More Bad News for Hunters from the Trump Administration

[Curmudgeon]

http://www.trcp.org/2017/04/20/public-lands-managed-balance-many-uses-may-change/?utm_source=rooseveltreportshort&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Roosevelt Report 2015

An excerpt from a new Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership message:

New under-the-radar administration policies would alter public land management, and this has major implications for hunting and fishing

Efforts to dispose of public lands may grab headlines, but a subtle shift in the management of public lands could present an even greater risk to the future of hunting and fishing. With the spotlight shining brightly on recent proposals to sell off our public lands, the White House and the Department of the Interior quietly set policies in motion last month that have the potential to change the way our public lands are managed.

In tandem, Executive Order 13873 and Secretarial Order 3349 would initiate a few specific processes that could change the way public lands wildlife habitat is valued and managed, especially when it’s at odds with energy development. All Americans—including sportsmen—depend on energy resources, but we want to see development carried out in a balanced way, not at the expense of fish and wildlife habitat or our best hunting and fishing areas................................................

Complete article at http://www.trcp.org/2017/04/20/public-lands-managed-balance-many-uses-may-change/?utm_source=rooseveltreportshort&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Roosevelt Report 2015

 

[ATbuckhunter]

This is going to be a common thing with trump. He will take away opportunities from Public Land hunters. We should all be upset about this and fight anything that will take away part of what makes hunting in America the best. 

Edited April 21, 2017 by ATbuckhunter

[chas0218]

I don't think he can change it at a state level though. Maybe federal lands but with state lands I don't think he can do anything. It is like the national carry, you would be able to carry in other states but their laws will dictate how you can carry being a non-resident and no permit within that state.

[Doewhacker]

The red area's are Federal lands, see why it is important out west Chas?

Every one has an interest in Federal lands, politicians, public, farmers and of course fossil fuel company's. It is a bad time to be a Sage Grouse.

[Buckmaster7600]

I have no problem with it at all. I don't think the government should own land like they do. Make it private if you want to use it you pay for it. There is no reason that the government should waste the money like they do on land.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Doewhacker]

17 minutes ago, Buckmaster7600 said:

I have no problem with it at all. I don't think the government should own land like they do. Make it private if you want to use it you pay for it. There is no reason that the government should waste the money like they do on land.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You know who has money for a big land grab? Big business and foreign entities from countries like Russia and China.

I would rather my taxes go to managing lands instead of flights to Florida and golf.

 

[Savagehunter]

http://www.sportsmensalliance.org/news/trump-administration-sides-sportsmens-alliance-clarifies-executive-order/

[airedale]

As far as I am concerned there has been no bad news for hunters from the Trump administration just a lot of typical fake news crap twisting the story in an attempt to fit special interest narratives and make his administration look bad at every turn.  Trump is the best possible thing that could have happened for shooters and hunters in this country.

Al

Edited April 22, 2017 by airedale

[pt0217]

We had a debate a while back when the Bundy thing was going on. There was a constitutional argument that the federal government is only supposed to control land that is needs to govern. I think the states should control public land in their state.

[ATbuckhunter]

19 hours ago, Buckmaster7600 said:

I have no problem with it at all. I don't think the government should own land like they do. Make it private if you want to use it you pay for it. There is no reason that the government should waste the money like they do on land.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Don't you hunt in the Adirondacks? Where its mostly public land? 

I don't think some people here understand the beauty of having all this land available for us hunters. My cousins that live in countries like Germany and France can not hunt because they don't have the public lands like we do. All you need to do here is get a license and you can go out and hunt...can it be any better than that? 

An attack on public lands is an attack on hunters. We constantly complain about loosing access and loss of habitat, so why should we be okay with loosing public land? 

[Buckmaster7600]

Don't you hunt in the Adirondacks? Where its mostly public land? 

I don't think some people here understand the beauty of having all this land available for us hunters. My cousins that live in countries like Germany and France can not hunt because they don't have the public lands like we do. All you need to do here is get a license and you can go out and hunt...can it be any better than that? 

An attack on public lands is an attack on hunters. We constantly complain about loosing access and loss of habitat, so why should we be okay with loosing public land? 

I hunt paper company property that I have a lease on "I want to hunt it I pay for it." Not saying I have never hunted state land but it's not very often.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Curmudgeon]

What the house did - in declaring federal lands to be worth zero dollars - should be considered malfeasance, or even criminal. To give this land to states to dispose of as they will is a betrayal of the public trust. AT is right. Public land gives the common person opportunities that are lacking elsewhere in the world. 

There is a debate to be had over whether and how much land governments should own. When having that debate, it would help to use honest data. The red map above was created to suggest that there is too much federal land. What they don't tell you is, the map includes national parks, monuments, wildlife refuges, military land, Indian reservations, etc. It isn't just blm property and national forest. And, remember, a lot of that public land already serves/served as a source of corporate welfare for the petroleum, timber, mining and ranching interests.

The US has some of the tension between The Tragedy of The Commons, and the Enclosure Laws (The World Turned Upside Down), but nothing like England did. The balance here is debatable but hunters shouldn't complain, they should be thrilled. If they care about wildlife and habitat, they will not embrace Trump environmental policies. 

To conflate gun rights with the interests of hunters - as is done so often here and elsewhere - requires a suspension of disbelief. Good luck with that.  They are two different things with some overlap.  

        

[airedale]

As far as I am concerned the state's  people and their elected officials should be the ones determining how it is to be used. What you are insinuating is that the people of a state and it's elected officials are not bright enough to determine how to use public land for outdoor recreation, such as game management, setting seasons etc etc. Using the scare tactic that all the good public hunting lands will all be sold off or prevent access willy nilly screwing hunters and fishermen is ridiculous, the residents of those states would not stand for it.

States like Wyoming and their residents do not want or need outsiders or elected officials like Elizabeth Warren or Chuck Shummer  both of whom probably could not find their way out of NY's Central Park, having any say on telling them what, how and when they can they can use the public lands of their state for hunting, weapons or ammunition to be used, fishing and other outdoor recreation activities.

The Adirondack park run by the state of NY while not perfect it has not been sold off, the sky has not fallen in, the access has not been shut down for most recreational use and that status will continue to roll along in the foreseeable future. I would expect other states would use and protect their public lands entrusted to them much in the same way. 

Edited April 23, 2017 by airedale

[Curmudgeon]

It's simple. The land belongs to the people of the United States. Individual states will not serve the interests of US citizens. "This land is your land. This land is my land. From California............................"   

[gjs4]

Totally agree. Would cringe if the DEC was the managing entity of those lands.

As for the bigger premise- the two party system will guarantee failure no matter what side of the fence you're on and when you're there. Not saying more parties would be the answer but the law of averages should help it. Just mind blowing to me that someone could agree with one groups thoughts in their entirety.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Doc]

Every time I read one of these Trump-bashing threads, I am reminded of just what the alternatives were during this past election, and it puts it all into a whole different perspective.

[Curmudgeon]

Doc,

You're stuck in 2016. This thread is about the future. It is about what is happening now.    

[G-Man]

I really.have no problem.putting lands back into hands of private citizens.. At least taxes will be collected and.overall tax rate should go down.. If half our state lands were made private the tax burden would be paid many.many more...not to mention all the camps that were forced out to make state land continuous....so now state lands mature and habitat dwindles.. Most game animal prefer a patch work of different stages of cover. 

As for out west much of the land going for sale is grazed by ranchers anyway..now they can own and pay tax on it instead of the meager sum they are charged for grazing..

[Rattler]

13 hours ago, Curmudgeon said:

Doc,

You're stuck in 2016. This thread is about the future. It is about what is happening now.    

The biggest issue in the election concerning the future was the US Supreme Court.  

If Hillary won, gun rights would've been relegated to a privilege, hunting would've been attacked even more than before and freedom and liberty would be the realm of the privileged and politically connected.

The issue of federal lands is under discussion.  There has been no change to date.  I believe this is more anti-Trump propaganda to pile on to all the other leftist hatred, in an attempt to turn the country against this legitimately elected president.  The left will stop at nothing, pull no punches and stifle no lie to achieve their goal of destroying this man, and the entire country after him.

All one needs to do is look at the language used to see where the bias is.

"New under-the-radar administration policies"  "proposals"  "potential"  "could"  etc....

Take a chill pill and relax.

 

 

 

[Steve D]

7 hours ago, G-Man said:

At least taxes will be collected and.overall tax rate should go down.. If half our state lands were made private the tax burden would be paid

You silly silly man. The government would only find ways to spend more money. Relieving the tax burden especially on NY residents is not on anyone's agenda...now or in the future.

Edited April 25, 2017 by Steve D

[Curmudgeon]

As it appears some of you are infatuated with Trump, I have never been infatuated by any politician. When politicians don't do the right thing, they need to be called out, held to account.

I avoid everything political on this forum that is off topic, and will continue to do so. I will - without hesitation - continue to promulgate information and criticize Trump here, when his policies damage wildlife, habitat and access.

[Rattler]

5 hours ago, Curmudgeon said:

As it appears some of you are infatuated with Trump, I have never been infatuated by any politician. When politicians don't do the right thing, they need to be called out, held to account.

I avoid everything political on this forum that is off topic, and will continue to do so. I will - without hesitation - continue to promulgate information and criticize Trump here, when his policies damage wildlife, habitat and access.

Once again, show me where anything has become law at this point.

 

[wolc123]

20 hours ago, Rattler said:

The biggest issue in the election concerning the future was the US Supreme Court.  

 

 

 

Thats a big one for sure.   Hopefully he gets three or more picks like that over the next 7 years.   All the other stuff is relatively insignificant in comparison.   

[Nomad]

I have one experience with hunting BLM land. It was in Montana and a friend and I were hunting on it, when a rancher and two of his men rode up and basically tossed us off. Now my hunting partner  was from out west and an attorney knowledgeable about land and environmental issues,( a granola crunching , Obama loving , commie lib. To,be truthful )  he presented our case as to how this was OUR land as U.S. citizens  , the rancher would have none of that.

We stopped at a nearby ranger station of some sort and went in to ask. They asked " did he shoot  at you ?" , we said "no", " then consider yourselves lucky !" Was their answer .

In theory BLM is everyone's , practice is another thing .

[ATbuckhunter]

On 4/25/2017 at 3:23 PM, Rattler said:

Once again, show me where anything has become law at this point.

 

Does it have to become a law to criticize it and raise an opinion? Obama's gun reform's never became law and I'm sure many of us here criticized him and some probably very harshly.