Tsnider
WKR
yes. just seems like something i should have to do. i spent thousands on hunting gear. thousands that could go to waste if i dont spend a small amount paying people to stand up for the land i use.
Are you a Backcountry Hunters and Anglers member?
- Thread starter SquidHC
- Start date
I agree this issue has alienated a lot of sportsman. I have still not heard a strong defense for the proposal. Most small streams that could be damaged by jet boats are self regulating since nothing can go up them anyways. Would like to hear the actual reasoning. Proposals like this give credit to green decoys to the uneducated people on this subject.
Iet me make it clear I don't believe bha is a green decoy!
MuleyFever
WKR
Can you pay a lump sum and then make the payments on the rest?
jwatts
WKR
I am not sure. Last time I looked you just selected how many payments you want to split it into.
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
WV Mountaineer
WKR
No. For multiple reasons. I'm not going to delve real deep into them. I would hope that my answer would spur members, nonmembers thinking of joining, and the average Joe to look into the public land debate.
Public land owned by the people is under multiple use doctrine now. We are the voice of management on those lands. It is federally mandated to be that way. The only way to take that away is with a designation like a national monument, wilderness, etc.... It is written into these designations that they are statutory in law. And, only congress has that management power after designation. Totally erasing the federal laws that ensures we the people have multiple use management control through due process of publishing the plan for comments, arbitration, etc.... On public owned and controlled lands, no management plan can be sent to congress for approval while under arbitration. Under designation of any sort, that guaranteed right goes away with designation status. Because Congress has complete control at that point with no public input required. That is a FACT.
Being that designation of public land requires collaboration of many groups, I am suspect of a future of multiple use management when we the people no longer have guaranteed input of these lands post designation. There are examples of this going awry and, there are current examples of a designated area following predesignation management plans as promised. The problem arises that we the people no longer have an avenue to dispute Congress given management if it ever turns sour. And, as I said earlier, it has numerous times. People can promise and say what they want. But, the groups that BHA plays with on collaborations have pocket books much larger than any hunting organization. they are against hunting. And, in the future when the management plan comes before congress for approval, a lobbied representative is who is going to be deciding what we get. Not us.
My second reason is the organization seems to be slanted politically. When politics define right and wrong for people based on the letter behind a politicians name, I glaze over. Because it reeks of agenda instead of truthfulness. I don't know everyone in the group or, claim to say where the group truly stands. 'i just know I have exchanged many a conversation with some touting members that could not distinguish right or wrong nor, cared to, based on a person's political party. That isn't right. Because any one with half a brain knows these lands are being pursued by agenda's from both sides, have been exploited by both party's, and it will take setting personal politics aside to get it right.
I personally believe the BHA has good intent. I would probably support them if they backed away from collaborations to designate our land away from our control. Until then, no one can promise that the next representative charged with management control of designated land, won't be a PETA or, a Sierra Club lover. As is, we have control of pubically owned land. I'll take that any day over trusting a politician and a federal designation stripping our land from us. God Bless men
Public land owned by the people is under multiple use doctrine now. We are the voice of management on those lands. It is federally mandated to be that way. The only way to take that away is with a designation like a national monument, wilderness, etc.... It is written into these designations that they are statutory in law. And, only congress has that management power after designation. Totally erasing the federal laws that ensures we the people have multiple use management control through due process of publishing the plan for comments, arbitration, etc.... On public owned and controlled lands, no management plan can be sent to congress for approval while under arbitration. Under designation of any sort, that guaranteed right goes away with designation status. Because Congress has complete control at that point with no public input required. That is a FACT.
Being that designation of public land requires collaboration of many groups, I am suspect of a future of multiple use management when we the people no longer have guaranteed input of these lands post designation. There are examples of this going awry and, there are current examples of a designated area following predesignation management plans as promised. The problem arises that we the people no longer have an avenue to dispute Congress given management if it ever turns sour. And, as I said earlier, it has numerous times. People can promise and say what they want. But, the groups that BHA plays with on collaborations have pocket books much larger than any hunting organization. they are against hunting. And, in the future when the management plan comes before congress for approval, a lobbied representative is who is going to be deciding what we get. Not us.
My second reason is the organization seems to be slanted politically. When politics define right and wrong for people based on the letter behind a politicians name, I glaze over. Because it reeks of agenda instead of truthfulness. I don't know everyone in the group or, claim to say where the group truly stands. 'i just know I have exchanged many a conversation with some touting members that could not distinguish right or wrong nor, cared to, based on a person's political party. That isn't right. Because any one with half a brain knows these lands are being pursued by agenda's from both sides, have been exploited by both party's, and it will take setting personal politics aside to get it right.
I personally believe the BHA has good intent. I would probably support them if they backed away from collaborations to designate our land away from our control. Until then, no one can promise that the next representative charged with management control of designated land, won't be a PETA or, a Sierra Club lover. As is, we have control of pubically owned land. I'll take that any day over trusting a politician and a federal designation stripping our land from us. God Bless men
Jason Snyder
WKR
WV,
I know your stance on this, we've debated it before. I agree, let's talk facts and let the chips fall where they may. We are all adults here and folks can make decisions for themselves. However, if we're going to advocate facts, we should talk facts.
It is a fact that national monument management plans are completely subject to FLPMA so long as that does not conflict with the special protections ordered in the proclamation (i.e. no motorized use as an example).
It is a fact the management plan for a national monument is subject to the same public input and objection process as any other management plan. All of these must be resolved prior to sending the Record of Decision to Congress for ratification.
It is a fact that a wilderness area is still managed under FLPMA in conjunction with the provisions of the Wilderness Act.
I am not offering a blanket endorsement of wilderness areas and/or national monuments. Each one proposed should stand alone as being appropriate and/or worthy of this designation. For the record, I don't believe BHA exists for the sole, or even primary purpose to create new wilderness areas and/or national monuments.
Saying you have no avenue for recourse with Congress is simply untrue. You vote don't you? Even if a lobbied representative upends a Record of Decision and it is remanded back to the administering agency for revision, all of those revisions are subject to public input and objections, just like the initial submission was. It simply is not the closed door process you would make it out to be.
As for the political slant, some examples of that would be nice. From what I've seen thus far, I've been very impressed with a variety of politically leaning folks coming together to the same table to support public lands.
You are entirely correct in that you should be aware of the agendas of the groups you are collaborating with. Hold your friends close and your enemies closer. It doesn't mean you can't partner with them to achieve like minded goals. As a side benefit, I think BHA does an outstanding job of changing the public perception of hunters in general to other outdoor user groups who operate under a 1970's stereotype.
I know your stance on this, we've debated it before. I agree, let's talk facts and let the chips fall where they may. We are all adults here and folks can make decisions for themselves. However, if we're going to advocate facts, we should talk facts.
It is a fact that national monument management plans are completely subject to FLPMA so long as that does not conflict with the special protections ordered in the proclamation (i.e. no motorized use as an example).
It is a fact the management plan for a national monument is subject to the same public input and objection process as any other management plan. All of these must be resolved prior to sending the Record of Decision to Congress for ratification.
It is a fact that a wilderness area is still managed under FLPMA in conjunction with the provisions of the Wilderness Act.
I am not offering a blanket endorsement of wilderness areas and/or national monuments. Each one proposed should stand alone as being appropriate and/or worthy of this designation. For the record, I don't believe BHA exists for the sole, or even primary purpose to create new wilderness areas and/or national monuments.
Saying you have no avenue for recourse with Congress is simply untrue. You vote don't you? Even if a lobbied representative upends a Record of Decision and it is remanded back to the administering agency for revision, all of those revisions are subject to public input and objections, just like the initial submission was. It simply is not the closed door process you would make it out to be.
As for the political slant, some examples of that would be nice. From what I've seen thus far, I've been very impressed with a variety of politically leaning folks coming together to the same table to support public lands.
You are entirely correct in that you should be aware of the agendas of the groups you are collaborating with. Hold your friends close and your enemies closer. It doesn't mean you can't partner with them to achieve like minded goals. As a side benefit, I think BHA does an outstanding job of changing the public perception of hunters in general to other outdoor user groups who operate under a 1970's stereotype.
WV Mountaineer
WKR
It is not fact granted by law the NM plans during revision or drafting have a guaranteed public veto like they do non designated. Sure, it is said they will use input but there is no lawful gaurantee of that. That is as factual as it comes. Saying otherwise is not being truthful.
Like I said before, I don't listen to a whole lot of promises made by politicians, special interest groups, or anyone else that says "trust me". After seeing enough of that go terribly wrong, I simply don't believe anything unless it is black and white reality. That's just the way it is. And, in my mind, the way it should be.
Fact is the laws outlying a designation are as I say. It's federal law. Management plans on designated ground have went very much in the negative for hunting on some of these places. ThAts a fact. As some are still the same as pre designation. That's a fact. The deciding factor for me and the few brave enough to voice opposition to what the OP or you want to hear is, once designated, the public has zero laws that grant them the checks and balances they did have predestination, on the management of these lands. Period. No disputable. And, there is more than enough evidence of mishaplenings to prove it simply isn't just a conspiracy theory.
That's the facts of it. You asked. You should know that. You've seen it in previous debates. Yet dismiss it as something irrelevant. Or, something that won't happen. People die. People lose elected seats. Hunting and these lands are sought by a bunch of very well funded people. I simply do not intend to put them in a position to where agenda dictates management for all users.
God Bless men
Like I said before, I don't listen to a whole lot of promises made by politicians, special interest groups, or anyone else that says "trust me". After seeing enough of that go terribly wrong, I simply don't believe anything unless it is black and white reality. That's just the way it is. And, in my mind, the way it should be.
Fact is the laws outlying a designation are as I say. It's federal law. Management plans on designated ground have went very much in the negative for hunting on some of these places. ThAts a fact. As some are still the same as pre designation. That's a fact. The deciding factor for me and the few brave enough to voice opposition to what the OP or you want to hear is, once designated, the public has zero laws that grant them the checks and balances they did have predestination, on the management of these lands. Period. No disputable. And, there is more than enough evidence of mishaplenings to prove it simply isn't just a conspiracy theory.
That's the facts of it. You asked. You should know that. You've seen it in previous debates. Yet dismiss it as something irrelevant. Or, something that won't happen. People die. People lose elected seats. Hunting and these lands are sought by a bunch of very well funded people. I simply do not intend to put them in a position to where agenda dictates management for all users.
God Bless men
Foldem
WKR
Yes. Life member of BHA, RMEF, and NRA.
WV Mountaineer
WKR
Jason, if you have debated this like you say in the past, you have seen the examples of the political stance many BHA members have expressed. If this gets heated enough, you'll likely see it again. I don't want to do that. I have my opinion. You have yours. Nobody says we have to agree.
I never said you don't have a potential for recourse with congress. I plainly stated their are no laws that grant us public input once designated. It's different if you choose to recognize that. Very different.
I never said you don't have a potential for recourse with congress. I plainly stated their are no laws that grant us public input once designated. It's different if you choose to recognize that. Very different.
AdamW
WKR
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2015
- Messages
- 819
BHA to me is the same as being an NRA member as a gun owner. Even if you find yourself not agreeing with every single issue, they are the best voice we have IMO. I've been very happy with the stuff I've seen BHA doing since I've been a member.
afdiamond1
FNG
Yes. I love being able to go where I want to in the backcountry and want my kids to have the same opportunity.
Just joined.
Jason Snyder
WKR
First, there is no public veto of any management plan. There is an objection process that is to be followed and a judge will examine whether the agency followed its own policies in developing the plan. It is policy for each agency to follow a public input process. Saying there is no lawful guarantee of that is not being truthful.
Again, the lands in question are still subject to the same FLPMA requirements. Certainly a monument CAN eliminate hunting, and you are correct in that some have not been friendly to hunters at all. This largely depends on which agency is charged with administering the monument.
Anything is possible. My elk hunting valley could be designated a national park by Congress.
You don't like national monuments and I have no issue with that. But, as you said first, let's stick to facts.
WV Mountaineer
WKR
Jason, no plan on nondesignated lands can go before congress as long as deliberation is underway. Never has congress not passed a plan on nondesignated lands that have been put in front of them. Because federal law dictates public input period as mandatory. That is the law. No way of saying it different. Period. That is fact.
After designation, there is no law that ensures public input periods are required. Which is what has alllwed those monuments to run afoul of multiple use management. Period. That's a fact. This out weighs any FLMPA stipulations. Proven by multiple use management not practiced on all NM's. That's a fact of this reality. Proven fact. No need to twist it to fit your liking them. You your self has acknowledged that. So, what's the argument in my way of looking at this?
I don't dislike or approve of a monument based on title. I dislike losing control of our lands. You guys have a good day and realize reality is fact. Not opinion. God Bless men
After designation, there is no law that ensures public input periods are required. Which is what has alllwed those monuments to run afoul of multiple use management. Period. That's a fact. This out weighs any FLMPA stipulations. Proven by multiple use management not practiced on all NM's. That's a fact of this reality. Proven fact. No need to twist it to fit your liking them. You your self has acknowledged that. So, what's the argument in my way of looking at this?
I don't dislike or approve of a monument based on title. I dislike losing control of our lands. You guys have a good day and realize reality is fact. Not opinion. God Bless men
Jason Snyder
WKR
I can't understand why you continue to state mistruths. FLPMA requires public involvement. The extent of this involvement is spelled out in regulation/law for the agencies. In the case of the USFS it is the National Forest Management Act and the BLM is the BLM Planning Rule. Each of these directly addresses the points at which public input must be considered. It makes no difference is the management plan is for a national monument or is simply your standard management plan. Both are subject to the SAME public input and objection process.
A monument designation comes from a presidential proclamation that provides for special protections and may include use restrictions. This proclamation is NOT subject to any public input and/or objection. The multiple use must then coincide with this proclamation, and can be limited by the constraints of the proclamation. This is vastly different than saying the public is not guaranteed input into the plan itself.
Management plans for do not typically go before Congress. They are signed by the administering agency.
I'm not going to debate this back and forth with you. I would encourage anyone who is on the fence about what to believe to do your own research. The facts I am relaying came directly from the agencies themselves.
This makes my head hurt. Two guys saying two different things, both of whom are adamant that they are factually correct.
To the OP, I'm not a BHA member, but I am strongly considering a lifetime membership. I don't believe that I need to agree 100% with an organization (or all of its members) to support it. If I refuse to agree or find middle ground with anyone who doesn't completely agree with me on all of the issues, I should just run for Congress because I would fit right in... I don't have some of the sensitivities that others have on these issues (National Monuments, Wilderness, etc). What I DO know is that if I had to choose between too much Wilderness/Motorized Restrictions or losing the land to private landowners, I choose the lesser of two evils. As bad as it sounds, it is a zero-sum game: SOMEONE is going to own and control the land, and I'd rather it stay in the public domain. Maybe I am oversimplifying, but I am also ignorant of the process of designating lands, public input, effect on local populace, etc.
Is there someplace to go and understand the processes for designating land, public input, etc? I would like to more fully understand how BHA operates and what they truly advocate before I throw them a wad of money.
To the OP, I'm not a BHA member, but I am strongly considering a lifetime membership. I don't believe that I need to agree 100% with an organization (or all of its members) to support it. If I refuse to agree or find middle ground with anyone who doesn't completely agree with me on all of the issues, I should just run for Congress because I would fit right in... I don't have some of the sensitivities that others have on these issues (National Monuments, Wilderness, etc). What I DO know is that if I had to choose between too much Wilderness/Motorized Restrictions or losing the land to private landowners, I choose the lesser of two evils. As bad as it sounds, it is a zero-sum game: SOMEONE is going to own and control the land, and I'd rather it stay in the public domain. Maybe I am oversimplifying, but I am also ignorant of the process of designating lands, public input, effect on local populace, etc.
Is there someplace to go and understand the processes for designating land, public input, etc? I would like to more fully understand how BHA operates and what they truly advocate before I throw them a wad of money.
airlocksniffer
WKR
Member of BHA, TRCP and RMEF.
WV Mountaineer
WKR
Jason, this gets ridiculous. It really does.
I'm going to leave it at this men. But, before I go keep one thing in mind. Jason insinuates one thing. But, in
Order for his "facts" to be true, there would be no NM that doesn't allow hunting post designation, that did predestination. That simply isn't the case. Nor is making parts of what was previously accessed land, off limits to the people after a designation. That's not multiple use. That's not public input. That's a lobbied agenda.
I'm not hear telling you the BHA is a bad thing. I was asked the same question all of you were. I answered why. The one thing we all need to ask ourselves is this. Undesignated, the antis have no recourse but lawsuits. There is a reason the enemy's of hunting like to collaborate our land out of federal law mandated gaurantee public input. They aren't doing it for the good of hunting. They are doing it to eliminate hunting in the future. That's only possible when congress has complete control over management. Which only happens when a statutory designation supercedes the FLMPA.
God Bless men
I'm going to leave it at this men. But, before I go keep one thing in mind. Jason insinuates one thing. But, in
Order for his "facts" to be true, there would be no NM that doesn't allow hunting post designation, that did predestination. That simply isn't the case. Nor is making parts of what was previously accessed land, off limits to the people after a designation. That's not multiple use. That's not public input. That's a lobbied agenda.
I'm not hear telling you the BHA is a bad thing. I was asked the same question all of you were. I answered why. The one thing we all need to ask ourselves is this. Undesignated, the antis have no recourse but lawsuits. There is a reason the enemy's of hunting like to collaborate our land out of federal law mandated gaurantee public input. They aren't doing it for the good of hunting. They are doing it to eliminate hunting in the future. That's only possible when congress has complete control over management. Which only happens when a statutory designation supercedes the FLMPA.
God Bless men
Similar threads
Featured Video
Stats
Latest Articles
-
TT#46 NRL Hunter with Travis Ishida, Justin Crossley, and Travis Bertrand
-
Argali Alpine Sleeping Bags Review
-
Conservation Easements for Big Bucks
-
Seek Outside Silverton 2300 Pack Review
-
TT#45 Maven Optic’s Cade Maestas
-
Boots: Light and Fast or Heavy and Bomb Proof?
-
Merry Christmas: The God Episode
-
Late Archery Mule Deer with Brian Barney
-
Triple Big Buck Year with James Yates
-
Vortex Defender CCW Red Dot Review