#Winning = more public land poop

[Nick87]

already know of two groups that "jokingly" talked about backpacking in this area because they'll never statistically draw a permit (the current lottery is around 1/10,000

Are you saying you think more people will be poaching?

 

[Forkyfinder]

Are you saying you think more people will be poaching?

Thieves are folks who take advantage of vulnerabilities. If he isnt. I am.

 

[seeth07]

I also know a thing or two about how to run a business. Cutting contracts and waste might work and should work. Cutting personnel costs will show some benefit if, and that's a big IF, done with some sanity and strategy.

I think this is such a key point to this discussion. Regardless of politics and knowing anything about the situation if you asked Americans "Do you support a system be put in place in which the Federal government entities are closely reviewed by a third party and recommendations are made for cutting unnecessary job positions and spending?" I'm guessing that a vast majority of Americans would support that.

Take it one step further, I'm sure most Americans would support more spending and job positions as well if the review determined it was needed in certain places (such as public land management).

We aren't getting that so it is fair that everyone to some extent should not be happy with what is going on.

 

[Irrelevant]

Are you saying you think more people will be poaching?

not in this case, because the enforcement of wildlife infractions is mostly a state issue, and our state, even with its budget shortfall, will still fund WDFW enforcement.

In order to camp within the area the article mentions, you need to draw a permit, it's a highly coveted permit as it's an exceptionally beautiful area only 2 hours from Seattle.


Overnight stays became permitted in the 1980s. This lack of access has led to a surge in day use with daily visitation to Colchuck Lake estimated to exceed 750 people (it's a 4 mile hike up 2k vert). I volunteer(ed) on a working group to address the day-use issue, a working group that just lost its coordinator.

 

[Nick87]

Thieves are folks who take advantage of vulnerabilities. If he isnt. I am.

I'm not in favor of how the reduction of usfs employees were handled. However I'm not sure a 10% reduction in the workforce is going to contribute to too many additional poaching cases. Could be wrong.

 

[Nick87]

not in this case, because the enforcement of wildlife infractions is mostly a state issue, and our state, even with its budget shortfall, will still fund WDFW enforcement.

In order to camp within the area the article mentions, you need to draw a permit, it's a highly coveted permit as it's an exceptionally beautiful area only 2 hours from Seattle.
View attachment 361234

Overnight stays became permitted in the 1980s. This lack of access has led to a surge in day use with daily visitation to Colchuck Lake estimated to exceed 750 people (it's a 4 mile hike up 2k vert). I volunteer(ed) on a working group to address the day-use issue, a working group that just lost its coordinator.

My bad, wasn't aware you were talking about a permit to camp. I thought you meant a hunting permit.

 

[Forkyfinder]

I'm not in favor of how the reduction of usfs employees were handled. However I'm not sure a 10% reduction in the workforce is going to contribute to too many additional poaching cases. Could be wrong.

They might not directly enforce it - but id imagine theyd report resource abuse to the proper authortities...

 

[Nick87]

They might not directly enforce it - but id imagine theyd report resource abuse to the proper authortities...

I understand that. But I find it hard to believe, anybody that wasn't breaking the law last season is going to say, "Hey there's 10% less usfs employees now, let's go hunt that LE unit without a tag"

 

[INMT]

Did 10% of the people do 80% of the hands on work?

In some areas, quite possible. I talked with a friend yesterday that works in a USFS RD in NW MT and his entire trail crew, rec and wilderness techs were terminated. He said the only people left are the district ranger and supervisors. So in that case, I’d say yes, the folks doing the maintenance were 100% of that RD.

 

[SAJ-99]

if you asked Americans "Do you support a system be put in place in which the Federal government entities are closely reviewed by a third party and recommendations are made for cutting unnecessary job positions and spending?" I'm guessing that a vast majority of Americans would support that.

I support that. I also support finding instances of abuse and fraud and fixing them. I support the concept of it all. Unfortunately, this isn't what has happened. Nothing was "closely reviewed" for an analysis of necessary vs. unnecessary. It was guilty without an opportunity to prove innocence.

And it should be noted that those Americans that think their taxes are too high today are going to think that a year, two years, three years from now regardless of what their taxes are. They don't understand what value the government provides from those taxes. To them it's all waste. I don't know if that can ever be fixed.

 

[TOGIE]

Regardless of politics and knowing anything about the situation if you asked Americans "Do you support a system be put in place in which the Federal government entities are closely reviewed by a third party and recommendations are made for cutting unnecessary job positions and spending?" I'm guessing that a vast majority of Americans would support that.

i sure hope you're not suggesting that this is what is currently going on though.

obviously, plenty do seem to think that.

third party my ass if you ask me.

 

[Nameless Range]

In all honesty, this does make me support transferring public lands to the states, that way some orange asshat from new york, who couldn't tell a whitetail from a jackalope doesn't ruin my backyard.

Public land transfer aside, lately I have been thinking about politics through a similar lens of your whitetail/jackalope statement.

If you told me to make a list of what makes the USA great, Public Lands - my access to hunting,fishing, etc - would easily be top 5. Really top 3. I bet to those pulling the strings right now they wouldn't make the top 100 - aren't really a part of their model of the USA and its positive attributes.

For a foundation of my soul and one of the finest things about my life in this country - public lands - I think it is insane to defund them to their detriment, because it's a real devaluing of what's best here. To watch people I know be kicked to the curb and receive emails that say, "The Agency finds, based on your performance, that you have not demonstrated that your further employment at the Agency would be in the public interest", I want whoever wrote that email to explicitly define the "public interest", because I don't think our interests are the same.

None of these bigwigs making proclamatory decisions are taking their sons to check traps on public lands after school like I am this evening. Aren't planning backpacking trips with their buddies for the upcoming summer on public lands as I am. Aren't eating a stuffed pepper right now filled with the protein of an elk that came from our shared mountains. The fact is it may actually be true that a lot of these sonsabitches wouldn't know the difference between a fictitious antlered rabbit and the most widely distributed ungulate of the Americas. Someone could be brilliant at business, one of the finest engineers in the world, have created enormous amounts of wealth by providing value to millions - and still be a bonafide idiot in respect to my way of life. In this realm, so many of us are without representation.

I do not believe that if our public lands degrade, if shitters are full, if the roads suck, if the weeds choke last year's burn, that it will meaningfully reduce the amount of visitors coming here. The resource itself will instead absorb that friction in all sorts of undesired ways.

 

[elkduds]

I think it will be fair. Let's face it, there have been many administrations that have had full control of both houses of Congress and the White House, yet they didn't do the things that would have improved Federal land management. Shame on them. (And edited to add: Shame on us for not demanding more accountability.)

I'm a smaller government, lower taxes kind of guy. Lowering tax bills is how I made a very comfortable livelihood that allows me to do this gig without any regard for profits. I also know a thing or two about how to run a business. Cutting contracts and waste might work and should work. Cutting personnel costs will show some benefit if, and that's a big IF, done with some sanity and strategy.

There once was a push to force the Federal Government to use "Zero-based budgeting." Carter had considered it and so did Reagan. Every agency budget would start at zero and be justified from there, rather than "take last year's numbers and add 10%." None of that took hold, as the Beltway lobbyists and both parties saw that as problematic to the folks paying their salaries. So, it died, and with it died much chance of the US Government operating more efficiently.

In my thirty years of engaging in hunting and conservation politics, I've learned that both sides are good at capitalizing on the political moments without much concern of the long-term consequences. Just the way politics and lack of accountability have morphed in this country. Madison wrote in great detail his concerns about "factions" and their ability to disregard the rights of the people. Even with all of his wisdom and foresight, I suspect he could have never predicted what we are witnessing the last 30 years.

It is hard to argue that you want better land management when you come in with a sledgehammer where in the business world a knife or scalpel would be used. Nobody would run a business by firing everyone who meets a certain employment status (probationary, even if you are a long-time employee whose promotion put you in a probationary status). You wouldn't implement a hiring freeze when using seasonal workers get you the best return on your assets and does the best job of keeping your assets from going up in smoke.

You can't cut essential programs and essential employees necessary for better land management and then bitch that their isn't better land management. You can't claim the Federal lands are not getting a good return on their money, yet in other votes you refuse to change the Hard Rock Mining Act of 1872 and charge a royalty to mining companies. You can't complain about Federal ROI on those lands, yet vote to keep grazing rates 5-10% of grazing rates on adjacent state and private lands; or vote to keep Federal O&G royalties way below what states and private land owners charge.

And in this instance, the folks cheering on these personnel cuts "in the name of efficiency" are likely to be the ones bitching when they see less land management. That has been the mode of operation since I've been involved and I don't expect it to be a different mode of operation.

This will have consequences. Will it reduce the waste and inefficiency in Federal agencies? I doubt it, given the way they are going about it. Could they have done it in a way that does reduce waste and inefficiency? Absolutely, but that would have required application of a lot more business ideas, none of which would allow for the headline grabbing soundbites.

If the history that has formed my crystal ball has provided any insight, this will likely go down as one of the greatest lost opportunities in my lifetime. It will be used as a continuance of the "defund, demoralize, and devalue" approach the anti-public land crowd has used since the 1980s. Their goal always has been, and always will be, to make the public lands such a burden through defunding and lack of Congressional leadership, that eventually Americans will lose much interest in these lands and view them as a liability to get rid of. Seeing the far fringes be given the wheel on public lands, it's hard for me to see this as any thing other than a huge squandered opportunity and a fulfillment of the dreams of those who've been strategic in their fifty-year plan to rid Americans of their public lands.

I know the hyper-partisans, or even the mildly partisans, will criticize that assessment. That's fine. I expect such from folks trained to use party politics as their first level of filter. As the political pendulums have swung in my lifetime, neither party has really cared for the interests that exist mostly in the middle, rather they want to use any opportunity, in this case public lands and conservation funding, as spoils of political victory, and in the process limiting any forward progress to those few instances when the political stars align for a week or two.

Not sure I can fit all of that into a 20-minute segment. Summary will be, "Shitter's full; that's what the majority of us voted for, right?"

Which again walks us to the edge of this abyss: What is the actual intent of this administration? These cuts are not related to efficiency, so why bother? The only outcome I see them seeking is the longstanding, well documented (in every party platform statement for half a century) GOP desire to eliminate public lands.

 

[seeth07]

i sure hope you're not suggesting that this is what is currently going on though.

obviously, plenty do seem to think that.

third party my ass if you ask me.

How about you read the rest of my post?

 

[Big Fin]

"You can't cut essential programs and essential employees necessary for better land management and then bitch that their isn't better land management. You can't claim the Federal lands are not getting a good return on their money, yet in other votes you refuse to change the Hard Rock Mining Act of 1872 and charge a royalty to mining companies. You can't complain about Federal ROI on those lands, yet vote to keep grazing rates 5-10% of grazing rates on adjacent state and private lands; or vote to keep Federal O&G royalties way below what states and private land owners charge."

Exactly why we need DOGE to look into so many of these type of issues

I agree. And, in spite of 75 years of citizens asking for those programs to be looked into, not a single administration or Congress has given it much effort.

From what I know is coming down the pike on public land issues, I wish Vegas would let me bet a few thousand dollars on whether any of these issues will be seriously examined in the next 5-10 years. I'd use my winnings to hunt more.

 

[88man]

While Doge is cutting we need to sell an access permit to public lands if you are not in possession of a fishing or hunting license

 

[TOGIE]

How about you read the rest of my post?

nah. not worth my time.

 

[88man]

I agree. And, in spite of 75 years of citizens asking for those programs to be looked into, not a single administration or Congress has given it much effort.

From what I know is coming down the pike on public land issues, I wish Vegas would let me bet a few thousand dollars on whether any of these issues will be seriously examined in the next 5-10 years. I'd use my winnings to hunt more.

Maybe if we are lucky the huge egos will see opportunity in raising the fees on the public rents that are not inline with the current market. I guess I have hope on my Doge dividend going to pay for a NM or Colorado land owner voucher or snowmobile trip or fishing trip or some extra hunt.

 

[seeth07]

If you told me to make a list of what makes the USA great, Public Lands - my access to hunting,fishing, etc - would easily be top 5. Really top 3.

What other nations have you visited where you did any sort of hunting or fishing? Or any sort of outdoor recreation?

 

[88man]

To be clear, these are Congressional issues not agency workforce problems. Only Congress can change the law.

Agencies including the Forest Service are hamstring by outdated laws that only Congress can change. Among these are significant hurdles and inefficiencies in procurement and contracting. But none of that has been addressed.

Thanks for the insite. We have an administration making moves and big moves. I just wanna be positive and think there is a chance these issues might get attention. We know they are not primetime or front page issues or news worthy for the braggin. Just maybe things will improve.