Is the current administration good or bad for public lands and hunting?

[OXN939]

A federal judge blocked the Tongass logging plan....that was 5 days ago. Forest Service will likely appeal. And the State of AK does little other official business than advocate for increasing oil production....

Yeah Dunleavy is, to nobody's surprise, a crook who is in the pockets of big oil and mining. One more vote against him and his ilk headed yall's way ASAP

 

[FLAK]

IT doesn't, or at least it shouldn't take a genius to know that without the 2nd Amendment all the others are null and void.
SMH at some of the panty waisted comments on here. How could you possibly be unsure about the two different parties at this point? 3rd party?? that's a joke. The left is allowing rampant civil discourse, violence and outright terrorism and some are worried about their public lands? Well, guess who is most likely to turn over those public lands to the "less fortunate". What you gonna do when the mob shows up at your house after Biden makes it illegal to own a semi auto?, get on your bike and ride? Pull out your bow? give me a freaking break.
You want the whole Mtn. West turning into California? Well, you know who to vote for.
Some better get their heads out of the sand.!!!

 

[WV Mountaineer]

I’m all for the 2nd amendment and enjoy my guns...I feel like when we tie ourselves to a single issue vote like guns, that’s when the politicians get one over us. They know they can say they’re pro 2nd amendment or pro-life get the votes then do whatever the heck they want. I want both, guns and protection of public lands.

Here is the truth about mineral development on public lands. Many of the mineral rights under public lands have been privately owned and, were never owned by the government. Do a little research and you will find that congress and the courts has been very clear that the federal government cannot stop a private owner from accessing those mineral rights if desired. I'm not going to provide that info for you. It is imperative for you to educate yourself on this one. Yes, they have and will put up miles of red tape and, do whatever they can in some instances to stop that development But, they cannot literally block the entity with refusal to grant access on the surface.

There are two main designation of public land in this country. One is the National Forests. One is lands managed under the BLM. The NF system sets under the jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture. The BLM is contained in the Department of Interior. Both now are mandated to be multiple use managed. Initially the USFS was developed and defined as lands collectively owned and managed for multiple use, by the citizens of the United States. The BLM was a federal government agency formed to manage lands the federal government retained after statehood development of many states. Its initial purpose was to provide resource leases, grants, and land sales based on local needs of the communities that surrounded those land bases. By promoting private entity procurement of resources on and under those lands. It has since been mandated to be multiple use managed. Which is very good.

This is a start for you to develop the education of these two land agency's and, their roles in management of the land bases under their jurisdiction. So, you can see for yourself exactly what this administration has done to not only protect but, to promote public lands under law defined jurisdiction. I could type 50 pages of why you need to do this. But, I'll summarize it all by saying if you do this. no one will be able to fill your head full of biased BS of threats we face in public land usage as hunters and fishermen under this administration.

BLM lands will continue to see mineral leases and extraction when markets present because that was/is their purpose. That is their sole reason for existence. You had better get used to land sales in areas around Vegas. Conducted by the BLM. Because by federal law, that is the role the agency plays. And, until lobbyist no longer affect federal policy, it's going to happen. However, what you don't have to worry about is this administration selling your National Forest land to their rich republican buddies. It will never happen. And, you have zero worries of this administration enacting a huge national monument on USFS lands. Which by statute, strips public input as mandatory for management. That last one in itself is a huge victory.

The point I am making is this administration has not strayed from the legally defined purposes of public lands. And, that is a great thing. Instead, it has only extended the intended use of these lands by honoring the federal definition of law that defines those lands. This is coming from a guy who spent 20 years working for government and private industry in responsible Natural Resource extraction on private and public lands. So, don't be fooled by the propaganda.

 

[Rokbar]

Not true...hunters and fishermen fund wildlife conservation through license dollars and excise taxes on hunting and fishing equipment.

Federal Land management is funded via tax dollars from ALL U.S. taxpayers. You have no more, or less skin in the game than they do.

Game management, your comments are 100% correct.

Not to get off topic or argue, but I do not believe all recreationalists pay into the Pittman-Robertson act. Whether conservation or habitat restoration sportsman do have more skin in it.

 

[FlyingDutchman]

I feel like funding and state/federal decision making are good topics that relate to my original post. This isn’t s discussion on 2nd amendment rights and what party is better for guns. I am simply looking into whether or not our current administration is good for hunting and fishing on public land. I know its hard not to do it since you’re all so passionate about your beliefs, but Please keep the political party bias out of the discussion. I am not a democrat if that helps ease your mind that I am not here with some liberal agenda. I’ve worked for a decade in the Pacific NW and Alaska on Marine Fisheries and Salmon projects in Oregon/WA rivers for both the Feds and States. I switched careers and am now a PT so I’m a little out of the loop. I’m trying to inform myself. Internet forums are not the only method I choose to do so, but I was interested in what my fellow American Brothers and Sisters think. I appreciate that the majority of posts have been civil and constructive. Keep it up and we might learn something new.

 

[BuzzH]

Not to get off topic or argue, but I do not believe all recreationalists pay into the Pittman-Robertson act. Whether conservation or habitat restoration sportsman do have more skin in it.

Nope not all, specific to firearms and associated stuff is where the PR funds come from. Not hard to google it up for specifics. There are also things that PR funds can be used for and some things that they cant be used for.

There are also some NGO's that do a lot for habitat, conservation, and restoration that are not hunting or fishing specific organizations.

Its really not a competition or a "who does more", but IMO, we should all collectively do more for wildlife, land management, conservation, etc.

Not a debate that hunters and fisherman do most of the heavy lifting in regard to wildlife management though.

 

[jfs82]

IT doesn't, or at least it shouldn't take a genius to know that without the 2nd Amendment all the others are null and void.
SMH at some of the panty waisted comments on here. How could you possibly be unsure about the two different parties at this point? 3rd party?? that's a joke. The left is allowing rampant civil discourse, violence and outright terrorism and some are worried about their public lands? Well, guess who is most likely to turn over those public lands to the "less fortunate". What you gonna do when the mob shows up at your house after Biden makes it illegal to own a semi auto?, get on your bike and ride? Pull out your bow? give me a freaking break.
You want the whole Mtn. West turning into California? Well, you know who to vote for.
Some better get their heads out of the sand.!!!

is this a bad thing? Wouldn't want those other amendments (like the 1st) being honored.

 

[FlyingDutchman]

is this a bad thing? Wouldn't want those other amendments (like the 1st) being honored.

No not at all...just not relevant to the discussion. I’m not sure what 2nd Amendment advocacy has to do with our government’s policies/bills to uphold, expand hunting/fishing opportunities and improve habitat on public land.
It’s like going on an Archery forum where somebody asks how to tune his bow and everyone responds “all you need is to vote the 2nd amendment and you won’t need a bow”

 

[FLAK]

is this a bad thing? Wouldn't want those other amendments (like the 1st) being honored.

That the best you could do?

No not at all...just not relevant to the discussion. I’m not sure what 2nd Amendment advocacy has to do with our government’s policies/bills to uphold, expand hunting/fishing opportunities and improve habitat on public land.
It’s like going on an Archery forum where somebody asks how to tune his bow and everyone responds “all you need is to vote the 2nd amendment and you won’t need a bow”

For the shallow thinkers: The 2nd protects ALL other rights, including your property rights both PUBLIC and private. Also, (stay with me) the Dems have a horrible 2nd Amendment track record. And who do you think would be most likely to eliminate hunting and fishing opportunities? Do you really think Republicans are most likely to eliminate hunting and fishing opportunities? Or those out destroying PUBLIC property?????
If you don't get it by now you never will.

Please Lord Jesus dont let ignorant people turn this country in to Venezuela.

 

[FlyingDutchman]

That the best you could do?


For the shallow thinkers: The 2nd protects ALL other rights, including your property rights both PUBLIC and private. Also, (stay with me) the Dems have a horrible 2nd Amendment track record. And who do you think would be most likely to eliminate hunting and fishing opportunities? Do you really think Republicans are most likely to eliminate hunting and fishing opportunities? Or those out destroying PUBLIC property?????
If you don't get it by now you never will.

Please Lord Jesus dont let ignorant people turn this country in to Venezuela.

Once again I’m not a democrat and I support the 2nd amendment as well as to uphold the constitution in general. I’m not sure how you’re contributing to the thread by insinuating I’m an ignorant shallow thinker. I have lots of experience in several fields, Doctoral education and I’ve actually been to Venezuela along with a lot of other countries. I don’t know you so won’t insult you, I just ask you kindly to please go troll someone else’s thread.

 

[N2TRKYS]

I’m all for the 2nd amendment and enjoy my guns...I feel like when we tie ourselves to a single issue vote like guns, that’s when the politicians get one over us. They know they can say they’re pro 2nd amendment or pro-life get the votes then do whatever the heck they want. I want both, guns and protection of public lands.

Aren’t you doing the same thing? Except, your issue is public lands?

 

[jfs82]

Shallow thinking is thinking that only one part of maybe the most important, great historical political document of all time is what makes the rest of it (ignoring the obvious from hundreds of years of history) function and minimizing the necessary interplay that is at the basis of all check and balances system. Shallow thinking is, almost by definition, remaining focused entirely on one topic ignoring all the things that interact with it, like a post asking about a current administration's effect on public lands and somehow turning it into a 2A argument that no one else was having.

 

[jfs82]

Aren’t you doing the same thing? Except, your issue is public lands?

Only if he's saying I'll only vote for those who represent my idea of public lands best. I've missed a few posts so maybe he did say that, but I hadnt seen that yet.

 

[N2TRKYS]

Only if he's saying I'll only vote for those who represent my idea of public lands best. I've missed a few posts so maybe he did say that, but I hadnt seen that yet.

That’s what the first post was about.

 

[jfs82]

That’s what the first post was about.

Fair, I didn't take it as 'this is all I care about politically'

 

[Trial153]

That the best you could do?


For the shallow thinkers: The 2nd protects ALL other rights, including your property rights both PUBLIC and private. Also, (stay with me) the Dems have a horrible 2nd Amendment track record. And who do you think would be most likely to eliminate hunting and fishing opportunities? Do you really think Republicans are most likely to eliminate hunting and fishing opportunities? Or those out destroying PUBLIC property?????
If you don't get it by now you never will.

Please Lord Jesus dont let ignorant people turn this country in to Venezuela.

Calling people shallow thinkers and ignorant doesn't help your case much.
Just saying

 

[FlyingDutchman]

I didn’t say that my only consideration for voting is whether a candidate supports public lands. That couldn’t be further from the truth. It’s certainly something I consider though. My original post was just asking for reliable information on the public land record of the current administration. It didn’t say I didn’t like republicans or our President. Not sure where the disconnect is? Perhaps I’m naive to think adult Men and Women could have a civil discourse about a topic that concerns us roksliders without some individuals making it about their predilections.

 

[FlyingDutchman]

I also realized when I came across the Outside magazine that perhaps it was a superficial understanding of actual policy that the administration is working on or advocating the Senate/House to work on, and should look into more sources of info.

 

[N2TRKYS]

I didn’t say that my only consideration for voting is whether a candidate supports public lands. That couldn’t be further from the truth. It’s certainly something I consider though. My original post was just asking for reliable information on the public land record of the current administration. It didn’t say I didn’t like republicans or our President. Not sure where the disconnect is? Perhaps I’m naive to think adult Men and Women could have a civil discourse about a topic that concerns us roksliders without some individuals making it about their predilections.

If you found out that the current administration wasn’t doing as much as you like for public lands, of the two current options, who would you support?

 

[FlyingDutchman]

If you found out that the current administration wasn’t doing as much as you like for public lands, of the two current options, who would you support?

Oh man that’s like asking me which venereal disease I wanna catch...both terrible choices. Do you vote for the old bumbling charlatan or the old bumbling career politician? Both very similar by definition