Smooth talking politician

So in less than a weeks time Senator Tester tried to screw us, and now for a thank you kiss after we get to bend over and take it, he gives us this http://www.greatfallstribune.com/ar...tsman-bill?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|Frontpage

So why advocate for preservation of public land use for the sportsman and try to turn over a bunch of public land to private interest with the tribal water settlement fiasco? A bunch of double talk from a worthless politician once again.

Randy and I were both on the call with Tester when he announced this. It's a solid move on his part, and it contains some critical pieces for public land hunters.

As to Grinnell Notch - Tester brought that up and encouraged everyone with concerns to contact his office. He made it clear that the last compact took 3 years to clear the Senate, and that this bill is starting point, and there will be a lot of changes made to it.

Get your comments in, advocate for specific areas, and learn more about it. I talked with Tester's staff again today and they're working on maps, etc. The understand why people are upset, and they've repeatedly said that they're open to changes.

That being said, how many of you guys hunt that area? We need folks with intimate knowledge on the ground.

It seems you just can't with with these guys (politicians). You get one that will be great with one topic but turn around and screw you on another. That is politics though....

This is just another example how just because land is deemed public it doesn't mean you'll always get to use it.

Nothing "solid" about coughing up public land. Never been there but have been all around it. May want to go some day and I want it there when I do.

Ben Lamb said:

It's a solid move on his part, and it contains some critical pieces for public land hunters.

Click to expand...

What do you have Ben?

Ben Lamb said:

As to Grinnell Notch - Tester brought that up and encouraged everyone with concerns to contact his office. He made it clear that the last compact took 3 years to clear the Senate, and that this bill is starting point, and there will be a lot of changes made to it.

Click to expand...

BS answer.

Ben Lamb said:

Get your comments in, advocate for specific areas, and learn more about it. I talked with Tester's staff again today and they're working on maps, etc. The understand why people are upset, and they've repeatedly said that they're open to changes.

Click to expand...

Come on Ben, you advocate this response? Spine up.

Ben Lamb said:

That being said, how many of you guys hunt that area?

Click to expand...

Point?

This deal stinks . Can someone explain why the tribe is owed this money?

mtmiller said:

What do you have Ben?

Click to expand...

http://www.mtbullypulpit.org/2012/06/unlocking-gates.html

Here are the provisions in the amendment that Tester and Thune are working on:

The Sportsmen’s Act of 2012
Hunting, Fishing and Recreational Access

Making Public Lands Public: This section requires that the 1.5% of annual LWCF funding is made available to secure, through rights-of-way, or the acquisition of lands, or interests from willing sellers, recreational public access to existing federal public lands that have significantly restricted access to hunting, fishing, and other recreational purposes. Access is the number one issue for Sportsmen. Finding places to recreate and the loss of access are the top reason sportsmen stop hunting and fishing. In an agency report to Congress (in 2003) found 35 million acres of public land had inadequate access.

Target Practice and Marksmanship Training Support Act: This section amends the Pittman-Robertson Act by adjusting the funding limitations. This allows states more funds available for a longer period of time for the creation and maintenance of shooting ranges. The bill encourages federal land agencies to cooperate with state and local authorities to maintain shooting ranges and limits liability for these agencies.

Polar Bear Conservation and Fairness Act: This bill allows for the Secretary to authorize permits for re-importation of legally harvested Polar Bears from approved populations in Canada before the 2008 ban.

Recreational Lands Self Defense Act: This section would prohibit the Secretary of the Army from enforcing any regulation that keeps an individual from possessing firearms in Army Corps of Engineer Water Resource Development projects or facilities. This language would not change the current legal prohibition of guns and dangerous weapons in federal facilities, such as the Corps Headquarters, Engineering Research Facilities, and lock and dam buildings.

The Army Corps owns 7.6 million acres and manages another 4.1 million acres, making it the largest federal provider of water-based outdoor recreation in the nation. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers property includes 400 lakes and river projects, 90,000 campsites and 4,000 miles of trails.

The Hunting, Fishing and Recreational Shooting Protection Act: This section specifically excludes ammo and fishing tackle from the Toxic Substances Control Act, leaving decisions about tackle to State Fish and Game Agencies and the Fish and Wildlife Service, who currently regulate ammo and tackle. The EPA has denied petitions to regulate tackle and ammo under TSCA in 1994 and again in 2011. This codifies that the EPA does not have the ability to regulate tackle. This includes a savings clause for local, state and other federal regulations.

Bows Transported through National Parks: This provision clarifies the 2007 legislation, and will allow bows to be transported across national park lands. Currently, firearms can be legally transported, but not bows. This poses a practical problem for bow hunters who want to legally hunt on Forest Service or BLM lands, but must cross National Park Service Lands.

Billfish Conservation Act: This section prohibits the sale of Pacific-caught billfish, except in the State of Hawaii, in order to respect traditional fisheries. Billfish (marlin, sailfish and spearfish) populations have declined severely due to overfishing by non-U.S. commercial fishing fleets who harvest billfish as by-catch while targeting other species. More than two decades ago, the United States banned the commercial sale and harvest of Atlantic-caught billfish. Catch-and-release recreational angling for billfish generates many millions of dollars in economic benefits to the U.S. economy each year.

Report on Artificial Reefs in the Gulf of Mexico: This section requires report on the Idle Iron program in order to develop more coordination between agencies and states. This will assure that the interests of recreational fishermen are incorporated into the program.
Habitat Conservation

National Fish Habitat Conservation Act: This section creates a national voluntary grant program to protect and improve fish habitat by improving water quality and quantity across the nation. This section builds on current partnerships to restore waterways and provides an organic statue to authorize the work that the Fish and Wildlife Service is currently performing into one program with an advisory board.

Migratory Bird Habitat Investment and Enhancement Act: This section amends the Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act so that the Secretary of the Interior, beginning in 2013 for three year periods, can set the amount to be collected for Federal Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamps. It will require the Postal Service to collect the amount established by the Secretary for each Stamp that is sold for a hunting year.

Permanent Electronic Duck Stamp Act: This section would grant the Secretary of the Interior permanent authority to authorize any state to issue electronic duck stamps. It also outlines electronic duck stamp application requirements.

Joint Ventures Reauthorization: This section creates an organic statute for the Joint Ventures program housed in the Fish and Wildlife Service. The Joint Venture program was established within the Fish and Wildlife Service in 1987. This language allows FWS to provide financial and technical assistance to support regional migratory bird conservation partnerships, develop and implement plans for the protection and enhancement of migratory bird populations to support migratory bird conservation.

Reauthorizations
North American Wetlands Conservation Act Reauthorization (NAWCA): This section reauthorizes the North American Wetlands Conservation Act for another five years. NAWCA is a voluntary land-owner friendly initiative that uses incentives to provide valuable matching grants that leverage federal dollars to protect habitat that is critically important for migratory birds, such as ducks and other wildlife. Over the last 20 years, NAWCA has completed over 2,000 conservation project to protect 26.5 million acres of habitat. This voluntary program has over 4,500 partners and has leveraged nearly 3 dollars for every dollar spent by the federal government.

Partners for Fish and Wildlife: This provides provision reauthorizes the Partners for Fish and Wildlife program through 2017. This program works in a non-regulatory, cooperative fashion to help private landowners with habitat restoration on their property. This cost-share program focuses on improving wetland, riparian, in-stream, fish passage, sage-steppe, grassland and aquatic habitats that provide benefits to migratory birds, threatened or endangered species, and other sensitive and declining species.

Neotropical Migratory Birds Reauthorization: This extends the authorization for the Neotropical Migratory Bird Act which allows for voluntary conservation of critical bird habitat with 28 Projects in 26 Countries in 2012. This program leverages four dollars of matching funds for each dollar spent by the federal government.

National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Reauthorization: This section reauthorizes the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF), a non-profit that preserves and restores our nation’s native wildlife species and habitats. Created by Congress in 1984, NFWF directs public conservation dollars to the most pressing environmental needs and matches those investments with private funds. Since its establishment, NFWF has awarded over 11,600 grants to more than 4,000 organizations in the United States, investing a total of $2 billion for conservation.

Multinational Species Conservation Fund Reauthorization: Section reauthorizes appropriations to carry out the African Elephant Conservation Act, the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act of 1994, the Asian Elephant Conservation Act of 1997, The Marine Turtle Conservation Act of 2003 and the Great Ape Conservation Act of 2000 for FY2012-FY2017. This will also allow for a five year extension on the corresponding postal stamps.
Multinational Species Conservation Funds Semipostal Stamp Reauthorization Act: This section would amend the Multinational Species Conservation Funds Semipostal Stamp Act of 2010 to require such stamps to be available for an additional four years; and provide five versions depicting African or Asian elephants, a rhinoceros, a tiger, a marine turtle or a great ape.

Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Reauthorization (FTFLA): This section reauthorizes the BLM’s authority to sell land to private land owners, counties, companies and others for ranching, community development and various projects. This “Land for Land” approach creates jobs and generates funding for BLM, USFS, NPS and USFWS to acquire critical in-holdings from willing sellers. The sales revenue allows agencies to acquire high priority lands with important wildlife habitat value and recreational access for hunting and fishing.

mtmiller said:

BS answer.

Click to expand...

Not BS. Tester changed boundaries on Forest Jobs and Rec after stakeholders presented their case. You don't effect change if you don't stand up and speak. I'm not happy or comfortable with a land swap, but I'm also not going to blow up shit because I'll get pissed.

Come on Ben, you advocate this response? Spine up.

Click to expand...

If you don't talk with the guy, what can you expect? I'm not going to beat up a guy who's stood up for hunters and anglers over and over, especially if it closes the door to future conversations and changes to the bill. I've communicated to his office that this is a huge problem, and they need to fix it. They're working on getting all of the information pulled together on a complex piece of legislation. What's wrong with that?

Point?

Click to expand...

Mt. Jefferson was pulled from Wilderness consideration because snowmobilers worked with Tester, advocated their specific areas, and made their case. It's much more effective to advocate for a specific place rather than just say "It's mine and I always want it to be there." I'm not advocating capitulating to the trade, I'm saying be specific in your ask, and provide some useful information.

tjones said:

Point?

Click to expand...

context?

I have seen plenty of these swaps and the public comes out short every time. This one is no different. How would you feel Ben if the piece proposed was part of the Front?

I wouldn't like it. I don't like this either. I'm just saying that it's more effective to provide specific information about parcels so that there's more to the request that a boot in the ass. Rather than get the pitchforks, get on the phone and call the office.

In order to fix that, we need to be specific. The bill won't die but will take a long time to move, because there's some serious negotiations going on between the Fed, Tribes and the State to settle the issue.

It's public land, and I don't want to lose it. Specific enough?

No.

Photos of guys with dead stuff & stories of kids and parents hunting together for the first time, that moves people better.

Ben you are a class act, and the world needs more guys like you , but im not one of them. This deal stinks and i mean bad. photos ect should not be needed , i have never set foot on any of this ground and I say no! Guess what that should carry the same weight as the guy who has hunted this federal land all his life. How many potential votes does Tester stand to pickup among the tribes who will receive this land?

I just walked in the door, having spent the day with my son and his girlfriend, showing her the great public lands of Montana. Quickly glanced through this and will give my quick comments. As to what Rat Fink provided, there seems to be two points.

First, the trade of public lands included in the Rocky Boy settlement bill.

Second, the bill Senator Tester announced today that will be attached to the Farm bill.

On the point of trading public lands as settlement for a water rights issues; bad idea. No other way to put it, just a bad idea. I am not privy to the way things happen on Congressional staffs, but whoever put this one out there without running it by hunters made a mistake. Flat out, a mistake.

The Senator has heard loud and clear that hunters think this is a mistake. I am working with him and his staff to get that changed. I know Ben is also, as are many other hunters.

I am not going to defend the exchange of public lands for settlement of a judgement, no matter who comes up with the idea, D or R, communist or capitalist. I am going to work to get it changed and keep as much public access as possible.

On Rat Fink's second topic; the bill announced today, I am very impressed. I hope guys take the time to read that bill and see what a huge deal it is for hunters and anglers.

The House budget bill cut everyone of those programs by huge amounts, and most of them completely eliminated. Important programs for hunters and anglers. This newly announced bill will put these items back on the table and add many other new items very helpful for hunters and anglers.

This newly announced bill is representative of the work Senator Tester has done for sportsmen, even if we are pissed at the Rocky Boy settlement bill. He has worked to get bi-partisan support, he has tactfully worked for agreement to add it to the Farm Bill. He has support of the big hitters in DC; the NRA, Congressional Sportsmen Foundation, and others. Because of that work, it will pass the Senate. What happens in the House, who knows.

There is my one cent on both those topics that Rat Fink mentioned, both very good and important topics to be discussed on this forum.

I am not going to defend a land exchange as an acceptable solution for a water rights settlement. I don't support it and I don't expect any public land hunters to support it when we are fighting to maintain every bit of access we have.

Having said that, the best Congressional delegate hunters and anglers have had in my 22 years of living in Montana has been Senator Tester. Not even a close contest among any other Senators or Congressmen.

Even though I am much further right of center than the Senator is on most issues and I questioned why Senator Tester would ask me to serve on a commission when he knows my political slants are further right than most, he deserves to be thanked for the work he has done on our behalf. Even in light of our feelings on the Rocky Boys bill.

Flat out, Senator Tester has done more than any person, not just for Montana hunters and anglers, but many of the legislative issues he has gotten passed have helped hunters and anglers in other states. I will not measure his entire work for hunters by the one mistake I think he has made. Rather, I will do all I can to convince him to change that mistake.

I cannot speak for the Senator, but I suspect he now knows how hunters feel about the idea of trading public lands, any public lands. Let's see what he does to fix it. Let's make sure he doesn't forget how we feel and make sure it gets fixed.

In the meantime, his re-election is up this fall. Are guys going to use his one mistake (at least a mistake in my view) to cast him to the curb? I am not, even though I am of a different political persuasion than he is.

Political persuasions don't count on hunting and fishing issues. At least not in my mind. Senator Tester, regardless of how you feel about him on other topics, has made hunting and fishing issues very apolitical and a high priority on the list of demands his constituents place on him. He has found Republicans to work with on the most important hunting and fishing bills, resulting in getting them passed. Something very few in Congress can say, especially his opponent.

If I were to post links about the work Senator Tester has done for hunters and anglers, it would be many links. If I posted links to the work his opponent has done for hunters and anglers, I don't know that I would get to the number 2. As such, I would not lump Senator Tester's actions on hunting and fishing issues as being just another smooth talking politician.

Once the passion of these two topics subsides, I hope we look at what/who is doing the most good for the hunters and anglers. It is good to be pissed about the Rocky Boy settlement bill, but let's not shoot ourselves in the foot by forgetting who helped us get a lot of good things accomplished, and will help us get a lot more accomplished going forward.

All these things both Fin, and Ben have stated are true, BUT, if he should now lose the election, I'll not feel as bad as I would have before this bill came out. I'm a little more "Ho Hum" but still in his court.

Ben Lamb said:

No.

Photos of guys with dead stuff & stories of kids and parents hunting together for the first time, that moves people better.

Click to expand...

I
So, justify and explain why we want to keep something that is all ready ours? Please, Ben .

Looks like come election day a guy holds his nose and votes for the lesser evil.

And you can bet Ben there will be plenty of pitchforks, boots and oh ya, phone calls.

I agree with everything Randy has said. I also worry what impact the exchange will have on the election. IMO the timing of this exchange bill could not be worse and will be used against Senator Testor by his opposition.

Randy & Ben-Is there any chance that the Senator would consider pulling this exchange bill off the table before the election? This race is going to be too close for any screw-ups.