Episode 017 - Arnie Dood

[ORHunter]

So if I'm understanding this right, congress could change things by telling the US buyers that they cant purchase their logs from Canada anymore? And as a result the US would have to ramp up the timber production?

 

[ORHunter]

http://missoulian.com/news/local/mo...cle_bc5a6749-72d4-5ee8-902c-41d6c55db42d.html

Here's an article in the Missoulian when the expiration of the tariff was looming that explains some things.

Yeah that helped a lot thanks!

 

[Big Fin]

So if I'm understanding this right, congress could change things by telling the US buyers that they cant purchase their logs from Canada anymore? And as a result the US would have to ramp up the timber production?

They could restrict Canadian imports of lumber, not just timber, and that would reduce supply and according to economists, increase prices enough to make it profitable for the non-subsidized US timber/lumber industry to increase production to cover the decrease in Canadian supply. It is the classic conundrum of "Fair Trade" policies where the US decides not to subsidize an industry, while another country does subsidize that industry.

I did not bring it up in the podcast to have a discussion about trade policy and governments picking the winners and losers via decisions to subsidize or not subsidize. I brought it up to debunk the myth that the USFS is the reason the US soft wood lumber market struggles in the current lopsided trade arrangement with a close neighbor like Canada.

 

[ORHunter]

I did not bring it up in the podcast to have a discussion about trade policy and governments picking the winners and losers via decisions to subsidize or not subsidize. I brought it up to debunk the myth that the USFS is the reason the US soft wood lumber market struggles in the current lopsided trade arrangement with a close neighbor like Canada.

Yeah that totally understandable. I'm just trying to wrap my head around the whole thing. I have an uncle on the "sell the public lands" bandwagon and beings how we live in Oregon part of his reasoning is he thinks its the BLM's fault that we aren't logging. I've tried explaining the Elliot State forest situation but he's just stubborn I guess. The funny thing is he is an avid hunter/angler and still doesn't get it. So thanks for your explaining Randy it has helped me understand.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Likely to get banned, but......


Terribly disappointing to hear the conservationists and environmentalists referred to as "the other side". That sort of divisiveness does not help these issues get solved.

You completely give a "pass" to the groups that spent decades eradicating wolves, grizzly bears, Eagles, etc... Etc.... And then call the groups that attempt to repair the damage "the other side".

Hunters and environmentalists working hand and hand have accomplished much; see Owyhee wild sheep. The cooperation needs to be encouraged.

And, with all my involvement with an environmental law firm, I have never seen litigation be the first alternative. Nor, are the environmental lawyers I know driving vehicles anywhere nearly as nice as the average Welfare Rancher.


On a positive note, your description of the process and the need for hunters to become engaged is spot on, and greatly needed in the hunting community.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Likely to get banned, but......


Terribly disappointing to hear the conservationists and environmentalists referred to as "the other side". That sort of divisiveness does not help these issues get solved.

You completely give a "pass" to the groups that spent decades eradicating wolves, grizzly bears, Eagles, etc... Etc.... And then call the groups that attempt to repair the damage "the other side".

Hunters and environmentalists working hand and hand have accomplished much; see Owyhee wild sheep. The cooperation needs to be encouraged.

And, with all my involvement with an environmental law firm, I have never seen litigation be the first alternative. Nor, are the environmental lawyers I know driving vehicles anywhere nearly as nice as the average Welfare Rancher.


On a positive note, your description of the process and the need for hunters to become engaged is spot on, and greatly needed in the hunting community.

Doubt that will get you banned, but the reality of it is that everyone on the transfer side views environmentalists and government regulation as the major reason that logging and ranching communities are in an economic downturn.

If anti-hunting groups and environmental groups who oppose all consumptive multi-use of public lands continue to overuse litigation to accomplish their agenda without keeping up their ends of agreed upon policy, they run a very real risk of losing what they sought to protect.

Many consumptive users of public lands who could have been allies in conservation of resources have a complete distrust of anything associated with an environmental group based on their experience in the past. When anyone feels like they've agreed to give an inch and have had a mile taken from them time and time again, eventually they are going to dig their heels in and say "No way!" no matter how reasonable a proposition is.

 

[Big Fin]

Likely to get banned, but......


Terribly disappointing to hear the conservationists and environmentalists referred to as "the other side". That sort of divisiveness does not help these issues get solved.

You completely give a "pass" to the groups that spent decades eradicating wolves, grizzly bears, Eagles, etc... Etc.... And then call the groups that attempt to repair the damage "the other side".

Hunters and environmentalists working hand and hand have accomplished much; see Owyhee wild sheep. The cooperation needs to be encouraged.

And, with all my involvement with an environmental law firm, I have never seen litigation be the first alternative. Nor, are the environmental lawyers I know driving vehicles anywhere nearly as nice as the average Welfare Rancher.


On a positive note, your description of the process and the need for hunters to become engaged is spot on, and greatly needed in the hunting community.

If you were to get banned fro this site, it would not be for the civility in which you replied there.

I completely agree with your comment that I bolded above. Someone needs to tell that to those who self-indentify as "environmentalists" if they expect to be trusted by other groups being asked to collaborate.

Are you implying that the ESA/NEPA process and associated laws is not abused by those groups using litigation as a business model?

I'm not implying that every lawsuit is without merit. There are many that are meritous. But, personally, I am advocating it does that mean we should have profitable and growing industry built around litigating Federal environmental laws, with the income stream to that industry being paid by the US taxpayer, as is currently in place.

For me and my personal experiences immersed in these processes, I have to ask, "How does one ever find success in recovering a species under the ESA when one of the greatest successes that could be pointed to in terms of reintroduction of a controversial species is, and will continue to be, litigated to the ends of time; gray wolves?

A look at the law suits have nothing to do with the populations being imperiled. None of the decisions that have prevailed in their favor have ever claimed the populations to be imperiled. Most all of the points they have prevailed would be considered technical implementation of the ESA, a law in of itself that is very complex as is the case law precedent surrounding it.

JC, next time you are in Bozeman, look me up. We will go down town and have lunch. I will show you some enviro attorney rigs much nicer than the rancher rigs. Some of their rigs are even nicer than yours, and you have some damn nice rides. And you should see some of their houses. I'll quit there, at the risk of sounding jealous.

I look at the Form 990 for some of those groups always litigating. Those salaries and benefits most likely keep people out of the poor house. They are highly trained and talented people, so they should be paid a market price. I just ain't buying that they are driving old jalopies because if their financial situation.

Obviously, I got into the no/low-profit side of this discussion.

Your comments are duly noted, though I disagree. I've been through the process to see how it works in making deals with "those groups" I mention in my podcast. Maybe my personal experiences of them moving goal lines, their never ending demands, wanting other other side to compromise until they have all the chips, is unique to those who have spent 25 years doing this. I doubt it, but it is possible.

I find it ironic that those who claim their lawsuits have merit, are afraid to litigate those meritous claims without the profit guarantee and the financial safety net provided by EAJA; a law passed with the intention to be the "little old lady's Social Security protection law." Seems if the claims made in all this litigation are of such merit, no EAJA reimbursement provision should be needed. Yet, if I make any mention of even slight reform of that law my email inbox fills up in a big way.

Given the road trip I will be embarking on in a couple weeks to discuss this broken system, I suspect I better clear out a lot more space in my email inbox.

I do appreciate your comments, JC. You are not in danger of being banned.

 

[BBwheelgunner]

Randy,
Just listened to the podcast... great that they are all on YOUTUBE for free. It is even more obvious to me now how much of an asset you and your knowledge is to the hunters and conservationists of America. Thank you for all of your hard work and sharing the knowledge you have gained over the years with all of us. I plan to listen to more of your podcasts, and hope many more people do the same. Even if we pick up just a couple facts from each topic, it will be a win in the way of a better informed group of hunters and citizens

-Jeff

 

[JoseCuervo]

Big Fin,

How is the "other side" not the guys who spent the last 100 years eradicating wolves from Idaho, Wyoming, and most of Montana?

How is the "other side" not the guys who dewatered the tributaries of the Lemhi, Pashemeroi, and East Fork of the Salmon Rivers?

How is the "other side" not the guys who put range maggots in the Payette National Forest in Hells Canyon and kill off 80% of the lambs (2007) of Wild Sheep?

How is the "other side" not the guys who in Wyoming refuse to put together an acceptable plan for managing wolves?

How is the "other side" not the guys who refuse to consider other options in the Weminuche in Colorado to not risk Wild Sheep populations?

How is the "other side" not the guys who go out and poach deer, then set fire to BLM ground to cover their abuse of the wild game resource?

How is the "other side" not the guys who were grazing on the Antelope Cattle and Horse allotment of Oregon’s Fremont-Winema National Forests?

How is the "other side" not the guys who go cut down barbwire fences to allow cattle to graze back onto National Wildlife Refuges?

How is the "other side" not the guys who complain and/or refuse to pay $12.1 million in annual grazing fees, in aggregate, on a program that costs the BLM $34 million to babysit them (2014 numbers)?

How is the "other side" not the guys who drive around in 2014 Duramax flatbeds with Australian Shepherds on the back and a "Smoke a pack a day" vinyl window decal?

How is the "other side" not the guys who build their fences on to BLM lands, intentionally? And park their 5th wheels on roads to create a deadly obstacle to hunters trying to access public lands?

The lists go on and on......



(I will address the Equal Access under a different post..).