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

[onpoint]

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

Show me where I said I have a passion for thoughtful discourse.
I've spent 30 years working in the resource conservation/mgmt arena and the same amount of time working behind the scenes with other dedicated hunter and anglers to better and preserve what this forum is suppose to be about - hunters who prefer to hunt on their own on PUBLIC LANDS.
I frame every post I put in here in that context - not about left, right, or don't give a shit either way.
I have no passion for thoughtful discourse, I'd rather argue with folks from Eden Prairie MN who don't live and experience smack dab everyday in the middle of all the threats which public lands recreation face. I'd rather argue and call you a lot of bad words and think I'm smarter than you. In fact I used to quite a bit.
I finally learned, that in today's ultra polarized America - it ain't worth it. I'll leave diplomacy to Ben, he does it for a living.
I and a bunch of dedicated others will continue to "do the heavy lifting" while you and some others wax philosophical (?) on the internet.
No I won't engage nice little diplomatic internet conversations with people who I believe are part of the threat against the things most important to me.
Actually, I invite you to prove me wrong - tell us about the boots on the ground - roll your sleeves up and get something done work you do to fight for hunters who prefer to hunt on public lands - and who actually live in the middle of these public lands we talk about on here all the time. I'll publicly thank you right here.
In the meantime and more importantly - it's hunting season.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Show me where I said I have a passion for thoughtful discourse.
I've spent 30 years working in the resource conservation/mgmt arena and the same amount of time working behind the scenes with other dedicated hunter and anglers to better and preserve what this forum is suppose to be about - hunters who prefer to hunt on their own on PUBLIC LANDS.
I frame every post I put in here in that context - not about left, right, or don't give a shit either way.
I have no passion for thoughtful discourse, I'd rather argue with folks from Eden Prairie MN who don't live and experience smack dab everyday in the middle of all the threats which public lands recreation face. I'd rather argue and call you a lot of bad words and think I'm smarter than you. In fact I used to quite a bit.
I finally learned, that in today's ultra polarized America - it ain't worth it. I'll leave diplomacy to Ben, he does it for a living.
I and a bunch of dedicated others will continue to "do the heavy lifting" while you and some others wax philosophical (?) on the internet.
No I won't engage nice little diplomatic internet conversations with people who I believe are part of the threat against the things most important to me.
Actually, I invite you to prove me wrong - tell us about the boots on the ground - roll your sleeves up and get something done work you do to fight for hunters who prefer to hunt on public lands - and who actually live in the middle of these public lands we talk about on here all the time. I'll publicly thank you right here.
In the meantime and more importantly - it's hunting season.

Was playing off your post of "As is thoughtful discourse - thinking may be an all time low." I inferred (maybe wrongfully) that you were suggesting not only that these things are at an "all time low" a point upon which we both agree, but that you wished they weren't. And then you posted a "low thought" +1 for a "low thought" u1299 gripe. But if your initial intent was to embrace and celebrate an "all time low [in thinking]", I stand corrected.

As to your rambling about where a person lives making your opinion more or less relevant, I reject that argument when we are talking about federal lands and heavily subsidized state budgets as I am a citizen who pays taxes that disproportionately benefit many of the mountain west states. How about this, if you agree to return all disproportionate federal spending benefits, accept the resulting increase in MT taxes and stay the heck off federal lands, I will agree not having an opinion about issues solely effecting Montana state and private property. And I have already met you half way, as I have never expressed an opinion about issues solely effecting Montana state and private property.

 

[onpoint]

Vikings Guy,
I'm gonna' see your condescension and up it one by ignoring the first paragraph of your reply.
As to your rambling about taxes, Montana state, federal and private property - once again you weren't reading critically.
I never said anything about Montana issues. I spoke of public land issues. MN has a little place called Superior Nat'l Forest and BWCA - I grew up there. Same public lands issues face that area as any other state - be it MT or ANY other state. Some of "subsidies" you are whining about may go towards that MN gem. I dunno', maybe you don't like that place either.
I was looking forward to having the chance to thank you. Guess you have nothing to say about what you do to "step up" for public land issues. Maybe I'll look for posts from you on other websites that have nothing to do with public lands and the resources on them which hunters and anglers enjoy.
And by the way U1299's "low thought gripe" nailed it.
My dogs and I will be hunting phez on public lands tomorrow morning.............might be some MN guys out there - I'm sure they'll be pissed off about having to "subsidize" as the roosters flush....

 

[VikingsGuy]

Onooint, this has gone weird and well past diminishing returns. But if you are ok with setting aside our little tit for tat for a moment I am sincerely interested in what part of Northern MN you are from. We have land/Cabin up near superior and hopefully will find a few grouse this weekend to tide us over until SD pheasants in a few weeks.

 

[Ben Lamb]

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.

That's how compromise works though: Everyone gets most of what they need, while not getting everything they want.

The people who have the most to lose in this effort: Individual states, wildlife management agencies, a big chunk of ag groups, sportsmen, conservation groups and some oil and gas companies are supporting the existing plans, with the desire to make fine-scale modifications.

The people who want to eliminate or make massive changes are the same ones we fight when it comes to transfer of public land, or removal of regulations to properly manage those lands in favor of only their vision. The people who actually spent years working on these plans are solidly in support of keeping them - and it's a wide array of locals who were able to put aside their partisan politics and ideologically driven positions and find common ground.

Opening these plans sets us up for the "something far worse" scenario you posit. By doing this, we are essentially telling courts that the protections put in place to avert a listing will be reduced, further strengthening the case that the bird should be listed in order to maximize protections as the gov't won't do it otherwise. It also sets up a string of listing decisions on over 100 other species who are candidates for listing due to either lack of data or data showing precipitous declines in populations and range.

 

[Irrelevant]

That's it: The Mule Deer Foundation, another supporter of the plans before they were hijacked, coined the phrase "What's good for the bird is good for the herd."

Yet now they're promoting the man that's killing the plans as the HuntExpo keynote speaker, of which MDF is a part of.

 

[Ben Lamb]

And BHA is doing a podcast w/him after running a huge ad campaign against his monuments review.

It makes sense. Those groups all have to work with him so long as he's the secretary of the interior.

 

[rtraverdavis]

All political BS aside, this seems like a no-brainer to me. Why, as a sportsman, would I not want to conserve critical habitat for species I love--like mule deer. Habitat aint growin'. It's shrinking at an alarming rate, for a multitude of reasons. Why not do a little more to protect what's left? I sent my email. Thanks Ben, I truly respect and appreciate what you do.

 

[VikingsGuy]

That's how compromise works though: Everyone gets most of what they need, while not getting everything they want.

The people who have the most to lose in this effort: Individual states, wildlife management agencies, a big chunk of ag groups, sportsmen, conservation groups and some oil and gas companies are supporting the existing plans, with the desire to make fine-scale modifications.

The people who want to eliminate or make massive changes are the same ones we fight when it comes to transfer of public land, or removal of regulations to properly manage those lands in favor of only their vision. The people who actually spent years working on these plans are solidly in support of keeping them - and it's a wide array of locals who were able to put aside their partisan politics and ideologically driven positions and find common ground.

Opening these plans sets us up for the "something far worse" scenario you posit. By doing this, we are essentially telling courts that the protections put in place to avert a listing will be reduced, further strengthening the case that the bird should be listed in order to maximize protections as the gov't won't do it otherwise. It also sets up a string of listing decisions on over 100 other species who are candidates for listing due to either lack of data or data showing precipitous declines in populations and range.

I get it, I was just responding to your question of why anyone would re-open. As I am sure you know, folks reopen hard fought compromises all the time.