Channeling my inner Big Fin

[BuzzH]

So now that all the chest thumping about how grateful some of us are to spend money on their number one pastime, back to another topic, how do we convince the people who are more of a casual hunter, or low income income person not interested in hunting across state lines, and the mass majority of the population that dont give a rip about what happens outside of a big city that federal land transfers are not the best idea? I talk with guys I know and they are uninformed of the situation. When I give them a crash course they don't feel like it's a higher priority than other political topics. I don't blame them, it's just their priorities. In the dive bar I was in this weekend I tried to bring up conversation around it and it was all I could do to keep them from worrying more about how the wolves are killing elk that were recently transplanted onto STATE or County land. Go figure. And they sure like Ted Cruz!

Get the information out to as many people as possible, but its a waste of time to dwell on trying to convince guys in a dive bar or inner city of anything. If your information sinks in to a few, consider it a success.

The approach that works, that you aren't going to like, takes organization, effort and money. Political persuasion comes at a price, and frankly low information voters aren't going to sway the political critters that will deicide this issue at either the national or state level. Not that they couldn't, but they aren't organized, they're all over the map, and many aren't going to sacrifice anything to make a difference.

Want proof? How many of the guys in the dive bar you were talking about are realistically going to show up and fight the WI land grab even if your information sinks in?

Want more proof? How many are going to break out the checkbook and spend money fighting it.

Want more proof? Look at how few people show up at a commission meeting, season setting meetings, etc. etc. etc.

The 2 bills that were just killed in Wyoming dealing with the land transfer were not done by talking to guys in a dive bar. It was done by a collaboration of nearly every wildlife/conservation group in the State. It was done by hosting 3 Sportsmen's receptions during the last 3 legislative sessions, where Sportsmen talk directly to their representatives about this and other issues impacting wildlife and sportsmen. The first couple years, we were asking THEM to vote a certain way on bills. Now, they are asking US Sportsmen for advice on things and what we want.

I think in most Western States the message is sinking in with Legislators, but its taken a lot of work by some very passionate people, as well as a significant financial layout by individuals and groups, to get us to this point.

It would be awesome if more people would step up, it would make the job much easier. It would also send a much stronger message. While I would like nothing more than to see an uprising of hunters to FINALLY stand up for themselves, its going to take a lot more time and effort to get there. We're making headway, but its not at the pace I would personally like to see.

Its a marathon, not a sprint.

 

[BuzzH]

the reason why non-residents are limited in the number of permits/tags is because they (the politicians the make the rules) want to get re-elected so they try to keep the voting residents happy by giving them the majority of the tags

The reason that NR are limited is because the Wildlife is held in trust for the residents of the State it resides in.

The Residents make the rules, its their Wildlife and their State.

 

[schmalts]

.........

 

[idi1796]

As part of the education process, I have wondered where many of the big outdoor companies stand on this issue. Much like the NRA, I find their silence a little concerning. As many have already stated, this fight goes far beyond hunters/fisherman. All people who enjoy the vast amounts of public land have a stake in this debate. What would happen to the bottom lines of companies like REI, Keen, Columbia etc if all the places their equipment is used is sold off to private interest? I think the hunter/angler groups are by far the most informed, but how do we make this a personal issue to hikers, campers, bikers etc and get them to join the ranks in fighting those who would sell OUR land from beneath our feet?

 

[schmalts]

T

The Residents make the rules, its their Wildlife and their State.

A state like Nevada made up of Federal land..... I couldn't help that one.
If it's their state then letting them have that Federal land should not change anything right

 

[James Riley]

As part of the education process, I have wondered where many of the big outdoor companies stand on this issue. Much like the NRA, I find their silence a little concerning. As many have already stated, this fight goes far beyond hunters/fisherman. All people who enjoy the vast amounts of public land have a stake in this debate. What would happen to the bottom lines of companies like REI, Keen, Columbia etc if all the places their equipment is used is sold off to private interest? I think the hunter/angler groups are by far the most informed, but how do we make this a personal issue to hikers, campers, bikers etc and get them to join the ranks in fighting those who would sell OUR land from beneath our feet?

They are not silent; they have been screaming from the hill tops for many years and are already heavily involved, via money, time and effort. They vote D. Join them. Or continue to try and lure them over to the R side, to work from the inside, while undermining their other personally held beliefs. Not gonna happen.

 

[BuzzH]

A state like Nevada made up of Federal land..... I couldn't help that one.
If it's their state then letting them have that Federal land should not change anything right

Listen to the link I provided, Randy explains it perfectly.

You are right, whether the land changes hands to state, other federal agency, or private has no bearing on wildlife being held in trust for the citizens of the state it resides in.

Wildlife ownership doesn't come with land ownership...just the way it is.

Sure it could change things for NR hunters if States get Federal land...not only could the state discriminate against you with higher NR tag fees, they could also then charge you a high-priced NR access fee too. They could also allow only Residents to hunt State lands. All kinds of things could happen for NR hunters if the land changes hands...most of it you wont like.

So, you get the chance to pay out the nose twice...once for the tag, and again for access to the States land.

 

[Straight Arrow]

A state like Nevada made up of Federal land..... I couldn't help that one.

Yes, schmalts, even in Nevada.

And once again, like it or not, the wildlife and the hunting is entrusted in each state to the state to manage on behalf of the citizens of that state.

Has anyone kept count of how many threads on HT included the debate about the difference between the privilege of hunting on federal public land (same for NR as R) versus the privilege of purchasing a state issued license to hunt (limited and more expensive for NR, less expensive for R)? It seems like it's at least as frequent as once a quarter. Perhaps the oft posted clearly described explanation by our HT host should have an automatic posting function so that it comes up to explain and cut the argument to the chase, thus avoiding all this consternation. Recreation on federal public lands versus state licensed hunting ... it's really not that complicated.

 

[schmalts]

Yes, schmalts, even in Nevada.

And once again, like it or not, the wildlife and the hunting is entrusted in each state to the state to manage on behalf of the citizens of that state.

You must have missed the part where I agreed with that,

 

[Big Fin]

They are not silent; they have been screaming from the hill tops for many years and are already heavily involved, via money, time and effort. ........

My personal experience shows otherwise. I spent a lot of time trying to get the Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA) passed in 2000. It would have allowed those companies to help with funding the landscape with an excise tax similar to, though much smaller than, what is paid under Dingell-Johnson (anglers) and Pittman-Robertson (hunters/shooters). Their industry and lobbyists kicked and screamed behind the scenes and got it killed.

Yeah, that CARA experience was 15 years ago. But since then, I have yet to see these companies or their industry stand up and fund landscape level conservation to any degree that is significant.

Can you provide me some examples of where these companies have been "screaming for the hill tops for many years and are heavily involved, via money, time and effort?"

Not saying it isn't so, just that my personal experience shows them to scream and yell when asked to contribute to the game. I hope I am wrong. I'm very involved in landscape level issues and I have not seen any of those companies writing checks or doing much for the landscape. Maybe I run in too small of a group.

Any links or examples you can share would be greatly appreciated. If they are doing that, I would prefer to drop my personal bias that is based on years of working on these issues and seeing these companies sit on their pocket books, while the groups I am associated with fund the landscape to the tune of billions each year when you measure excise taxes, donations to conservation groups, supported from top to bottom, industry to consumer.

 

[Straight Arrow]

You must have missed the part where I agreed with that,

'Sorry, I guess I did miss it.

 

[idi1796]

They are not silent; they have been screaming from the hill tops for many years and are already heavily involved, via money, time and effort. They vote D. Join them. Or continue to try and lure them over to the R side, to work from the inside, while undermining their other personally held beliefs. Not gonna happen.

If they are not silent then they have done a poor job of making it known what they stand for. I have no reason to believe they have not invested tons of time and money, but for someone like myself who pays attention, I have not heard a peep.

 

[schmalts]

'Sorry, I guess I did miss it.

My last post on this to try and sum it up again where I was going from the first post I made. States do make the rules, they own the game. Are they making friends along the way with their choices? Some may say no. Like it or not it is their choice and starting pissing matches never changes how someone feels. I know it doesn't work with me and most people I know, but politely presenting facts and making them think will.
People can be spiteful by nature. They may take the "if I can't do it why should you to do it" or the "if I don't like the outdoors what should I care about federal land" I play devil's advocate but I assure you it is how some feel. This fight may become swaying a population as much as a few politicians. Buzz says he can change politicians but guess what, they don't become politicians without getting the majority of the vote. Food for thought.

 

[James Riley]

My personal experience shows otherwise. I spent a lot of time trying to get the Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA) passed in 2000. It would have allowed those companies to help with funding the landscape with an excise tax similar to, though much smaller than, what is paid under Dingell-Johnson (anglers) and Pittman-Robertson (hunters/shooters). Their industry and lobbyists kicked and screamed behind the scenes and got it killed.

Yeah, that CARA experience was 15 years ago. But since then, I have yet to see these companies or their industry stand up and fund landscape level conservation to any degree that is significant.

Can you provide me some examples of where these companies have been "screaming for the hill tops for many years and are heavily involved, via money, time and effort?"

Not saying it isn't so, just that my personal experience shows them to scream and yell when asked to contribute to the game. I hope I am wrong. I'm very involved in landscape level issues and I have not seen any of those companies writing checks or doing much for the landscape. Maybe I run in too small of a group.

Any links or examples you can share would be greatly appreciated. If they are doing that, I would prefer to drop my personal bias that is based on years of working on these issues and seeing these companies sit on their pocket books, while the groups I am associated with fund the landscape to the tune of billions each year when you measure excise taxes, donations to conservation groups, supported from top to bottom, industry to consumer.

Let me give it to you by analogy. A guy sits in his house watching T.V. and on comes a commercial for Wounded Warriors. He thinks, gee, that's a good cause. They only want $19.00 per month. Then he thinks, hey, why the FCK isn't my FCKing government taking care of these people? I already pay taxes and we have a metric shit ton of money going to DOD and I didn't start the war and I put a whole hell of a lot of time, resources and money into those who think like me and I've been screaming from the hill tops about it for ever AND, most importantly, if I, at the end of the day, subsidize what the government should be doing, don't I just encourage them to continue doing the same shit against my interests AND divert the money I give them in tax dollars toward other BS because I picked up their tab with private sector donations?

In other words, it is not simply a matter of going above and beyond payment of taxes: It's expecting those taxes to go for what I voted for and providing a disincentive to their misuse for other adventures. Every church that helps the poor just takes the burden off of a government that some people (D's?) think is an obligation of the of government they vote for, and who they scream from the hill tops about.

Lost in the maelstrom may be the land, the warrior, the poor, but it's like welfare for the rich when individuals do what they pay the government to do.

I've got to run but I'll be back to clarify this a little more later.

P.S. I can't speak for all Ds or REI or anyone. These are my thoughts.

 

[James Riley]

If they are not silent then they have done a poor job of making it known what they stand for. I have no reason to believe they have not invested tons of time and money, but for someone like myself who pays attention, I have not heard a peep.

I guess there is not D party in the U.S. then. They are probably the only reason we have any public lands left. That and some hunters, many of whom are Ds. Just because you are not listening does not mean they are not there. Remember, contrary to what Scalia would have you believe, money does not equal speech: Money equals being heard. Voting D is voting for public land (in most cases). It speaks for itself, regardless of whether anyone is listening.

 

[BuzzH]

Buzz says he can change politicians but guess what, they don't become politicians without getting the majority of the vote. Food for thought.

Schmalts, the vote on HB126 Friday here in Wyoming was 52-7 against...what does that say about "changing politicians?

More to the point...two years ago that vote would have been much different.

Doesn't always matter that a majority elects them, but who can influence them.

 

[idi1796]

I guess there is not D party in the U.S. then. They are probably the only reason we have any public lands left. That and some hunters, many of whom are Ds. Just because you are not listening does not mean they are not there. Remember, contrary to what Scalia would have you believe, money does not equal speech: Money equals being heard. Voting D is voting for public land (in most cases). It speaks for itself, regardless of whether anyone is listening.

Are you saying that they money outdoor companies pump towards democratic candidates is their way of voicing their position? If so, much like the NRAs reluctance to come out and clearly state their opinion, no matter what that is, is weak in my opinion. I am well aware of the work democrats, especially my two senators here in Oregon, have done to fight for our public lands. But I will stand by what I said earlier, their "silence" does not do enough to help the cause. I believe people in the outdoor community would be more receptive if for example REI came out and publicly supported keeping public lands in the Feds hands rather than some dem politician saying it on the floor of the house or senate. My fear is that people will tend to zone out when politicians talk no matter how important the topic. Again, my opinion but like Fin said above, examples would be awesome. Most people don't have time to go in depth looking for the positions of people/companies.

 

[James Riley]

Are you saying that they money outdoor complies pump towards democratic candidates is there way of voicing their position?

(Back from shooting a few hoops )

I AM saying that. Exactly. You nailed it.

So let's compare:

D's go this way. The outdoor industry goes the same way. The outdoor industry supports D's.

R's go that way. The NRA goes the same way. The NRA supports the R's.

That, to me, is both sides screaming from the hill tops. THAT is the example that you and Finn asked for. They vote D. That speaks louder than words. The only people who don't hear them are those who vote R and look around desperately, in a fit of cogitative dissonance, for other voices. Instead of looking, they should listen. Like the old Indian said, the trees will speak to you if you listen. It is not incumbent upon them to speak your language. You must learn to speak theirs, failing to do so at your own peril, and theirs.

Another example with respect to private sector expectations: We pass a law. An Agency is charged with implementing and enforcing that law. Tax dollars are raised to fund implementation and enforcement. Tax payers have a reasonable expectation that the money they pay in taxes will be used to implement and enforce the law. Some Congress decides to under-fund the Agency. Is it incumbent upon individuals and corporations to step up and fund the ends through private means? Can't they expect the law to work? Let's say they do step up and fund the ends through private means. What incentive does that provide to the Congress who underfunded the Agency? Won't they say the ends are being taken care of? No need to fund it any more at all? Let's just take the money and use it over here for other shit that we agree with!

It's true for the IRS, the EPA, the USFWS, BLM, USFS, etc. The only thing it is not true for is DOD.

I have to say: I admire and respect those who go above and beyond, many here on this board. I wish I had their energy and motivation and passion. But I just can't shake the feeling. It's like Trump and others say, and have been saying for many, many years: If you pay for hostages, you just encourage hostage taking.

 

[idi1796]

(Back from shooting a few hoops )

I AM saying that. Exactly. You nailed it.

So let's compare:

D's go this way. The outdoor industry goes the same way. The outdoor industry supports D's.

R's go that way. The NRA goes the same way. The NRA supports the R's.

That, to me, is both sides screaming from the hill tops. THAT is the example that you and Finn asked for. They vote D. That speaks louder than words. The only people who don't hear them are those who vote R and look around desperately, in a fit of cogitative dissonance, for other voices. Instead of looking, they should listen. Like the old Indian said, the trees will speak to you if you listen. It is not incumbent upon them to speak your language. You must learn to speak theirs, failing to do so at your own peril, and theirs.

Another example with respect to private sector expectations: We pass a law. An Agency is charged with implementing and enforcing that law. Tax dollars are raised to fund implementation and enforcement. Tax payers have a reasonable expectation that the money they pay in taxes will be used to implement and enforce the law. Some Congress decides to under-fund the Agency. Is it incumbent upon individuals and corporations to step up and fund the ends through private means? Can't they expect the law to work? Let's say they do step up and fund the ends through private means. What incentive does that provide to the Congress who underfunded the Agency? Won't they say the ends are being taken care of? No need to fund it any more at all? Let's just take the money and use it over here for other shit that we agree with!

It's true for the IRS, the EPA, the USFWS, BLM, USFS, etc. The only thing it is not true for is DOD.

I have to say: I admire and respect those who go above and beyond, many here on this board. I wish I had their energy and motivation and passion. But I just can't shake the feeling. It's like Trump and others say, and have been saying for many, many years: If you pay for hostages, you just encourage hostage taking.

I completely agree with what you said and completely understand it. My only concern is that the every day person, who are to busy in their every day lives to even sit down and relax for a moment, will completely miss those positions. Those are the people, the masses that we need in this fight to protect our lands.

 

[James Riley]

I completely agree with what you said and completely understand it. My only concern is that the every day person, who are to busy in their every day lives to even sit down and relax for a moment, will completely miss those positions. Those are the people, the masses that we need in this fight to protect our lands.

I guess I, too, would like to see them say more than they do. But I can understand why they might feel as if saying more would be akin to the NRA saying they support the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. It's kind of like "Duh!, everyone knows that if they've been listening." The NRA get's people out shooting. The outdoor industry get's people outdoors. They each do a good job. The NRA get's after people. The outdoor industry gets after people. Every time I go in a store I see issues of legislative concern, get the emails and see overlap between them and enviro groups like NWF, SC, etc. In the end, though, if you have a litmus test, you find a party that is more in line with you and go. Or run yourself. Or write someone in. But the parties have their weight and we know which ones carry the freight on various issues.