National Grasslands

[wstnodak]

Hahahaha....got gabes feathers all ruffled didn't I!!!!;:;rofl Have fun haying, hope I didn't ruin your day with a correct diagnosis now:;:sorry

 

[gst]

Ha, "feathers ruffled" ....Jimmy, you remind me of this little bantam rooster getting all fluffed up and acting tough, crowin and then running off. What is this now 20 out of 22 posts on here with your feathers ruffled up over one person.

I kinda have the same response as the gal in the video.......

 

[deleted member]

is this still happening?

oh... and if we own a rooster that acts like that, it gets its head chopped off. no room for mean cocks at our place. we had one that chased my then 3 year old daughter down. he was on the grill with a beer can shoved up his ass that night. was a bit tough. should've made soup out of him.

 

[gst]

Well then heres a likely mate for ya espringers that apparently doesn;t have much room for those "mean cocks" either.....

 

[PrairieGhost]

WoooHooo I just checked the fire map for North Dakota and the entire state is LOW FIRE DANGER. That makes me happy happy happy. Think I will go out and burn my pile of branches.

- - - Updated - - -

I like what bcha is about but i dont like the leader ship. I like alot of the guys involved with it but there are still some things that put me off. It is like that with all non profits i have never found one yet i dont disagree with. RMEF is one that has made me the most happy to give my money to.

When they talked me into being on the church council I didn't want to do it. At last when I submitted the pastor gave me a little one page article. It was about those who want to serve and those who don't want to serve. Surprisingly it pointed out that those who wanted to had an agenda. Perhaps that's what we see wrong in so many organizations. Many including in wildlife, environment, and agriculture were good ideas gone bad. Organizations unlike people have no soul or conscience. The worse their leadership the faster the decline. I agree with you on the BCHA.

 

[gst]

Re: Deer rifle license are out

by Plainsman » Tue Aug 01, 2017 8:19 am

Most of the places I used to hunt don't want any more outside hunters (even for small game) for fear they will spook or scare THEIR bucks away.
​

I feel sorry for the next generation. I don't have an optimistic view of hunting in the future. I think the biggest threat is pay hunting. Once that starts you will only hunt if you own land or are rich. Unfortunately the anti hunters will love it. Politicians respond to votes and it will take little time until we are outnumbered.

We are in a fire danger right now, but many years when we are not a handful of ranchers out west will try stop hunting using the excuse of fire danger. In Montana a road that the Forest Service maintained for over a hundred years has been cut off because it passes through a couple sections of a ranch and that rancher started an outfitter business. He has affectively cut hunters off thousands of acres of public land. Then also ranchers pushed for a new law against corner hoping in Montana. Where land looks like a checkerboard (lets say private is red and public is black) you can't step from the corner of one black section to the corner of another black section even if your feet don't touch red. They say part of your body passes over their property. I debate on another site where a man defends that, but says ranchers and hunters need to work together. What a hypocrite. Most of us want to work together, but they work against us behind their back. Of course it's someone else's fault a bill like this passes. They blame it on the politicians. Are we really so stupid we don't know who is behind the bill? We hunters are between a rock (anti hunters) and a hard place (land owners). I wish the land owners were smart enough to know hunters support them now, and if they destroy hunting they loose support.


;:;banghead

- - - Updated - - -

Re: Deer rifle license are out

by Plainsman » Wed Aug 02, 2017 9:45 am

I suspect its not only to keep hunter out but is an effort by ranchers to pressure the government to sell those parcels because they want them.
​

That's part of it. Many of them support the American Land Council. Sounds good, but it's just the same old Sagebrush Rebellion. They deny this of course. The armed protest in Oregon was just a group of dung pushing to steal public land. Some old ranchers were paid much more than their land was worth for the area that is now Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. Now they want it back. Just like the crap along the Missouri here in North Dakota. One guy south of Bismarck, I think he is on the legislature, is pushing hard for it because he wants much of the public area south of Bismarck back. Nothing less than common thieves, but they don't go to prison. Well the Oregon idiots may.


Your pastor should have given you an article on bearing false witness before you got on your church council plains............

 

[Fritz the Cat]

nodakouthouse desperately needs some new material.

 

[gst]

maybe some new moderators too...........

 

[gst]

And on it goes. Once again plainsman has been shown the actual links ot the facts that the govt intended these lands to be dispersed to fund community growth and educational development. He has been shown links where ranchers themselves are advocating better management of these grasslands. Yet he CHOOSES to bear false witness in what he posts.

Re: Deer rifle license are out

by Plainsman » Fri Aug 04, 2017 10:38 pm
For the future of hunting pay attention to the American Land Council. I am betting every one of those radicals in Oregon who wanted land back that they were once paid for belonged to the American Land Council. Here is a statement of their goals:CODE: SELECT ALLThe clear solution to federal mismanagement of our public lands is to transfer some of these lands to willing states so that meaningful, sustainable reforms can be instituted by the people who care about proper management of these lands the most. The United States Constitution (Art 4, Sec 3, Clause 2) grants Congress the Power to transfer public lands to the States.
Here read it for yourself:
http://www.americanlandscouncil.org/our_mission

Here is their strategy. Transfer it to the states where they can get their hands on it. Better management to them means they get to post it so you can't hunt it. People are always looking for ways to enhance their own pocketbooks. They can't stand to see the feds leaving a head of grass on public land. They can't stand seeing people hunt it without paying. Their measure of value is the thickness of their wallet. Some would want you to believe they just want to help us out. Supporting them would be like chickens supporting Colonel Sanders.

They talk a good talk because they know what the average citizen wants to hear. Talk to a member once. They will start talking about how states were given land to sell to support schools. Now that may be partially true, but once sold it no longer supports schools. I think the idea was the state keeps the lands they were given and uses the rent to support schools then they have school support forever. I think what happened was it was easier and cheaper to corrupt local and state. Well, perhaps not easier, I would guess U S Senators are much more expensive to get in the pocket.
"Total tolerance is not a virtue, it is a total lack of principles". Plainsman

- - - Updated - - -

Plainsman, how can you take at face value one portion of the ALC mission statement..........yet deny what their policy statement is?

​

Public Policy Statement

Ratified by unanimous consent Oct 9, 2014 at ALC Multi-State Workshop Salt Lake City, UT and Oct 20, 2014 by American Lands Council Board of Directors.Reaffirmed by unanimous consent Oct 20, 2016 at ALC National Conference.​

1. WE URGE THE TIMELY AND ORDERLY TRANSFER OF FEDERAL PUBLIC LANDS TO WILLING STATES FOR LOCAL CONTROL THAT WILL PROVIDE BETTER PUBLIC ACCESS, BETTER ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH, AND BETTER ECONOMIC PRODUCTIVITY;

2. WE SUPPORT EXCLUDING EXISTING NATIONAL PARKS, CONGRESSIONALLY DESIGNATED WILDERNESS AREAS, INDIAN RESERVATIONS, AND MILITARY INSTALLATIONS FROM THE TRANSFER; AND

3. WE SUPPORT EQUIPPING FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL AGENCIES WITH RESOURCES NECESSARY TO PLAN FOR A SUCCESSFUL TRANSITION TO STATE-BASED OWNERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT OF THE TRANSFERRED PUBLIC LANDS; AND

4. WE URGE MANAGEMENT PRIORITIES FOR THESE LANDS THAT WILL:


i. IMPROVE PUBLIC ACCESS: Protect public access, rights of way, and multiple-uses on public lands for all people including sportsmen, tourists, recreational users, subsistence and sustenance activities, and emergency access; and

ii. IMPROVE ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH: Reduce catastrophic wildfire fuel loads that threaten communities, infrastructure, watersheds, critical wildlife habitat, and our environment. Facilitate restoration of healthy forests, range lands, and waterways; and

iii. IMPROVE ECONOMIC PRODUCTIVITY: Secure jobs and economic growth through responsible natural resource stewardship and use including tourism and recreational opportunities; and

iv. RETAIN PUBLIC OWNERSHIP OF PUBLIC LANDS: Federal public lands shall become state public lands to be managed in accordance with state and local plans; and

v. IMPROVE EFFICIENCY OF WILDFIRE CONTROL: Provide state, local, and tribal government with adequate wildfire prevention and control resources and develop interstate/interagency cooperative agreements necessary to combat wildfires effectively; and

vi. INCREASE LOCAL INVOLVEMENT & ACCOUNTABILITY: Ensure state-based public land management activities are consistent with local government plans, policies, and objectives; and


vii. PROTECT USE RIGHTS: Protect all valid existing rights and multiple uses, and enhance the viability of compatible, land-based livelihoods; and

viii. PRESERVE CUSTOMS & CULTURE: Preserve and protect important wild, scenic, cultural and economic resources; and

ix. INCORPORATE FEDERAL AGENCY EXPERTISE: Seek to utilize federal expertise and research through employment and/or cooperative agreements; and

x. GENERATE SELF-SUPPORTING FINANCE: Foster compatible economic productivity to support essential government services such as local roads, utilities, emergency services, public health and safety, education, justice, and other civic functions while reducing tax burdens on citizens nationally and offsetting federal Payment in Lieu of Taxes and Secure Rural Schools funds.

 

[gst]

When they talked me into being on the church council I didn't want to do it. At last when I submitted the pastor gave me a little one page article. It was about those who want to serve and those who don't want to serve. Surprisingly it pointed out that those who wanted to had an agenda.

On Nodak Outdoors plainsman bans those that disagree with him or point out the lies that he posts there. Over the years there have been a number of people that have been banned for no other reason.

And yet he posts false accusations and claims about those people that can not defend themselves or post the truth and fact becasue of his action as the moderator there.

That behavior is not something I would expect from someone on a "church council"...........unless they have some kind of an agenda.

 

[701FishSlayer]

Today's word is agenda. Tomorrow we will cover pot n kettle.

 

[PrairieGhost]

Today's word is agenda. Tomorrow we will cover pot n kettle.

:;:cheersI will readily admit I have an agenda or two, or three.
Conserve our public lands for future generations.
Preserve out constitution, especially the second amendment.
Secure the future of hunting for the next generation.
I could go on, but you get the point. I hope I didn't come off as trying to hide those agenda's. I want them to be in the open. My signature lines on nodakoutdoors will tell you all you need to know.

They are: "Total tolerance is not a virtue, it is a total lack of principles". Plainsman 2016

"Never trust a republican with your public land. Never trust a democrat with your firearms." Bernie Kuntz 2016

To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary.
To one without faith, no explanation is possible".
~Thomas Aquinas

 

[gst]

How about an agenda of simply telling the truth. If not, try dropping bringing up your church involvement every so often.

 

[gst]

Interesting article sharing a few facts most sportsmen I bet are not aware of. Don;t know if fritz has shared this one before.

https://www.greendecoys.com/decoys/montana-hunters-and-anglers/

[h=2]Montana Hunters and Anglers[/h][h=4] A Front for Dark Liberal Money[/h]



[h=3]Funders[/h]

• 
  [*=center]
  
  Anti-Energy
  
  [*=center]
  
  Big Labor
  
  [*=center]
  
  Green Radicals

[h=3]At a Glance[/h]Led by liberal activist Land Tawney, Montana Hunters and Anglers claims to represent sportsmen. In reality, the organization is a front for left-wing environmentalists who want to package their activism and lobbying in camouflage.

[h=3]Funding[/h]“Green Decoy” group Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, led by pro-Obama activist Land Tawney, has been active in Montana. Montana BHA chapter leader Greg Munther writes that his group is “an all-volunteer grassroots hunter and fisherman organization,” but he leaves out a crucial fact that BHA gets most of its money from a handful of out-of-Montana liberal groups.
Similarly, it’s important to note where the Tawney-led Montana Hunters and Anglers gets its money.
In 2012, MHA received $140,000 from the D.C.-based Citizens for Strength & Security Fund, an affiliate of a liberal political group that spent $7.2 million in the 2010 election cycle. (In 2012, the Fund was pushing for tax credits for wind power.) Citizens for Strength & Security Fund is part of a dark money web that spent $50 million on political ads in 2009 and 2010—and the group’s listed address was a UPS Store in downtown Washington, D.C.
The same year, MHA received $13,000 from the League of Conservation Voters, a D.C.-based environmental lobby group. Meanwhile, LCV gave $410,000 to the MHA Leadership Fund in 2012. MHA Leadership Fund also received $25,000 from liberal California moneyman Stephen Silberstein.
The League of Conservation Voters publicly denied, however, funding the ad campaign asking Montanans to vote for the third-party candidate. The funding for that $500,000 campaign, then, appears to have come from a different liberal, D.C.-based group.
MHA Leadership Fund received $632,000 in 2012 from the America Votes Action Fund, a super PAC. The America Votes Action Fund received hundreds of thousands from labor unions—and the LCV.
Meanwhile, America Votes—the (c)(4) affiliate of American Votes Action Fund—gave $650,000 in 2012 and 2013 to Bull Moose Sportsmen, a Colorado-based “Green Decoy” group.
All in all, the MHA Leadership Fund spent $1.2 million attacking Denny Rehberg, a Republican U.S. Senate candidate in 2012 running against Democratic incumbent Jon Tester in 2012, including half a million dollars on a TV ad supporting a third-party candidate as a way to syphon votes away from the Republican candidate.
ProPublica summed up MHA’s dark money scheme:

Even though super PACs have to report their donors, the Montana Hunters and Anglers super PAC functioned almost like a dark money group. Records show its major donors included an environmentalist group that didn’t report its donors and two super PACs that in turn raised the bulk of their money from the environmentalist group, other dark money groups and unions.
​

[h=3]Agenda[/h]Montana Hunters and Anglers is a web of groups aimed at electing Democrats in Montana, utilizing liberal money from California and Washington, D.C.
There’s Backcountry Hunters and Anglers Montana Chapter, a local affiliate of Backcountry Hunters and Anglers. Then there’s Montana Hunters and Anglers PAC, a state political action committee. Then there’s Montana Hunters and Anglers Leadership Fund, a federal political action committee funded by environmentalists. And then there’s Montana Hunters and Anglers Action!, a 501(c)(4) organization.
Whatever form it takes, Montana Hunters and Anglers exists to push an environmentalist agenda—in particular, banning the development of energy on public lands under the guise that it would hurt hunting or fishing opportunities.
MHA Leadership Fund worked with the Montana Conservation Voters and the League of Conservation Voters—two radical environmental groups—to defeat Rehberg. Major MCV donors include the Wyss Foundation, run by a Swiss billionaire, and the Tides Foundation, a San Francisco outfit that operates more like a liberal laundering operation than philanthropy.
Tawney and MHA attacked Rehberg for sponsoring a border security bill that would allow Border Patrol agents to access land near the Canadian border. “It effectively gives federal bureaucrats complete control over millions of acres of public land,” Tawney complained.
Yet Tawney objects to returning federal lands to state control. Why? It would likely be harder to stop states from allowing other stakeholders to use public land for energy development—something that is anathema to Tawney and MHA’s financial backers.
[h=3]People[/h]MHA Action’s leadership has included:

• Land Tawney, a liberal activist and former regional representative of the National Wildlife Federation. He is a co-founder of Hellgate Hunters and Anglers. Tawney was a member of Sportsmen for Obama.
• Kendall Van Dyk, a Democratic state senator. Ironically, Van Dyk has criticizedconservative dark-money groups while being involved in a liberal one. Van Dyk has also been tied to Hilltop Public Solutions, a liberal consulting firm that has represented abortion and labor groups and that has been investigated by the Montana Commissioner of Political Practices. Van Dyk was also a member of Sportsmen for Obama.
• Barrett Kaiser, a former top advisor to Democratic U.S. Senator Max Baucus and consultant to Democratic Senator Jon Tester who helped organize a fly-fishing trip for President Obama. Kaiser has personally given $20,000 to liberal candidates, according to FEC data.
• Beau Wright, a Democratic activist.
• George Cooper, former president of the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, another “Green Decoy” group claiming to represent sportsmen that takes millions from Big Labor and San Francisco environmental foundations. He is senior VP at a heavily Democratic communications firm.

 

[Fly Carpin]

It's funny how if someone takes a stance for something they believe in, your green decoy sources call it a "guise" if it doesn't align with their ideals. Can you prove, with sources that have a bit more credibility than green decoy, which is essentially the mirror opposite of the Center for Biological Diversity, that BHA is using hunting and fishing on public lands as a "guise" for their "anti-development agenda"? Please, if you can, provide a source that isn't so clearly biased one way or another. Maybe BHA is a bunch of public land users who feel their piece of the oft mentioned multiple use agreement is taking it in the shorts in some areas, and they fear the same incrimentalism that you do, just from the opposite side of the table? For what it's worth these questions are merely rhetorical food for thought.

 

[Fritz the Cat]

Yes I've written about that. So what's it all about? Connect the dots. The democrats spent huge sums of money on Montana Senator (D) Jon Testers re-election. Much dark money was funneled through Land Tawney and company. They sit on Testers Sportsmen Advisory panel:

John Borgreen is a life-long hunter and angler who has been an active participant in a variety of sportsmen’s organizations including Russell Country Sportsmen’s Association where he served as President and Secretary/Treasurer. In addition, Borgreen has been actively involved with the Montana Wildlife Federation (serving as Vice President for Internal Affairs), the Devil’s Kitchen Working Group and the Sun River Working Group. Borgreen is retired from the commercial printing industry and lives in Great Falls. Ryan Busse has worked in the outdoor industry for over 18 years. He has long been involved in sportsman’s issues and conservation. Among other things, Busse has served as board chair for Montana Conservation Voters and has been active in efforts to preserve the Rocky Mountain Front. He is a passionate hunter and fisherman and lives in Kalispell.
Bruce Farling is a life-long hunter and angler, and has hunted and fished Montana for 40 years. He is in his 18th year as executive director of Montana Trout Unlimited. Previous to that he was conservation director for the Clark Fork Coalition. He also worked for the U.S. Forest Service for 10 years, including nine years in Montana and Idaho working in wilderness management.
Bill Geer has been a Fish and Wildlife professional for 38 years. He started as a project biologist on Georgetown Lake for fisheries research in 1973 for the Montana Fish and Game Department. In 1984, Geer became the Director of the Utah division of Wildlife Resources. Geer currently works at the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, is a board member of Hellgate Hunters and Anglers, and is a Community Councilman in Lolo.
John Gibson is the president of the Public Land and Water Access Association, which works to protect and improve public access to land and water. He is retired from the US Forest Service and lives in Billings. He is a former president of the Billings Rod and Gun Club and the Montana Wildlife Federation.
Kathy Hadley is a lifelong hunter, angler and conservationist. She lives on a ranch in the Upper Clark Fork valley, near Galen. She is a former president of the Montana Wildlife Federation and was a founding board member of the Clark Fork Coalition. Hadley is currently the Western Vice Chair of the National Wildlife Federation Board of Directors and is a member of Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks Private Land/Public Wildlife Advisory Council.
Gayle Joslin is a wildlife biologist and worked for Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks for 30 years. She is the secretary and founding board member of Orion—The Hunters Institute. Gayle is also the Issues Chair for the Helena Hunters and Anglers Association, an affiliate of the Montana Wildlife Federation. She has conducted Hunter Education Wildlife Identification courses and has taught riflery at Becoming an Outdoors Woman seminars.
Chris King has spent most of his life as a rancher and is a County Commissioner in Petroleum County. He is also a member of the Private Land/Public Wildlife organization. This group works on hunting access issues and conflicts between private landowners, outfitters and hunters in Montana.
Ben Lamb is an avid fly fisherman and big game hunter who loves to spend as much time as possible in wild country. He is the Conservation Director for State and National Issues for the Montana Wildlife Federation, Montana's oldest and largest Hunter/Angler Advocacy group. Lamb has worked for over 8 years as a sportsmen's advocate in both Montana and Wyoming, and served on the board of directors for the Wyoming Wildlife Federation and the Animal Damage Management Board of Wyoming before moving to Montana.

Perry Miller is a Blaine County Justice of the Peace. Miller is a landowner in Blaine County and avid hunter and fisherman.
Randy Newberg currently is the host and producer of the critically acclaimed outdoor show On Your Own Adventures, a show focused on teaching hunters how to hunt on public lands, without guides. Newberg has been a committee chairman and board member for many conservation groups. He is currently Treasurer and past President of Orion the Hunters Institute. He is a co-founder of a local rod and gun club, Headwaters Fish and Game Association in Bozeman.
Karl Rappold is a lifelong cattle rancher. His family has been in the business since 1882, located West of Dupuyer. He rode saddle broncos and bulls for more than a decade in rodeos. Karl opens his ranch up every year to a lucky group of hunters, many of which are out for their first time with family.
Joelle Selk is the first Vice President of the Montana Bowhunters Association and the chairman of the MBA's Legislative Committee. She is an active member of the Traditional Bowhunters of Montana and the Montana Wildlife Federation. Her passion for hunting and wildlife conservation spans 25 years and she is honored to collaborate with sportsmen committed to fostering healthy and diverse wildlife populations.
Pat Smith is a partner in a Montana law firm that specializes in American Indian law. He is a former managing attorney for the Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes, a member of the Assiniboine Tribe, and presently serves on the Montana Redistricting Commission. His fly rod, shotgun and rifle are no strangers to Montana’s great outdoors.
Land Tawney is a 5th generation Montana who grew up with a fly rod and gun in hand. He served as the president of Hellgate Hunters and Anglers and Senior Manager of Sportsmen's leadership for the National Wildlife Federation. In addition he chairs the Private Land/Public Wildlife Council and serves as vice chair of the Phil Tawney Hunter Conservation Endowment.
Brett Todd is the President-elect of the Montana Outfitter and Guide Association. He is also a member of the Private Land/ Public Wildlife organization. This group works on hunting access issues and conflicts between private landowners, outfitters and hunters in Montana. Todd has been a guide since 1988. He is a former President of the Professional Wilderness Outfitters Association.
Dan Vermillion was raised on the banks of Yellowstone River in Montana. After spending years guiding some of the world’s most exotic and famed fisheries, Vermillion formed Sweetwater Travel with his brothers, Jeff and Pat Vermillion. Sweetwater Travel is based in Livingston, Montana and owns and operates fishing camps in Mongolia, Brazil, Alaska, British Columbia, and Montana. He is also the Commissioner for southwestern Montana for Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks.
Steve Vinnedge has been a warden with Fish, Wildlife and Parks (FWP) since 1984. He trained in Billings, worked in Colstrip for four years and has since been located in Great Falls since 1989. In 2006, Vinnedge became a Sergeant with Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. He has been married to his wife Donna for 32 years and has three daughters, all of whom still hunt. Vinnedge attended Bigfork High School and went on to graduate from the University of Montana.
Irv Wilke is the President of the Billings Rod and Gun Club and has been involved with the group for more than a decade. He is also the Vice President for the Laurel Rod and Gun Club as well as the Laurel Rifle Club. Wilke is a voting representative for the former at Montana Wildlife Federation meetings. He is also involved in maintaining the Black Otter Bowman archery courses.



This is a boars nest. What these guys seek is dedicated funding. It's called the Land Water Conservation Fund. Created in 1965 at $900 million. It has only been fully funded twice. To get permanent funding would be a dream for these highly intelligent wildlife professionals. (their words not mine) And that is exactly what Sen Tester has been doing for them.



"The Land and Water Conservation Fund is a critical tool that expands public access for folks who hunt, hike and fish on our public lands at no cost to taxpayers," said Sen. Tester (D-Mont.) "There are still too many politicians who are trying to block our ability to increase public access, despite our growing outdoor economy. That's why it is time to fully fund and permanately reauthorize this successful initiative."
Original co-sponsors of the bill include Sens. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), Richard Burr (R-N.C.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Ben Cardin (D-Md.), Robert Casey (D-Pa.), Chris Coons (D-Del.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Al Franken (D-Minn.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Joe Manchin (D-W.V.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Bernie Sanders (D-Vt.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), Jon Tester (D-Mont.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.).


All democrats. ......................but Houston....we have a problem


[h=1]Trump's Budget Weakens Land and Water Conservation Fund[/h]
Encourage N.H.'s Congressional delegation to continue to fight for federal land protection funds
Matt Leahy
April 28, 2017


Advocacy











President Trump’s proposed budget for federal Fiscal Year 2018 would cut $120 million in Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) funding that goes to federal land acquisition. While this proposal doesn’t zero-out the LWCF, it does eliminate funding for the “federal side” of LWCF. Federal side funding is used by the federal land management agencies, like the U.S. Forest Service, the National Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, to acquire lands and waters needed to achieve the natural, cultural, wildlife, and recreation management objectives of those agencies. In New Hampshire, this portion of the LWCF has been used to acquire lands most notably in the White Mountain National Forest as well as in the federal wildlife refuges.
What is equally troubling is the uncertain impact the President’s proposal may have on the LWCF’s “state side" funding, which provides grants to state and local governments for outdoor recreational-related projects and the Forest Legacy Program. Forest Legacy funding protects privately owned “working forests”- large forest blocks that protect water quality, provide habitat, forest products and opportunities for recreation. Forest Legacy funding has been especially critical for New Hampshire, which has received more than $50 million from it since the program was first authorized in 1990.
Without Forest Legacy funds, such places as the Connecticut Lakes Headwaters Forest (146,000 acres in northern New Hampshire), the Cardigan Highlands (5,100 acres in Hebron, Groton, Plymouth, Rumney and Dorchester), the Pillsbury-Sunapee State Parks region (over 7,000 acres in Bradford, Newbury, Goshen and Washington) and the Moose Mountains (2,000 acres in Middleton and Brookfield) may not have been protected. Supporters of the Beebe River Uplands Project in Campton and Sandwich, which comprises 6,372 acres adjacent to the White Mountain National Forest, are waiting to find out if the project will receive Forest Legacy funds this year.
Fortunately, New Hampshire’s Congressional delegation is pushing colleagues to take action now to hold off any arbitrary cuts. Congresswomen Annie Kuster and Carol Shea-Porter recently signed on to a letter to the chairman and ranking member of the House Appropriations Sub-Committee on the Interior urging robust funding for the LWCF in Fiscal Year 2018. In addition, both members are co-sponsors of H.R.502 which if passed will permanently reauthorize the program. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, throughout her time in the U.S. Senate, has consistently advocated increased funding for the program as well as its permanent reauthorization. She is co-sponsoring a bill in the U.S. Senate (S. 569) that would accomplish both those goals. Sen. Maggie Hassan, although only recently elected to the U.S. Senate, is already making the program a priority in her legislative agenda by co-sponsoring this bill.
The N.H. Congressional delegation needs to hear from constituents to encourage their continued support of the LWCF. We would urge Forest Society members to thank them for their support and encourage their continued leadership role on the program. Please take a moment now to contact them by following the links below.
Rep. Carol Shea-Porter (District 1) (link is external)
Rep. Annie Kuster (District 2) (link is external)
Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (link is external)
Sen. Maggie Hassan

Here's the problem. These people who belong to wildlife societies, federations etc. are going to write our Congressman. The working layman will not.

- - - Updated - - -

Just saw your post fly-

I used all sources from their material. Remember M5 the ND oil revenue rip off? Dedicated funding. And they are in charge of the funds.

 

[Kurtr]

It's funny how if someone takes a stance for something they believe in, your green decoy sources call it a "guise" if it doesn't align with their ideals. Can you prove, with sources that have a bit more credibility than green decoy, which is essentially the mirror opposite of the Center for Biological Diversity, that BHA is using hunting and fishing on public lands as a "guise" for their "anti-development agenda"? Please, if you can, provide a source that isn't so clearly biased one way or another. Maybe BHA is a bunch of public land users who feel their piece of the oft mentioned multiple use agreement is taking it in the shorts in some areas, and they fear the same incrimentalism that you do, just from the opposite side of the table? For what it's worth these questions are merely rhetorical food for thought.

I know what you are saying but alot of the regular people who are members are good and just want to save or protect public land. That Land Tawney is not trust worthy. I actually have a membership just from buying my cimaron from seek outside the magazine has alot of good stuff in it. If they would stick to protection of lands and lay off the complete exclusion stuff. The water act in Montana where they are trying to ban jet boat from rivers that have been navigated for years is where as a org they could stand up for multiple use and public lands but went the other direction. It really is tough to find an org that lines up with a guys ideals kinda like picking the lesser of two evils.

 

[gst]

It's funny how if someone takes a stance for something they believe in, your green decoy sources call it a "guise" if it doesn't align with their ideals. Can you prove, with sources that have a bit more credibility than green decoy, which is essentially the mirror opposite of the Center for Biological Diversity, that BHA is using hunting and fishing on public lands as a "guise" for their "anti-development agenda"? Please, if you can, provide a source that isn't so clearly biased one way or another. Maybe BHA is a bunch of public land users who feel their piece of the oft mentioned multiple use agreement is taking it in the shorts in some areas, and they fear the same incrimentalism that you do, just from the opposite side of the table? For what it's worth these questions are merely rhetorical food for thought.

Fly can you prove, with sources, where this source does not have "credibility" ? Perhaps an example of a lie or misrepresentation of the truth they have put out there as fact?

Just because an org does not have an ideal you do not agree with does not mean they are not credible. We just went thru one of these deals with marble. It is a tactic the liberal loves, throw enough bullshit at something or some one and it sticks wether it is true or not.

Can you show where the information in that article I shared is not true or fact?

I have spoken often of the pendelum effect of these groups like BCHA, the Seirra Club, Center for Biological Diversity ect........ideals that result in the pendelum being pushed back.

These groups come in and push their agendas often to remove these promised multiple uses from these lands. These orgs I bring attention too in their true agendas do not just want their part of the multiple use promise to be protected, they want the others removed.

I don;t support grazing coalitions that want hiking or camping or hunting removed from public multiple use lands.

I don;t support orgs that take monies from those that do.

- - - Updated - - -

Fly why does the USFS and BLM need law enforcement depts within their agencies? We have National law enforcement agencies as well as state and county law enforcement agencies that are completely capable of enforcing any law created thru federal or state legislatures.

http://www.backcountryhunters.org/take_action#/6

- - - Updated - - -

http://www.backcountryhunters.org/take_action#/7

I urge the Secretary of the Interior to protect and "withdraw" the approximately 234,328 acres of national forest lands in the Rainy River Watershed from the federal mining program for twenty years in order to protect the Boundary Waters from sulfide-ore copper mining pollution and damage.

This ends all mining on these public lands.

http://www.backcountryhunters.org/_what_happened_to_ryan_zinke

​

MISSOULA, Mont. – U.S. Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke’s home state of Montana is the target of an advertising campaign launched today by Backcountry Hunters & Anglers. The national sportsmen’s group says the Interior Department’s review of national monuments risks prime hunting and fishing on public lands and waters.
The campaign includes a series of TV, radio and digital spots focusing on the interior secretary’s avowed allegiance to sportsmen and women and admiration of Theodore Roosevelt. Montana BHA members are featured in the spots, which also emphasize the potential of the national monuments review to threaten jobs and economic security.
“What happened to Ryan Zinke?” says BHA Montana chapter chair John Sullivan. “Mr. Secretary, don’t turn your back on Roosevelt now.”
BHA President and CEO Land Tawney, a fifth generation Montanan, noted that a total of 16 presidents, eight Republicans and eight Democrats, have used the Antiquities Act to protect iconic landscapes like the iconic Grand Canyon or Mount Olympus – both established by Theodore Roosevelt – and great places to hunt and fish, such as Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks in New Mexico and Berryessa Snow Mountain in California.
“We see Secretary Zinke as potentially a strong ally of sportsmen and women – and an advocate for our public lands and waters,” said Tawney. “However, the rhetoric so far at Interior has been mixed, to put it mildly. The ongoing review by the Interior Department of our national monuments is a perfect example of this incongruity.
“Secretary Zinke likes to compare himself to Theodore Roosevelt, a visionary sportsman whose conservation achievements are unsurpassed,” Tawney stated. “Actions speak louder than words, and American hunters and anglers demand leadership from the secretary that upholds – and advances – Roosevelt’s legacy. Our national monuments have stood the test of time, and the present review could trigger a game of political football, leaving some of our most cherished landscapes in limbo. Action has yet to be taken, but we trust he will honor Theodore Roosevelt.”
Sullivan continued, “We are pleased the secretary has pledged not to reduce Montana’s Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument, home to world class opportunities to pursue elk and bighorn sheep. But the other 26 monuments under review belong to all Americans and must be sustained as well. An attack on one monument is an attack on them all.”

- - - Updated - - -

fly note the red statement above.

Removal of a National Monument designation does not risk public access to hunting and fishing on these public lands. If anything it increases the restrictions becasue off road travel is limited and road access within these monuments is closed. That actually RESTRICTS access to these public lands.

It also in reality restricts and eventually changes and ends many other multiple uses such as logging, mining and grazing becasue the access roads to the areas these uses are done i are closed and in many cases removed.

Groups like BCHA try to keep the appearance of not getting dirty and not actually writing in their mission statement they want these multiple uses removed as does the Sierra Club and Center for Biological Diversity. But what they donate monies to and those they take monies from advocate those end games.

They know Zinke is an advocate for honoring ALL the promised multiple uses on these public lands. This is a warning shot across his bow. Don;t take a way the National Monument status that in reality limits and ends many of these multiple uses that do not fit their agenda.

- - - Updated - - -

I know what you are saying but alot of the regular people who are members are good and just want to save or protect public land. That Land Tawney is not trust worthy. I actually have a membership just from buying my cimaron from seek outside the magazine has alot of good stuff in it. If they would stick to protection of lands and lay off the complete exclusion stuff. The water act in Montana where they are trying to ban jet boat from rivers that have been navigated for years is where as a org they could stand up for multiple use and public lands but went the other direction. It really is tough to find an org that lines up with a guys ideals kinda like picking the lesser of two evils.

the problem with a group like this is the same as with DU. How do those members that send them their monies have a say in getting rid of people like Land Tawney and the ideologies he brings to the leadership of this org?

Can you as a dues paying member bring forth a resolution at their annual convention where other members can discuss it, change it vote on it and pass it into policy within this org?

If not the only recourse you have is to decide to send them a check or not. And if you do support them they continue pushing the agenda other groups they align with have.

These orgs are smart any more. They keep the appearance of doing good for sportsmen and anglers becasue that is who they hold up to legislatures and policy makers. But behind the scenes they are jumping in bed with other groups taking monies to fund their ideologies many sportsmen and hunters would not support. Yet BCHA can gain acceptance with policy makers using the innocent looking facade and less than true narrative.

- - - Updated - - -

You see Fly this article is a perfect example of what happens.

http://www.hcn.org/issues/47.9/john-podesta-legacy-maker/monumental-changes-1

On a blustery April morning in north-central Montana, a dozen volunteers, including me, scramble from three jet boats onto a grassy bank. Five guys from the Bureau of Land Management just gunned us 20 miles up the Missouri River, through a remote canyon of sandstone cliffs and sagebrush bluffs. Now we grab shovels and buckets and get to work, planting cottonwoods.​

The cottonwoods on this stretch of the river “have one foot in the grave and one foot on a banana peel,” explains Chad Krause, a young BLM hydrologist. Most are over 100 years old, and there are very few younger trees to replace them. Several possible culprits have been cited — upstream dams have reduced seed-propagating floods; winter ice flows are scouring the banks; and grazing cattle are chomping the young trees. But the impacts are clear: The BLM has warned that in a few decades, river floaters might have to start packing their own shade with them, because there won’t be enough trees left to cool their campsites.​

This 149-mile stretch of river, plus 585 square miles of adjacent BLM land where the northern plains crumble into a fractal-like network of coulees and canyons, is the Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument. And that 2001 monument designation, I’m told, is the reason the cottonwoods are now being planted.​

President Clinton’s proclamation, in a few pages of sweeping prose, describes the “objects” this monument is to protect: plentiful bighorn sheep and other wildlife, traces of history left by numerous Native tribes and the Lewis and Clark expedition, riverside cottonwood ecosystems and more. The proclamation also laid out the terms of protection, including withdrawal of all monument lands from future oil and gas leasing and a new travel plan to manage motorized traffic. But — in a nod to local input — it permitted continued grazing and hunting

​

The BLM’s management plan, released in 2008, made so few changes that it even garnered the support of the Missouri River Stewards, a local group of ranchers who had opposed the monument designation. But it drew opposition from the Friends of the Missouri Breaks Monument — the nonprofit group organizing the cottonwood planting — and other conservation groups, who argued that the plan was too lax on roads and airstrips. As a result of their lawsuit, settled in 2013, the BLM is moving ahead with plans to close about 200 miles of backcountry routes.​

But tensions remain. Even though the proclamation allows grazing, the Western Watersheds Project, an aggressive grazing reform group, argues that the BLM actually has authority to restrict it in order to protect monument “objects,” like the threatened cottonwoods. That group’s lawsuit is ongoing.​

Glenn Monahan, who has guided this stretch of river for 20 years, has amassed evidence that livestock are primarily responsible for the decline of the cottonwoods and other vegetation. He also thinks livestock have caused a drop in the number of river visitors, from roughly 5,000 in 2009 to 3,000 in 2014. He’s counted as many as 1,360 cattle along a 46-mile stretch of river popular with floaters, and he and his guides carry shovels for scraping cow patties from campsites.Although the BLM says it plans to erect fences around some campsites, Monahan thinks the agency should go much further, removing cattle from the river entirely. “This is now a national monument,” he says, “and we need to start asking, ‘What is the highest use of this land?’

​

This is why the 120-odd landowners within the monument still largely resent the monument — not for what it’s done, but for what it might do. Ron Poertner, a leader of the Missouri River Stewards, sees the Western Watersheds Project lawsuit as an ominous sign of things to come: increased public attention and scrutiny over local grazing practices. “We’re always waiting for the other shoe to drop,” he says.​

Hugo Tureck, who has a ranch on the edge of the Breaks and helped found the Friends in 2001, told me that he sees the monument staying pretty much the way it is, maybe with slightly stricter grazing in the future. But one thing has changed: “(This area) now has a stage presence that it never had before,” he says. “That’s what a national monument means.”​

Back on the grassy bank, we place each slender cottonwood cutting in a hole along with a watering pipe, tamp in a slurry of dirt, river water and rooting hormone, and erect a ring of wire fence to keep out cows. Dark clouds build over the white cliffs, spit rain and then clear to blue sky. I ask Rick Pokorny, who was born and raised in the Breaks, why he’s here. “To plant trees, because they need to be planted,” he says.

[FONT=&quot]“Of this monument, you know the white cliffs, yeah they’re special, and that’s an area we have no problems with that protection. But, just all this extra land that includes 82,000 acres of private land and 39,000 acres of state land, you know a high percent or not even a quarter of the monument is federal land," Missouri River Steward member, Ron Poertner said[/FONT]

- - - Updated - - -

groups like BCHA pretend they do not want to remove all other multiple uses yet those they partner with and join in efforts do. Hence the moniker "green decoys".

They are the "decoys" that get people like kurt to send them their monies just like that GHG honker decoy sucks in unwary birds.

They are not what they seem.

That's the idea behind a decoy is it not, make them seem as real as you can while hiding what they actually are?

Even smart old birds fall prey to the real good decoy spreads................

 

[Kurtr]

I didnt even know that seek out side paid a membership till i got the first magazine but i wont be paying with my own money

 

[gst]

For what it's worth these questions are merely rhetorical food for thought.

And that is what the links I provide are as well, a little food for thought based on actual fact. So if you wish to show where the information presented in the green decoy link is NOT fact please do because I will be the first to remove anything that is not true.

- - - Updated - - -

I didnt even know that seek out side paid a membership till i got the first magazine but i wont be paying with my own money

Hey most people support taking care of these wild lands for future generations as do I and I do know some sportsmen like yourself believe in continuing these multiple uses on these lands as well

So here is a question for those like plains who claim THAT is their goal opposed to people like my self that want to graze every spear of grass according to him.

at least two generations before us have logged and grazed and mined these public lands under those promised multiple use agreements alongside those that recreate on them. So for two generations those actions happened on these lands and yet we still have opportunities that he wants to "save" for future generations.

So these opportunities even WITH promised multiple uses apparently have not been so bad given the opportunities we now have are worth "saving".

Yet groups like the ones we mention believe the only way to "save" these opportunities is by removing what two generations have worked side by side with.

Why?

And they are using "green decoys" to accomplish that.

THAT is what fritz and I bring to light by sharing links to facts.