Secretary DOI pick: Rep. Deb Haaland

Joined
Mar 11, 2017
Messages
753
I haven’t seen this brought up on Rokslide yet, President Biden’s pic for Secretary, Department of the Interior. As everyone knows, this pic is very important to hunters and fishermen as the Department controls the majority of public land and vast hunting areas in the United States.

Today’s questioning in the Senate Committee was a little troubling with Haaland’s lack of knowledge on Grizzly recovery and her past anti-science/hunting legislation as a congressperson.

The Safari Club has published a list of five questions that Deb Haaland should be asked and should answer. I agree with these questions and I want to know. https://safariclub.org/five-questio...ecretary-of-the-interior-nominee-deb-haaland/

Rep. Haaland has served in the House of Representatives after first being elected in 2019. Prior to that, she was Chair of the New Mexico Democrat Party. She serves on the House Natural Resources Committee and is the chair of the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands.

As the potential next Secretary for the Department of the Interior, Haaland will be responsible for managing the nation’s public lands and wildlife, including directly overseeing agencies of critical importance to hunters like the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM).

Here are 5 questions every hunter should be asking Congresswoman Haaland.

Question 1: Will you commit to a no-net-loss policy for hunting and fishing access on public lands?

Background: The previous administration was responsible for opening or expanding millions of acresfor sportsmen and women to hunt, fish, and shoot. As more Americans are turning to the outdoors in record numbers during the pandemic, can Haaland commit to NOT closing any public lands currently open to hunting and fishing?

Question 2: Will you commit to protecting individuals’ personal information from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), by directing DOI FOIA offices to consistently withhold personal information, as permitted by federal law, to protect the privacy rights of American citizens?

Background: There have been numerous attempts by anti-hunting organizations to obtain personal information of sportsmen and women whose names are in USFWS records as a way of harassing them. The USFWS, in particular, has an inconsistent record regarding the information it discloses in response to FOIA requests, especially related to the identities of international hunters. In some instances, information disclosed has been abused on social media and elsewhere to attack law-abiding hunters with death threats to hunters and their families, and in extreme cases hunters have had to move houses, lost their jobs, etc. Federal courts have upheld the USFWS’ ability to withhold personal information from disclosure and faulted the USFWS for its inconsistent approach in determining what information it can legally withhold.

Question 3: Will you commit today keeping recent changes made to the Endangered Species Act intact to more closely follow the law while also celebrating conservation success stories like the recent delisting of the Grey Wolf?

Background: The previous administration received praise from scientist and wildlife officials for amending the Endangered Species Act in order to more easily de-list species, like the Gray Wolf, that have fully recovered, subsequently freeing up resources that can be used to assist the recovery of other endangered or threatened species. Will Haaland and her team be guided by science when making listing decisions?

Question 4: President Biden’s Executive Actions to Tackle the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad, Create Jobs, and Restore Scientific Integrity Across Federal Government commits to the goal of conserving at least 30 percent of our lands and oceans by 2030. What is your baseline definition of “conserving” in this case? Do you recognize existing management levels/actions that currently afford protections? The executive order also launches a process for stakeholder engagement. Will you commit to providing sportsmen with an equitable voice in the stakeholder-engaged process?

Background: As America’s original conservationists, the hunting and fishing community has proactively supported strategic efforts to conserve our nation’s terrestrial, freshwater, and marine ecosystems for more than a century. Sportsmen and women deserve a seat at the table when policy proposals are debated about conserving lands and waters in the United States.

Question 5: In order to conform with the directives of the Executive Order on Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities through the Federal Government, and in order to protect the rights of underserved indigenous and rural communities, will you review and revise USFWS regulations to effectively take into account and give significant consideration to the opinions and views of relevant foreign countries and indigenous or rural communities during USFWS decision-making processes?

Background: Local wildlife and conservation professionals, especially ones living closest to those species, know how to best manage them. Will Haaland take into consideration concerns and hear the voices from stakeholders from Africa to Alaska?
 

jmez

WKR
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
7,404
Location
Piedmont, SD
You actually expect a political appointee to do anything other than toe a party line?? Dude, seriously.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk
 
Joined
Sep 18, 2016
Messages
688
Location
Maryland
Well if you watched her hearing you would know she wouldn't answer them anyways...but "would be willing to work with your office if confirmed".
I didn't, trying to limit my TV time to lower my blood pressure, but that sounds like a politician to me !
 

TaperPin

WKR
Joined
Jul 12, 2023
Messages
1,731
I know a president that was very forceful about cutting forest service and doi funding. I’m tired of the political bs and I wouldn’t mind if there was enough funding for decent forest service road and trail maintenance. Funding for the normal DOI programs would also be nice. Makes my f’ing blood boil to have idiots running the country and have western states take it in the shorts, and many out west saying, “Thank you, can I have another.” Political idiots.
 

Arthas

FNG
Joined
Mar 28, 2023
Messages
73
I know a president that was very forceful about cutting forest service and doi funding. I’m tired of the political bs and I wouldn’t mind if there was enough funding for decent forest service road and trail maintenance. Funding for the normal DOI programs would also be nice. Makes my f’ing blood boil to have idiots running the country and have western states take it in the shorts, and many out west saying, “Thank you, can I have another.” Political idiots.
Deomcrats have put the American public in the position that cuts to public land management agencies are inevitable. The Biden Administration has printed unprecedented amounts of money out of thin air that have been poured into every corner of the American and Global economy. The result of such unsustainable spending has predictably been month on month of record inflation, soaring prices of consumer goods, and subsequently rapid increasing interest rates. What unprecedented amounts of unsustainable spending means is that a future Administration is going to have to try to reign in spending. Places like the Forest Service are prime candidates for those cuts. Those agencies have committed to long term projects and hired employees with money that we never had in the first place.

When the money printing faucet that is running everyday Americans into the ground is finally stopped, organizations like BHA and public unions will whine that jobs are being cut at public land management agencies. There was never money for those positions in the first place and uncontrolled money printing has to be brought in line sometime. Just imagine if the Biden Admin had given 100 billion for 1 time public land project instead of giving it to Ukraine for a war. Instead, us citizen only got a couple billion dollars that we didn't have to spend.
 
Last edited:

TaperPin

WKR
Joined
Jul 12, 2023
Messages
1,731
Deomcrats have put the American public in the position that cuts to public land management agencies are inevitable. The Biden Administration has printed unprecedented amounts of money out of thin air that have been poured into every corner of the American and Global economy. The result of such unsustainable spending has predictably been month on month of record inflation, soaring prices of consumer goods, and subsequently rapid increasing interest rates. What unprecedented amounts of unsustainable spending means is that a future Administration is going to have to try to reign in spending. Places like the Forest Service are prime candidates for those cuts. Those agencies have committed to long term projects and hired employees with money that we never had in the first place.

When the money printing faucet that is running everyday Americans into the ground is finally stopped, organizations like BHA and public unions will whine that jobs are being cut at public land management agencies. There was never money for those positions in the first place and uncontrolled money printing has to be brought in line sometime. Just imagine if the Biden Admin had given 100 billion for 1 time public land project instead of giving it to Ukraine for a war. Instead, us citizen only got a couple billion dollars that we didn't have to spend.
Somewhere between News Max and MSNBC is what’s really going on - I wouldn’t believe everything either one of them has reported. There is a long history of congressional and public support for public land management, and I don’t believe the fundamentals have changed because it’s become a political target. We can agree to disagree.

As for Ukraine, if you think Putin would stop at the Ukrainian borders, his own words and actions would disagree with you. Footing the bill to have Ukrainian boys do the fighting and suck military stockpiles out of Russian warehouses and deplete their lethality is a bargain. We can agree to disagree on that as well.
 
Top