quote:

Originally posted by R. Gunn:
I like the fact that he is on record for opposing turning over federal lands to western states. The last thing we need hunters is being denied access vast tracks of land being turned over to greedy local and state players.

Seems to me you just don't get it. Fed lands are severely mismanaged all over the west. Wildfires are rampant, loggers are out of business, communities are starving or just shutting down and turning into ghost towns. Something needs to happen in the worst way. I support Fed lands being given to the states just like all the lands east of the Mississippi were given to the states or to individuals and are now under private ownership. I think those of us in the west deserve the same considerations as those living in TX and east of the Mississippi.

OBTW - I heard today that the democrats haven't been this pissed off since the Republicans freed their slaves.

quote:

Originally posted by Pancho:

quote:

Originally posted by R. Gunn:
I like the fact that he is on record for opposing turning over federal lands to western states. The last thing we need hunters is being denied access vast tracks of land being turned over to greedy local and state players.

Seems to me you just don't get it. Fed lands are severely mismanaged all over the west. Wildfires are rampant, loggers are out of business, communities are starving or just shutting down and turning into ghost towns. Something needs to happen in the worst way. I support Fed lands being given to the states just like all the lands east of the Mississippi were given to the states or to individuals and are now under private ownership. I think those of us in the west deserve the same considerations as those living in TX and east of the Mississippi.

Pancho: All lands east of the Mississippi have not been turned over. For example Daniel Boone National forest here in KY. I will take mismanagement over no entry any day. I have seen this when state WMAs get leased to coal operators. In fairness, eventually access is generally restored but when the hard woods go so does the hunting; except turkeys.

I will never support anyone that will destroy Theadore Rosevelt's crowning achievement and gift to today's hunters. In fact, they are my enemy, and I oppose them. See my comments about Ted Cruz.

quote:

Originally posted by Pancho:

quote:

Originally posted by R. Gunn:
I like the fact that he is on record for opposing turning over federal lands to western states. The last thing we need hunters is being denied access vast tracks of land being turned over to greedy local and state players.

Seems to me you just don't get it. Fed lands are severely mismanaged all over the west. Wildfires are rampant, loggers are out of business, communities are starving or just shutting down and turning into ghost towns. Something needs to happen in the worst way. I support Fed lands being given to the states just like all the lands east of the Mississippi were given to the states or to individuals and are now under private ownership. I think those of us in the west deserve the same considerations as those living in TX and east of the Mississippi.

Pancho, It seems to me like YOU just don't get it. Federal lands in the west are PUBLIC lands. Other than the National Parks, these lands are open to the public for hiking, camping, fishing, hunting, and many other types of recreation -- FREE OF CHARGE.

I agree that management of these lands is not always the best, for example, the US Forest Service has caved in to the environmentalists and have just about stopped all logging on the lands that they "manage". However, these lands STILL BELONG TO THE PUBLIC.

I grew up in a suburb of Denver. Fifty years ago much of Jefferson county, west of Denver, was mostly uninhabited open country. Access to hike, fish, and hunt was fairly easy to obtain. Today those mountains are a sea of lights where thousands of people now live. Meadows that used to be the home of mule deer and elk are now paved malls of Wall Marts, large grocery stores, and every other business establishment that used to be only found in the cities. The cities have moved to the mountains.

Much of the Gallatin National Forest in Montana near where I now
live has and had a lot of checkerboard ownership, mostly with big corporations. In the past 10-20 years, this forest has worked with the large checkerboard owners to trade lands to make large blocks of ownership of both public and private lands.

Much of the lands that went into private ownership have been broken up into many small parcels that have seasonal homes built on them, and they become totally posted against any public recreation.

Putting federal lands under state ownership is not much better. For example Montana state lands are much more tightly regulated than the adjacent federal lands. First, you must buy a state recreation permit to enter these lands. Hiking and bird watching require a $10 fee. Camping is more restricted on state lands, motor vehicles are only allowed on public or designated roads, and horses may not be kept overnight on state lands.

Hunting on private lands is fast becoming a rich mans sport with ever increasing trespass fees, lease fees, guide fees, and some very high animal trophy fees.

I agree 100% with R. Gunn "The last thing we hunters need is being denied access to vast tracts of [public] land being turned over to greedy local and state players."

quote:

Originally posted by BrettAKSCI:
I'd like to point out that SCI's team was meeting with the Trump transition team before the announcement was made on a number of issues including the DOI Secretary appointment. When people ask why you support SCI or why they should support SCI or what SCI really does.....this is it.

Brett

I suspect Cindy Marlenee, SCI's long-time lobbyist, and her husband, former Congressman Ron, had a lot to do with the appointment of a fellow Montanan.

Bill Quimby

quote:

Originally posted by Pancho:

quote:

Originally posted by R. Gunn:
I like the fact that he is on record for opposing turning over federal lands to western states. The last thing we need hunters is being denied access vast tracks of land being turned over to greedy local and state players.

Seems to me you just don't get it. Fed lands are severely mismanaged all over the west. Wildfires are rampant, loggers are out of business, communities are starving or just shutting down and turning into ghost towns. Something needs to happen in the worst way. I support Fed lands being given to the states just like all the lands east of the Mississippi were given to the states or to individuals and are now under private ownership. I think those of us in the west deserve the same considerations as those living in TX and east of the Mississippi.

That's absurd! There are federal public lands in the east. The reason why you don't see a lot of federal public land in the east when compared to the west is because the trend of setting aside federal public lands didn't start until the east was already settled and lands were already owned by private or state owners. The idea that it was "turned over to states in the east" is devoid of fact.

As for federal public lands in the west it would be a travesty to turn them over to state ownership. State leadership is frequently short sighted and sometimes insolvent. They would be quick to sell those lands away to the highest bidder who wouldn't allow others to use it. I grew up in Ohio and the lack of public lands there is a real death knell to hunting's future. Farms are being developed into housing left and right and the remaining private land you often have to own it or know someone to get permission to hunt. If you don't own land, know someone who will let you hunt, or happen to live close to the little public land there is then your SOL.

I moved from Ohio to Alaska a state full of public land and I can tell you for a fact I wouldn't have it any other way. There's more public land that I can hunt here in 2 lifetimes! Due to the aforementioned piss poor planning by our state if they had those federal lands right now you can be sure land sales would be on the table to make up our multi billion dollar operating budget deficit.

As for out west in the lower 48. I had a real eye opener when I hunted western Montana in 2015. There's still a fair amount of public land, but very wealthy people buying up land and limiting or stopping hunter access is a huge issue. There were chunks of public land all over the place that no one could access because they were surrounded by private land and none of the land owners would even grant an easement. If you want to see hunting die and go away get rid of our public lands. The surest way to get rid of them or severely limit them is by handing them over to short sighted and fiscally insolvent states.

The problem isn't federal ownership. The problem is the way in which the federal government is running some of the lands. Or the management style if you will. That's why many including myself are hoping Sec. Zinke will change the DOI and how our federal lands are managed.

Brett

Most agree that public lands in the West are mismanaged. I live here and see the damage first hand. Catastrophic fires that consume billions worth of timber that should have been harvested years ago except some NYC liberal sided with the big timber companies to get our timber from Mississippi instead of NM or Washington. Productive mines that have been regulated out of business leaving thousands unemployed and on the dole. Grazing leases that are unused resulting in a further buildup of fuels to feed the next big wildfire. OK, you have access, but to what. There's an orange shirt on every hillside and deer and elk are scarce as a result. Our public lands are overhunted and overfished and nobody cares because it's "free". Meanwhile, the liberals in San Fran and NYC demand that we put the wolves back on the landscape, another huge drain on an already depleted natural resource and OBTW wolves have and will again attack people.
I'd rather have good hunting even if it costs a rather than sending my fortune to Washington so they can feed and provide healthcare to those that won't work.
Fun isn't free. If you want good hunting and recreation, there must be good management instead of just kicking the can down the road over and over again. I have no faith in the Fed Govt to do anything except what they've been doing for the past 50 years. I believe that no body is better qualified to manage the land than those that live on it and making their living off it.

quote:

Originally posted by Pancho:
I believe that no body is better qualified to manage the land than those that live on it and making their living off it.

SOME of them you would probably be right. They should work for the state or feds and help good sustainable use practices. Others would gladly catch the last fish, log the last tree, shoot the last buffalo, and mine the last rock regardless of environmental impact. That's a fact. It's the if I don't do it someone else will mentality. That's why there has to be an adult in the room, but an adult more in touch with multiple use/sustained yield of our renewable resources.

Brett

quote:

Originally posted by Pancho:
Our public lands are over hunted and overfished and nobody cares because it's "free"....I'd rather have good hunting even if it costs......Fun isn't free.

It's unfortunate you think that. There's a lot of good hunting on public lands. The easy spots no doubt get more pressure, but the idea that they are wastelands devoid of worth for hunters and fishermen is just garbage. Some of the best hunting in Alaska is on federal public lands. As for "fun isn't free" what part of if the lands are sold and the owner doesn't allow hunting, then everyone has lost don't you get? Not everyone can afford to "pay to play" in terms of thousands of dollars in access fees, leases, guided hunts, land owner tags, ect. The people that will be hurt the most are low income and young hunters. Like I said before if you want to see hunting disappear just get rid of public lands. If kids aren't lucky enough to have a farm in the family, public lands are where they will learn to hunt.

The USFWS and NPS shouldn't be setting up drilling rigs, logging, or mines, because that's in direct opposition to their founding. But the BLM and FS should be working on streamlining permitting to promote sustained yield of our natural resources.

Brett

quote:

Originally posted by BrettAKSCI:

quote:

Originally posted by Pancho:
Our public lands are over hunted and overfished and nobody cares because it's "free"....I'd rather have good hunting even if it costs....b..Fun isn't free.

It's unfortunate that you think that. There's a lot of good hunting on public lands. The easy spots no doubt get more pressure, but the idea that they are wastelands devoid of worth for hunters and fishermen is just garbage. Some of the best hunting in Alaska is no federal public lands. As for "fun isn't free" what part of if the lands are sold and the owner doesn't allow hunting, then everyone has lost don't you get? Not everyone can afford to "pay to play" in terms of thousands of dollars in access fees, leases, guided hunts, land owner tags, ect. The people that will be hurt the most are low income and young hunters. Like I said before if you want to see hunting disappear just get rid of public lands. If kids aren't lucky enough to have a farm in the family, public lands are where they will learn to hunt.

The USFWS and NPS shouldn't be setting up drilling rigs, logging, or mines, because that's in direct opposition to their founding. But the BLM and FS should be working on streamlining permitting to promote sustained yield of our natural resources.

Brett

+1

quote:

Originally posted by Pancho:
I have no faith in the Fed Govt to do anything except what they've been doing for the past 50 years. I believe that no body is better qualified to manage the land than those that live on it and making their living off it.

Let me be crystal clear with some real and easily observable examples that show that federal managers are much better at conservation of habitat and species than "those making their living off it".

Go drive down any trout or "use to be" trout stream in the west. When you pass a ranch you will frequently find the cattle grazing on the riparian areas as well as frequently crossing the stream in multiple well used trails along many points in the stream. That grazing and constant foot traffic destroys riparian vegetation which causes excessive soil run off and diminishes cover for trout. So ranchers who give their cattle unfettered access to streams destroy and degrade the stream itself not only on their land, but for others as well since the soil washes down stream. I've seen this almost everywhere I've driven in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. Not until TU started educating people did a few of the "those making their living off it" crowd even start to do anything about it. It's still a huge and mostly ignored problem on private land. You go onto federal land and the riparian habitat is intact and guess what? The stream is healthier and there's more fish.

How about another example. If it wasn't for conservation organizations, state managers, and federal managers we wouldn't have a single bighorn left in the lower 48 thanks to "those making their living off it". The sheep ranching industry just about wiped out bighorns. Even today their lobby groups fight tooth and nail to avoid even the most reasonable of restrictions to grazing sheep and goats in or near sheep habitat. Go to federal land and they won't allow grazing in sheep habitat.

How about mining? I don't know about down there, but there's a wealth of examples of mines up here that were left with tailings everywhere, pollution in streams and rivers, and little restored when the mining finished because the mining company just always seemed to go bankrupt right about the time the cleanup/restoration portion of the project was to commence. Know who pays for cleaning up their mess? You and I with tax dollars. Know who keeps that from happening? Land managers who require mitigation plans and money in escrow to pay for it before a project can begin. Know who checks to make sure they aren't dumping poisonous heavy metals into streams and rivers or leaving 50 gallon tanks of fuel to rust out and leek into the ground? Land managers.

I'm not anti utilization. I'm also not naively of the belief that all federal land management agencies are just wonderful and perfect as they are. I am however realistic about a user group's ability to take other user groups interests as well as the health of the resource into consideration when deciding what they should and shouldn't do. Is a rancher really going to leave some feed for elk when he can put out another 50 cattle and have it all? Some might, but many will not. Is a rancher going to avoid riparian habitat when feeding on public land on his own? Some might, but many will not. Is the rancher who's cattle destroy riparian habitat going to pay for a stream to be restored? Doubtful. That'll be tax dollars or NGO dollars from the likes of TU.

In short let's be realistic rather than romantic about the capacity of user groups to regulate themselves. And let's also realize that public lands are used by a lot of other people beyond "those making their living off it". I think those other people have a right and a stake in our public lands too.

Brett

"Fun is not free"

The Bundy's can pay there grazing fees as well. We have to pay severance tax on coal even when mined on private land.

States do not manage land any better than the Feds. Not to be a populist about it, but not all are as fortunate as we and public land is their hunting opportunity.

As an Eastner, I have been a little jealous of my western brother and the large tracts of public hunting land. However, the East has federal owned public lands (Daniel Boone National Forest) as well; just not as much or as big.

Some of my best fun is spent in a tent with a propane heater that is covered in ice on the hunting sections of Cheerokee National Forest (TN and NC). The hunting may not be as good as private deer hunting in Texas, but my brother and I do it at least every other year. The bass fishing and pan fishing is top notch.

You should not be so trigger happy to give up your legacy that is Federal Public lands that are shared and held in common trust for hunters, fishers, and outdoors people alike. It is part of the North American model of conservation.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
As an Eaterner I have been a little jealous of my western brother and the large tracts of public hunting land.

Having lived in both the east and west I can say I feel positively spoiled with all the public land I have access to now. I really feel bad for those living in the east without land to access. I was fortunate when I lived back east and grew up hunting hundreds of acres of farm land that friends and family let me hunt, but that pales in comparison to the TENS OF MILLIONS of acres I have access to now!

Brett

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
"Fun is not free"

States do not manage land any better than the Feds.

I would have to respectively disagree with you on that. Over the past 20 years here in Arizona we have seen massive wildfires that have caused the destruction of millions of acres of timber, valuable grazing land for wildlife and cattle and the deaths of 100's of thousands of animals large and small. The Federal governments' policy of fighting every fire large or small, natural or man-made in contrast to nature's way, caused the build up of so much fuel on the forest floor that when fire did come there was no way to contain it or stop the massive destruction of habitat and wildlife.
I am a life long resident of this beautiful state and I have seen the massive destruction of forest and desert scrub gone to these devastating wild fires, the loss of prime habitat for elk, deer, antelope and small game unnecessarily burned up and rivers polluted with runoff from these massive fires that cause massive fish kills.
The State of Arizona thru the Game & Fish Department has done wonderful work bring back the populations of Bighorn Sheep, Elk, Deer, Antelope and fish that were almost extinct here. The money for this has come almost exclusively from the people of Arizona thru hunting and fishing licenses and tags, sporting excise taxes and lottery money and not the federal government.
At least for Arizona, and I expect its the same for most western states, I'm not sure how we could be much worse at managing the public lands then the feds have been over the last 50 years.

Pep3:

I've lived my entire 80 years in Arizona, and yes, we have temporarily lost habitat from major wildfires. (The Wallow Fire burned to within 500 yards of my cabin in Greer.) Even though I was unhappy with the forest supervisor's decision to not fight that fire in its early stages, I cannot fault the over-all stewardship of the Forest Service and the BLM.

Big game habitat seldom is lost permanently in fires. We have more mule deer in units 1 and 27 than before the Wallow Fire, and about the same number of elk and turkeys as before it. (Without the wolves they're reintroducing we probably would have more.)

Our game department does a great job, but it does not manage state-owned land. There is a separate agency for that, and although the Arizona State Land Department also has professional managers, this agency's mission is to fund the state's schools by leasing and selling land. Its managers may strive to preserve wildlife habitat, but when push comes to shove, their No. 1 task is to pour maximum dollars into the School Trust Fund.

Only about 18% of Arizona is privately owned. The rest is in some form of public or tribal ownership. I and every hunter I know would like to keep it that way.

Bill Quimby

Mr. Pep3:

I am sure you have professional land managers at the state level. Mr. Qumibly with his local knowledge has provided a better rebuttal than I could. But his observations are what I have been taught about fire. A local state bio has told me we need more controlled burning. The important part is controlled.

I will amend may statement State Legislatures do not manage lands any better.

The Feds could and can work with local professionals staffed agencies. However, if anyone thinks giving states these areas will not result in sell offs and leases that will block hunting, fishing, and camping accesses has a very limited grace period.

Also, the quote free is not fun was from Pancho. My point was those good local land managers the Bundys can pay there grazing fees. Oh wait, they refuse too and steal from all of us.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
My point was those good local land managers the Bundys can pay there grazing fees. Oh wait, they refuse too and steal from all of us.

Talk about welfare cases. What a bunch of dirtbags.

Brett

quote:

Originally posted by PEP3:
I would have to respectively disagree with you on that. Over the past 20 years here in Arizona we have seen massive wildfires that have caused the destruction of millions of acres of timber, valuable grazing land for wildlife and cattle and the deaths of 100's of thousands of animals large and small. The Federal governments' policy of fighting every fire large or small, natural or man-made in contrast to nature's way, caused the build up of so much fuel on the forest floor that when fire did come there was no way to contain it or stop the massive destruction of habitat and wildlife.

There's a lot of perspective to take on this one. I'm going to use a local example since I know it. The Kenai NWR managed by the USFWS is an old growth tinder box of fuel and unproductive moose habitat. The reason why is fire suppression for the last +40 years. In the refuge's management plan they proscribe controlled burns. What's the problem then? The problem is there's a public process required to be completed before a controlled burn can commence. This public process allows every Tom, Dick, and Harry with a cabin, camp ect to protest the burn for fear of their property being burned. So although the USFWS recognizes and even recommends controlled burns for safety and habitat, they can't get it done due to public ignorance about wild fires and to the regulatory process of federal land management agencies.

This is why I am excited about Donald Trump with regard to the DOI. There's so many regulatory hurtles and red tape BS for any action, project, or decision by a federal land management agency to occur that it allows for anyone who wants to indefinitely stall something the legal framework to do so. I'm hopping he can find a way to streamline the process and stop the endless litigation and stall tactics.

Brett

One thing I really don't like on NF and BLM lands are cattle
Extremely destructive in dry west on range and creeks and as a hunter , they simply take from elk and deer
No need for it, it's pretty much corporate welfare for ranchers with the fees that don't even get close to market price besides
It seems rather absurd, those forests managed all by themselves until FS took over
Maybe we could let it get on it's own for awhile and see...