Elitist Hunters

[psinclair]

Yeah those would be handy for hauling in your backpack tent and jetboil.

 

[Jim/Wa]

It's a minor point but "Wilderness Area" is not specific to USDA nor DOI. There are Wilderness areas on BLM lands and there are Wilderness areas on NF lands. DOI (BLM/NP/USFWS) administrates over 73 million acres according to the Wilderness Preservation ACT while USDA (NF) administrates ~36 million acres.

 

[OriginalOscar]

So one simple statement about multiple use and access of public lands and people immediately jump to Zinke will open everywhere to everything? Truth of the matter is there are sportsman who view themselves as "special" (I won't label elitist)

Green River below Flaming Gorge blue ribbon catch release with slot limit. Several years back I saw a young man catch a nice brown over the slot and he kept it. Came walking down the trail carrying it gingerly so he could get it mounted. Stopped to chat and two drift boats come by. Hatred spewed "fish killer" "killing resource" "go fish with bait you POS". Disgusting special fisherman who showed contempt for another sportsman.

I hunt muzzleloader, rifle and upland birds. Full day pack each morning and hunt as far as reasonable based on getting something out, weather and what I feel like. Several times I've encountered special sportsmen who make known they bow hunt because it's primitive (pure) and pack in overnight. So I'm a deplorable hunter?

The recent plethora of national monuments by Obama fully endorsed by many on this site without regard to question of what land management changes with those designations. Many widely used land management practices which benefit hunting opportunities such as chaining, controlled burns, development/replacement of water sources, predator controls are open for question as the management plans are created. I support RMEF position of balanced land management including all parties; especially local on the ground engagement.

BHA Access to Public Lands - Page not found - http://www.backcountryhunters.org/access_to_public_lands Should get that defined.

Zinke to me portrays a thoughtful approach which recognizes the multiple uses and diverse interests and objectives of citizens who enjoy or depend on our public lands. His position on PLT is against so take a breath and get off the special (not elitist) rants of doom and gloom; attacking the man before he's even started.

Troy Rushton

 

[katqanna]

Later in the hearing, Zinke said the estimated $12.5 billion backlog of maintenance and repair at national parks should be included in any infrastructure package Congress sends to the president.

So all those "fiscal conservatives" that have been blocking funding for our federal public lands, intentionally creating failure, are they all the sudden going to "realize" and fund maintenance and repair as if this is some new idea that Zinke has come up with that no one has seen before?

 

[Sytes]

The type of "change" I can live with...

 

[1_pointer]

1 pointer, I'm aware of DOI and USDA for the responsibility over our Wilderness, that is if I understand it correctly. However based on the pure declaration of the Wilderness Act, I believe people want to proclaim Zinke with the intent to run ATV highways through this land... for extreme representation, hence extremist toeing their political line. I do not believe this is the case. We disagree? Probably. Aside from our Wilderness Act, and looking at our US Forests, some seek to place an indirect oversight and portray it as direct. I disagree.

I'm not following you on this post...? Jim/Wa below better made the point I was trying to make. Your post that I first quoted stated that DOI was not involved with Wilderness, yet the are by having to manage a whole bunch of it.

Hopefully by making them wilderness. My elk area is a wilderness study area and the closest place to heaven I've ever found. But the old jeep tire tracks are still prevalent throughout as reminders of less holy time.

If they qualify, absolutely! I have a strong dislike for their current state of "limbo"...

 

[Eric Albus]

Ben Long (or Ben1) had it right. Manage the wildlife (even Buzz concurred with this, common ground is not that hard to find) FIRST, then it would not matter that a road or 2 was opened or closed.

This nation has been blessed with a lot of natural resources, many renewable, and they need to be harvested. Just sat on a panel with FS, BLM, State Lands, ect, type folks. The state lands guy said their agency returns 10x's their operating expense....perhaps there needs be a look into the feasibility of federal land transfers to the state, as long as there is no loss of access. Perhaps not every acre needs be transferred, but those advantageous to the states. It may reduce Fed. cost of operating, while increasing States coffers. The States having the advantage of selling off land-locked parcels to individuals and purchasing lands adjacent to accessible pieces(just remember: No Net Gain, and perhaps more important, NO NET LOSS.

 

[Schaaf]

No net loss? Free beer tomorrow. You're right, let's start by raising the grazing lease on all the BLM land in your neck of the woods to $14.01/AUM. I'm sure the locals will be happy with all the extra money the BLM would be able to use on "better" management.

 

[OriginalOscar]

Ben Long (or Ben1) had it right. Manage the wildlife (even Buzz concurred with this, common ground is not that hard to find) FIRST, then it would not matter that a road or 2 was opened or closed.

This nation has been blessed with a lot of natural resources, many renewable, and they need to be harvested. Just sat on a panel with FS, BLM, State Lands, ect, type folks. The state lands guy said their agency returns 10x's their operating expense....perhaps there needs be a look into the feasibility of federal land transfers to the state, as long as there is no loss of access. Perhaps not every acre needs be transferred, but those advantageous to the states. It may reduce Fed. cost of operating, while increasing States coffers. The States having the advantage of selling off land-locked parcels to individuals and purchasing lands adjacent to accessible pieces(just remember: No Net Gain, and perhaps more important, NO NET LOSS.

Well stated.

 

[NoWiser]

perhaps there needs be a look into the feasibility of federal land transfers to the state, as long as there is no loss of access. Perhaps not every acre needs be transferred, but those advantageous to the states. It may reduce Fed. cost of operating, while increasing States coffers. The States having the advantage of selling off land-locked parcels to individuals and purchasing lands adjacent to accessible pieces(just remember: No Net Gain, and perhaps more important, NO NET LOSS.

Sounds like a net loss to me. Right now I am part owner of our federal lands, no matter where they are. If they are transferred to the state I lose that ownership and gain nothing.

 

[Nameless Range]

Sounds like a net loss to me. Right now I am part owner of our federal lands, no matter where they are. If they are transferred to the state I lose that ownership and gain nothing.

Township 31N Range 31E Section 6 - along the Milk River

Pre-transfer: belongs to 324,000,000 people.

Post-transfer: let's leave the School Trust aspect out of it and say it belongs to 1,042,000 people

324,000,000
- 1,042,000
322,958,000

That's 322,958,000 that parcel no longer belongs to.

Net loss indeed. PLT is a taking - plain and simple.

 

[Straight Arrow]

That's 322,958,000 that parcel no longer belongs to.

Just how long will those 323 million taxpaying folks from New York, Pennsylvania, Washington, California and other more populated states be interested in their tax dollars going to manage that chunk of Montana land, which no longer is theirs or for their benefit? Those 1 million Montana taxpayers then get to fund the whole chimichanga! How would that federal public land transfer "hopey changey thing" work for ya? (Particularly if your new acquisition goes up in flames?)

 

[NoWiser]

We can't forget about future generations, either. Any transfer steals from them, as well. That's the saddest part.

I just can't even fathom how anyone, if they sit down and truly think about it, can possibly come to the conclusion that a transfer, in any shape or form, is a good idea.

 

[Straight Arrow]

I just can't even fathom how anyone, if they sit down and truly think about it, can possibly come to the conclusion that a transfer, in any shape or form, is a good idea.

If I am a good Republican, it's a strong part of my ideology ... heck, it's a solid plank in my platform! America is no longer great; the USA needs more money; ... those other concerns are a hoax. Once we sell what lands we no longer need to the Texans, Arabs, and Chinese, then we can capitalize on the resource rich properties we own and "make America great again".

 

[u1299]

So one simple statement about multiple use and access of public lands and people immediately jump to Zinke will open everywhere to everything? Truth of the matter is there are sportsman who view themselves as "special" (I won't label elitist)

Green River below Flaming Gorge blue ribbon catch release with slot limit. Several years back I saw a young man catch a nice brown over the slot and he kept it. Came walking down the trail carrying it gingerly so he could get it mounted. Stopped to chat and two drift boats come by. Hatred spewed "fish killer" "killing resource" "go fish with bait you POS". Disgusting special fisherman who showed contempt for another sportsman.

I hunt muzzleloader, rifle and upland birds. Full day pack each morning and hunt as far as reasonable based on getting something out, weather and what I feel like. Several times I've encountered special sportsmen who make known they bow hunt because it's primitive (pure) and pack in overnight. So I'm a deplorable hunter?

The recent plethora of national monuments by Obama fully endorsed by many on this site without regard to question of what land management changes with those designations. Many widely used land management practices which benefit hunting opportunities such as chaining, controlled burns, development/replacement of water sources, predator controls are open for question as the management plans are created. I support RMEF position of balanced land management including all parties; especially local on the ground engagement.

BHA Access to Public Lands - Page not found - http://www.backcountryhunters.org/access_to_public_lands Should get that defined.

Zinke to me portrays a thoughtful approach which recognizes the multiple uses and diverse interests and objectives of citizens who enjoy or depend on our public lands. His position on PLT is against so take a breath and get off the special (not elitist) rants of doom and gloom; attacking the man before he's even started.

Troy Rushton

Not quite understanding your statement about catch release slot limit? Is it catch and release or a slot limit? I'm a rapala and bullhead fisherman myself and I have 3 big lochs on my wall as a result, so I have had my own issues with a few holier than thou catch and release fly fisherman, but I don't break the law because I want to get a fish mounted in spite of the regulations. That's called poaching isn't it?

 

[Topgun 30-06]

Not quite understanding your statement about catch release slot limit? Is it catch and release or a slot limit? I'm a rapala and bullhead fisherman myself and I have 3 big lochs on my wall as a result, so I have had my own issues with a few holier than thou catch and release fly fisherman, but I don't break the law because I want to get a fish mounted in spite of the regulations. That's called poaching isn't it?

The "slot" is the size of fish that have to be released. Anything outside that slot can be kept and there usually is a daily limit to that number. The young man that kept that fish to have it mounted and got hollered at was within the law!

 

[Sytes]

I'm not following you on this post...? Jim/Wa below better made the point I was trying to make. Your post that I first quoted stated that DOI was not involved with Wilderness, yet the are by having to manage a whole bunch of it.

I should have clarified as specific to the topic of the opening post/title of this thread. My thoughts are about the NPS and our Wilderness Protection act vs US National Forest Wilderness. The quantity of ground where the "elitist hunters" are characterized is based on ground available to hunt that has created the content regarding "elitist hunters".

I should have added the BLM hunting ground though it is fairly minor however, I agree, BLM is under DOI thus applicable to this topic. My apologies.

This is why my emphasis is on the USDA - National Forest Wilderness and as stated I understood the relation of NPS Wilderness though again, not relative to this topic of elitist hunters

 

[Ben Lamb]

So one simple statement about multiple use and access of public lands and people immediately jump to Zinke will open everywhere to everything? Truth of the matter is there are sportsman who view themselves as "special" (I won't label elitist)

Green River below Flaming Gorge blue ribbon catch release with slot limit. Several years back I saw a young man catch a nice brown over the slot and he kept it. Came walking down the trail carrying it gingerly so he could get it mounted. Stopped to chat and two drift boats come by. Hatred spewed "fish killer" "killing resource" "go fish with bait you POS". Disgusting special fisherman who showed contempt for another sportsman.

I hunt muzzleloader, rifle and upland birds. Full day pack each morning and hunt as far as reasonable based on getting something out, weather and what I feel like. Several times I've encountered special sportsmen who make known they bow hunt because it's primitive (pure) and pack in overnight. So I'm a deplorable hunter?

The recent plethora of national monuments by Obama fully endorsed by many on this site without regard to question of what land management changes with those designations. Many widely used land management practices which benefit hunting opportunities such as chaining, controlled burns, development/replacement of water sources, predator controls are open for question as the management plans are created. I support RMEF position of balanced land management including all parties; especially local on the ground engagement.

BHA Access to Public Lands - Page not found - http://www.backcountryhunters.org/access_to_public_lands Should get that defined.

Zinke to me portrays a thoughtful approach which recognizes the multiple uses and diverse interests and objectives of citizens who enjoy or depend on our public lands. His position on PLT is against so take a breath and get off the special (not elitist) rants of doom and gloom; attacking the man before he's even started.

Troy Rushton

If you didn't know how Bears Ear would be managed as a monument, that's on you. They had the proposal out for years, and it's been discussed for over 70 years.

As for the slot limit, that's too bad. As a catch and release guy, I don't give one whit aboutpeople keeping legal fish.

And predator control is a boondoggle, plain and simple.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I should have clarified as specific to the topic of the opening post/title of this thread. My thoughts are about the NPS and our Wilderness Protection act vs US National Forest Wilderness. The quantity of ground where the "elitist hunters" are characterized is based on ground available to hunt that has created the content regarding "elitist hunters".

I should have added the BLM hunting ground though it is fairly minor however, I agree, BLM is under DOI thus applicable to this topic. My apologies.

This is why my emphasis is on the USDA - National Forest Wilderness and as stated I understood the relation of NPS Wilderness though again, not relative to this topic of elitist hunters

Charles,

The number of roads on public land is staggering. If you want more, pay for the ones that already exist. That means paying for them with shorter seasons, more restrictions and less opportunity. The more roads - the less habitat. It's why the roadless areas conservation rule was so well supported by hunters in Montana.

 

[beginnerhunter]

"Roads? Where we're going, we don't need roads."

Couldn't help myself.