CampRipleyLF
Active member
Pretty good write up by the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership. A great organization working for conservation and the public land hunter...
Steven Rinella and Rob Bishop
- Thread starter Schaaf
- Start date
Pretty good write up by the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership. A great organization working for conservation and the public land hunter...
HSi-ESi
Well-known member
Here's a couple of things from my perspective.
- I went into this podcast thinking that it was going to be more of a discussion and less of a debate.
- It was good for me to hear Bishop's talking / selling points straight from him. I don't agree with them, but I wanted to hear them.
- Bishop may believe that "land managers" can just make decisions that are capricious - but it is clear to me that Bishop's intentions are insidious.
- It is good for Rinella's audience that he took this tone for the podcast. I imagine that the majority of subscribers are not well versed on each issue. I see this as laying ground-work for things to come. You aren't going to change folk's opinions by just being divisive - it's going to take some education along the way.
I would have liked Rinella to counter-point more aggressively - take for instance the case Bishop laid out for how many Antiquities Act designations that Obama had made. Many of those designations were made because Congress had failed to act - and Bishop was a lead contender in the inaction. I just don't see how he would have made that point - and kept the continuity of the interview moving forward.
- I went into this podcast thinking that it was going to be more of a discussion and less of a debate.
- It was good for me to hear Bishop's talking / selling points straight from him. I don't agree with them, but I wanted to hear them.
- Bishop may believe that "land managers" can just make decisions that are capricious - but it is clear to me that Bishop's intentions are insidious.
- It is good for Rinella's audience that he took this tone for the podcast. I imagine that the majority of subscribers are not well versed on each issue. I see this as laying ground-work for things to come. You aren't going to change folk's opinions by just being divisive - it's going to take some education along the way.
I would have liked Rinella to counter-point more aggressively - take for instance the case Bishop laid out for how many Antiquities Act designations that Obama had made. Many of those designations were made because Congress had failed to act - and Bishop was a lead contender in the inaction. I just don't see how he would have made that point - and kept the continuity of the interview moving forward.
I think Steve did well all things considering. This isn’t a easy situation to find yourself in as a host. The idea was to listen to Bishops position on the issues, while still being cordial host yet still articulating your opinion. We all know Steve’s option on these matters. if this episode was to be just another dictatorial on that option then there is no reason to have Bishop on it the show in the first place. The idea that we some how do ourselves and stance a disservice by allowing the apposition a voice makes us look fragile. We have strong argument, we should act like it. You do that buy engaging others and allowing them to see the strength and benefits of your ideas in contrast to you opponents. Good job Steve.
Addicting
Well-known member
Well said! I know I’m more informed and now have a reference for those I talk to where they can hear and see both sides.
Northwoods Labs
Well-known member
Respect your opinion but I gotta disagree, especially on the portion about LWCF. From what I could gather, one of his big complaints about LWCF was some story about unnamed groups that bought land and then sold it to the government, which used LWCF money, so that the unnamed non-profit groups could make money. He was insinuating that people in government were intentionally buying land from non-profit groups they liked or agreed with. In my mind, this is completely anecodotal and not based in any fact. I would venture to say it was complete bullshit. Same with his stance that a land manager of a national monument could end grazing, hunting, etc. just on a whim.
IlliniFIre
Member
While it may be anecdotal, I'd say it is no less problematic. We on this forum cannot sit back and complain about abuses of the ESA and NEPA then turn a blind eye if abuses occur with LWCF. I don't have any issue with Steve giving a "platform" for this discussion. If nothing else, we get the opportunity to know thine enemy. Two years ago I would have never have thought the federal government being control of large swaths of land was a good thing. With out this forum I would have never had the opportunity to understand the issue. Seeing how the other side works and thinks is very important to these discussions.
What is underlined above is an example of how spreading false information, as Bishop excels at, can get taken as fact if not clarified or rebutted. I wouldn't expect most folks to know the intricacies of LWCF, unless they are very involved with LWCF and projects completed with that program.
I'm not aware of any abuses of LWCF, even if Rob Bishop might claim such exists. I suspect I've got more experience with LWCF projects than Rob Bishop. I've been to DC testifying before his committee on the program, asking for renewal and full funding. I can attest to the fact that he dislikes the program and will do all he can to see it deep-sixed.
I've been too busy to listen to the Meateater podcast, so I'm not sure if Bishop did say LWCF is being used as a profit center by non-profits. If Bishop said that, he's asking to be challenged on that claim. To my knowledge, and I am closing involved with an organization that has acquired 700,000+ acres and turned it over to state and federal management agencies, occasionally getting LWCF money to match other funds in the transaction. The agency taking eventual ownership cannot pay more than appraised value if they are a governmental organization. And if the acquiring group is a non-profit organization and they are augmenting any matching funds from LWCF or other funds, the non-profit is held to no more than appraised value.
I've been involved in many dozen of these transactions over the last 25 years. The appraisals and the transfer/sale agreements have been, and are required to be, public record. Maybe I've been sheltered or it is just merely a coincidence, but I've never seen a single transaction where the charitable organization that coordinated the project sold it at some large profit that is being implied. I have seen where the non-profit gets reimbursed for some of the costs they have incurred, but they are very small relative to the entire transaction. If Bishop wants to stand by the rumor that non-profits are getting rich via LWCF funding, I might ask his office for the documents that support examples of what he is claiming. My expectation is they could provide me that list of abusive transactions in the margins of a business card.
Like I said, I've not listened to the podcast. I plan to do that this weekend. I did have a chance to visit with Steve and Janis before they did the podcast with Bishop. I was excited when they told me it was going to happen. We talked about some of the issues and complexities Steve was mulling.
I am confident that Steve is playing a long game on this. I would be hesitant to jump to any conclusions of Steve being played by Bishop. Steve is a very smart guy. I expect this is one step, of many steps, Steve and Janis have in mind as it relates to using their platforms toward these efforts.
I am confident that Steve is playing a long game on this. I would be hesitant to jump to any conclusions of Steve being played by Bishop. Steve is a very smart guy. I expect this is one step, of many steps, Steve and Janis have in mind as it relates to using their platforms toward these efforts.
IlliniFIre
Member
Well Fin, he did. To paraphrase he said that NGO's would buy land at below market then sell back via LWCF at a profit to fund their litigation. I respect you and what you do for everything for hunting and conservation. I also value having all facts when going to my Midwest congressmen who likely have no clue as to the fine points of public land issues. That was the point of me bringing this up here.
dannyb278
Active member
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2015
- Messages
- 574
I would expect this as well. Even podcasters are Limited in how you can present an argument and articulate a position while at the same time giving the other person a respectable amount of room as well.... whenever I've heard Rinella speak in person, read His work, listen to his podcast or watched his TV show, I never got the opinion that he was anything less than extremely well-spoken and well-thought-out. A consummate professional. No way in hell he went into this podcast unprepared or winging it.
LuketheDog
Well-known member
this^^^^^^^^^
shoots-straight
Well-known member
Josh Kuntz
Member
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2013
- Messages
- 184
Lessons learned (or at least reinforced).
1. Rob Bishop has a completely different set of values concerning public land and wild places than I do and most hunters I know.
2. Bishop knows his history well and is skilled at picking specific anecdotal instances that may or may not be factually accurate to make a point.
3. I respect Steve for biting his tongue and allowing Bishop to not feel threatened. I think Bishop opened up way more than he would have if Steve had been confrontational.
4. Bishop is fully aware of and a bit drunk on his position of power.
5. We are damn lucky to have smart guys like Steve and Randy who have created these platforms for so many hunters to educate themselves.
As Fin said, I think this is step 1 in a long-play that will eventually help show a wider audience of hunters that Bishop is public enemy #1 for western hunting.
One more thing, Bishop said the West is plenty big for us to have Development, Recreation and Conservation with no negative impacts. Go ask any western state wildlife or habitat biologist about that statement. A lot of what Bishop said was sketchy but that statement was flat out wrong/dangerous/deceitful/ignorant.
1. Rob Bishop has a completely different set of values concerning public land and wild places than I do and most hunters I know.
2. Bishop knows his history well and is skilled at picking specific anecdotal instances that may or may not be factually accurate to make a point.
3. I respect Steve for biting his tongue and allowing Bishop to not feel threatened. I think Bishop opened up way more than he would have if Steve had been confrontational.
4. Bishop is fully aware of and a bit drunk on his position of power.
5. We are damn lucky to have smart guys like Steve and Randy who have created these platforms for so many hunters to educate themselves.
As Fin said, I think this is step 1 in a long-play that will eventually help show a wider audience of hunters that Bishop is public enemy #1 for western hunting.
One more thing, Bishop said the West is plenty big for us to have Development, Recreation and Conservation with no negative impacts. Go ask any western state wildlife or habitat biologist about that statement. A lot of what Bishop said was sketchy but that statement was flat out wrong/dangerous/deceitful/ignorant.
Irrelevant
Well-known member
Bishop was only talking crazy if you knew it in advance. At no point in that podcast did Renella stopped dancing around a topic to point out any of the craziness. Bishop was allowed to take irrational illogical ideas and spin them as rational facts, that every casual listener would agree with. I mean what's the point if you're not challenging crazy? He might as well of just posted a youtube video of Bishop talking at a fund raising dinner party or something if the only intent is to allow free-flowing crazy
Last edited:
Irrelevant
Well-known member
The fact that I've already had two hunting friends mentioned "how much sense" Bishop made, and asking why BHA is so against this guy when he clearly has hunters and anglers best intentions in mind, is proof enough that this discussion was an overall negative not a positive.
I suppose it would be counter productive to present the end game - if this was a step in the direction of interest for Rinella, et al... However, Those that chose to listen that were on the fence or sided with Bishop's KoolAid I believe sided further on Bishop's agenda. I do not see how this was a positive.
In the interest as shared in Randy's posts that this holds a measured plan (generalizing the words used), I do not see it. How did this better enhance the pro fed/public land side for the current/long term? Open dialogue seems to be a potential though to me it took a couple steps back to open this... Maybe a good move...(?)
In the interest as shared in Randy's posts that this holds a measured plan (generalizing the words used), I do not see it. How did this better enhance the pro fed/public land side for the current/long term? Open dialogue seems to be a potential though to me it took a couple steps back to open this... Maybe a good move...(?)
As a new hunter trying to learn about public lands and conservation I have to say I am mostly disappointed by the discussion here. Nobody is talking specific policies, numbers, facts, or history. All I've learned is that according to most of you I'm not suppose to like this Rob Bishop guy for some reason...
If the message failed to reach me, a person who is interested in hunting and conservation. There is no way this will reach the general public.
If the message failed to reach me, a person who is interested in hunting and conservation. There is no way this will reach the general public.
Something that needs to be taken away from this is a better understanding of what we are up against. Bishop made it very clear that from ideological stand point these lands need to be managed by the state regardless of practical considerationss.
We often make the agrument that federal management of public is better or rather has a better track record then state management of lands. It’s a logical argument except if your up against an ideologue who honestly belives that any state management is better then federal involvement because “ its the way it should be”. In his mind these lands belong to the state to manage or miss manage as they deem fit. The fact that he and his corhorts can garner favor through The quasi-ownership that they are trying to achieve is just icing on the cake.
We need to come to better understanding of the mindset that fuels the motivation behind this. If we don’t change and keep using the same tired arguemnts I fear we will lose to a stacked deck.
We often make the agrument that federal management of public is better or rather has a better track record then state management of lands. It’s a logical argument except if your up against an ideologue who honestly belives that any state management is better then federal involvement because “ its the way it should be”. In his mind these lands belong to the state to manage or miss manage as they deem fit. The fact that he and his corhorts can garner favor through The quasi-ownership that they are trying to achieve is just icing on the cake.
We need to come to better understanding of the mindset that fuels the motivation behind this. If we don’t change and keep using the same tired arguemnts I fear we will lose to a stacked deck.
COEngineer
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2016
- Messages
- 1,526
aman, let me take a stab at it:
1) Bishop said that LWCF funds are being funneled into "special interest" groups. Randy spelled out above that that is not true. If RB has proof of this happening, I want to see it. RB supposedly avoided using specifics to protect his "family." I call BS. He didn't use specifics so no one could check into it and definitively call him on it.
2) RB said that acquisition of lands via LWCF does not equal access. I call BS. What he means is that federal acquisition does not mean roads and extraction. Almost all USFS and BLM land is open to public access, just not RB's form of access (roads and drilling rigs).
3) RB wants to use LWCF funds for college tuition?!?!?! Talk about changing the intent of the law.
4) According to RB there is unlimited space in the West and there is no real contention between industry, recreation, and wildlife. If there is so much space then why are land prices sky-rocketing? Why is the #1 reason for hunters quitting (or never getting started) access? Why are there groups like BHA, RMEF, TU, etc, etc, fighting and spending billions of dollar to conserve habitat?
5) RB says that the Antiquities Act was written to protect "human structures." The first monument was Devils Tower, which is a rock formation. Is he just making this stuff up as he goes?
6) RB says Carter took half of Alaska via the Antiquities Act. I will assume he was using hyperbole about the percentage, but as Steve and he agreed, designating land as a monument does not change it's ownership. It was Federal land. It is now Federal land. No one took anything.
7) RB would not agree that land transfer would not equal privatization. "No one is talking about it." Everyone is talking about it, he just doesn't want to spell it out because then the happily uninformed would wise up and be against it.
8) RB says that National Parks should be "wide open" to people with almost no restrictions. I was at Yosemite last Spring during the free parks week. It was bumper-to-bumper traffic (cars literally did not move for hours at a time) on the single paved road in the narrow valley. Apparently this is RB's vision or how the parks should be all the time.
9) RB says wilderness can be reclaimed. I have personally been in quite a few wilderness areas and even the ones that have been closed to motorized access for decades are still littered with old mining machinery and eroded roadways and other ecological footprints. So maybe in a few centuries the land will be able to actually reclaim an area, but personally, I would rather see a few more places that just never get ruined in the first place.
Last edited:
There were lots of statments that Bishop made that were crazy and you needed no prior knowledge to know they were crazy. I do understand what your saying overall but I don't think any of the dialog would of occurred had Rinnella jumped him. I think Steve let him express his points and lots of mis information that can be used against him in the future. I will be absolutely shocked if the Meat eater crew does not put out their own rebuttal soon.
Your two buddies are prime examples of the dangers of not doing some fact checking and believing everything you hear as fact. If you take any sniper of an issue without getting the whole story it can paint a very distorted picture. That's the biggest battle we are facing right now with public land issues is dismissing the mis information and getting the masses informed.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
What you all cookin for Christmas Eve and Christmas Day
- Latest: Johnny Bravo
-
-