Should Rokslide Sign This?

[Mtnboy]

It's a well worded bunch of bs. These guys are bad news and you're a fool to get in bed with them. Sage grouse are a stalking horse at this point and any conservation group talking it up is after shutting down access no matter what they say in public. TRCP is a pig with lipstick on. Robby , keep Rokslide out of politics !

Edit: Changed my mind, not even worth a response.






Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

 

[mtwarden]

I think the poll speaks for itself on how most of us feel about this issue.

 

[1signguy]

Absolutely not!
I met with three scientists back in 2009 who were out catching grouse at night and tagging/census taking. They were adamant that the fracking industry was extremely helpful in a number of ways to the grouse.
This group consists of a bunch of left wing wackos. I can't imagine why you would want to alienate 1/2 the people on this board who don't subscribe to that belief system.
I kindly request you tell this group thank you but no. I really enjoy this site but if it goes political and in direction to the left I will no longer visit the site.
Thank you.

 

[Mtnboy]

Who did the "scientists" work for? An oil and gas company?

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

 

[Brendan]

I can't imagine why you would want to alienate 1/2 the people on this board who don't subscribe to that belief system.

Actually, as of right now it would alienate less than 7% of the board.

I voted - I say sign.

 

[BuzzH]

Couple comments.

First, those that are saying hunting groups, organization, and individuals should stay out of the "politics" of these type of sportsmen's related issues are not thinking clearly. News flash, public lands, wildlife, etc. are POLITICAL in nature, just the way it is. Sitting on the side-lines because someone from afar doesn't think you, or your sportsmen's groups, should stay out of it, are just wrong. I also find it lame that people threaten those groups to "not join", or to "not visit this site" when a position is taken. I say good, leave, and don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out...I have bigger things to worry about than a couple ill informed numbskulls trying to strong arm my involvement in issues that impact MY wildlife, MY hunting, and MY public lands. What good is an organization that never takes a position on anything because that position may hurt some feelers?

As a friend said one time regarding all these type of issues, " if you aren't at the table, you're on the menu".

I choose to be at the table, and I expect the groups and organizations that I'm a part of to be there as well.

As to this specific letter, its a good letter that I would sign on to in a heartbeat (matter of fact the group I chair DID sign on). There has been a lot of collaboration done on the sage grouse issue, probably the classic example of what good collaboration looks like. The Governors, public, industry, etc. etc. have been doing great things to ensure that sage grouse stay off the ESL. What's not to like?

The only thing Zinke should be "reviewing", are his notes he should be taking on what has, and is, happening on the sage grouse issue and how well all the parties involved have worked together to reach a desired goal. A perfect example of how the collaborative process can, and should, work.

His review of the sage grouse issue is looking for a solution to his problem...that he cant accept that things can be solved without his meddling.

 

[elkyinzer]

Obviously you guys own the place so it's your call whether this fits with your core values. I know I am fiercely for preserving our public lands through any means necessary, it is essential to the lifestyle I wish to live in this country.

 

[Beendare]

I vote NO!
(Though Rokslide is not a democracy- grin)

We have many laws on the books singling out one species......and how is that working out? Wolves, Grizz bears and Mtn Lions here in Ca.

We have to start thinking like the wildlife pros; its a balanced ecosystem.....singling out one species like the mtn lion in Ca has devastated our deer herds. Protecting one species above all others throws the whole system off kilter.
___

This thread brings up another subject; Effectiveness.

Do you still write letters to your Reps and consider this effective?
Once you realize how our current prostituted democracy works....you understand that a few letters are a waste of time....noble, but a waste.

To get things done you either have to 1)exert huge amounts of political pressure....or 2) a powerful lobbying effort.
I hate to admit it, but we have a pay to play government. I don't know anything about TCRP's power and lobbying....but if they don't have any....then its just a feel good org taking your $$. Harsh truth...but we are big boys here.

 

[mlevimadden]

What I still don't understand is that Rokslide presents itself as a backcountry hunting forum, yet some members who either live in or come out west to hunt on public backcountry land seem to support (or at least not oppose) those who would transfer(sell) those lands. If our public lands are transferred(sold), our access to backcountry hunting goes with it (as does Rokslide). So why wouldn't Rokslide be aligned with organizations fighting for public lands and conservation? Seems like an obvious partnership.

I couldn't have said it any better myself. I am amazed at the number of people who enjoy the public lands system in the west, yet vote to see it "transferred" solely based on their political party alignment.

 

[BuzzH]

I vote NO!
(Though Rokslide is not a democracy- grin)

We have many laws on the books singling out one species......and how is that working out? Wolves, Grizz bears and Mtn Lions here in Ca.

We have to start thinking like the wildlife pros; its a balanced ecosystem.....singling out one species like the mtn lion in Ca has devastated our deer herds. Protecting one species above all others throws the whole system off kilter.
___

This thread brings up another subject; Effectiveness.

Do you still write letters to your Reps and consider this effective?
Once you realize how our current prostituted democracy works....you understand that a few letters are a waste of time....noble, but a waste.

To get things done you either have to 1)exert huge amounts of political pressure....or 2) a powerful lobbying effort.
I hate to admit it, but we have a pay to play government. I don't know anything about TCRP's power and lobbying....but if they don't have any....then its just a feel good org taking your $$. Harsh truth...but we are big boys here.

You're on the menu...how's that working out for you?

Also, you're dead wrong...a handful of motivated sportsmen can change things...I've done it, and so have thousands of others.

If everyone had your attitude, there would be no public lands, no public wildlife, or even hunting. Glad many before me realized that they can make a difference, and did.

 

[HellsCanyon]

I vote NO!
(Though Rokslide is not a democracy- grin)

We have many laws on the books singling out one species......and how is that working out? Wolves, Grizz bears and Mtn Lions here in Ca.

We have to start thinking like the wildlife pros; its a balanced ecosystem.....singling out one species like the mtn lion in Ca has devastated our deer herds. Protecting one species above all others throws the whole system off kilter.
___

You're heart is in the right place but you're misinformed. Unlike apex predators the sage grouse is not a keystone species. However it IS a species that through collaboration efforts, can help most if not all other species. It's a vessel to help reduce wildland development, encourage healthy/new sagebrush steppe vegetation (improved winter range), and bring multiple stakeholder groups to the table. As long as it stays off the ESL, the sage grouse initiative and conservation efforts have been good for the range. It's been difficult for a lot of rural and ranching families who've relied on their own deeded land as well as public grazing permits for generations, but for the most part they've come to the table and played ball.

Mike



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Beendare]

You're on the menu...how's that working out for you?

Also, you're dead wrong...a handful of motivated sportsmen can change things...I've done it, and so have thousands of others.

If everyone had your attitude, there would be no public lands, no public wildlife, or even hunting. Glad many before me realized that they can make a difference, and did.

You're clever sarcasm toward my Ca residency is misguided....there are many Ca folks that are sportsmen fighting for sportsmen everywhere. If LA was in Wyoming....you too would be steamrolled by the hoards of city folk.

My attitude? You mean the one that belongs to multiple Sportsmans orgs? The one that allocates $1000 a year to sportsmans causes?

Of course I'm not trying to say a few dedicated souls cannot change things.....especially locally. A letter from Rokslide is not that. I'm pointing out the big picture here.....and the unintended consequences of managing for just one species.

 

[chasewild]

Would never sign this.

The "unprecedented" effort to conserve sage-grouse was driven by pressure exerted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service -- not the States, not the counties, not the permittees or anyone else on the ground that deals with the realities.

The leverage was a listing decision: if USFWS didn't get what they wanted in BLM and FS plans, they they'd list and shut down industry, access, ranching -- all of those economic drivers that us hunters like to ignore in the name of habitat.

Conserve the bird? Yes, of course. But top-down plans from Washington aren't what we need and that's exactly what TRCP is advocating. The Sage-grouse plans have been implemented for two years. Lawsuits have been filed in every state. Wyoming has the lions share of both birds and habitat and the State categorically failed to represent the people on the ground -- ranchers, energy, AND hunters.

I also am failing to see the reason for Rokslide to jump into this particular issue. There is no "Sage-Grouse" forum. Nor is there a "sagebrush habitat" forum. We don't get on this website to talk about that bad ass bivvy sage-grouse hunt we went on.

The closest thing to a "nexus" is mule deer (by virtue of that species' dependency on sagebrush for critical winter habitat). But EVERY BLM and USFS plan ALREADY has critical winter habitat restrictions, timing restrictions (generally 6-8 months out of the year), dedicated for ungulates. So, why would we need "Sagebrush Focal Areas" or noise restrictions when there is no literature that these restrictions will benefit mule deer?

The point is, every post prior to this has made sweeping assumptions about how well coordinated and how necessary the sage-grouse effort is. I'm not saying that sage-grouse aren't deserving of some protection -- they are -- but Zinke has taken a step in the right direction by allowing a review of plans that could dismantle more than just "oil and gas."

 

[Gr8bawana]

I'm glad to see that over 91% of those who voted have some common sense.

 

[WV Mountaineer]

Through the history of mankind, it has always been the vast minority that was considered weird for seeing reality. That's no different here.

 

[realunlucky]

Through the history of mankind, it has always been the vast minority that was considered weird for seeing reality. That's no different here.

Of course your right, you just told yourself so.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

[WV Mountaineer]

I'm right because I don't let feel good words blind me from the history of special interest dictating MULTIPLE USE doctrine. You and the rude fanboys should take a day and read the FLMPA. What you suggest being good about this letter, is in direct contradiction of its intent.





As long as we are on the subject, it amazes me the number of people who are willing to fallback on the FLMPA when it suits them but, go in direct contradiction to it when it doesn't. Anytime a special interest group influences multiple use management, public land use and its heritage, gets prostituttd to the lobbied interest. That wasn't the design or its intent. But, I guess it's ok if you see it tat way.

 

[Tod osier]

Would never sign this.

The "unprecedented" effort to conserve sage-grouse was driven by pressure exerted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service -- not the States, not the counties, not the permittees or anyone else on the ground that deals with the realities.

The leverage was a listing decision: if USFWS didn't get what they wanted in BLM and FS plans, they they'd list and shut down industry, access, ranching -- all of those economic drivers that us hunters like to ignore in the name of habitat.

To me that is exactly how it should work. Those on the ground - those using the land and those managing the land - let the situation get to the state it did. There was no impactful movement to act on behalf of Sage Grouse populations by those on the ground and action was taken only to try to stave off ESA-level action. I'd prefer to have Sage Grouse and Sage Grouse habitat thriving and I'll happily pay more for beef and energy as a result. Those that are using our Federal Lands to make a living and the managers of those lands had not shown in this case that they could be good stewards.

 

[robby denning]

The poll is up, not because Rokslide is a democracy, but because many of us (like me) are not all-knowledgeable on every issue nor can we be. This poll has stimulated discussion from both sides on the issue, and that is why the poll is up.

someone said we can do what we want 'cause we own the site--sure we can, but on issues like this we certainly want to hear from the people who make this site possible. I can only assume many people are here because we have a common love for hunting and all things wild. I'd be a fool not to listen.

And as said, everything is political, whether we like it or not. Staying neutral isn't always the best option...

 

[chasewild]

There was no impactful movement to act on behalf of Sage Grouse populations by those on the ground and action was taken only to try to stave off ESA-level action.

This is patently incorrect and shows a complete lack of information.

For example, the State of Wyoming began its Core Population Area Strategy in earnest in 2008, which evolved to a lengthy Executive Order in 2011, supplemented in 2013, and currently under 2015-04. The USFWS repeatedly stated that if every state used such a strategy, it would preclude a listing decision. That doesn't count as "impactful?"

Local governments in Wyoming also began working with ranches and energy in 2007 on habitat exchanges while conservation districts and counties worked with industry and agriculture to improve habitat. Weed and pest districts mobilized on cheat grass and raven management. That isn't "impactful" either?

How about voluntary efforts taken by energy to mitigate disturbance, disruptive activities, etc? Not impactful?

Moreover, you forget that prior to the BLM and USFS plans, the USFWS found that the sage-grouse was not warranted -- precisely because of the States in place. Your argument unraveled before it even began.