grizzly
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 5,705
Thoughts and reactions?
https://www.fieldandstream.com/what-are-we-doing-to-our-public-lands-and-waters
https://www.fieldandstream.com/what-are-we-doing-to-our-public-lands-and-waters
F&S Article
- Thread starter grizzly
- Start date
BluffGruff
Active Member
- Messages
- 386
Everyone needs to read this. Wake up and realize how bad things could get in the next 2 (and god forbid 6) years if we don't run a check. Good sense should go beyond politics, but changing politics may be the only way to enforce good sense here.
hossblur
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 11,287
Hal is a very good writer. Pretty good on podcast too, although in my brain the accent doesn't match his writing
(BHA Podcast)
Be nice if one day politicians were as afraid to touch land as they are guns. Be nice to not have to choose guns or public land. Almost seems like research was done policy hacks on how to neutralize hunters/fishermen.
Perhaps a party of hunters/fisherman/public land?
From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
(BHA Podcast)
Be nice if one day politicians were as afraid to touch land as they are guns. Be nice to not have to choose guns or public land. Almost seems like research was done policy hacks on how to neutralize hunters/fishermen.
Perhaps a party of hunters/fisherman/public land?
From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
NECALI
Active Member
- Messages
- 717
LAST EDITED ON Feb-04-19 AT 08:31PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Feb-04-19 AT 08:29?PM (MST)
LAST EDITED ON Feb-04-19 AT 08:27?PM (MST)
I just kind of skimmed through it. While I agree with some of his thoughts, I have a hard time believing farmers are going to do things to their land that would destroy it, like planting crops to feed us. It's not like 100 years ago. I also have a hard time believing that we as taxpayers will be spending millions of more dollars by decreasing the acres in CRP. He states the CRP costs taxpayers money by paying farmers to not plant their land. So how does less acres cost millions more than not paying farmers at all to not produce a crop? I will say I am in favor of the CRP program and don't mind one bit that we subsidize farmers to help wildlife.
LAST EDITED ON Feb-04-19 AT 08:27?PM (MST)
I just kind of skimmed through it. While I agree with some of his thoughts, I have a hard time believing farmers are going to do things to their land that would destroy it, like planting crops to feed us. It's not like 100 years ago. I also have a hard time believing that we as taxpayers will be spending millions of more dollars by decreasing the acres in CRP. He states the CRP costs taxpayers money by paying farmers to not plant their land. So how does less acres cost millions more than not paying farmers at all to not produce a crop? I will say I am in favor of the CRP program and don't mind one bit that we subsidize farmers to help wildlife.
CAforkedhorn
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 3,529
Pay up welcher
elks96
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 3,851
I think the truth lies someplace in the middle. Sorry but all public lands should be managed for multi use. This means for oil and gas, for atvs, mountain bikers, for horse back riders and back packers. It should allow mining, oil and gas, but also balance that with wildlife and habitat.
The problems is most who are conservationist see anything except for wilderness as a failure. As a result I can not fathom a future where we do not have multi use.
I hunt, but I also jeep, I backpack, but I also ride dirt bikes, I fish but I also boat and water ski, my family is full of coal miners and hunters.
The problem with all this talk is it seems like every other political issues. You have to be one or the other. We need the middle ground.
We need to look at the middle. I can not support BHA on most issues because I have a 4x4 jeep that I wheel in 9 months out of the year. I also work with Oil and gas on reclamation projects, etc. I have seen environmental policies gut entire cities and put people out of business. I have seen the ridiculous abuse and over reach of the antiquities act. I have seen wilderness designation destroy areas.
As for the federal government. Anyone who says it is not bloated, full of waste is blind.
The problems is most who are conservationist see anything except for wilderness as a failure. As a result I can not fathom a future where we do not have multi use.
I hunt, but I also jeep, I backpack, but I also ride dirt bikes, I fish but I also boat and water ski, my family is full of coal miners and hunters.
The problem with all this talk is it seems like every other political issues. You have to be one or the other. We need the middle ground.
We need to look at the middle. I can not support BHA on most issues because I have a 4x4 jeep that I wheel in 9 months out of the year. I also work with Oil and gas on reclamation projects, etc. I have seen environmental policies gut entire cities and put people out of business. I have seen the ridiculous abuse and over reach of the antiquities act. I have seen wilderness designation destroy areas.
As for the federal government. Anyone who says it is not bloated, full of waste is blind.
hossblur
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 11,287
I agree totally with elk.
However. Look at who the next Interior secretary is. There is no interest in multi use there, he is an oil and gas lobbyist, openly.
My thought is that before we worry about usage on the land, we need to worry about having the land. The industry that is now in charge at Interior, is the same one bankrolling sale.
I look around at who that industry is targeting, BHA, TRCP, etc. That's who they feel its worth spending money on to fight. It must be for a reason.
I wasn't wild about the political shot at the end, not sure why it needed to be there.
If the tide was an entire political party aiming to make 640 million acres into wilderness, I would be opposed. But as we stand now, its the other way around.
I hope we get to a point where our only worry is fighting with Land Tawney on roads. If that comes Land will find a lot of us on the opposing side.
From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
However. Look at who the next Interior secretary is. There is no interest in multi use there, he is an oil and gas lobbyist, openly.
My thought is that before we worry about usage on the land, we need to worry about having the land. The industry that is now in charge at Interior, is the same one bankrolling sale.
I look around at who that industry is targeting, BHA, TRCP, etc. That's who they feel its worth spending money on to fight. It must be for a reason.
I wasn't wild about the political shot at the end, not sure why it needed to be there.
If the tide was an entire political party aiming to make 640 million acres into wilderness, I would be opposed. But as we stand now, its the other way around.
I hope we get to a point where our only worry is fighting with Land Tawney on roads. If that comes Land will find a lot of us on the opposing side.
From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
hossblur
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 11,287
>The only point I'll disagree with
>you on elks96, is labeling
>BHA as conservationists. They're not.
>They're preservationists, and your other
>comments point that fact out.
>
>
>
>
>
>#livelikezac
How so? I could even see you thinking anti commercial. But they aren't proposing museum management. In fact they aren't proposing roadless everywhere. They are opposed to more roads.
I'll be happy to send you the legislative alerts I get. This weeks was LWCF voting. Pretty far away from no drilling. It was lets all profit from it.
BHA isn't the only land org in the country. Hal has been writing far longer than BHA has been around
From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
>you on elks96, is labeling
>BHA as conservationists. They're not.
>They're preservationists, and your other
>comments point that fact out.
>
>
>
>
>
>#livelikezac
How so? I could even see you thinking anti commercial. But they aren't proposing museum management. In fact they aren't proposing roadless everywhere. They are opposed to more roads.
I'll be happy to send you the legislative alerts I get. This weeks was LWCF voting. Pretty far away from no drilling. It was lets all profit from it.
BHA isn't the only land org in the country. Hal has been writing far longer than BHA has been around
From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
NeMont
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 12,632
>I just kind of skimmed through
>it. While I agree with
>some of his thoughts, I
>have a hard time believing
>farmers are going to do
>things to their land that
>would destroy it, like planting
>crops to feed us. It's
>not like 100 years ago.
>I also have a hard
>time believing that we as
>taxpayers will be spending millions
>of more dollars by decreasing
>the acres in CRP. He
>states the CRP costs taxpayers
>money by paying farmers to
>not plant their land. So
>how does less acres cost
>millions more than not paying
>farmers at all to not
>produce a crop? I will
>say I am in favor
>of the CRP program and
>don't mind one bit that
>we subsidize farmers to help
>wildlife.
His argument wasn't that it "saved" millions but that CRP was more economically efficient for taxpayers. By reducing crop insurance payments, raising commodity prices, preserving top soil, providing cleaner water and as an aside improving wildlife habitat.
I am not certain that is an an accurate assessment of CRP but I would tend to agree that CRP was more "economically efficient" than subsidizing crop insurance to farm marginal and highly erodable lands.
Nemont
>it. While I agree with
>some of his thoughts, I
>have a hard time believing
>farmers are going to do
>things to their land that
>would destroy it, like planting
>crops to feed us. It's
>not like 100 years ago.
>I also have a hard
>time believing that we as
>taxpayers will be spending millions
>of more dollars by decreasing
>the acres in CRP. He
>states the CRP costs taxpayers
>money by paying farmers to
>not plant their land. So
>how does less acres cost
>millions more than not paying
>farmers at all to not
>produce a crop? I will
>say I am in favor
>of the CRP program and
>don't mind one bit that
>we subsidize farmers to help
>wildlife.
His argument wasn't that it "saved" millions but that CRP was more economically efficient for taxpayers. By reducing crop insurance payments, raising commodity prices, preserving top soil, providing cleaner water and as an aside improving wildlife habitat.
I am not certain that is an an accurate assessment of CRP but I would tend to agree that CRP was more "economically efficient" than subsidizing crop insurance to farm marginal and highly erodable lands.
Nemont
![IMG_5806[1].JPG](/xf/data/xfmg/thumbnail/3/3766-1e7620309f0c1665483a79bbd8bf1b1f.jpg?1614229845)