NWTF and Public Lands

Hey all, its been awhile since I've been on here, but I just thought I'd share this information. The NWTF has a membership base of around 225k, and a very strong voice in DC. Our primary membership is in the Midwest and East (although I'd like to build up our western membership), which I think this makes our stance even more unique. Our policy and conservation staff is always watching these issue closely, so rest assured we are doing what is needed for sportsmen and women across the country. Let me know if you would like to get involved, or have any questions! I need to get on here more anyway

http://www.nwtf.org/conservation/article/keeping-public-lands-public

I saw that on Facebook yesterday. I'm glad NWTF is taking a stand. The more the merrier on the public land bandwagon.

With all due respect, I just read that manifesto, and, quite honestly, it really doesn't say shit.


(Kurt Dyroff, NWTF’s director of conservation operations in the western region,)

“I believe the thought is that local communities would benefit from jobs created through increased recreational access, logging, mineral development, energy exploration and ranching,” Dyroff said.

Click to expand...

This isn't hard to take a stand against.

While the notion of local control almost always has a nice ring to it, opponents of such transfers point out that once states get control, history shows that many parcels eventually convert to private control via auction or other means.

Click to expand...

Is Dryoff unable to explain that federal employees managing the land actually LIVE on the land, near the land?

Several factors are fueling this renewed push. First, Dyroff explained, is a perception that much of the large tracts owned by the federal government is managed by federal employees living thousands of miles away and are out of touch with western needs.

Second, the amount of federal land ownership in the West, especially when compared to other parts of the country, is substantial. He said some perceive it as a fairness issue, noting many eastern lands were transferred from federal to private ownership years ago.

Click to expand...

So, are you against transfer of lands or for transfer of lands to the states? If against it, say it.

Dyroff said the NWTF believes “the solution lies in improved mechanisms, collaboration and communication related to federal land management.”

Click to expand...

Really leading the crusade here...... You had to join a bunch of other organizations to "reach out" and "request" a strong public lands agenda?

“We’ve also joined a broad coalition of conservation partners that has reached out to both presidential candidates to request they maintain a strong public-lands agenda if elected,” Dyroff said.

Click to expand...

Are you one of those organizations in AWCP that advocates selling My Public Lands?

Many organizations in the AWCP support legislation authorizing the sale of targeted public lands without high conservation value to generate funds to buy high priority conservation public lands. Especially desirable are lands that improve hunting, fishing, shooting and other recreational access, and protect important wildlife habitat.

Click to expand...

What federal lands are closed to state agencies for official wildlife management work?

“Wildlife for the 21st Century” noted that improved collaboration requires better alignment of federal with state habitat management and the opening of federal lands to state agencies for official wildlife management work.

Click to expand...

Again, with all due respect, that diatribe doesn't say shit to oppose the transfer of My Public Lands. You could have saved a lot of time by coming out and saying that your group OPPOSES THE TRANSFER OF PUBLIC LANDS. Period.

Kudos to NWTF. Thanks for making the position public and well known.

One would think the anti-public land crowd would see how large the resistance is. But, maybe I give them too much credit.

EDIT - Contrary to what Jose says, good job.

Thanks NWTF, I've been a member for several years now and don't plan on letting my membership lapse any time soon. In fact I just renewed it a few weeks ago. Jose, this is a clear enough stance that you can see they are against the transfer. With such an east and Midwest based membership I am glad to see them do this and have a lot of respect for it. NWTF has been on resolutions sent to congress opposing a land transfer, I think that makes it even more clear where they stand.

Oneye said:

Thanks NWTF, I've been a member for several years now and don't plan on letting my membership lapse any time soon. In fact I just renewed it a few weeks ago. Jose, this is a clear enough stance that you can see they are against the transfer. With such an east and Midwest based membership I am glad to see them do this and have a lot of respect for it. NWTF has been on resolutions sent to congress opposing a land transfer, I think that makes it even more clear where they stand.

Click to expand...

Maybe I missed it, but could you quote the part that says they were opposed to the transfer of public lands?

The most recent statement they can make deals with both candidates?

Maybe they have an actual position paper somewhere. This aint that.

Dyroff said NWTF members can make an impact by contacting legislators to let them know how important federal lands are to conservation and the preservation of America’s hunting heritage.

“Join the coalition against the wholesale transfer of public lands and help educate your friends, the conservation community and general public on the benefits of federal lands,” Dyroff said.


I took the above statement to mean they were against PTL.

Southern Elk said:

I took the above statement to mean they were against PTL.

Click to expand...

You just made my point. We have to guess, and interpret what you think their position is.

A representative of the Organization should have been able to point to a clear policy position, if they wish to weigh in on the topic.

Posting a link to a pseudo-news article / interview that rambles all over, but never states a position does not inspire much confidence in their understanding of the issue.

JoseCuervo said:

You just made my point. We have to guess, and interpret what you think their position is.

A representative of the Organization should have been able to point to a clear policy position, if they wish to weigh in on the topic.

Posting a link to a pseudo-news article / interview that rambles all over, but never states a position does not inspire much confidence in their understanding of the issue.

Click to expand...

That's what I take their position to be. I feel that statement is pretty clear. I have also seen their name on lists sent to congress specifically opposing the transfer of public lands.

Oneye said:

That's what I take their position to be. I feel that statement is pretty clear. I have also seen their name on lists sent to congress specifically opposing the transfer of public lands.

Click to expand...

Yeah, it takes some imagination, and a leap of faith to think they have an opinion on transfer of Public Lands.

And, with a bit of snooping on their site, you can see just how much they ignore the topic when they took the chance to communicate to Trump.

“We’ve shared the document with [President Elect Donald Trump’s] transition team and asked for the recommendations to be included in the new administration’s priorities,” Pedersen said.

With Pedersen as editor, the NWTF had a heavy hand in drafting the document, and many of the organization’s key goals are included.

Seven vital recommendations are made. They range from securing funding for wildlife conservation to improving public lands for wildlife by increasing active management and reducing litigation.

Other critical issues include:

• enhancing hunter access to public land;
• making energy development compatible with wildlife conservation;
• incentivizing wildlife and habitat conservation on private lands;
• modernizing the Endangered Species Act; and
• building a strong future for hunting and recreational shooting on public lands

​

Click to expand...

Let's see, they want to "reduce litigation", which is code words for "Eliminate the EPA, NEPA, and ESA".

And "increasing active management" which is code words for "we don't need no stinkin' Washington DC person telling us how to manage our local lands".

And "making energy development compatible" which is code words for "Drill Baby, Drill"...

And "incentivizing" private landowners is code words for "we ain't going to fund the Agencies, so we need to take taxpayer money to private landowners".

And "modernizing the Endangered Species Act" which is a code word for "ELIMINATE the ESA".


Nowhere in their message to Trump did they address opposing transfer of public lands, and/or adequately funding public land managers.

Just more of the Koch Brother's nonsense about "Drill Baby, Drill" and "Kill the EPA and Regulations".

JoseCuervo said:

Let's see, they want to "reduce litigation", which is code words for "Eliminate the EPA, NEPA, and ESA".

And "increasing active management" which is code words for "we don't need no stinkin' Washington DC person telling us how to manage our local lands".

And "making energy development compatible" which is code words for "Drill Baby, Drill"...

And "incentivizing" private landowners is code words for "we ain't going to fund the Agencies, so we need to take taxpayer money to private landowners".

And "modernizing the Endangered Species Act" which is a code word for "ELIMINATE the ESA".

Click to expand...

You might wanting to talk to Ralphie from A Christmas Story and ask to use his de-"coder." Your coder seems to be stuck way over to one side and not able to give objective readings.

Big Fin said:

You might wanting to talk to Ralphie from A Christmas Story and ask to use his de-"coder." Your coder seems to be stuck way over to one side and not able to give objective readings.

Click to expand...

It is a literary technique, similar to alliteration.

Quite effective.

What do you think "eliminate litigation" means?

What do you think "modernizing the Endangered Species Act" means?


Why are those important issues to a bunch of Turkey guys?

Jose I think it takes much more imagination to come up with what you came up with in your last post than seeing NWTF is against the transfer. I appreciate your passion Jose and am glad you are on our side, but I do think litigation and the ESA needs reform because it's a huge part of why there is so much frustration and why the system is partly broke. I do not support abolishing the EPA, ESA, or things like the clean water rule which Trump is about to undo. We have to pick our battles here because if we start throwing a fit over everything they'll stop listening. Be reasonable. Keeping public lands public is the most vital point over the next 4 years. I do want to see things reformed but on a reasonable level. It is my opinion the Trump administration and congress unfortunately is turning toward gutting these acts rather than reforming them.

JoseCuervo said:

It is a literary technique, similar to alliteration.

Quite effective.

What do you think "eliminate litigation" means?

What do you think "modernizing the Endangered Species Act" means?


Why are those important issues to a bunch of Turkey guys?

Click to expand...

They said "reduce litigation," not eliminate. I was in a discussion about this the other day. Litigation is an outcome of incentives provided in the ESA. ESA incentives/disincentives have two obvious outcomes.

First, the ESA provides no incentives for private landowners who have protected the what is sometimes the last remnants of valuable habitat for T&E species. Rather, the USFWS gets sued if they do not come in with the heavy club. Seems to me if we value these species and the critical habitat they need, we should at a minimum, remove the disincentives, and if we are really interested in habitat conservation that benefits the T&E species we should pay them to keep the habitat in the condition it is and maybe even improve it. They've done something right to be critical habitat for a T&E species.

Second, the ESA provides a disincentive to collaborate when the current framework and other laws makes it beneficial for groups to stay away from the table and litigate anything well-intended parties come up with via collaborative efforts. I've watched many efforts where great folks came to the table and spent years trying to find solutions. Nobody got what they wanted, but everyone was willing to go forward. Along comes some national group who had not been even slightly engaged in the discussion and decides they don't like the collaborative outcome, so they litigate the hell out of it. Since there is PR benefit and fund raising benefit that comes with raising their profile as a litigant of big furry species, they do that. The good folks who tried to find a workable solution get tossed to the curb.

Pretty hard to have progress that has long-term acceptance when one side is happy to ignore the hard work of collaboration and just wait until the end and use the big hammer of litigation for the sake of litigation.

That said, there are times when collaboration is attempted in good faith and agencies ignore those efforts and go ahead. Litigation is the only recourse at that time. I have no problem with "reduced litigation" as the result of providing more incentives to collaborate and removing some of the incentives currently favoring litigation over collaboration. I am not a fan of "eliminate litigation," though some groups and their litigation business models are pushing me further that direction.

Why are these important to a bunch of "turkey guys?" Speaking from the perspective of the "turkey guys" I know who volunteer, they are a lot like sheep volunteers, elk volunteers, trout and steelhead volunteers, who want to see progress in conservation, not just through the single species lens of big fuzzy things that raise money, rather for all species that depend on landscapes, whether the species is hunted/fished, or not.

Litigation is always the last option. But, always a good option to have in one's pocket.

Look at all the progress that litigation has brought to Idaho for Salmon and Steelhead. Look at the thread I just started on where the politics are on Salmon and Steelhead (endangered or threatened) currently.

Now is not the time to relax the ESA.

Now would be a great time for the "turkey guys" to come out in support of ending the nonsense of transferring public lands.

JoseCuervo said:

You just made my point. We have to guess, and interpret what you think their position is.

A representative of the Organization should have been able to point to a clear policy position, if they wish to weigh in on the topic.

Posting a link to a pseudo-news article / interview that rambles all over, but never states a position does not inspire much confidence in their understanding of the issue.

Click to expand...

I agree with you Jose, a lot of rambling but no clear statement I can see as to being 100% opposed to PLT. maybe they are and if so, just say it.

u1299 said:

I agree with you Jose, a lot of rambling but no clear statement I can see as to being 100% opposed to PLT. maybe they are and if so, just say it.

Click to expand...

Yep. That was my original point. A whole lotta words that don't say shit.

Anybody can read into that statement whatever they want, but not learn anything. You know, more local control, better decision making etc .... Means that the Feds in DC can't do the job, only the States can do it....

To me, it sounds like a group that doesn't want to offend anyone, but would sure like to have you for a membership.

If that is the case, just be clear, say "we don't care who owns the land, we just care about more birds so we can shoot them".

Jose and ut1299, I would point you back to this quote from the article:

"Join the coalition against the wholesale transfer of public lands and help educate your friends, the conservation community and general public on the benefits of federal lands,” Dyroff said."

Then there's this that says better managment under the current system is the answer:
"NWTF believes “the solution lies in improved mechanisms, collaboration and communication related to federal land management.”


Then notice in the article where they point to their work with TRCP and Sportsmens Access Campaign. Add to this the fact they were one of the groups who sent congress a letter opposing any wholescale transfer or sale of public lands and I feel it is pretty clear NWTF does not support the transfer of public land. There are groups or there with harder positions on the subject like BHA. Support them, advocate for other groups to join this stand, and let's beat this thing together.

Just as a last note Jose here's another link:

http://www.trcp.org/2015/04/14/spor...and-idly-by-if-you-sell-off-our-public-lands/

http://www.trcp.org/images/uploads/..._and_Sale_National_Sportsmen_Letter__2016.pdf

I expect NWTF to stand against the transfer and to make that clear in congress and to the White House. I am 100% in support of strong clear statements on this issue. I feel it's pretty easy to see where NWTF stands and I expect them to stand on our side as time goes on as well. Aside from this topic let's continue hammering away at this issue.

They are also on this letter sent to president Trump before he was elected last year:

http://www.houstonsafariclub.org/wp...ns-Public-Land-Support-Letter-to-Mr-Trump.pdf

Looks like I need to join and or support NWTF.