Sportsmen See Bad Precedent in Reopening Compromise to Protect Western Range Bird

[Gerald Martin]

These liddle political (read - sportsman's) issues don't make people happy.
Post up a pic of a something dead so we can smile and go about our day....

There is a difference between consistently highlighting specific issues with documentation and continued ad hominem harping about everything that an individual person ever does.


I would venture to guess that if the plans worked on so hard by so many different stakeholders is scrapped in favor of energy development by this administration, it will hasten endangered status listing for sage grouse by the next.

I would agree that when it comes to habitat protection that what's good for the bird is good for the herd. Don't hunt sage grouse, but I like to hunt mule deer.

 

[u1299]

Yup, nothing like silly rambling personal attacks to make your case. I was just pointing out how propagandistic the title is but your response proves why most people get bored with issues nowadays. Charge ahead and enjoy your battle Don Quixote

Most people get bored with issues because too many of those people don't know and don't give a shit what the issues are. They're real pro's at ridiculing and complaining about those who do know what the shit is going on and who work their asses off day after day, month after month, and year after year to make habitat, wildlife and conservation something that will endure for future generations. I know for a fact I don't do the heavy lifting a lot of dedicated people do but I do what I can and I appreciate those who do the majority of the hard work. It's disgusting to hear the bullshit bitching by some who I venture probably contribute very little if anything to hunting and conservation. Just one man's opinion.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Good luck with the thoughtful and polite discourse-regarding-politics experiment.
Better hurry up and shoot something......

I'm on puppy sitting duty until next THursday, then I got the 4 day pass to go back to the pronghorn unit and try and shoot something that doesn't have milk on it's lips.

Polite discourse is at an all-time low. If we don't "be the change we want to see," then there's no hope for us as a nation and we should just sit around in our underwear yelling into our screens at each other.

 

[onpoint]

I'm on puppy sitting duty until next THursday, then I got the 4 day pass to go back to the pronghorn unit and try and shoot something that doesn't have milk on it's lips.

Polite discourse is at an all-time low. If we don't "be the change we want to see," then there's no hope for us as a nation and we should just sit around in our underwear yelling into our screens at each other.

As is thoughtful discourse - thinking may be an all time low. These very computers we sit around in our underwear yelling at have made info more available than at anytime in human history, yet human thought may well be on the downturn. Instant gratification has it's drawbacks.......

 

[u1299]

As is thoughtful discourse - thinking may be an all time low. These very computers we sit around in our underwear yelling at have made info more available than at anytime in human history, yet human thought may well be on the downturn. Instant gratification has it's drawbacks.......

Excellent point, wish I'd have made it.

 

[onpoint]

Excellent point, wish I'd have made it.

"It's disgusting to hear the bullshit bitching by some who I venture probably contribute very little if anything to hunting and conservation".

Excellent point, wish I'd have made it.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Tell me why eliminating the plans is a good idea, especially since they were supported by the majority of western governors, their state game agencies and a wide array of interests from Ag to hunting to even oil and gas companies.

I don't know the details of these plans or the revisions being sought in some type of do-over so I can not say I support or I don't support, but I will try to offer a possible reason some may support.

In any complex compromise you get some and you give some -- and how you feel about the outcome of those compromises (even those you publicly supported) can often be altered by the leverage of the situation. Many people like to re-open compromises/settlements when the circumstances change to their perceived advantage. It doesn't mean they want to throw away everything, they may just feel they can do better on some parts. I would guess that the Obama Administration's heavy handed nature in the later portions of its term serves as a plausible basis for a view the compromise was not all that it could have been so a re-do is in order.

My guess is that this cycle will be revisited on many fronts in 3 or 7 years - "compromises" met with the current administration will leave a bad taste in the mouths of some and a desire for a do-over when a more friendly administration shows up. As Barrack so smugly reminded us all, "elections have consequences".

 

[VikingsGuy]

Most people get bored with issues because too many of those people don't know and don't give a shit what the issues are. They're real pro's at ridiculing and complaining about those who do know what the shit is going on and who work their asses off day after day, month after month, and year after year to make habitat, wildlife and conservation something that will endure for future generations. I know for a fact I don't do the heavy lifting a lot of dedicated people do but I do what I can and I appreciate those who do the majority of the hard work. It's disgusting to hear the bullshit bitching by some who I venture probably contribute very little if anything to hunting and conservation. Just one man's opinion.

There are people working very hard on both sides of these issues, so effort is no reason to agree. (Not saying there aren't other reasons to agree or disagree, just tired of the 'person X works hard on position Y therefore position Y should be supported' posts that fill these debates -- it should depend on whether you have reason to trust X and to support Y, not relative hours invested in lobbying an issue.)

 

[VikingsGuy]

"It's disgusting to hear the bullshit bitching by some who I venture probably contribute very little if anything to hunting and conservation".

Excellent point, wish I'd have made it.

As is thoughtful discourse - thinking may be an all time low.

I guess your passion for thoughtful discourse and thinking only lasted 27 minutes.

 

[HSi-ESi]

Thanks for the info. Comments sent in.

 

[mixedbag]

People on the left are funny and constantly make me laugh.Vikings guy couldn't have put it any better.Unfortunately,liberals never consider compromise. They want everything their way or they cry like babies.They are so against oil,gas,timber industries that I sure hope Ben and company travel in horse and buggy and still heat their homes with cow pies.But the truth is they are as hypocritical as the meat eating anti hunters are.All the energy all you guys use must come from somewhere so where would that be OK with you guys cause I'm curious.That's the real issue.You guys using a sage grouse as cover for what your true intentions are.Please post all you past sage grouse hunting photos for us all to enjoy

 

[JLS]

People on the left are funny and constantly make me laugh.Vikings guy couldn't have put it any better.Unfortunately,liberals never consider compromise. They want everything their way or they cry like babies.They are so against oil,gas,timber industries that I sure hope Ben and company travel in horse and buggy and still heat their homes with cow pies.But the truth is they are as hypocritical as the meat eating anti hunters are.All the energy all you guys use must come from somewhere so where would that be OK with you guys cause I'm curious.That's the real issue.You guys using a sage grouse as cover for what your true intentions are.Please post all you past sage grouse hunting photos for us all to enjoy

Your commentary here is simply a red herring.

 

[tjones]

People on the left are funny and constantly make me laugh.Vikings guy couldn't have put it any better.Unfortunately,liberals never consider compromise. They want everything their way or they cry like babies.

Even funnier is I see the same from the extreme right.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I don't know the details of these plans or the revisions being sought in some type of do-over so I can not say I support or I don't support, but I will try to offer a possible reason some may support.

In any complex compromise you get some and you give some -- and how you feel about the outcome of those compromises (even those you publicly supported) can often be altered by the leverage of the situation. Many people like to re-open compromises/settlements when the circumstances change to their perceived advantage. It doesn't mean they want to throw away everything, they may just feel they can do better on some parts. I would guess that the Obama Administration's heavy handed nature in the later portions of its term serves as a plausible basis for a view the compromise was not all that it could have been so a re-do is in order.

My guess is that this cycle will be revisited on many fronts in 3 or 7 years - "compromises" met with the current administration will leave a bad taste in the mouths of some and a desire for a do-over when a more friendly administration shows up. As Barrack so smugly reminded us all, "elections have consequences".

Good post, and spot on.

Yes, some groups and politicians didn't like the plans because they didn't get what they wanted. That is how policy generally works. The difference this time is that these plans are the product of locally driven stakeholder processes and strong collaboration between the states and the federal gov't to find balance that recognizes the very real needs of the bird, as well as the other species dependent upon sage brush habitats while still allowing for oil,gas, mining, grazing, recreation, etc.

The main groups who opposed these plans were:

Nevada mining groups
Western Energy Alliance (opposed everything the last admin did, including methane flaring, etc because they are staunchly anti-regulation)
Big Game Forever (Paid by the state of Utah)
Utah
Nevada's AG (Plans were supported by NV Gov)
Public Lands Council (Pro-transfer of public lands/anti-regulation)
Western Watersheds
Center for Biological Diversity

Those supporting the plans:
Wyoming
Montana
Colorado
Oregon
Nevada
Western Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies
TRCP
NWF
Mule Deer Foundation
Muley Fanatics Foundation
BHA
Wildlife Management Institute (headed up by Steve Williams, Bush II's US Fish & Wildlife Service director)
A host of NGO's
US Cattlemen's Assn
Colorado Cattlemens' Assn
National Farmer's Union


Support or opposition really breaks down into two camps: Those who agree that we need a holistic approach to land management in order to properly manage for all beneficiaries and critters, and those who view public lands as a short-term profit center to be used and discarded.

It's the same sides that were drawn up under Theodore Roosevelt.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Unfortunately,liberals never consider compromise. They want everything their way or they cry like babies.They are so against oil,gas,timber industries that I sure hope Ben and company travel in horse and buggy and still heat their homes with cow pies.But the truth is they are as hypocritical as the meat eating anti hunters are

I guess I'm part of Ben's company because I don't want to see habitat destroyed, but as a petroleum user and someone who has spent their entire career in the Oil and Gas industry I can tell you there are a whole lot of places to drill that wouldn't harm valuable sage habitat. I can tell you from sitting in the board room during development meetings that we go where there is money to be made and if federal leases weren't criminally cheap the industry wouldn't be interested in much of the sage grouse habitat.

 

[Ben Lamb]

People on the left are funny and constantly make me laugh.Vikings guy couldn't have put it any better.Unfortunately,liberals never consider compromise. They want everything their way or they cry like babies.They are so against oil,gas,timber industries that I sure hope Ben and company travel in horse and buggy and still heat their homes with cow pies.But the truth is they are as hypocritical as the meat eating anti hunters are.All the energy all you guys use must come from somewhere so where would that be OK with you guys cause I'm curious.That's the real issue.You guys using a sage grouse as cover for what your true intentions are.Please post all you past sage grouse hunting photos for us all to enjoy

Respectfully, that's not right.

I support energy development, I support mining. I support better regulations to keep our public lands functioning for all uses rather than continue to set up sacrifice zones of critical habitat for the short term profits of people who don't care about public lands. I support the actual management of public lands to reduce infestations of noxious weeds, reduce fire, better use fire to manage lands and I support public land grazing.

These plans were a massive compromise between conservation, industry, ag and local & state governments. At some point, that effort and collaboration needs to bear fruit otherwise we simply revert back to sides that rely on litigation over collaboration. Simply waving your hand and saying "you don't support compromise" after the compromise was already cut is a sign of ignorance of the issue and most certainly the process by which we arrived at these plans.

 

[Jerky]

I can tell you from sitting in the board room during development meetings that we go where there is money to be made and if federal leases weren't criminally cheap the industry wouldn't be interested in much of the sage grouse habitat.

If we fixed these below market leases, across the board, so many problems would be solved.

 

[VikingsGuy]

People on the left are funny and constantly make me laugh.Vikings guy couldn't have put it any better.Unfortunately,liberals never consider compromise. They want everything their way or they cry like babies.They are so against oil,gas,timber industries that I sure hope Ben and company travel in horse and buggy and still heat their homes with cow pies.But the truth is they are as hypocritical as the meat eating anti hunters are.All the energy all you guys use must come from somewhere so where would that be OK with you guys cause I'm curious.That's the real issue.You guys using a sage grouse as cover for what your true intentions are.Please post all you past sage grouse hunting photos for us all to enjoy

Both sides play the game so neither left or right should feel too good about their behavior these days. Also, I find Ben L to be pretty reasonable in his comments over the 4 months I have been on this site. (I can not offer the same support for some others)

 

[VikingsGuy]

Good post, and spot on.
The difference this time is that these plans are the product of locally driven stakeholder processes and strong collaboration between the states and the federal gov't to find balance that recognizes the very real needs of the bird, as well as the other species dependent upon sage brush habitats while still allowing for oil,gas, mining, grazing, recreation, etc.

I can't argue the specifics of this negotiation because I wasn't there, but local interests could have easily supported a plan they privately didn't like if they feared endangered species listing even more (a threat that existed in pre-election that seems remote remote post-election). It's standard mediator technique -- scare the heck out of both sides and get them to support things they don't like under threat of something far worse. It drives settlement, but doesn't always correlate with true satisfaction and long term support.

 

[JLS]

People on the left are funny and constantly make me laugh.Vikings guy couldn't have put it any better.Unfortunately,liberals never consider compromise. They want everything their way or they cry like babies.

What qualifies as a "person on the left"? What makes someone a liberal? What does any of this have to do with a sage grouse plan that was crafted by people from all across the political spectrum? I am guessing there were liberals on the sage grouse committee, are you suggesting they did not compromise in any way? If so, do you have inside knowledge they did not? Please clarify how people on the left is germane to whether the sage grouse plan is a viable plan that allows for energy development and grazing, without compromising critical grouse habitat.

Is voicing opposition "crying like a baby"? What exactly constitutes this? Isn't voicing opposition part of the democratic process, whereby we voice our concerns to our Congressional Delegates and they in turn represent us in formulating law and policy? Please clarify.

They are so against oil,gas,timber industries that I sure hope Ben and company travel in horse and buggy and still heat their homes with cow pies.But the truth is they are as hypocritical as the meat eating anti hunters are.All the energy all you guys use must come from somewhere so where would that be OK with you guys cause I'm curious.That's the real issue.

I will proudly put myself in Ben's company. However, it's blatantly false to claim I am against oil, gas, and timber industries. Hypocrisy is telling someone else to do something you don't practice yourself. I heat my home with natural gas, drive petroleum burning automobiles, and use power from hydroelectric dams. I am not opposed to any of these, provided they are implemented and utilized responsibly. I am also willing to pay higher prices/rates in order to offset environmental concerns. Therefore, I am not asking anyone to do something I'm not, and your assertions of hypocrisy are invalid.

One can be supportive of natural resource use and development, but still expect it to be done in a responsible manner that does not degrade the environment. In a similar vein, one can support the sage grouse plan and support energy development across the west. To suggest otherwise makes me question whether you have read and/or understand the plan. Eating meat and being and anti hunter is completely irrelevant to this conversation. As the groups involved in the sage grouse plan have collaborated and compromised, they have shown prioritizing BOTH energy development and healthy populations of sage grouse are not necessarily mutually exclusive events.

You guys using a sage grouse as cover for what your true intentions are.Please post all you past sage grouse hunting photos for us all to enjoy

Speaking only for myself, my true intention is to support maintaining a healthy and robust sagebrush ecosystem across the West, where I have lived my entire life. Not only is it critical to the survival of sage grouse, it also provides many other ancillary benefits such as healthy mule deer, pronghorn, and elk herds to name a select few. The fact I have never killed a sage grouse has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on my intentions. I support bighorn sheep habitat, and don't even apply for permits. To suggest one must kill the species in order to truly care for it is disingenuous, at best.

Vikings guy is correct, it is entirely normal to want to utilize newly found leverage in negotiations. What bothers me is the blatant appearance that Utah is now calling all of the shots in the sandbox, despite being one of eight states who are players in this event. If some of you are not supportive of the sage grouse plan, I can agree to disagree and respect your opinion. Unfortunately, the likely outcome if the plan is significantly altered, will be a petition to list the grouse in the near future, and a shit ton of litigation where no one really wins. This collaborative plan really was a conservation success, and I hope Zinke and the DOI can recognize that.