Should Rokslide Sign This?

[Trial153]

I am life member of the NRA, even though I only archery hunt. I also purchased life memberships for my son and daughter.
That said I find myself at odds of late with them and there endorsements. Their lack of a stance on PLT is troublesome to say the least. Furthermore it's so important that the position needs to be place in their ratings for potential candidates. I have made my options known via letters and emails enough to get some canned unsatisfactory responses back. However that's not enough and they need to reevaluate this issue and do it quickly.

 

[Plj271]

Yes, please sign it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[WV Mountaineer]

The NRA will never take a stand against PLT because that is an issue being pushed by the republicans and the nra only endorses republicans who so strongly support the nra. They would be cutting their own throats by taking a stand against PLT.

You must not be a member of the NRA. If you are, you certainly haven't read or paid attention to their election editions listing which candidates to vote for by the state. While it mostly is Republicans, there is not doubt a reason for that. If your 2nd amendment rights are not intact, public land rights for hunting won't mean much will it?



What some of you party pushers are going to find out is the Democrats have just as many ulterior motives to get the management of this land away from the public's hand. And, a good bit of it is in the name of energy production. Watch what happens to states surrounding California by 2045. And, know your party of choice is responsible for what is going to be well over 1 million aces of wind turbines and solar fields on BLM land that will no longer allow hunting or public access. That's just grand isn't it? Unfortunately, this is just one example you "save the land" party pushers over look when you get hung up on the often recited, mostly misunderstood agenda of the evil Republicans wanting your land agenda being spoon fed to you by most of these "conservation" groups.

 

[mtwarden]

well I will give you this- you do liven up a conversation

 

[Chad E]

You must not be a member of the NRA. If you are, you certainly haven't read or paid attention to their election editions listing which candidates to vote for by the state. While it mostly is Republicans, there is not doubt a reason for that. If your 2nd amendment rights are not intact, public land rights for hunting won't mean much will it?

I am a member of the NRA. I choose to give them my support because they are the best group out there at supporting my 2nd amendment rights. I don't always agree with their stance or tactics but bottom line they are the best thing going for gun rights. That being said I think they only protect hunting as a secondary objective but I am ok with that and respect that their number one goal is guns.

That being said I think your statement about public land hunting rights being worthless without the second amendment is very misguided. I hunt with all available weapon choices depending on season and location so I am far from a archery purists but I am guessing there's plenty of bow hunters who value hunting public lands higher than firearm rights...in fact I know several. The argument that once we loose guns hunting would soon follow because of the divide and conquer strategy is a solid one so a world without gun rights where hunting survives may not be a reality. That all being said I want access to my public lands for lots of activities that have nothing to do with guns or hunting. The concept of PLT goes way past hunting for me.

I don't think there is a group out there that is the jack of all trades when it comes to supporting our second amendment rights and also hunting and public lands. The NRA has a huge backing of people that don't hunt and other groups like BHA or TRCP have people that don't necessarily own guns. Because I believe in the purpose of both types of groups I am a member of all of them (and RMEF etc. who has yet another purpose). I am blown away how some people seem to make the argument that not getting involved is the better solution to these current issues.

 

[BuzzH]

BUZZ, where does it say in the FLMPA that special interest groups gets management consideration on pubic land?.

Sec. 102 (43 USC 1701) (a)5(5) in administering public land statutes and exercising discretionary authority granted by them, the Secretary be required to establish comprehensive rules and regulations after considering the views of the general public; and to structure adjudication procedures to assure adequate third party participation, objective administrative review of initial decisions, and expeditious decision making;

Again here in Sec. 103 (43 USC 1702) (d)(d) The term “public involvement” means the opportunity for participation by affected citizens in rule making, decision making, and planning with respect to the public lands, including public meetings or hearings held at locations near the affected lands, or advisory mechanisms, or such other procedures as may be necessary to provide public comment in a particular instance.

Sec. 202 (43 USC 1712) (f)(f) The Secretary shall allow an opportunity for public involvement and by regulation shall establish procedures, including public hearings where appropriate, to give Federal, State, and local governments and the public, adequate notice and opportunity to comment upon and participate in the formulation of plans and programs relating to the management of the public lands.

Do I need to go on, or is the point driven home yet the public, including hunting, conservation, fishing, bird watching, etc. etc. organizations absolutely have not only the RIGHT to comment on issues related to Land Management, its required under the law for the Secretaries of the USDA and DOI to provide the opportunity.

I'm not sure you understand much about FLPMA...

Unfortunately for you, you ran into someone that understands resource policy. You can BS the fans but not the players.

 

[Gr8bawana]

You must not be a member of the NRA. If you are, you certainly haven't read or paid attention to their election editions listing which candidates to vote for by the state. While it mostly is Republicans, there is not doubt a reason for that. If your 2nd amendment rights are not intact, public land rights for hunting won't mean much will it?

What good will my firearms be when there is no public land to hunt? The NRA doesn't seem to care about that, only the fact that we wil have our guns. BFD!
I used to be a member of the NRA but I got very tired of constantly getting surveys from them asking my opinion on gun rights. The kept asking my opinion but they only wanted it if it was accompanied by another donation of $$$. Pages and pages of propaganda and another chance to extend my membership. A great waste of my money. If I didn't agree with them I would never have joined in the first place.

 

[WV Mountaineer]

Public input is public input. You do it in the form of a group. Groups that lobby for their interest. Of course there are no laws that are against that. But, groups lobby for special interest management is a far stretch from multiple use management. It's special interest management. You, I, and everyone else knows that. Quoting the FLMPA as proof of your group having that right is ignorant and off subject. No one denies the right to form a group to express a want. Everyone knows that anytime multiple use losses to a lobbied interest, it's a loss for multiple use public land. You can hammer that any way you choose. Because that just the way it is.

 

[Chad E]

Public input is public input. You do it in the form of a group. Groups that lobby for their interest. Of course there are no laws that are against that. But, groups lobby for special interest management is a far stretch from multiple use management. It's special interest management. You, I, and everyone else knows that. Quoting the FLMPA as proof of your group having that right is ignorant and off subject. No one denies the right to form a group to express a want. Everyone knows that anytime multiple use losses to a lobbied interest, it's a loss for multiple use public land. You can hammer that any way you choose. Because that just the way it is.

Are you seriously arguing a system that allows for all sorts of public input including group input is unfair simply because people can form groups and then provide input?

 

[Trial153]

Does everyone understand my spitting in the wind comment yet?

 

[WV Mountaineer]

No, I'm implying exactly what I've said. Do you not know how collaborations works? Have you ever set at a table discussing public land management with multiple special interest groups? Everyone not present gets left behind. Or, the smallest piece of the pie. Lobbied interest is just as it implies. If you are ok with that, then what's the problem with big corporations doing the same? Isn't that what feeds your fear? Their influence? So, why is your group any better?

 

[Hunthigh1]

Yes!

 

[Huntindog45]

excellent. Please join in supporting this effort.

 

[Gr8bawana]

Does everyone understand my spitting in the wind comment yet?

WV would agrue with a stump.

 

[BuzzH]

No, I'm implying exactly what I've said. Do you not know how collaborations works? Have you ever set at a table discussing public land management with multiple special interest groups? Everyone not present gets left behind. Or, the smallest piece of the pie. Lobbied interest is just as it implies. If you are ok with that, then what's the problem with big corporations doing the same? Isn't that what feeds your fear? Their influence? So, why is your group any better?

Pretty apparent you've never done much "collaborating" on these types of issues.

The big, medium, and small corporations are constantly lobbying for their interests. The question I have, is since oil interests, grazing interests, logging interests etc. etc. have always been at the table, why shouldn't sportsman's organizations take their seat at the table as well? Should recreation, wildlife, hunting, and fishing interests just be squashed? Should they be excluded from representation?

Or by your own words, should they just be one of the "Everyone not present that gets left behind"?

You're making no sense.

For the record, I'm not opposed to, or afraid of, ANY group...mining, grazing, county commissions, game and fish, hunting groups, bird watching groups, motorized access groups, concerned individuals, etc. etc. etc. being at the table collaborating on land management issues. If we're all at the table to help come up with viable plans to say...oh, I don't know, keep sage grouse off the ESL, I'm fine with that.

Exactly why TRCP's letter should be supported...because that is exactly what many want to see continue in regard to sage grouse management.

 

[chasewild]

I'm not sure you understand much about FLPMA...

Unfortunately for you, you ran into someone that understands resource policy. You can BS the fans but not the players.

Then let the varsity player call you out.

You can quote FLPMA all you want, but we BLM is not amending or revising any plans currently -- unless I have missed some notice in the Federal Register that you can enlighten me on.

So, all of the provisions you cite in FLPMA have literally no bearing on this conversation -- whether Rokslide should sign onto the letter drafted by TRCP.

What they do have some bearing on, is whether and to what extent BLM complied with these requirements from 2008 till 2015. And, without disclosing too much information, BLM gave the USFWS the reigns to what was in BLM plans -- something that FLPMA does not allow.

This debate is not about public lands and I find the posts above twisting the narrative to be about public lands disingenuous and racketeering. Requesting review of the sage-grouse planning documents is not an attack on hunters' being able to access and use big game habitat for hunting. Reviewing the sage-grouse plans is to determine what restrictions on multiple uses and what restrictions are not.

So, again, if Rokslide wants to jump on a non-hunting letter, regarding a non-hunting land use review, fine. But Rokslide needs to be clearly informed that the issue is sage-grouse. Not public lands.

 

[chasewild]

They're simply asking the DOI Secretary, to keep the process going that has the support of a vast majority of the stakeholders and that has, and will, keep sage grouse off the ESL. Its that simple. There is no push from them to "designate management"...none.

You're reading things that aren't there...

I'll take this one too.

"Vast support" does not include counties in Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, Nevada, and California. It also doesn't include conservation districts statutorily dedicated to working with soils, vegetation, and watershed health. Vast support also doesn't include energy and ranching. Sorry, the complaints filed in DC, Colorado, Wyoming, Nevada, Utah, California, and Oregon blatantly contradict your broad assertion. The "process" you keep flouting left local players out of the process. A review would undue some of the mistakes Washington handed down without any influence from the people on the ground.

"Stakeholders" is not a term in FLPMA. Has no weight in court. Keep that word in your policy discussions in Washington.

The process that kept the sage-grouse off the ESA by definition had to occur before the BLM plans were even approved. That doesn't strike you as odd?

Again, reviewing the sage-grouse plans returns input on public lands to a local scale. Why would we want Washington to make those decisions?

 

[Shrek]

Then let the varsity player call you out.

You can quote FLPMA all you want, but we BLM is not amending or revising any plans currently -- unless I have missed some notice in the Federal Register that you can enlighten me on.

So, all of the provisions you cite in FLPMA have literally no bearing on this conversation -- whether Rokslide should sign onto the letter drafted by TRCP.

What they do have some bearing on, is whether and to what extent BLM complied with these requirements from 2008 till 2015. And, without disclosing too much information, BLM gave the USFWS the reigns to what was in BLM plans -- something that FLPMA does not allow.

This debate is not about public lands and I find the posts above twisting the narrative to be about public lands disingenuous and racketeering. Requesting review of the sage-grouse planning documents is not an attack on hunters' being able to access and use big game habitat for hunting. Reviewing the sage-grouse plans is to determine what restrictions on multiple uses and what restrictions are not.

So, again, if Rokslide wants to jump on a non-hunting letter, regarding a non-hunting land use review, fine. But Rokslide needs to be clearly informed that the issue is sage-grouse. Not public lands.

Exactly ! And the Sage Grouse is simply the newest greenie power grab. The TRCP is just a front for the Sierra Club as far as I can tell. These guys are pushing an agenda that will result in you , the hunter , being locked out. They talk a reasonable game but the actual agenda is bad news.

 

[Trial153]

There must have been a run on Secret decoder rings.....

 

[Shrek]

There must have been a run on Secret decoder rings.....

For my part I recognize the language style and talking points from the Sierra Club fundraising letters I still get from when a dipshit family member lived with me. With the delisting of wolves and grizzly bears the Sage Grouse is the new tool for power and fundraising.