Elitist Hunters

[Nameless Range]

Eric hit the nail dead on! While I muse over his writings and the subsequent flame throwing aftermath... This has to be the KEY issue and a main common ground. Extremists from both sides have to acknowledge this instead of the partisan fighting that only takes ONE push over the edge... our land becomes feudal Era.

Whether sincere and passionate, statistically speaking you will not retain 100% win ratio. One loss and the land is gone.
A bi-partisan focus on the leadership decisions and management actions focused on the mind boggling bs court frivolous injunctions have killed American jobs over and over and over!
Hell, I am directly involved in this area and share sincerely the logging in CANADA routed to US... US in both ways...Our U.S. and us and in our lumber, cardboard, on and on and on! These log trucks pass right through OUR unemployed towns who are directly unemployed due to these craptacular, lack of logging due to lawsuits, injunctions, etc! Forests that archery may hold a 20 yard shooting lane. The logging trucks drive the highways right through these forests!

And in no way am I for clear cutting, Buzz cutting from here to eternity! Work at proper management of ALL resources! Logging is just one aspect.

/happy rant off. ��

I understand where you come from with this. Especially living/working in the places most effected. The partisan fighting will be our end. But there seems to be conflicting facts. Are frivolous lawsuits killing the timber industry? Or is this simply a result of the market and the fact that we do not subsidize timber to the same degree that the Canadians do?

Large portions of the timber volume offered up by the Forest Service in Region 1 last year received no bids. I sincerely do not understand how to make that fact jive with the narrative that lawsuits are killing the timber industry. Were they poor offerings?

North of where I live, large treatment/logging projects are moving forward. In the same area these projects are occurring, the Helena National Forest was sued because they tried to lower big game security standards. Didn't seem frivolous to me, and elite I aint. I bought my four-wheeler for less than a KUIU rain jacket and a pair of Kenetreks.

 

[Straight Arrow]

If the state can realize a 10x return the Fed should be able to easily.

Once the priority moves from multiple use (including recreation) to revenue producing at a goal of "10x" then the public access issue will become another focus of litigation and then "talk about people squealing"! In many public land revenue producing areas, the wildlife will be found only on private land.

 

[Ben Lamb]

k


Because knowledge is elite.

Proud to be elite in a world of the willfully ignorant.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Ok, I am and have been convinced that Fed. transfer to the states is a poor idea....but how about we begin to pressure the Fed. to manage their lands better? If the state can realize a 10x return the Fed should be able to easily. Even if it means a fee increase on BLM grazing to me.

However we have the crowd out there that wants to see no logging, no mining, no nothing...just look at a picture of the scenery and trust us it is there cause we say it's there.

The BLM 2.0 rule and the plans for management of public land under the sage-grouse RMP revisions did just that. Congress has vowed to remove those plans and instill ones that focus on energy development and other intensive extractive uses.

As of noon EST today, the onus is solely on one party who now controls the executive and legislative branches. They own it. If they follow through with their plans, I look forward to you signing up with me to fight their attempts to weaken public land management and remove the gains made to better manage our lands both in terms of forest health and rangeland management.

Sorry I missed the MOGA symposium. Heard there was a lot of talk about the need for transferable licenses. Would have loved to help stomp on that idea.

 

[hank4elk]

Well said Eric & good points here.
I hate seeing clear cuts as much as choked & dying forests.Believe in sustainable logging.
I laugh at what local ranchers pay for grazing rights,and am thankful for the $10 a head a mo. I get from a rancher friend every couple years. But I let it rest mostly.
Have no problem with extraction either,done properly in right places,and fully mitigated after.Never seen close.
The frivolous law suit shit has got to stop. It caused me to give up on FS issues after years of working on projects,getting the BS that BF & others here know too well ,done to get permit to thin in a UIZ,funding,permits,equipment & crews work 2 days and it gets stopped.

 

[MTGomer]

http://billingsgazette.com/news/sta...cle_94448108-5fd3-58e2-a0c3-1e6417bcd424.html

I started a thread about this, but here's an example of frivolous.
You can probably guess who before you even read the story.

 

[Sytes]

I understand where you come from with this. Especially living/working in the places most effected. The partisan fighting will be our end. But there seems to be conflicting facts. Are frivolous lawsuits killing the timber industry? Or is this simply a result of the market and the fact that we do not subsidize timber to the same degree that the Canadians do?

Large portions of the timber volume offered up by the Forest Service in Region 1 last year received no bids. I sincerely do not understand how to make that fact jive with the narrative that lawsuits are killing the timber industry. Were they poor offerings?

North of where I live, large treatment/logging projects are moving forward. In the same area these projects are occurring, the Helena National Forest was sued because they tried to lower big game security standards. Didn't seem frivolous to me, and elite I aint. I bought my four-wheeler for less than a KUIU rain jacket and a pair of Kenetreks.

Agree. There are many aspects that restrain our timber and mining industry within our own country. I do not know well enough the intricate workings of the margins, accounting involved with such bids though in small talk, my understanding relates again to the restraints used to access, harvest and profit from the operation. The supply and demand play. Restrict the value of the harvest and the extremist can claim the same as shared here... The idea bids are available yet no bids placed. That to me says volumes! If the supply is not present due to cost to provide, the demand goes elsewhere, hence CANADA provides the U.S. with straight out logs all the way to ready to sell market product. Private land swaths selling timber also is a prime example. If US forests are present for bids yet no bids - however, private land harvesting occurs, that should also indicate something.
Of course, I am not a guru of knowledge... Just another observer that personally witnesses the product flowing through the highways bordering our own product.

 

[James Riley]

When I thought I had gone back into some of the deepest, darkest, most remote parts of Idaho, east, north and south of Avery way back in the day, I turned a corner and was surprised to see what Plum Creek had done to their own land. Land so steep it was hard to believe the trees were using it instead of goats. Nevertheless, there they were, huge old growth stumps marching up the mountains for miles; and the "waters of the United States" looking like mud pan on the lower Colorado.

That shit made me sad. But I know there was probably a logger somewhere with a wife, a baby and a truck who was happy. And, since those big old trees are a renewable resource, his heirs will be back in for another cut in 2717.

I don't know what they are doing up in Canada.

 

[Straight Arrow]

I don't know what they are doing up in Canada.

They are taking advantage of one heck of a trade deal and producing truckloads and trainloads of lumber delivered regularly to Home Depot.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Proud to be elite in a world of the willfully ignorant.

It is amazing how low the standard is to become elite these days. Almost like some people don't even try.


Keep fighting the good fight.

 

[elkduds]

What is legal, simple and fair to landowners is to compensate them reasonably for value extracted from their lands, and to restore those lands when extraction is finished. We the people are the landowners in question here. Our government subsidizes consumptive and extractive industries harvesting from public lands. These subsidies consist of minimal royalty fees, which are so low they do not cover the cost of minimal enforcement of inadequate safety and environmental regulations by the agencies we have named to watch over our properties. These fees are kept artificially far below fair market value by the $ influence of Big Oil, Mining, Big Timber and Grazing interests on our legislators. That transfers $billions from income generated from public lands to the profits of industry, income which rightfully belongs to the landowners. We the people.

Balancing the books on private development of public land resources is as simple as charging industry the real value of what it takes away, and the real costs of monitoring and restoration. Anything less is a cronyist giveaway.

 

[James Riley]

What is legal, simple and fair to landowners is to compensate them reasonably for value extracted from their lands, and to restore those lands when extraction is finished. We the people are the landowners in question here. Our government subsidizes consumptive and extractive industries harvesting from public lands. These subsidies consist of minimal royalty fees, which are so low they do not cover the cost of minimal enforcement of inadequate safety and environmental regulations by the agencies we have named to watch over our properties. These fees are kept artificially far below fair market value by the $ influence of Big Oil, Mining, Big Timber and Grazing interests on our legislators. That transfers $billions from income generated from public lands to the profits of industry, income which rightfully belongs to the landowners. We the people.

Balancing the books on private development of public land resources is as simple as charging industry the real value of what it takes away, and the real costs of monitoring and restoration. Anything less is a cronyist giveaway.

And there you have it.

 

[antlerradar]

What is legal, simple and fair to landowners is to compensate them reasonably for value extracted from their lands, and to restore those lands when extraction is finished. We the people are the landowners in question here. Our government subsidizes consumptive and extractive industries harvesting from public lands. These subsidies consist of minimal royalty fees, which are so low they do not cover the cost of minimal enforcement of inadequate safety and environmental regulations by the agencies we have named to watch over our properties. These fees are kept artificially far below fair market value by the $ influence of Big Oil, Mining, Big Timber and Grazing interests on our legislators. That transfers $billions from income generated from public lands to the profits of industry, income which rightfully belongs to the landowners. We the people.

Balancing the books on private development of public land resources is as simple as charging industry the real value of what it takes away, and the real costs of monitoring and restoration. Anything less is a cronyist giveaway.

This may not be so simple. As soon as we start to demand "fair market value" it is only a matter of time before the other owners start to demand fair market value from recreation interests. I would not be surprised if senator Bishop would introduce this type of legislation. It would be hard to argue that hunting is not an extraction industry. Animal rights groups would certainly would argue that we are taking form the public and not paying fair value. Quite frankly I am surprised that the animal rights groups have not tried this angle all ready. If I was in there shoes I would.
You could argue that hunters don't profit like other industries. With the current price of cattle I would bet that there are plenty of ranchers not making an accounting profit this year. Just because money does not change hands does not mean we as hunters don't make a substantial economic profit from public lands.

 

[elkduds]

...except wildlife and its management are the responsibility of states, per SCOTUS. National parks notwithstanding.

 

[antlerradar]

...except wildlife and its management are the responsibility of states, per SCOTUS. National parks notwithstanding.

It is true that the wildlife is owned by the states. Ranchers would argue that they are not selling the wildlife but access to their property as there is no guarantee the hunter will take an animal even on the best of private land. What is to keep anti hunters from demanding an access fee to "their property"? After all public land is just as much theirs as it is the hunters.

I would also add that Oil and Gas, mining and timber leases are put up for competitive bid. Hard for me to see how this is not fair market value. Lets hope that hunting leases on public land are never put out for competitive bid.

 

[Sytes]

...I would also add that Oil and Gas, mining and timber leases are put up for competitive bid. Hard for me to see how this is not fair market value. Lets hope that hunting leases on public land are never put out for competitive bid.

Agree, since the GAO investigation into the collusion allegations over timber sales in the 70's or 80's, it has become a more transparent process... What would be your thoughts over Nameless Range's quote below? Why "no bids"? Meanwhile, private land and Canadian logging and finished wood products are present in the same area?

Why do you believe commercial logging is not interested in bidding, based on his quoted info shared?

Large portions of the timber volume offered up by the Forest Service in Region 1 last year received no bids...

 

[Ben Lamb]

It is amazing how low the standard is to become elite these days. Almost like some people don't even try.


Keep fighting the good fight.

I'm wearing my elitist sweatpants today as I work on legislation aimed at getting rid of the weeds that ORV users bring to our public lands.

Antlerradar: wildlife is owned by no-one, and held in trust by the state, to be technically correct. When the state fails to do their job and conserve wildlife, that's when the federal government steps in. Or in places like wildlife refuges, National Parks, etc. Even then, there is often co-management or at least coordination between the state and fed.

https://training.fws.gov/courses/cs...erences/Overview_of_Public_Trust_Doctrine.pdf

 

[OriginalOscar]

I'm wearing my elitist sweatpants today as I work on legislation aimed at getting rid of the weeds that ORV users bring to our public lands.


https://training.fws.gov/courses/cs...erences/Overview_of_Public_Trust_Doctrine.pdf

Make sure you include weed free feed requirement for pack stock (remember Llamas & Goats) and livestock on all public land. It would also be super awesome if we had spray pads for all vehicles before entering public land. I would also suggest dual doggie waste and boot wipe down stations at every trailhead. I'll bet the non-consumptive crowd will fund your "Weed Free By 23" initiative.

I'm watching football today. Go Packers!

 

[Ben Lamb]

Make sure you include weed free feed requirement for pack stock (remember Llamas & Goats) and livestock on all public land. It would also be super awesome if we had spray pads for all vehicles before entering public land. I would also suggest dual doggie waste and boot wipe down stations at every trailhead. I'll bet the non-consumptive crowd will fund your "Weed Free By 23" initiative.

I'm watching football today. Go Packers!

Free weed is on a different thread.

 

[JLS]

Make sure you include weed free feed requirement for pack stock (remember Llamas & Goats) and livestock on all public land. It would also be super awesome if we had spray pads for all vehicles before entering public land. I would also suggest dual doggie waste and boot wipe down stations at every trailhead. I'll bet the non-consumptive crowd will fund your "Weed Free By 23" initiative.

I'm watching football today. Go Packers!

It's amazing how many folks who can afford a 60k dollar pickup and trailer can't afford to pay $10 a bale for weed free hay.