RMEF on State Transfer of Federal Lands

[Big Fin]

Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation has issued another statement on the very important topic of public lands; in this case, the idea of transferring Federal public lands to the western states, often called "State Transfer."

There are hundreds of reasons why this "Transfer" notion is a bad idea. RMEF could have listed many more reasons than what is in this release.


Link here - http://www.rmef.org/NewsandMedia/PressRoom/NewsReleases/RMEFonPublicLandsTransfer.aspx


As the Board Member who is chairman of the Board Committee on Governmental Affairs and Conservation Issues, I see the requests made of RMEF senior staff requesting RMEF sign on to some really strange "Transfer" legislation, both at the Federal level and State level. A lot of it is pitched as some sort of smoke screen idea, when at the core, the legislation is a different spin on "Transfer." There are times I wish I could share some of those requests with the public, as the public and our members never see what requests we reject, only what RMEF does affirmatively.

If any politician wants to continue the Mickey Mouse game represented by the foolish notion of "Transfer," hopefully they get the message that RMEF is interested in long-term solution, as difficult as that task will be, not some sort of behind the curtains BS game. Time for Congress to get on with the people's business of managing the people's land. A good first step would be to stop the stupid talk of transferring those lands to the states.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Randy,

as you know, some bills such as HR 2316 would transfer management to the states, or in the case of the Labrador bill, to unelected boards selected by politicians. That's another mickey mouse game, but is not mentioned in the excellent statement by the Elk Foundation. Has RMEF taken a position on H.R. 2316, the Labrador Bill?

Thanks for all you do, it is appreciated and welcome. Keep up the good work, Randy, the RMEF board & staff!!

 

[Big Fin]

Randy,

as you know, some bills such as HR 2316 would transfer management to the states, or in the case of the Labrador bill, to unelected boards selected by politicians. That's another mickey mouse game, but is not mentioned in the excellent statement by the Elk Foundation. Has RMEF taken a position on H.R. 2316, the Labrador Bill?

Thanks for all you do, it is appreciated and welcome. Keep up the good work, Randy, the RMEF board & staff!!

That one did not come across my email. Either a request was not made to RMEF (most likely), or senior staff declined to support it in following with the policy RMEF has on the idea of Transfer and all its derivatives, under which process I would not see such a request made of RMEF.

The number of stupid ideas floated around in the last month, by people I thought had better political instincts, has been dumbfounding. With each of their ridiculous requests, no matter how disguised, it serves to show me how little courage Congress has in addressing Federal land management, how much money must be pushing the Transfer movement, and lessens what little respect I might have had for some of them prior to their Mickey Mouse efforts.

Anyone who thinks this is going away anytime soon, does not get the same emails I do. Anyone who thinks Congress has the stones to tackle this issue has a much higher regard for Congressional leadership than I do. Anyone who thinks this is funded by local bake sales, sees a different financing mechanism than I am exposed to. And lastly, anyone who does not see this for what it is, a diversionary effort to wrestle these lands from Americans, and wants to support the stupid idea based on some sort of candidate/party loyalty, might wake up some day to see their hunting and fishing access only a fraction of what it once was.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Thanks Randy.

Keep up the fight.

 

[Oneye]

Slowly saving up for my life membership!

 

[Paul in Idaho]

I'm glad to see this, and will be sharing it with others.

 

[u1299]

That one did not come across my email. Either a request was not made to RMEF (most likely), or senior staff declined to support it in following with the policy RMEF has on the idea of Transfer and all its derivatives, under which process I would not see such a request made of RMEF.

The number of stupid ideas floated around in the last month, by people I thought had better political instincts, has been dumbfounding. With each of their ridiculous requests, no matter how disguised, it serves to show me how little courage Congress has in addressing Federal land management, how much money must be pushing the Transfer movement, and lessens what little respect I might have had for some of them prior to their Mickey Mouse efforts.

Anyone who thinks this is going away anytime soon, does not get the same emails I do. Anyone who thinks Congress has the stones to tackle this issue has a much higher regard for Congressional leadership than I do. Anyone who thinks this is funded by local bake sales, sees a different financing mechanism than I am exposed to. And lastly, anyone who does not see this for what it is, a diversionary effort to wrestle these lands from Americans, and wants to support the stupid idea based on some sort of candidate/party loyalty, might wake up some day to see their hunting and fishing access only a fraction of what it once was.

Thanks for all you do Randy and from my view, you do a ton.

 

[elkduds]

This issue is FAR more important than any other topic on this website. I hope members do not see this as only Randy's cause they are following. I take this threat to my public land heritage and rights personally, and each of you should too. Randy cannot speak for all, each of us must make our voice heard, and get others involved. Thank you for your work so far, Randy.

 

[u1299]

We know where RMEF stands on the public lands issue and that's good, so now I'll do what I probably shouldn't and take this in a slightly different direction by asking if anyone has an idea where the hell the NRA stands on this same issue. I think I know, but maybe Randy or someone else has a definitive answer to this question that might prove me wrong. I remember Randy saying on several different occasions in the past he doesn't know where they, the NRA stand because they never made any kind of a public statement to that effect. Has that changed?

 

[RockyDog]

Im glad to see Randy's influence in RMEF's stance.

Ill bet a milkshake that NRA is either neutral/silent or supports land transfer.

 

[MTGomer]

Personally, I'd like to see the NRA focus on guns. I know they have a lot of influence and could be helpful on the land issue, but they are a gun rights/safety group and a lot of their members probably support, or think they support transfer.

I would like to see them stay united and focus on the vision of beating those who hate guns, due process and the constitution. Just like I'd like to see BHA focus on public lands policy and not guns, and RMEF focus on elk and elk habitat, which by default means they need to focus on public lands.

 

[RockyDog]

agreed, but NRA often gets involved in sportsman issues and im never impressed when they do.

 

[jryoung]

Disappointing to see the "crickets" in the comment section. Maybe they needed to include the word "wolf" in the headline.

 

[Ben Lamb]

We know where RMEF stands on the public lands issue and that's good, so now I'll do what I probably shouldn't and take this in a slightly different direction by asking if anyone has an idea where the hell the NRA stands on this same issue. I think I know, but maybe Randy or someone else has a definitive answer to this question that might prove me wrong. I remember Randy saying on several different occasions in the past he doesn't know where they, the NRA stand because they never made any kind of a public statement to that effect. Has that changed?

Look at who they are endorsing. Most of their endorsements fall on the farther right side of the aisle, and I would wager that if you crunched the numbers, a fair portion of those endorsed support transfer or some kind of transfer-lite.

 

[u1299]

Personally, I'd like to see the NRA focus on guns. I know they have a lot of influence and could be helpful on the land issue, but they are a gun rights/safety group and a lot of their members probably support, or think they support transfer.

I would like to see them stay united and focus on the vision of beating those who hate guns, due process and the constitution. Just like I'd like to see BHA focus on public lands policy and not guns, and RMEF focus on elk and elk habitat, which by default means they need to focus on public lands.

Fair enough, but if they (NRA) just focus on the gun issue which they always and predictably do, then you have to make a choice come election time when we get the politician who throws out the same old tired quote "I'm a lifetime member of the NRA" which means they're good on guns but might also sell you're public land faster than you can blink, i.e. Ted Cruz. What do you do then, support the public land politician or the pro-NRA gun politician? I've made my choice, I can live with regulations on guns, but I dread the thought for myself, but more importantly for my kids and grandkids of living without public lands. One more point, the NRA because they are a single issue organization, oppose a lot of very sportsmen friendly politicians who aren't anti gun at all but who do support some common sense gun control measures. In my home State of Montana, Bullock and Tester come to mind, I seriously doubt they'll get the NRA's endorsement, am I wrong? Don't fall for the crap that if they aren't endorsed by the NRA they are automatically anti gun, because that's pure BS.

I also know that if we keep electing these folks who are good on guns but bad on public lands, these attempts to privatize our public lands will never go way, never.

 

[jzeck2]

Another reason I'm glad to be a life member of RMEF. I certainly wish another organization I am a life member of (NRA) would enter the fray on this subject, it certainly would be a great help. I have said it on other posts, if I don't have a place to hunt I certainly don't need a gun.

 

[u1299]

Another reason I'm glad to be a life member of RMEF. I certainly wish another organization I am a life member of (NRA) would enter the fray on this subject, it certainly would be a great help. I have said it on other posts, if I don't have a place to hunt I certainly don't need a gun.

Ditto to your last sentence. For me at least my guns are simply a tool I use for hunting, otherwise they pretty much stay in the gun safe.

 

[Irrelevant]

Disappointing to see the "crickets" in the comment section. Maybe they needed to include the word "wolf" in the headline.

With almost half a million likes you'd think they could get a bit more interaction...

 

[jryoung]

With almost half a million likes you'd think they could get a bit more interaction...

Exactly. Not only do I want other sportsman vocal about it, I want the RMEF to be positively reinforced by this announcement.