Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="gst" data-source="post: 177135" data-attributes="member: 373">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. <a href="http://www.backcountryhunters.org/take_action#/6" target="_blank">http://www.backcountryhunters.org/take_action#/6</a>- - - Updated - - -<a href="http://www.backcountryhunters.org/take_action#/7" target="_blank">http://www.backcountryhunters.org/take_action#/7</a>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. <a href="http://www.backcountryhunters.org/_what_happened_to_ryan_zinke" target="_blank">http://www.backcountryhunters.org/_what_happened_to_ryan_zinke</a><img src="https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/backcountryhunters/pages/4273/attachments/original/1501685554/zinkeshot.jpg?1501685554" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" />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 - - -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. <a href="http://www.hcn.org/issues/47.9/john-podesta-legacy-maker/monumental-changes-1" target="_blank">http://www.hcn.org/issues/47.9/john-podesta-legacy-maker/monumental-changes-1</a>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 huntingThe 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................</blockquote>

Verification: What is the most common fish caught on this site?

Reply to thread

Recent Posts

Friends of NDA