov/History/documents/Clark19970710.pdf (http://nctc.fws.gov/History/documents/Clark19970710.pdf)
BTW as a side note- Despite all thier pro wolf stuff, Defenders has done some pretty cool things that are good for wildlife. The recent one that comes to mind is their funding the NE WA caribou surveys. They have a different ideological approach to wildlife management than many hunters, but they do work for betterment of wildlife populations, which is great.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on September 16, 2011, 08:07:27 AM
Like the Deer Elk, and Moose herds of Idaho, Montana, and soon ton be ours?
Wait until their main focus gets a hold of those same caribou. We won't need surveys
Do trappers count Knocker?
From DOW (formerly Defenders of Furbearers)
" Q: Why don't you team up with other organizations that do the same or similar work, like World Wildlife Fund, and become one large organization?
A:
Defenders' main focus is restoring wolves to surviving former habitats in the lower 48 states and to prevent the extirpation of wolves in areas where they still exist. With the many threats to the environment, groups have been formed over the years to address other specific issues. We do work in coalitions with other environment groups on pressing threats to wildlife and habitat."
keep drinking the kool aid boys!
How about more access for everyone
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on September 16, 2011, 08:15:18 AM
OK, But wasn't the new head of PETA heading the USFWS previously??That document only outlines her career with the FWS? It doesn't mention defenders.
How stupid of me.....
Sorry! Wrong extremist group..... Defenders Of Wildlife!!!!
WASHINGTON – The following is a statement by Jamie Rappaport Clark, executive vice president of Defenders of Wildlife.
http://nctc.fws.gov/History/documents/Clark19970710.pdf (http://nctc.fws.gov/History/documents/Clark19970710.pdf)
BTW as a side note- Despite all thier pro wolf stuff, Defenders has done some pretty cool things that are good for wildlife. The recent one that comes to mind is their funding the NE WA caribou surveys. They have a different ideological approach to wildlife management than many hunters, but they do work for betterment of wildlife populations, which is great.
Love how you throw the pro wolf stuff aside like it's not that big of a deal. I am certainly not sure how this wolf population will lead to the "betterment of wildlife populations". They were also a big proponent for banning cougar hunting in California back in the 90's. They are still a group that puts animals ahead of people.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on September 16, 2011, 08:36:33 AM
BTW- wolves actually are wildlife... just not really the type hunters like.
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on September 16, 2011, 08:42:56 AM
That's what i met by the "ideological opposition" we (hunters) have with them. I don't claim to be a fan of DW, I'm not. But, the fact remains that they are doing some good things for wildlife. What has NRA done to help habitat or wildlife populations lately? Just because they support this bill does not make it good for hunters.
BTW- wolves actually are wildlife... just not really the type hunters like.
Yes the wolves are wildlife but they are not endangered, non-native (invasive species) and should not be placed above the other wildlife populations they will destroy. This is one of many reason hunters do not like wolves....and this doesn't even touch on the economic impact of this invasive species.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on September 16, 2011, 08:49:39 AM
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on September 16, 2011, 09:23:40 AM
I certainly don't agree in going through and creating a bunch of new roads strictly for commercial interest. But I do believe we should open many of the roads we have closed over the years.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on September 16, 2011, 09:29:31 AM
Sorry to get off on a rant- we shouldn't get going on wolves on this thread. I'm more interested in the bill that would open millions of acres of federal timber/range lands to oil/gas/mining exploration.
Sorry.
I am the one who took this off on a tangent to illustrate, that there are wheelers and dealers on BOTH sides of this fence. Are we so ignorant we think there are not Rappaport types at WDFW? It's LOADED with them behind desks. Do you enjoy paying for DOW lawsuits which WE do?
As I do not want to see rampant devopement in these areas going through and creating a bunch of new roads strictly for commercial interest either< give us the ones we had Back.
And do you enjoy $4.00 gas ...while a barrel of oil sells for under $90 I find this OUTRAGEOUS! Funny how the price of fuel now seems to have NO relation to the price of a barrel of oil! Obumbles still hasn't brought oil production near pre BP/Trans Ocean levels and his greenie minions are loving it. Wait till a hurricane hits the gulf and see how bad it gets! These same people fighting the roadless release act, are pushing "cap and Trade".
restrict, Restrict, RESTRICT!!!. DB, I'm with you on the other thread also
Once again sorry for the :jacked:
One other thing. Here is a poll by the Wall Street Journal on this issue. Check out the numbers....
http://online.wsj.com/community/groups/question-day-229/topics/should-40-million-acres-land (http://online.wsj.com/community/groups/question-day-229/topics/should-40-million-acres-land)
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on September 17, 2011, 08:52:24 AM
I think theres some middle ground that would include some reopened roads and some that remain closed. But I'm glad the wolf in sheeps clothing is being revealed with this horrible legislation. It's not going to help hunters. We need another avenue to move towards some compromise with road use.
I certainly don't agree in going through and creating a bunch of new roads strictly for commercial interest. But I do believe we should open many of the roads we have closed over the years.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on September 17, 2011, 09:26:51 AM
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on September 17, 2011, 09:39:56 AM
I think theres some middle ground that would include some reopened roads and some that remain closed. But I'm glad the wolf in sheeps clothing is being revealed with this horrible legislation. It's not going to help hunters. We need another avenue to move towards some compromise with road use.
I certainly don't agree in going through and creating a bunch of new roads strictly for commercial interest. But I do believe we should open many of the roads we have closed over the years.
When it comes to giving up our liberties there can be no Bipartisan or middle ground. If those for liberty took the middle ground on every issue there wouldn't be any liberty left. Here is a synopsis of the bill:
"To release wilderness study areas administered by the Bureau of Land Management that are not suitable for wilderness designation from continued management as defacto wilderness areas and to release inventoried roadless areas within the National Forest System that are not recommended for wilderness designation from the land use restrictions of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Final Rule and the 2005 State Petitions for Inventoried Roadless Area Management Final Rule, and for other purposes."
It is a fact that lands are being managed as wilderness that shouldn't be. When this happens we lose liberties such as the ones we are having in our other discussion. I have to support this bill because it is in support of repealing practices and old legislation that took away freedoms from the people (commercial or otherwise).
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on September 17, 2011, 01:42:30 PM
If you want to go hunt at a mine or oil well go to Pinedale WY...take a look around and see how fantastic that is. Why the hell would you guys want to see these lands opened to that kind of development??? It's not liberties we're at risk of losing, it's hunting opportunites on currently open land. Liberty doesn't have anything to do with it. I'm not intrested in see OUR public land destroyed so a giant corperation can make a bunch of money and leave a mess!
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on September 17, 2011, 08:06:02 PM
It's not a fact that the lands are being managed as a wilderness! They're being actively managed now and can be logged or used as they are. They're under the same protection as wilderness.
If you want to go hunt at a mine or oil well go to Pinedale WY...take a look around and see how fantastic that is. Why the hell would you guys want to see these lands opened to that kind of development??? It's not liberties we're at risk of losing, it's hunting opportunites on currently open land. Liberty doesn't have anything to do with it. I'm not intrested in see OUR public land destroyed so a giant corperation can make a bunch of money and leave a mess!
I call TOTAL BS on that first paragraph! Do you know what the LEGAL definition of wilderness is? If they are under the same protection as wilderness then NO machine can be used there. NONE! Are they going to log with axes?
Sounds like greenie double talk to me.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on September 17, 2011, 08:20:11 PM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on September 17, 2011, 08:25:12 PM
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on September 17, 2011, 08:49:29 PM
It's not a fact that the lands are being managed as a wilderness! They're being actively managed now and can be logged or used as they are. They're under the same protection as wilderness.
If you want to go hunt at a mine or oil well go to Pinedale WY...take a look around and see how fantastic that is. Why the hell would you guys want to see these lands opened to that kind of development??? It's not liberties we're at risk of losing, it's hunting opportunites on currently open land. Liberty doesn't have anything to do with it. I'm not intrested in see OUR public land destroyed so a giant corperation can make a bunch of money and leave a mess!
You are correct the IRA's aren't being managed as wilderness but the WSA are. However, that is even more of a reason that these roads should be open. They should be multi-use and available for all user groups. I can guarantee that RMEF won't be getting a dime from me in the future since I now know they do not support liberty.
The liberal agenda pushed by the Clinton administration has put millions of acres of our forest behind lock and key for no good reason. These lands are for all peoples use and enjoyment and opening them up will increase the diversity of recreational opportunities.
As far as environment and habitat. When they allow these areas to languish behind lock and key and do not maintain those roads it also restricts access to firefighting equipment due to the roads not being maintained like they should. There are certainly benefits to fire in the habitat but I can tell you I don't normally prefer to hunt in areas that were recently destroyed from wildfires.
I do appreciate you bringing RMEF's support of the liberal agenda to my attention so I can give money to organizations that want to fight for our liberties.
Post by: turbo on September 28, 2011, 08:07:48 AM
Wilderness is the gateway drug for liberal idiots to restrict your rights as their agenda continues down the tracks. Just take a look at the North Cascades proposal. This is the direction of their agenda. Wake up Wacoyotehunter, you'be been duped.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on September 28, 2011, 08:30:45 AM
They used to be in my Sig.
Post by: turbo on September 28, 2011, 08:35:22 AM
:yeah: Which I Did. thanks to a fellow :tup:member over at BCR/ SW who enlightened me.
They used to be in my Sig.
LOL!
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on September 28, 2011, 03:14:45 PM
Yep, the RMEF is now the enemy as they are in bed with the enemy. Do not give them any money and cancel your memberships!!! They don't even have the guts to reply to simple questions regarding their support with extremist left wing groups.I don't think I'll be dropping my RMEF membership any time soon. I also think you're way off base to say they're "in bed with the enemy". They're actually INTERESTED in protecting elk habitat so in 50 years there will be some wild places left for people to enjoy. If you want to hunt in a mine, or oil field be my guest. I prefer to enjoy nature in a natural setting. RMEF is on the right track, and in this case the NRA is bowing to a real enemy- big business.
Wilderness is the gateway drug for liberal idiots to restrict your rights as their agenda continues down the tracks. Just take a look at the North Cascades proposal. This is the direction of their agenda. Wake up Wacoyotehunter, you'be been duped.
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on September 28, 2011, 03:27:38 PM
Yep, the RMEF is now the enemy as they are in bed with the enemy. Do not give them any money and cancel your memberships!!! They don't even have the guts to reply to simple questions regarding their support with extremist left wing groups.I don't think I'll be dropping my RMEF membership any time soon. I also think you're way off base to say they're "in bed with the enemy". They're actually INTERESTED in protecting elk habitat so in 50 years there will be some wild places left for people to enjoy. If you want to hunt in a mine, or oil field be my guest. I prefer to enjoy nature in a natural setting. RMEF is on the right track, and in this case the NRA is bowing to a real enemy- big business.
Wilderness is the gateway drug for liberal idiots to restrict your rights as their agenda continues down the tracks. Just take a look at the North Cascades proposal. This is the direction of their agenda. Wake up Wacoyotehunter, you'be been duped.
Yeah... I guess since we don't live in those rural towns we shouldn't concern ourselves with the impact wilderness designations have on them... they might starve from job loss but at least we have more wilderness to hunt. Shame on the NRA for supporting big business that brings jobs/money into these rural economies.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on September 28, 2011, 03:36:10 PM
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on September 28, 2011, 06:03:22 PM
Post by: turbo on September 29, 2011, 12:13:46 PM
Yep, the RMEF is now the enemy as they are in bed with the enemy. Do not give them any money and cancel your memberships!!! They don't even have the guts to reply to simple questions regarding their support with extremist left wing groups.I don't think I'll be dropping my RMEF membership any time soon. I also think you're way off base to say they're "in bed with the enemy". They're actually INTERESTED in protecting elk habitat so in 50 years there will be some wild places left for people to enjoy. If you want to hunt in a mine, or oil field be my guest. I prefer to enjoy nature in a natural setting. RMEF is on the right track, and in this case the NRA is bowing to a real enemy- big business.
Wilderness is the gateway drug for liberal idiots to restrict your rights as their agenda continues down the tracks. Just take a look at the North Cascades proposal. This is the direction of their agenda. Wake up Wacoyotehunter, you'be been duped.
Thank you!!! Your endorsement of the RMEF is all some people on here need to see to start doing their homework. When they do, MOST will be very disappointed with their alignments with extremist groups like the Sierra club and The Wilderness Society who's whole mission is to end hunting, restrict our rights on our land and end our gun rights. It's true, they want more restricted land with more elk on it, they just don't want you hunting them or using the land in any way. RMEF is in bed with groups that actually hate you as a hunter but are willing to use you like a pawn to further their agendas. All I ask is for people to get educated about how they are spending their money and who's agenda they are supporting. Hunters are currently loosing the battle right now but there will be a tipping point as we play catch up to the left wing extremists groups. The lefties are WAY ahead of the game. Even able to convince hunting groups like suckers to join them....
I also love how you say we will be hunting in oil fields.. lol.. DRILL BABY DRILL!!!!
As far as mining and the NRA go we might find some common ground. I am not a member of the NRA but could be swayed the way things are going right now in our country and the UN. We have to have mines but not at the expense of our water supplies and environment. Besides, with out heavy metals how would power and you drive your Prius? :yike:
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on September 29, 2011, 03:49:10 PM
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on September 29, 2011, 04:21:02 PM
RMEF is doing the right thing in maintaining a habitat focus. Without functional habitat we cannot have huntable populations of game animals. I'm not sure why that is a difficult concept. If you want to open some roads, you should champion a reasonable piece of legislation that would get you there. H.R. 1581 isn't good for wildlife or wild places.
We have functional habitats and we have huntable populations of game animals and prior to closing all the roads we still had functional habitats and huntable populations. This will actually help the wolves/grizzly as much or more than the elk. H.R. 1581 will basically reverse the unreasonable restrictions that have already been put in place. If there are reasonable restrictions that need to be in place to protect an area then we can introduce reasonable legislation to protect the sensitive habitat.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on September 29, 2011, 08:25:26 PM
:yeah:RMEF is doing the right thing in maintaining a habitat focus. Without functional habitat we cannot have huntable populations of game animals. I'm not sure why that is a difficult concept. If you want to open some roads, you should champion a reasonable piece of legislation that would get you there. H.R. 1581 isn't good for wildlife or wild places.
We have functional habitats and we have huntable populations of game animals and prior to closing all the roads we still had functional habitats and huntable populations. This will actually help the wolves/grizzly as much or more than the elk. H.R. 1581 will basically reverse the unreasonable restrictions that have already put in place. If there are reasonable restrictions that need to be in place to protect and area then we can then introduce reasonable legislation.
AND HR1581 IS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!