Fresh Tracks Weekly - Playing Political Football

[Big Fin]

A few days in DC last month reminded me of how much I hate the political football that gets played with public land management. The proposed BLM rule that would give conservation equal standing to other uses under the "Multiple Use" mandates is the subject of this week's episode.

Since nobody was in the office to keep me on the rails, I decided to spice it up a bit. Nothing like BLM land management policy debates to add the spice.

We've received a lot of comments, many of which come from the tinfoil territories, about this proposal. Some say it goes too far, some say not far enough. Most commenting cause me to question if those pinging us even read the proposed rule or if they just took the spoonfeeding from their favored group.

In the rule are ideas that were originally proposed by the Bush Administration to implement some market-based management policies. At that time, they were opposed by many on the opposite side. Now, some of those market-based proposals have been vetted and implemented here, and who is opposing them? The same groups who thought they were a good idea when the Bush Administration first introduced the concepts. Why? I think we know why.

Then there are these groups who plant the flag that their activities should be allowed under the "multiple use" mandates placed on Federal land managers. Well, now that we have a proposal that expands "multiple use" to include more uses, the folks who always stood on the ground of "multiple use" are complaining that they don't want that much multiple use. In other words, they want "exclusive use."

Anyhow, I probably ought to have the crew here when I do these things. Might be a bit dangerous to leave me unsupervised.

 

[dmandoes]

As a hunting, fishing, conservation, and public land guy, who should I vote for?

 

[MTGunner]

I have emailed Tim Sheehy multiple times to get a direct answer regarding his views on public land use. Thus far I have received nothing but chin music and the same old political blather he offers the media. I need a direct answer. So far same old same old. MTG

 

[Forkyfinder]

As a hunting, fishing, conservation, and public land guy, who should I vote for?

People who represent those interests. As @Big Fin has said - its been a political football with different sides voting against your access rights, wildlife conservation, preservation and managment.

The best thing to do is knowing what you are voting for and the risks associated with it - on conservation issues especially - as it isnt as cut and dry as abortion, for example.

 

[Big Fin]

People who represent those interests. As @Big Fin has said - its been a political football with different sides voting against your access rights, wildlife conservation, preservation and managment.

The best thing to do is knowing what you are voting for and the risks associated with it - on conservation issues especially - as it isnt as cut and dry as abortion, for example.

Yup.

And know that whoever you vote for, that's not a license to be an idiot on hunting, access, conservation, and 2A. If they are out in the weeds on topics such as those, and you let them know you voted for them, your communication with them is likely way more effective messaging than a partisan opposition complaining.

I probably reach out to more people I voted for when I think they need to change their position, than I do with people I didn't vote for.

 

[seeth07]

Anyone aware of a resource that helps sportsman review candidate positions?

 

[Nick87]

Anyone aware of a resource that helps sportsman review candidate positions?

Just ask them they'll tell you whatever you'd like to hear.

 

[MTGunner]

Just ask them they'll tell you whatever you'd like to hear.

Typically a politician response. OR, no response at all. MTG

 

[44hunter45]

When I talk to my reps about conservation issues and they all quote me the same numbers, I know the American Farm Bureau lobbyist has been round to see them.

 

[KingOfTagSoup]

@Big Fin I haven't yet had a chance to listen to the episode, as advocates for public land hunting access, so we like this rule or not. Asking objectively

 

[KingOfTagSoup]

*do*

 

[Big Fin]

@Big Fin I haven't yet had a chance to listen to the episode, as advocates for public land hunting access, so we like this rule or not. Asking objectively

I'm in favor or giving wildlife and conservation values equal footing under the "multiple use" mandates. I am also in favor of the market-based ideas of conservation leasing and compensatory mitigation leasing. Given that, I'm in favor of this rule, and I'm willing to see even stronger language to protect existing leaseholder, if necessary.

 

[nrpate05]

@Big Fin I haven't yet had a chance to listen to the episode, as advocates for public land hunting access, so we like this rule or not. Asking objectively

I don't see anywhere in the rule that would limit public access for anything. If that came up at the project-level, BLM would be hard pressed to justify reducing any access. I think one of the key parts the mitigation and restoration leasing is that they will not preclude "casual use" which includes hunting and fishing. Also, the approval of a lease does not mean that the lessee has exclusive rights to the public lands encompassed in the lease. As @Big Fin said, if there needs to be stronger language to reassure the existing leaseholder that would be alright, although I don't personally think it is necessary.

 

[David Gough]

A few days in DC last month reminded me of how much I hate the political football that gets played with public land management. The proposed BLM rule that would give conservation equal standing to other uses under the "Multiple Use" mandates is the subject of this week's episode.

Since nobody was in the office to keep me on the rails, I decided to spice it up a bit. Nothing like BLM land management policy debates to add the spice.

We've received a lot of comments, many of which come from the tinfoil territories, about this proposal. Some say it goes too far, some say not far enough. Most commenting cause me to question if those pinging us even read the proposed rule or if they just took the spoonfeeding from their favored group.

In the rule are ideas that were originally proposed by the Bush Administration to implement some market-based management policies. At that time, they were opposed by many on the opposite side. Now, some of those market-based proposals have been vetted and implemented here, and who is opposing them? The same groups who thought they were a good idea when the Bush Administration first introduced the concepts. Why? I think we know why.

Then there are these groups who plant the flag that their activities should be allowed under the "multiple use" mandates placed on Federal land managers. Well, now that we have a proposal that expands "multiple use" to include more uses, the folks who always stood on the ground of "multiple use" are complaining that they don't want that much multiple use. In other words, they want "exclusive use."

Anyhow, I probably ought to have the crew here when I do these things. Might be a bit dangerous to leave me unsupervised.

99% of people don't take the time to read a full news article anymore, nevertheless a proposed rule from BLM.