Advertisement

Losses at the Forest Service

Status
Not open for further replies.
westbranch said:
Who will do the trail work?
Click to expand...
Consider this nightmare currently experienced; with a stroke of the pen in the Oval Office, Custer National Forest belongs to Montana and there will be no trail work as Montana has no such funds. But there most likely will be "Drill, Baby, Drill" and "Mine, Baby, Mine", with many new roads into your "honey hole", with the wildlife heading to the private ranches even moreso to escape the noise.
DFS said:
No private business would be hiring anyone if it was running a $1.8 trillion deficit the year before.
Click to expand...
There is no doubt that Congress is authorized and responsible to mitigate the deficit problem and also to mandate increased governmental efficiency, but to compare private business to the federal government is a watermelons to giraffes analogy. It reflects a common misconception regarding complexity of the problems and the departmental issues. Unfortunately, it seems to be a misconception manifesting itself in this sweeping devastation of jobs and paychecks. The nexus with this forum is clear in the potential for many adverse impacts to public lands, wildlife habitat, and the wildlife we all love ... and love to hunt!
 
Sytes said:
Curious, concessions, such as Colters Bay in GTNP, provide a contracted % of the profits to the NPS and we cut back the need to obligate tax $ to facilitate and route park entry $ towards more "essential" NPS projects.
Seems this would be advantageous to the FS for camp locations and comparable services.

www.nps.gov

Concessions (U.S. National Park Service)

www.nps.gov www.nps.gov
Click to expand...
Pretty sure the answer is "been there, already been doing that".....AND many of the people who get those contractors going, insure they can do the job correctly, check on work etc. have just had their jobs axed.
 
Straight Arrow said:
The nexus with this forum is clear in the potential for many adverse impacts to public lands, wildlife habitat, and the wildlife we all love ... and love to hunt!
Click to expand...

I agree with what much of you’re saying, but this paradoxically may actually improve Western state hunting prospects for a lot of people across the country.
 
BrentD said:
While I agree with the last statement, the rest of it won't stand. That is not how people have conversations or arguments. It has been tried on many other forums, and it has not worked. But I suppose it does not hurt to try, but don't bet your 401k on it.
Click to expand...
I think everyone needs to accept this isn't a normal time. For conservation/hunting and fishing it's our 9/11...except it's not a one time event.

I have seen where a forum has so strictly reduced anything remotely "political" (quotes because that definition is stretched beyond the norm to mean anything mods get complaints about) that good longtime members who provide great content have just left for good.

Not an easy thing or time for boards to find some middle ground.
 
Treeshark said:
I agree with what much of you’re saying, but this paradoxically may actually improve hunting prospects for a lot of people across the country.
Click to expand...
This again? All roads lead to the kings deer conversation with you. Wallowing in the sale of public lands wont get you anything.

Start your own thread, layout why/how it works, and have the conversation. I am open to having my mind changed, others who read this are, and a few forum members might be too.

I just haven't heard anything thats close to a coherent and convincing argument.
 
I expect all forests will have locked gates and campgrounds by summer. And the gates will be torn out and what is left will be stolen or vandalized soon after.
No trailhead lots to worry about.
Free for all.
 
Straight Arrow said:
It would be good to see that, but I don't understand how. Please explain.
Click to expand...

I hate to detail, but only since you asked:

In a number of states (likely to increase in the near future), it is actually becoming easier to obtain a quality tag via the transferable landowner route than it is via the draw. More private land, more available tags and likely higher quality hunting. When you see people on here advocating for more 90/10 or even 95/5 allocations, it helps to keep this in mind.

I get that this upsets people, and as a 100% public land DIY hunter I can certainly see their point. I didn’t make the rules, just pointing out the obvious.
 
Last edited:
Treeshark said:
I hate to detail, but only since you asked:

In a number of states (likely to increase in the near future), it is actually becoming easier to obtain a quality tag via the transferable landowner route than it is via the draw. More private land, more available tags and likely higher quality bring.

I get that this upsets people, and as a 100% public land DIY hunter I can certainly see their point. I didn’t make the rules, just pointing out the obvious.
Click to expand...
My take is this means those with more money to spend than the average will have an easier time hunting.

IMO the future of hunting is NOT pay to play. In fact that will help hasten it's demise.
 
Screenshot_20250218_090827_Chrome.jpg

If anyone spends anytime looking at the USDA/NF receipts on DOGE it easy to see trial maintenance and invasive weed mitigation is not where the money is going...Shut it Down until we can get some adults in charge.

I feel sorry for the boots on the ground FS folks..your management has been robbing the entire dept blind for fancy conferences and leadership training, like most companies when there is a RIF it's the rank and file that have to pay for management's bad decisions.
 
Treeshark said:
I hate to detail, but only since you asked:

In a number of states (likely to increase in the near future), it is actually becoming easier to obtain a quality tag via the transferable landowner route than it is via the draw. More private land, more available tags and likely higher quality bring.

I get that this upsets people, and as a 100% public land DIY hunter I can certainly see their point. I didn’t make the rules, just pointing out the obvious.
Click to expand...
I see your rationale, but choose to strongly disagree. For one thing, you assume hunting rules and tags will be just as they are today, or maybe with more transferable landowner tags. That's a stretch only "obvious" to you. Disagreement with your ideology and analysis is widespread and mostly due to the volumes of points resulting from analysis of PLT by those more studied and knowledgeable than you and I regarding the potential for changes, but also very knowledgeable regarding the history of adverse impacts of public lands sold to private entities.

Just be cognizant that your ideology and opinions regarding PLT will be strongly rebuffed if you continue to wage this war of PLT debate on this forum. Hopefully, the vulgarity and labeling will cease ... but realize PLT is a hot button, which if you continue to hammer will put you in the hot seat.
 
So block me.
Just saw a news video from Denver @ RMNP and protests at the gate over cuts to staff.
 
Straight Arrow said:
I see your rationale, but choose to strongly disagree. For one thing, you assume hunting rules and tags will be just as they are today, or maybe with more transferable landowner tags. That's a stretch only "obvious" to you. Disagreement with your ideology and analysis is widespread and mostly due to the volumes of points resulting from analysis of PLT by those more studied and knowledgeable than you and I regarding the potential for changes, but also very knowledgeable regarding the history of adverse impacts of public lands sold to private entities.

Just be cognizant that your ideology and opinions regarding PLT will be strongly rebuffed if you continue to wage this war of PLT debate on this forum. Hopefully, the vulgarity and labeling will cease ... but realize PLT is a hot button, which if you continue to hammer will put you in the hot seat.
Click to expand...
What's really funny he, @Treeshark, is just butthurt he doesn't have equal access to tags in states he's not a resident of.

So for that reason he's so selfish his only "move" is a failed attempt at trying to use PLT as a way to leverage his jealousy and grievance to get his way.

That works almost as well as foot stamping, holding his breath, and flinging his sucker in the dirt.

It's an interesting look into the human condition and failed logic that drives people over a perceived wrong they feel. A wrong that is self induced and in disregard of the rules, laws, and even the Constitution when it comes to state rights, court ruling, etc that have clarified same in regard to wildlife management.

In an even more bizarre twist to the failed logic, they intertwine 2 totally separate issues, public lands, and wildlife management to, quite literally, cut their nose off to spite their face.

It's fascinating to watch the flailing.
 
Last edited:
Treeshark said:
As mentioned previously- I agree. This is a result of decisions made by residents of Western states.
Click to expand...
Western states typically always vote red.....

I would say it was swing states that made the final decision. You know wisconsin,Michigan, and Pennsylvania come to mind......
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
115,210
Messages
2,087,906
Members
36,980
Latest member
Deeds92

Share this page

Back
Top