Oh, the irony!

Big Fin

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2000
Messages
16,766
Location
Bozeman, MT
As part of my morning coffee I usually spend 1-2 hours reading newsletters I subscribe to that keep me informed about public land and conservation issues. Being on the road most of the last three months, I have a lot of catching up to do.

I subscribe to as many of the "opposition" emails as I can stomach. The Mountain States Legal Foundation is the incubator of most the efforts to get rid of Federal lands.

This one cracked me up. See the image below where they are asking for donations under the guise of "Stopping Attacks on your Second Amendment Rights."

Screenshot 2024-11-13 at 8.37.08 AM.png

I wonder if anyone pointed out to them that their support of the "State Transfer" effort would eliminate recreational shooting on over 400 million acres where it is currently allowed in the west? How is that protecting our 2A rights?

I will finally be off the road in mid-December. I'm putting together another video/podcast series that points out how this effort will eliminate recreational shooting on hundreds of millions of acres. I had it scripted this summer, but I feared it would be considered politically motivated, given 100% of the folks who have introduced or advocated this effort are Republicans we hunters and shooters tend to vote for, and who run on the grounds of protecting our 2A rights.

I made the decision to hold off until after the election. I suspect when we roll this out it will cause some consternation among the die-hard partisans and will motivate the truly independent-minded folks who tend to lean a bit more right, as is my profile. I'm fully prepared to take the heat for pointing out that as much as gun control is 100% a Democratic effort, this attack to take away places for public shooting is 100% a Republican effort.

That seems to cause a paralysis among some. They feel that since they voted for a person that somehow they can't oppose stupid ideas from that person. Reality is, they are often uninformed on the consequences of such efforts and they benefit from our efforts to point out the stupidity of an idea they support.

The reality is, many of the people we vote for, many of the groups that claim to have our interest at heart, are supporting these efforts. As you can see by the ad above, the 2A campaign seems to be the flag they all want to wave, hoping nobody will point out that they are going to screw us over by making hundreds of millions of acres off limits to shooting. The new "virtue signal" among Republicans is to wave the 2A flag, even while you are screwing over shooters.

I suspect I'm going to find out if us shooters and hunters (and groups who claim to represent us) are willing to oppose bad ideas from those we tend to vote for, as we are when bad idea are proposed those we tend to vote against.
 
Thank you and more information would be appreciated. I fear in my state a candidate simply having an R next to their name gives them far more leeway than they should. They need to be accountable and called out when what they push for doesn’t represent us.

One platform I am hearing is if transferred to the states the land will be better managed and for risk reduced. I’d like to know how they plan to fund this management that doesn’t include selling off public lands.
 
It seems like there should be groups similar to the SAF (Second Amendment Foundation) for public land issues. Maybe there is one or many that I just don't know about.

I poked around a bit on that group's site and can't really understand their purpose. They seem to exist for no good purpose other than to have staff. Their site says they got 2.4 million donated to them in 2023. That seems like a lot to me.

I agree that elected officials should do what we want them to. A group with a singular focus on public land and telling elected officials what we want would be good.
 
I'll gladly raise awareness to an issue when someone, even Republican doesn't represent the party. They work for, and represent us.
 
I'll gladly raise awareness to an issue when someone, even Republican doesn't represent the party.
The problem is that Federal Public Land Transfer is a Republican Platform agenda goal at the national as well as at the Montana state level. Sooo ... those Republicans we have elected who are in favor of PLT are representing their party. :mad:
 
Thank you and more information would be appreciated. I fear in my state a candidate simply having an R next to their name gives them far more leeway than they should. They need to be accountable and called out when what they push for doesn’t represent us.

One platform I am hearing is if transferred to the states the land will be better managed and for risk reduced. I’d like to know how they plan to fund this management that doesn’t include selling off public lands.
They don't have a plan. Their plan is to hope nobody asks the hard questions that pull back the curtains of what their strategy really is - privatize these lands.

The "drive-by-litigators" (borrowed that term from @Ben Lamb) are licking their chops. The Endangered Species Act is not going away. Nor is the Clean Air Act or the Clean Water Act or the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Most of the litigation that ties up management on Federal lands is under one of these laws. The Feds have proposed a lot of good management plans, yet those plans get tied up in the courts. The same will happen under state ownership, but the states will bail out when they are used as floor mops in the Federal Courts.

The litigators would love to have the states take over, as the states do not have the money or the expertise to litigate these issues. Anyone who tells you that the states will have more success managing these lands than the Feds is permanently attached to a crack pipe.

At this website you will see that over 107 million acres are considered Critical Habitat under the ESA. That's just one of the many pieces of Federal legislation that are used to litigate. Link - https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/report/table/critical-habitat.html

There will be no "better state management" on these lands without litigation. The litigators will have a field day, sizing the states with 3XL ass hats. The states don't have the money printing presses like the Feds and the states do not have attorneys experienced in this type of litigation.

And when the states aren't allowed to implement their "better management plans, "what do you think will be their first alternative? Yup, sell those lands.

That has been the strategy of these privatization groups for the forty years of my adult life that have been involved in this issue. It will be the plan for the next 200 years, and for however long these lands are in public ownership.

These lands represent that greatest accumulation of undistributed wealth on this planet. That is just too much temptation for some. These anti-public land groups will concoct every possible marketing scheme they think can serve as a mechanism for privatizing these lands.

We all want better land management. That requires work; hard work. Hard work is not on the list of things Congress and their privateers are interested in.
 
Thanks for pointing this out. I've tried explaining to my Republican friends who enjoy the outdoors the negative repercussions of the state transfer movement. I oppose it when it's a blatant shooting ban by the BLM like at Bears Ears or state transfer. Hopefully all parties will realize it's not a good idea.
 
The problem is that Federal Public Land Transfer is a Republican Platform agenda goal at the national as well as at the Montana state level. Sooo ... those Republicans we have elected who are in favor of PLT are representing their party. :mad:
Is it what the people who elected them want though?

"I wonder if anyone pointed out to them that their support of the "State Transfer" effort would eliminate recreational shooting on over 400 million acres where it is currently allowed in the west?"

I feel like this bit was probably overlooked and I can't imagine any Republicans would really support that bit.
 
Is it what the people who elected them want though?

"I wonder if anyone pointed out to them that their support of the "State Transfer" effort would eliminate recreational shooting on over 400 million acres where it is currently allowed in the west?"

I feel like this bit was probably overlooked and I can't imagine any Republicans would really support that bit.
It's not been overlooked. It's been pointed out to all of them.

That said, some Republicans would not want that outcome. Yet for the Republicans who have been handed the microphone to establish Republican policy on the issue, that is the goal.

I am focused on the former group, believing they would not want that outcome. They are uninformed/misinformed. They are told these public land hunting/shooting advocates are just a bunch of screwballs to be ignored. They are more than happy to "virtue signal" to their Republican pals who are out on the fringe. They do this signally in hopes it is a low-risk, no pain, action.

My goal is to make it very painful and inconvenient for those who support this effort, whether they pay attention to the long-term consequences, or not. I suspect when our content rolls out in January and content from the other platforms that I am coordinating this with, the pain will be real. And hopefully the next time they are asked to "virtue signal" their support of the Utah craziness they will tell Utah and their privateer friends to pound sand.
 
@Big Fin
I see on the recent lawsuit from Utah that 14 other states have signed on with them including my state, Iowa, which has no BLM land that I am aware of and very little federal public land at all (a little Nps, army corps, and Usfws). What do you think the states with no blm land like Iowa’s intentions are when they sign this bill? Are they setting themselves up for selling state lands already owned, is it iowas republicans posturing to the higher ups in the party for an appointment in the administration, what are your thoughts on why?
 
The “drive-by-litigators” will be your friends for the next few years, but they will be unable to stop the progress toward the ultimate goal. Money is oxygen and the real progress is made by strangling the various agencies.
 
@Big Fin
I see on the recent lawsuit from Utah that 14 other states have signed on with them including my state, Iowa, which has no BLM land that I am aware of and very little federal public land at all (a little Nps, army corps, and Usfws). What do you think the states with no blm land like Iowa’s intentions are when they sign this bill? Are they setting themselves up for selling state lands already owned, is it iowas republicans posturing to the higher ups in the party for an appointment in the administration, what are your thoughts on why?
What you point out is all "virtue signaling." The folks like you mention in Iowa will ask for favors from the supporters of this effort when they need some votes and support on other issues that will come.

It is a byproduct of the fringe elements working their way higher up the pole of influence within the Republican party. By doing so, the fringe operators become the mouthpiece on this issue and the advisers to those Republicans who have no basis or reason to be informed or involved on public land issues.

Our goal is to counter that. After pointing out these long-term consequences, in a Fresh Tracks Weekly video a month ago, one of the national groups who has a lot at stake in the recreational shooting space reached out to me.
 
The reality is that this issue is prominent only in the relatively sparsely populated western states. As expressed, for a state like Iowa the support is mostly for political quid pro quo.
But, again, it's a party platform item.
Unfortunately at this juncture, my perception is that the electorate across this nation doesn't really care about Federal Public Lands (other than national parks) and if transfer and/or sale will bring down taxes and prices of gas, bread, and eggs ... then go for it!
 
Wait, so I'm supposed to get worked up and come to the defense for a public resource, in a state that chose to elect these people (idiots), a public resource that supports the wildlife that I'm either completely excluded from or ridiculed for accessing? You made your bed, now you have to sleep in it.
 
In over 10 years of this issue being in the forefront of our minds, the proponents in any state have yet to set forward a plan that details how our individual freedoms will be protected if this happens.

Also, that dapper young fella in the photo has a really odd choice of firearm for what appears to be water fowling.
 
Wait, so I'm supposed to get worked up and come to the defense for a public resource, in a state that chose to elect these people (idiots), a public resource that supports the wildlife that I'm either completely excluded from or ridiculed for accessing? You made your bed, now you have to sleep in it.
I bet you are fun at parties.
 
Back
Top