BHA seems “all-in” with Biden

[cuerro viejo]

A bit paternalistic, no?

absolutely, way they are being treated under this administration no? Im with the government and I’m here to help... again

In some eyes the irony is getting rather repetitive. Congrats here is your land we won and that we have since given a tiny portion back, oh by the way 80 years later new politician says you can no longer make a living on it.

 

[Rokbar]

I don't think there's anything wrong with state management of public lands in theory.

My issue is what has repeatedly occurred in reality. Oregon, particularly the Coast Range, has a ton of state managed public land.

There have been several serious efforts to push to have large tracts of those lands sold off because they weren't "profitable." The entire Elliot State Forest being a recent example.

All of such efforts, to my knowledge, have come from one side of the political aisle. I don't like that, but it is a reality.

If you're a Republican who values public lands you have to make peace with the fact that sometimes (not always) that personal value is going to conflict with the party agenda. If you're a Democrat who likes guns you will often have to do the same.

If I put my support behind something along the lines of what you posted, there is not a doubt in my mind that large swaths of land with good elk hunting would become off-limits to hunters over time in my state. I don't think there's any doubt that that would happen across the west. Look at the regulations on State Trust land in Colorado.

Private timber companies in Oregon have, in recent years, come to the conclusion that charging for access could be profitable. I've got no qualms with that, they own the land.

But I'm glad there's plenty of land I don't have to drop several hundred bucks a year to access.

Hoodie, not trying to be argumentative, but I googled Elliot State forest sale. Seems it came up in 2016. In 2016 Oregon was Blue in the counties that the forest lies in. The blue team controlled the whole state in both houses and governor. I saw that the sale was shot down on appeal to the state supreme court. I read that enviroMENTAL groups are hurting the school money by severely limiting timber sales. Maybe I'm wrong, but seems the state legislator was trying to drum up more money. I did see a graph that timber sales dropped off sharply around 2010. I'm not an Oregon resident, so not trying to butt in, just curious.

 

[Hoodie]

Hoodie, not trying to be argumentative, but I googled Elliot State forest sale. Seems it came up in 2016. In 2016 Oregon was Blue in the counties that the forest lies in. The blue team controlled the whole state in both houses and governor. I saw that the sale was shot down on appeal to the state supreme court. I read that enviroMENTAL groups are hurting the school money by severely limiting timber sales. Maybe I'm wrong, but seems the state legislator was trying to drum up more money. I did see a graph that timber sales dropped off sharply around 2010. I'm not an Oregon resident, so not trying to butt in, just curious.

My understanding is that the State Land Board made the proposal. You are correct that school funding was the stated reason for the sale, and that the State Supreme Court shot it down. You're also correct that that isn't an instance where this was clearly partisan. I should've been more clear.

When I said "all such attempts" I was addressing the general pattern. If a politician is advocating for transferring management of federal lands to a state government, or selling off state lands that aren't profitable, and you guess that said politician is a Republican, you'll probably be right. The same way if a politician is advocating for extreme gun control proposals, and you guess that that politician is a Democrat, you'll almost always be right. That DOESN'T mean I think that all Republican elected officials are hostile to public lands. They aren't.

You're correct that the proposed sale of the Elliot wasn't a conservative deal per se, but a good portion of the opposition that got it stopped came from environmental groups whose membership I would have to guess skews left (groups other than BHA, whose membership demographics were posted earlier.) In this instance, though I'm sure I'd disagree with those people on plenty of other things, I'm glad the Elliot is still open to the public.

State lands needing to generate revenue is one of the main reasons I'm against transfer of federal lands to the states. My understanding is that some state governments are legally obligated to sell off state managed lands that don't generate a profit.

That's all good info you posted though. I should've qualified my statement better.

 

[Rokbar]

My understanding is that the State Land Board made the proposal. You are correct that school funding was the stated reason for the sale, and that the State Supreme Court shot it down. You're also correct that that isn't an instance where this was clearly partisan. I should've been more clear.

When I said "all such attempts" I was addressing the general pattern. If a politician is advocating for transferring management of federal lands to a state government, or selling off state lands that aren't profitable, and you guess that said politician is a Republican, you'll probably be right. The same way if a politician is advocating for extreme gun control proposals, and you guess that that politician is a Democrat, you'll almost always be right. That DOESN'T mean I think that all Republican elected officials are hostile to public lands. They aren't.

You're correct that the proposed sale of the Elliot wasn't a conservative deal per se, but a good portion of the opposition that got it stopped came from environmental groups whose membership I would have to guess skews left (groups other than BHA, whose membership demographics were posted earlier.) In this instance, though I'm sure I'd disagree with those people on plenty of other things, I'm glad the Elliot is still open to the public.

State lands needing to generate revenue is one of the main reasons I'm against transfer of federal lands to the states. My understanding is that some state governments are legally obligated to sell off state managed lands that don't generate a profit.

That's all good info you posted though. I should've qualified my statement better.

No, thank you. I'm just trying to get a grasp on the west states vs. the eastern ones. I always beat the cut timber drum, as I like hunting cuts and believe it is a great habitat for wildlife, to a certain degree. Our state lands see more of it here than the USFS district I live near. One reason I know the USFS doesn't do more here is enviroMENTAL pressure. Really curious about that graph I saw on per year of timber sales. Dropped off sharp around '10 and '11. Sorry for the ramble and being off topic.

 

[Hoodie]

This is a tangent, but forest management on federal land in Oregon is pretty similar to how I remember it being in western NC. Tons of mature forest with very little thinning done and pretty much no clear-cutting. The NW Forest Plan that was implemented back in the 90s to save the spotted owl basically ended serious cutting on USFS land up here. Elk populations in the Cascades took a real hit. The kicker is that almost 30 years later the spotted owl is still basically screwed, for a few different reasons.

There's still a decent amount of cutting on State Forest lands in the coast range, and there's significantly higher elk/deer densities there. Same with private timber company land.

Logging is a pretty contentious topic in the NW. Lots of strong opinions on all sides of the issue.

I'm not sure about what might have led to the steep drop off in 2010-2011.

 

[Andrew12gauge]

Public land is not replaceable. Once Republicans buy them, they're gone forever. A bunch of the nonsense the liberals do in four years can be undone (obvious exceptions excluded). I haven't gone deep into the BHA ethos, but their claim that they only care about land access seems reasonable. Even if the hipster vibe is lame.

Now, I'll go read the 22 pages of theories on how BHA causes abortions, etc etc.

What do we do when the liberals give the land back to the tribes? I’m really curious as to why nobody is talking about this landback movement and how to put a stop to it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[idcuda]

What do we do when the liberals give the land back to the tribes? I’m really curious as to why nobody is talking about this landback movement and how to put a stop to it

I don't know much about that. But, again, sounds like it would be reversible at some point.

 

[mtwarden]

you put a stop to it when someone actually introduces a bill, until that point- relax and have a beer

public transfers aren’t overly popular, ask the couple of fellas from Utah

 

[Billinsd]

some Democrats aren’t friends to outdoorsman

In what ways other than fighting against Federal Public land transfers, development of public land, and deregulation are Democrats friends to Outdoorsman? and how are Republicans not friends to Outdoorsman other than mostly being in favor of what I stated above that Democrats are against?

 

[Billinsd]

public transfers aren’t overly popular, ask the couple of fellas from Utah

They are popular with the most powerful and popular politicians in Utah who are elected by the people of Utah, who by and large have a larger hunting population, percentage of the population than any other states except Michigan and Pennsylvania by numbers.

 

[wind gypsy]

In what ways other than fighting against Federal Public land transfers, development of public land, and deregulation are Democrats friends to Outdoorsman?

It's not just public land development, it's development period. Democrats are more likely to want wildlife species to be conserved in general regardless of the economic impacts. That said.. the way many of them approach predators doesn't bode well for huntable animal conservation or really conservation in general because it could reduce hunter funding for all conservation. I struggle to come up with more besides to say that a lot of things could likely fall under your de-regulation bin. Even then, some de-regulation (timber for example) could help outdoorsman.

and how are Republicans not friends to Outdoorsman other than mostly being in favor of what I stated above that Democrats are against?

In addition to the above, Republicans are more likely to support privatization of wildlife.

 

[wind gypsy]

you put a stop to it when someone actually introduces a bill, until that point- relax and have a beer

Unfortunately it can be too late at times then. Once the bill is there you cant always overcome the money and propaganda supporting said bill.

 

[Billinsd]

In addition to the above, Republicans are more likely to support privatization of wildlife.

What's privatization of wildlife mean?

 

[wind gypsy]

What's privatization of wildlife mean?

Tying wildlife ownership or consumption to land ownership. Selling access to or consumption of wildlife to the highest bidder.

 

[mtwarden]

if you’re in South Dakota, peruse your last (or current) session and see how everyone voted on all wildlife related bills- I’d be shocked if there weren’t folks on both sides that were off the mark.

on a National level, check the votes on the LWCF

everything and everybody is not all black and white, I’m sure folks would rather cling to that as it’s much easier

he bad, he good- done

 

[ttmannan]

Recreational hunters and subsistence hunters and other public lands users give $$ to BHA $$ to represent them at the State Game Board, and Forest Service work sessions, and when some fools want to dam up the Snow River valley for a private power plant.

I don't know anything about BHA except they sell t-shirts and drink beer. My lifetime membership with SCI and RMEF are enough for me at this point but I am reading this thread to learn about BHA. Am on page 5 of 23 and haven't seen any supported facts yet. Someone did say 1:5 bad - and I have to go ask him what those 5 are and what the one is but in the meantime... @greywacke you got my attention.

What, if anything then, is the BHA doing to fight the ban of cameras in AZ? How are they representing me as a hunter in this ban? What, if anything, is BHA doing about the proposed bear hunting ban in CA?

 

[Middleofnowhere]

Tying wildlife ownership or consumption to land ownership. Selling access to or consumption of wildlife to the highest bidder.

We sort of have that already with “landowner” tags in many states. The true model of this is the way a lot of African countries do it. The landowner essentially owns and manages the game. A hunter would essentially “purchase” the animal they harvest. The term is “trophy fee” paid to your PH

 

[204guy]

What, if anything, is BHA doing about the proposed bear hunting ban in CA?

Ummm well, ahhhh, ummmm they don't have a position on THAT type of hunting.

 

[Andrew12gauge]

you put a stop to it when someone actually introduces a bill, until that point- relax and have a beer

public transfers aren’t overly popular, ask the couple of fellas from Utah

While I see the point about the guys in Utah trying to get it through Congress and the backlash they received, rightly from their own constituency and other conservatives outside of their state, the issue this time is they are going to tie it to the social justice movement and it will become much more popular when they paint it in that light


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[wind gypsy]

Ummm well, ahhhh, ummmm they don't have a position on THAT type of hunting.

CA BHA Opposes Proposed Ban on Bear Hunting

Backcountry Hunters & Anglers (BHA), the voice for our wild public lands, waters, and wildlife, urges California legislators to oppose Senate Bill 252, which would ban black bear hunting in the state. For more than 100 years, the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation and the Public...

www.backcountryhunters.org

Surprised me but is good to see.