Dallas Safari Club pulls support for BLM pick

[260madman]

Looks like they actually did some research after people complained and found some things they don’t like. One being her past from the eco-terrorism days and two being an article her husband published in 2018. It’s totally okay though, right?

DSC pulls support

 

[ODB]

I sent DSC a note on this a few weeks ago asking for a comment. Didn’t frame it in a confrontational way, just asked a question. Probably had nothing to do with their decision, but my guess is they just didn’t have all that much info and only knew here as a “pro-hunting, public land proponent.”

 

[brocksw]

Here's her husbands article just in case anyone wants to actually read it before posting about it.

Combustion Engines, by Richard Manning

harpers.org

 

[gelton]

Here's her husbands article just in case anyone wants to actually read it before posting about it.

Combustion Engines, by Richard Manning

harpers.org

I kind of agree with the article above except that landowners should be able to clear their land, including controlled burns in order to protect their homes from fire. The problem is that permits to do just that are often denied.

But letting the wildfires burn themselves out instead of spending great sums of taxpayer dollars to fight them, which is more often than not, futile, isn't what I would consider a radical idea...and it's also good for wildlife

 

[EcoastDG]

Here's her husbands article just in case anyone wants to actually read it before posting about it.

Combustion Engines, by Richard Manning

harpers.org

Interesting article. Thank you for sharing it. I drove through Seeley Lake this Spring and stopped to grab some coffee at a local shop. It was a cool little town.

Also, props to all the firefighters out there fighting forest fires.

Picking a former member/accomplice of an eco-terrorist organization to run a high level government job doesn't sound like a wise decision.

 

[brocksw]

Also, props to all the firefighters out there fighting forest fires.

Yeah if the article is correct and they were harassing firefighters, that's a bunch of horse shit. Those guys work their ass off and spend weeks/months away from home and many don't make great money.

Picking a former member/accomplice of an eco-terrorist organization to run a high level government job doesn't sound like a wise decision.

She has a pretty good track record over the last 20 years. I'm not sure what to believe about what happened 30 years ago. I've read a variety of stories about what happened and her involvement. While it certainly seems like she got involved in some stuff she shouldn't have been involved in, it doesn't sound like anyone got hurt. They (members of the org that she was involved in) were spiking trees and then marking them and then telling the USFS that they did it and where. While that's definitely some extremist type stuff, I can see how some hippy kids in the late 80s and early 90s could get tied up in it without much thought of repercussions or the future. She did some dumb stuff 30 years ago when she was 20....welcome to club...I'd offer that most people on this forum could say the same. If she was still an "Eco-terrorist" I would think that groups like MDF and WSF and the Congressional Sportsmens Foundation would have never signed on to that endorsement.

If our entire life was based and judged on what we did when we were 20, life would suck for a lot more people. Frankly, the number of organizations that supported her nomination before this all came out says a lot about her professional work history. The fact they knew her name, knew her work, and were willing to sign their name on the line says quite a bit.

If more orgs start pulling their name from that list I'd guess it's only because of social pressure and fear of blow back, which is a shame. If her professional history says she qualified, and all those orgs supported her nomination, then it's basically cancel culture that's winning the day if they pull that support. But, you know how it works these days...we're not allowed to use reasonable judgement and make nuanced decisions. Hypocritical, poop throwing politicians and politically biased cancel culture loving voters run the show.

Just my thoughts I guess...

 

[brocksw]

I kind of agree with the article above except that landowners should be able to clear their land, including controlled burns in order to protect their homes from fire. The problem is that permits to do just that are often denied.

But letting the wildfires burn themselves out instead of spending great sums of taxpayer dollars to fight them, which is more often than not, futile, isn't what I would consider a radical idea...and it's also good for wildlife

Is that because if all those homes cleared their land there would be a lot less forest in that area? I could see how all those small rural developments would just end up being a big clearing on the side of mountain. Maybe that clearing through all the national forests that wouldn't account for as many acres as I think it would? I'd also be curious to know the details on how the average insurance policy works for homes in locations like these.

If you build a house next to a lake or river that floods often, I don't really feel bad for you when the inevitable happens. The decision perhaps, shouldn't be to default to letting it flood or burn, but instead, reasonable measures taken. But, ultimately you chose to build or buy there and you knew the risk.

I ran into a guy in Colorado who was on the side of a mountain looking for a spot to build a house. He said he was eliminating that particular drainage because of all the beetle kill. Imagine my reaction if he said, "Nah, eff it. I'm gonna build a huge house right over there and then criticize the USFS and the Federal government when it burns down because they did a shitty job protecting my property."

 

[gelton]

I ran into a guy in Colorado who was on the side of a mountain looking for a spot to build a house. He said he was eliminating that particular drainage because of all the beetle kill. Imagine my reaction if he said, "Nah, eff it. I'm gonna build a huge house right over there and then criticize the USFS and the Federal government when it burns down because they did a shitty job protecting my property."

Yeah, but private property is private property.

You are talking to a guy who is originally from the gulf coast whose families' homes have been partially destroyed multiple times in the last two decades...no one is asking for anyone to protect them or feel sorry for them. One of my family's beach cabins was totally destroyed (like nothing left) and in fact, it cleaned up the whole beach community, but now the prices are ridiculous because everything is virtually brand new.

You shouldn't need permissions or permits to clear or protect private property.

 

[Dos Perros]

I would guess DSC is the first of more to come.

 

[brocksw]

Yeah, but private property is private property.

You are talking to a guy who is originally from the gulf coast whose families' homes have been partially destroyed multiple times in the last two decades...no one is asking for anyone to protect them or feel sorry for them. One of my family's beach cabins was totally destroyed (like nothing left) and in fact, it cleaned up the whole beach community, but now the prices are ridiculous because everything is virtually brand new.

You shouldn't need permissions or permits to clear or protect private property.

Sure man. I'd agree with that general concept about private property. But, lots of nuance. Sometimes the houses aren't on private property and theyre actually a blm or usfs lease. I have a family friend that has a winter home on BLM property and is very restricted in what he can and cannot do. But again, that's his choice.

Also, sometimes the private property lot isn't big enough or separated enough to escape some of these "mega fires". So no amount of clearing, short of the whole damn mountain side is going to save those homes. Again, it's a risk you took by living there.

 

[Squincher]

Yeah if the article is correct and they were harassing firefighters, that's a bunch of horse shit. Those guys work their ass off and spend weeks/months away from home and many don't make great money.



She has a pretty good track record over the last 20 years. I'm not sure what to believe about what happened 30 years ago. I've read a variety of stories about what happened and her involvement. While it certainly seems like she got involved in some stuff she shouldn't have been involved in, it doesn't sound like anyone got hurt. They were spiking trees and then marking them and then telling the USFS that they did it and where. While that's definitely some extremist type stuff, I can see how some hippy kids in the late 80s and early 90s could get tied up in it without much thought of repercussions or the future. She did some dumb stuff 30 years ago when she was 20....welcome to club...I'd offer that most people on this forum could say the same. If she was still an "Eco-terrorist" I would think that groups like MDF and WSF and the Congressional Sportsmens Foundation would have never signed on to that endorsement.

If our entire life was based and judged on what we did when we were 20, life would suck for a lot more people. Frankly, the number of organizations that supported her nomination before this all came out says a lot about her professional work history. The fact they knew her name, knew her work, and were willing to sign their name on the line says quite a bit.

If more orgs start pulling their name from that list I'd guess it's only because of social pressure and fear of blow back, which is a shame. If her professional history says she qualified, and all those orgs supported her nomination, then it's basically cancel culture that's winning the day if they pull that support. But, you know how it works these days...we're not allowed to use reasonable judgement and make nuanced decisions. Hypocritical, poop throwing politicians and politically biased cancel culture loving voters run the show.

Just my thoughts I guess...

I would bet most people on the forum can say they never committed a felony or were involved in any groups who did at any age. What felonies did you commit when you were 20?

 

[Okhotnik]

Is that because if all those homes cleared their land there would be a lot less forest in that area? I could see how all those small rural developments would just end up being a big clearing on the side of mountain. Maybe that clearing through all the national forests that wouldn't account for as many acres as I think it would? I'd also be curious to know the details on how the average insurance policy works for homes in locations like these.

If you build a house next to a lake or river that floods often, I don't really feel bad for you when the inevitable happens. The decision perhaps, shouldn't be to default to letting it flood or burn, but instead, reasonable measures taken. But, ultimately you chose to build or buy there and you knew the risk.

I ran into a guy in Colorado who was on the side of a mountain looking for a spot to build a house. He said he was eliminating that particular drainage because of all the beetle kill. Imagine my reaction if he said, "Nah, eff it. I'm gonna build a huge house right over there and then criticize the USFS and the Federal government when it burns down because they did a shitty job protecting my property."

Not surprised that BHA so energetically supported this unqualified nut job. Is she anti predator hunting and anti gun too?

 

[brocksw]

I would bet most people on the forum can say they never committed a felony or were involved in any groups who did at any age. What felonies did you commit when you were 20?

I've never committed a felony. From what I can find she, specifically, didn't either...or at least she wasn't convicted. Again, I could be missing something. Seems like every media outlet has its own version of what she did depending on what political agenda they push. Remember, innocent until proven guilty.

 

[Btaylor]

Not surprised that BHA so energetically supported this unqualified nut job. Is she anti predator hunting and anti gun too?

This is a DSC thread so you can run along now.

 

[brocksw]

This is a DSC thread so you can run along now.

This is rokslide man...every thread is a BHA bashing thread.

 

[KurtR]

The nuance of this thread is only found in the nuance of the discussion on nuance.

 

[bsnedeker]

Good on them. My personal feeling is that many of the groups who initially supported this pick did so based on the idea that "well, they could have picked someone worse!"

We need to set the bar higher for these types of endorsements so I'm glad they listened to the feedback from their members.

 

[Marbles]

DSC either signed their name to something without doing their due diligence (making their opinion questionable at best) or they did their due diligence and cannot hold up to the blowback, meaning they are spineless.

Regardless, I will not trust them in the future as I have no use for organizations that go off half cocked or blow with the wind.

The issue of tree spiking was brought up at past confirmation hearings, so it was public knowledge years before DCS signed that letter supporting her.

As Mark Twain said "it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to talk and remove all doubt." DCS would do well to remember that before voicing support or opposition in the future.

Not surprised that BHA so energetically supported this unqualified nut job. Is she anti predator hunting and anti gun too?

She helped create the legislation that delisted gray wolves. Nuff said.

 

[Bubblehide]

Here's her husbands article just in case anyone wants to actually read it before posting about it.

Combustion Engines, by Richard Manning

harpers.org

In reference to the article, I lived in a small mountain community in a different state years ago. I still go there and have connections there. I can tell you what has happened there over the years. Most residents are completely unaware of the severity of fire danger in the area and threat to their homes. Fire clearance is required by the fire department, but not permitted by the home owners association in a manner compliant with fire regulations. The forest service has decommissioned many forest service roads in the area; and specifically those running along a ridge that would, in the past be utilized for fire suppression efforts. Unfortunately due to the decommission (I suspect not done legally) of the forest service roads, the roads are not fit to get vehicles and equipment through without ATV/UTV's walking or air dropping. In short, meaning a significant delay in an area that often has high winds that would drive a fire and embers directly into communities below.

My point here is that the writer clearly blames residents in a multitude of ways, without taking other aspects into consideration. Furthermore, the author suggests defunding firefighting efforts in such areas. At what point do we stop that type of mentality. I mean if we look at city fires, and adjust the cost to per structure, under the same logic (or lack there of), we would also stop fire suppression efforts in those cases.

I recall the good old days of prison crews being taken out to thin our forests on a regular basis; this simply does not happen in my area any longer. The appearance is that there are no preemptive measures being taken, while the measures I see being taken, actually increase the odds of devastating fires and structure fires.

I often go out and preform trail maintenance, including trimming trail areas from becoming overgrown and unusable. From that and all the time I spend on and off trail, I can tell you that in the areas I frequent, the forest has an unfathomable amount of dead fuel. That is especially the case in the mountain community I used to live in. I can only imagine the outcome when a fire does breakout during one of the common wind storms we get.

As to the article, I could easily write a skewed condemnation of the affects the tree huggers have had on our forest management. It is long past the time we ignore these protectionists groups and get back to actual real scientific based management or our lands and the animals that inhabit them.

 

[Squincher]

I've never committed a felony. From what I can find she, specifically, didn't either...or at least she wasn't convicted. Again, I could be missing something. Seems like every media outlet has its own version of what she did depending on what political agenda they push. Remember, innocent until proven guilty.

She was granted immunity to testify. Innocent witnesses don't require immunity.