vBCms Comments
Welcome To Hunting Country
General Hunting Forums
Archery & Bowhunting
Shooting Sports
Manufacturers' Corner
Firearms
Classifieds
Not Hunting / General Chit Chat
1.) Swamp Fox - 08/01/2017
We should really have a sub-forum for "General Hunting" since this isn't a big game, small game, deer or bowhunting issue.
But anyway...
I was wondering about any efforts you all could tell me about regarding official efforts to ensure that hunters' position on public land is not threatened or trampled over by other users.
For instance, in NC we have "game lands" which are a combination of publicly owned and publicly leased woods and waters set aside and managed primarily for hunting (and some fishing). Funding comes under the wing of the Wildlife Resources Commission, which is supported by license fees. Non-hunters tend to flock to these areas for hiking, dog-walking, horseback riding and bike riding, etc., especially in the more populated or scenic areas.
These folks tend to ignore any rules regarding their activities--leash laws or prohibitions or restrictions against riding, for example--and then get altitude sickness up on a soapbox when the topic of interactions with hunters comes up (as in the Sunday hunting debate, say).
It's a strong possibility that these nature lovers are ignorant of the rules that pertain to the land they're using, since signage seems spotty and different properties have different rules. I doubt more than 10% of them ever bother to look in the regulations book, or know one exists.
I have noticed that the regulations get tweaked every so often to deal with this issue, and that seems to be required more frequently as time goes by. One example: Rules that, for enforcement purposes, have had to be approved and codified officially to honor landowner agreements previously spelled out by mere signage. You can't get a ticket for riding illicitly against the landowner agreement and against spotty signage, apparently, but you can get a ticket if the WRC approves a bona fide regulation.
Another: limiting horseback riding to certain days, or to the off-season. (This is sometimes actually a liberalization of riding rules. Seems to me that some areas that prohibited riding altogether years ago now allow it to a certain extent. In other instances I'm sure it represents a restriction compared to previous practice.)
Do you know of any efforts to preserve hunting as a primary activity on public land?
Or have you seen the opposite happening?
Do you know of lands where hunting is understood to be the primary activity/purpose? Are there places you know of where hunting has no special rank? Is that by design, or has it just turned out that way? Can anyone point me to areas where hunter and non-hunter friction is especially pronounced?
I may have more questions later on...:wink:pop:
But anyway...
I was wondering about any efforts you all could tell me about regarding official efforts to ensure that hunters' position on public land is not threatened or trampled over by other users.
For instance, in NC we have "game lands" which are a combination of publicly owned and publicly leased woods and waters set aside and managed primarily for hunting (and some fishing). Funding comes under the wing of the Wildlife Resources Commission, which is supported by license fees. Non-hunters tend to flock to these areas for hiking, dog-walking, horseback riding and bike riding, etc., especially in the more populated or scenic areas.
These folks tend to ignore any rules regarding their activities--leash laws or prohibitions or restrictions against riding, for example--and then get altitude sickness up on a soapbox when the topic of interactions with hunters comes up (as in the Sunday hunting debate, say).
It's a strong possibility that these nature lovers are ignorant of the rules that pertain to the land they're using, since signage seems spotty and different properties have different rules. I doubt more than 10% of them ever bother to look in the regulations book, or know one exists.
I have noticed that the regulations get tweaked every so often to deal with this issue, and that seems to be required more frequently as time goes by. One example: Rules that, for enforcement purposes, have had to be approved and codified officially to honor landowner agreements previously spelled out by mere signage. You can't get a ticket for riding illicitly against the landowner agreement and against spotty signage, apparently, but you can get a ticket if the WRC approves a bona fide regulation.
Another: limiting horseback riding to certain days, or to the off-season. (This is sometimes actually a liberalization of riding rules. Seems to me that some areas that prohibited riding altogether years ago now allow it to a certain extent. In other instances I'm sure it represents a restriction compared to previous practice.)
Do you know of any efforts to preserve hunting as a primary activity on public land?
Or have you seen the opposite happening?
Do you know of lands where hunting is understood to be the primary activity/purpose? Are there places you know of where hunting has no special rank? Is that by design, or has it just turned out that way? Can anyone point me to areas where hunter and non-hunter friction is especially pronounced?
I may have more questions later on...:wink:pop:
2.) luv2bowhunt - 08/01/2017
In PA our State Game Lands are purchased and funded by money from hunting license sales. So the hunters actually own the land so to speak. Mountain biking is forbidden on our Game Lands but I've seen plenty of people doing it. Doesn't seem to be any way to enforce the laws in practicality.
In the State Forest it is anything goes. Hikers, bikers, horse back riders can use it whenever they please. The only thing I've seen written on the bulletin boards is that they are 'encouraged' to be courteous to hunters during hunting seasons and to wear blaze orange.
One good thing in the State Forest where I hunt is that the trails that are for ATV's is closed starting Oct. 1 until after deer season. So bowhunters don't have to worry about ATV's cruising around during the archery season.
Occasionally I read or hear about some conflicts between the hunters and non-hunters, but it doesn't seem like it is all that common.
In the State Forest it is anything goes. Hikers, bikers, horse back riders can use it whenever they please. The only thing I've seen written on the bulletin boards is that they are 'encouraged' to be courteous to hunters during hunting seasons and to wear blaze orange.
One good thing in the State Forest where I hunt is that the trails that are for ATV's is closed starting Oct. 1 until after deer season. So bowhunters don't have to worry about ATV's cruising around during the archery season.
Occasionally I read or hear about some conflicts between the hunters and non-hunters, but it doesn't seem like it is all that common.
3.) Wild Bob - 08/02/2017
I did see some info that you may find useful in your quest...I just got to remember where so I can either forward it to you or get you a link. But I think you're on to something here - its not real common.
4.) Swamp Fox - 08/02/2017
Thanks, WB. I'd say the aggressive protection of hunting land is about as uncommon as fisticuffs, harassment or angry words, just so I cover my bases as to what we think is uncommon here. :-) Conflict seems to take the form of some side-eye and each group wanting to use the land for their own purposes rather than anything worse, mostly. At least in my experience.
Luv2 brings up a good point about enforcement. I don't know why game wardens can't devote a few days every year to sitting at a gate (they must teach this at the academy) and writing tickets to--say--riders coming out and acting as a deterrent to riders going in. Surely they don't have to be somewhere else every day. Yet I've never seen a warden do this. Not that I see the wardens a lot while hunting anyway. I'm much more likely to run into one while fishing.
I did come across a rule that went into effect at some point after I stopped hunting a particular game land much, and therefore stopped paying close attention to the rules. They're now requiring horseback riders over 16 to buy a game lands permit to ride horses on designated trails other than one major one. A brief skim of the rules for other tracts indicated that this might be a regulation unique to this one unit.
Unless my memory is worse than I think, it used to be completely illegal to ride there at all. A prohibition on riding except during June, July and August (including on non-hunting Sundays during hunting seasons) is now balanced by one major trail where riders can do anything they want whenever the trail is open, and other designated trails I don't remember them being allowed before, where the rules and permit requirement apply.
That seems a reasonable solution for this area. Of course, now that some of them have to buy a GL permit, they have more of a leg to stand on than they used to when it comes to administration of the unit. That will be interesting if we ever get Sunday hunting there. I think given the fact that the WRC seems to have bent over backwards to accommodate them on that unit up to now, it would be pretty ballsy of riders to kick up a lot of dust about any restrictions on them that remain. But it could happen. I've seen some ballsiness before, LOL.
Luv2 brings up a good point about enforcement. I don't know why game wardens can't devote a few days every year to sitting at a gate (they must teach this at the academy) and writing tickets to--say--riders coming out and acting as a deterrent to riders going in. Surely they don't have to be somewhere else every day. Yet I've never seen a warden do this. Not that I see the wardens a lot while hunting anyway. I'm much more likely to run into one while fishing.
I did come across a rule that went into effect at some point after I stopped hunting a particular game land much, and therefore stopped paying close attention to the rules. They're now requiring horseback riders over 16 to buy a game lands permit to ride horses on designated trails other than one major one. A brief skim of the rules for other tracts indicated that this might be a regulation unique to this one unit.
Unless my memory is worse than I think, it used to be completely illegal to ride there at all. A prohibition on riding except during June, July and August (including on non-hunting Sundays during hunting seasons) is now balanced by one major trail where riders can do anything they want whenever the trail is open, and other designated trails I don't remember them being allowed before, where the rules and permit requirement apply.
That seems a reasonable solution for this area. Of course, now that some of them have to buy a GL permit, they have more of a leg to stand on than they used to when it comes to administration of the unit. That will be interesting if we ever get Sunday hunting there. I think given the fact that the WRC seems to have bent over backwards to accommodate them on that unit up to now, it would be pretty ballsy of riders to kick up a lot of dust about any restrictions on them that remain. But it could happen. I've seen some ballsiness before, LOL.
5.) Wild Bob - 08/02/2017
" I think given the fact that the WRC seems to have bent over backwards to accommodate them on that unit up to now, it would be pretty ballsy of riders to kick up a lot of dust about any restrictions on them that remain. But it could happen. I've seen some ballsiness before, LOL."
Along a similar note - I have seen some pretty heated debates and arguments for certain areas out here in regards to motorized use of trails in National Forests, especially during the winter for snowmobiles. Also certain areas out here get a lot infighting and conflict over OR use by motorcycles, ATVs and crawlers. The one upside is that I have seen enforcement on these groups especially in areas that conflict with traditional winter ranges for elk and mule deer...but the driving factor is protection of vital grounds for the 'animals'; not hunters rights.
I also know of enforcement issues re use of horses on refuge and BLM land, but it is in more in regards to thwarting the spread of noxious weeds and grazing issues rather than hunting related. Thus driven by use issues, but again not for protection of hunting rights.
Along a similar note - I have seen some pretty heated debates and arguments for certain areas out here in regards to motorized use of trails in National Forests, especially during the winter for snowmobiles. Also certain areas out here get a lot infighting and conflict over OR use by motorcycles, ATVs and crawlers. The one upside is that I have seen enforcement on these groups especially in areas that conflict with traditional winter ranges for elk and mule deer...but the driving factor is protection of vital grounds for the 'animals'; not hunters rights.
I also know of enforcement issues re use of horses on refuge and BLM land, but it is in more in regards to thwarting the spread of noxious weeds and grazing issues rather than hunting related. Thus driven by use issues, but again not for protection of hunting rights.
6.) Swamp Fox - 08/02/2017
[QUOTE=Wild Bob;50576]....I have seen enforcement on these groups especially in areas that conflict with traditional winter ranges for elk and mule deer...but the driving factor is protection of vital grounds for the 'animals'; not hunters rights.
I also know of enforcement issues re use of horses on refuge and BLM land, but it is in more in regards to thwarting the spread of noxious weeds and grazing issues rather than hunting related. Thus driven by use issues, but again not for protection of hunting rights.[/QUOTE]
Great point. I don't think we have the weed or grazing problem here. It's mostly about trying to protect trails from traffic, and stopping off-trail riding. Probably some parking area space and damage issues too, but that's not something I've heard anyone say.
I also know of enforcement issues re use of horses on refuge and BLM land, but it is in more in regards to thwarting the spread of noxious weeds and grazing issues rather than hunting related. Thus driven by use issues, but again not for protection of hunting rights.[/QUOTE]
Great point. I don't think we have the weed or grazing problem here. It's mostly about trying to protect trails from traffic, and stopping off-trail riding. Probably some parking area space and damage issues too, but that's not something I've heard anyone say.
7.) luv2bowhunt - 08/03/2017
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;50573]They're now requiring horseback riders over 16 to buy a game lands permit to ride horses on designated trails other than one major one. A brief skim of the rules for other tracts indicated that this might be a regulation unique to this one unit.[/QUOTE]
Now that you mention it, there was a recommendation from the PA Game Comm. to make non-hunters buy a permit to use State Game Lands, but that went over like a lead balloon. Hikers and horse riders were crying the blues, the Game Comm. backed off of it for now.
Now that you mention it, there was a recommendation from the PA Game Comm. to make non-hunters buy a permit to use State Game Lands, but that went over like a lead balloon. Hikers and horse riders were crying the blues, the Game Comm. backed off of it for now.
8.) Wild Bob - 08/03/2017
Dam cry baby hikers and horse humpers...They always want something for free.
Here they charge a State Lands Fee for all recreational activities on State Lands (even Bird Watchers) that goes into the pot with $ from hunters, trappers and fishing that goes towards maintenance.
Here they charge a State Lands Fee for all recreational activities on State Lands (even Bird Watchers) that goes into the pot with $ from hunters, trappers and fishing that goes towards maintenance.
9.) Swamp Fox - 08/03/2017
I'm actually torn whether to charge for non-hunting access to game lands.
I like riding horses as much as the next guy (hardly do it any more, but if the stars aligned I'd get back to it) and who doesn't like a good bike ride or hike if you've got nothing better to do?
But I'd just as soon non-hunters stayed off the game lands, and I really don't want them dictating what goes on there. There's plenty of public land we can't hunt (but we pay for) that I'd rather separate out hunting land from multi-use recreational property. I can easily see non-consumptive users who have to buy a game lands permit beginning to dictate to hunters, and not the other way around.
Hell, around here they dictate to hunters as it is with their nonsense about safety fears and only having Sunday to be out in the woods. (Last I checked, there are seven days in a week.)
I'm inclined to avoid letting them pump up the volume with the claim that because they're paying a few bucks in permit fees they're now on an equal footing with hunters, who are paying permit fees, Pittman Robertson taxes, state and federal taxes for property we CAN'T hunt--and putting in lots of volunteer hours in many cases--while pretty much keeping our heads down and our mouths shut when we run into someone from Lower Suburbia running their Dalmatian down the powerline.
I like riding horses as much as the next guy (hardly do it any more, but if the stars aligned I'd get back to it) and who doesn't like a good bike ride or hike if you've got nothing better to do?
But I'd just as soon non-hunters stayed off the game lands, and I really don't want them dictating what goes on there. There's plenty of public land we can't hunt (but we pay for) that I'd rather separate out hunting land from multi-use recreational property. I can easily see non-consumptive users who have to buy a game lands permit beginning to dictate to hunters, and not the other way around.
Hell, around here they dictate to hunters as it is with their nonsense about safety fears and only having Sunday to be out in the woods. (Last I checked, there are seven days in a week.)
I'm inclined to avoid letting them pump up the volume with the claim that because they're paying a few bucks in permit fees they're now on an equal footing with hunters, who are paying permit fees, Pittman Robertson taxes, state and federal taxes for property we CAN'T hunt--and putting in lots of volunteer hours in many cases--while pretty much keeping our heads down and our mouths shut when we run into someone from Lower Suburbia running their Dalmatian down the powerline.
10.) Swamp Fox - 08/03/2017
11.) Swamp Fox - 08/03/2017
[QUOTE]To those who know about the law (and most of the public does not), it’s called the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act. For 75 years now, in good times and bad, through surpluses and deficits, the measure has quietly channeled a steady flow of money—more than $12 billion so far—to pay for wildlife management in all 50 states. “No other funding source for conservation is this steady and reliable,” says Naomi Edelson, NWF’s director of state and federal wildlife partnerships. “It’s free from the shenanigans on Capitol Hill. That’s the beauty of it.”
Commonly called the Pittman-Robertson Act, the law has helped restore populations of bighorn sheep in the southern Rocky Mountains, bobwhite quail in Virginia, ruffed grouse in Pennsylvania and wild turkeys in several regions. It has supported outdoor education for Alabama schoolchildren and a variety of outdoor recreation programs in other states. And across the country, it has assisted states in acquiring wetlands vital to ducks, geese and other waterfowl.
The money comes from an 11 percent federal tax on firearms, ammunition and bows and arrows. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service hands the money over to state wildlife departments, which decide how to spend it. The people paying the tax—primarily hunters—are those who benefit most directly. But the law helps society as a whole, too. It is flexible enough to pay for research on bobcats and mountain lions, while helping biologists study the complexities of how humans and wildlife can comfortably coexist.
[url]https://www.nwf.org/News-and-Magazines/National-Wildlife/Animals/Archives/2012/Pittman-Robertson-Act.aspx[/url]
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]The keystone of annual funding for state wildlife agencies was put into place on March 6, 2016 with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s distribution of $1.1 billion in revenues generated by the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration and Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration acts. The funding, which supports critical state environmental conservation and recreation projects throughout the nation, derives from excise taxes paid by the hunting, boating and angling industries on firearms, bows and ammunition (Pittman-Robertson), and sportfishing tackle, some boat engines and small engine fuel (Dingell-Johnson).
...
Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson act funds are administered by the Service’s WSFR program. To date the program has distributed more than $18 billion for state conservation and recreation projects. The recipient state fish and wildlife agencies have matched these funds with more than $5 billion over the years, primarily through hunting and fishing license revenues.
“The Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration program has been providing critical conservation funding to State Fish and Wildlife Agencies for decades,” said Dave Chanda, Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies President and New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife Director. “WSFR funds complement and enhance millions of dollars contributed to State Fish and Wildlife Agencies from the sale of hunting and fishing licenses. Working with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to administer this grant program, WSFR and agency license monies provide a stable funding source for conservation activities during periods of fiscal and economic uncertainty.”
https://www.fws.gov/news/ShowNews.cfm?ref=service-distributes-$1.1-billion-to-state-wildlife-agencies-to-support-&_ID=35495
[/QUOTE]
State by state funding chart:
[url]https://www.fws.gov/home/feature/2016/pdfs/PRDJ-TotalsFY2016.pdf[/url]
Commonly called the Pittman-Robertson Act, the law has helped restore populations of bighorn sheep in the southern Rocky Mountains, bobwhite quail in Virginia, ruffed grouse in Pennsylvania and wild turkeys in several regions. It has supported outdoor education for Alabama schoolchildren and a variety of outdoor recreation programs in other states. And across the country, it has assisted states in acquiring wetlands vital to ducks, geese and other waterfowl.
The money comes from an 11 percent federal tax on firearms, ammunition and bows and arrows. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service hands the money over to state wildlife departments, which decide how to spend it. The people paying the tax—primarily hunters—are those who benefit most directly. But the law helps society as a whole, too. It is flexible enough to pay for research on bobcats and mountain lions, while helping biologists study the complexities of how humans and wildlife can comfortably coexist.
[url]https://www.nwf.org/News-and-Magazines/National-Wildlife/Animals/Archives/2012/Pittman-Robertson-Act.aspx[/url]
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]The keystone of annual funding for state wildlife agencies was put into place on March 6, 2016 with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s distribution of $1.1 billion in revenues generated by the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration and Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration acts. The funding, which supports critical state environmental conservation and recreation projects throughout the nation, derives from excise taxes paid by the hunting, boating and angling industries on firearms, bows and ammunition (Pittman-Robertson), and sportfishing tackle, some boat engines and small engine fuel (Dingell-Johnson).
...
Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson act funds are administered by the Service’s WSFR program. To date the program has distributed more than $18 billion for state conservation and recreation projects. The recipient state fish and wildlife agencies have matched these funds with more than $5 billion over the years, primarily through hunting and fishing license revenues.
“The Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration program has been providing critical conservation funding to State Fish and Wildlife Agencies for decades,” said Dave Chanda, Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies President and New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife Director. “WSFR funds complement and enhance millions of dollars contributed to State Fish and Wildlife Agencies from the sale of hunting and fishing licenses. Working with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to administer this grant program, WSFR and agency license monies provide a stable funding source for conservation activities during periods of fiscal and economic uncertainty.”
https://www.fws.gov/news/ShowNews.cfm?ref=service-distributes-$1.1-billion-to-state-wildlife-agencies-to-support-&_ID=35495
[/QUOTE]
State by state funding chart:
[url]https://www.fws.gov/home/feature/2016/pdfs/PRDJ-TotalsFY2016.pdf[/url]
12.) Swamp Fox - 08/03/2017
Here's what you get when everyone thinks they're an equal shareholder: the notation that "outdoor recreation" brings more visitors and more money than the measly 2.5% from hunters.
This is a very good article for laying out the situation, but it leans hipster tree hugger, bike bro and backpack bunny. Logging = damage. Wilderness = paradise. Also, make sure you don't forget the minorities and the children.
Social justice, brah....
[QUOTE]“I can’t hunt where I used to. A lot has changed over the past thirty years. Development. Encroachment. People don’t understand guys walking beside the road with guns,” says Whitmire. “There is a deep cultural divide in the mountains, and the forest plan is revealing that divide.”
[B]As more people have migrated to the mountains, the uses and values of the national forest have shifted dramatically. While hunting and logging were dominant forest uses in the twentieth century, the main use of national forests today is outdoor recreation. According to the Pisgah-Nantahala National Forest’s 2014 Assessment, 60 percent of forest users were hikers. Hunters made up only 2.5 percent.
[/B]
The vast majority of visitors to the Pisgah-Nantahala today are day-hikers, backpackers, mountain bikers, anglers, equestrians, climbers, runners, and other outdoor enthusiasts. These groups generally support stronger protections for the national forest and [B]a more inclusive, 21st century outlook on the uses and values of the Pisgah-Nantahala.
[/B]
…..
“I could have stayed safely in my conservation corner and advocated for more wilderness,” says Martin. “But then everyone else would stay in their corners and nothing would change. After years of working on forest planning, it was clear that we needed a new, more cooperative approach.”
Martin invited timber and hunting leaders to join together with conservation and recreation representatives to form the Nantahala-Pisgah Forest Partnership. After three years of meetings and dialogue, the partnership has reached broad conceptual agreement on most of the forest planning issues: they have agreed to recommend more logging acreage while also increasing the amount of protected areas for conservation.
However, the Forest Service decided not to formally recognize the partnership. Instead, the Forest Service spent over $100,000 to create its own group: the Stakeholders Forum. It includes many of the same representatives from the partnership, but it also adds a few outspoken members who, thus far, have impeded any compromise. As a result, the Stakeholders Forum has been deeply entrenched and unable to reach consensus.
“The Forest Service has undercut our middle-ground partnership and stacked their Stakeholders Forum with a few extremists from hunting groups who are unwilling to compromise at all,” says Martin.
“The original partnership did not reflect the full spectrum of users,” replies Forest Service deputy supervisor Matt McCombs. “The Stakeholders Forum is a more diverse representation of forest interests.”
[B]21 of the 27 members of the Stakeholders’ Forum are older white males. There are no minorities or youth representatives.[/B]
[/QUOTE]
[Emphasis mine]
[url]http://www.blueridgeoutdoors.com/go-outside/1-million-acres-future-pisgah-nantahala-belong/[/url]
This is a very good article for laying out the situation, but it leans hipster tree hugger, bike bro and backpack bunny. Logging = damage. Wilderness = paradise. Also, make sure you don't forget the minorities and the children.
Social justice, brah....
[QUOTE]“I can’t hunt where I used to. A lot has changed over the past thirty years. Development. Encroachment. People don’t understand guys walking beside the road with guns,” says Whitmire. “There is a deep cultural divide in the mountains, and the forest plan is revealing that divide.”
[B]As more people have migrated to the mountains, the uses and values of the national forest have shifted dramatically. While hunting and logging were dominant forest uses in the twentieth century, the main use of national forests today is outdoor recreation. According to the Pisgah-Nantahala National Forest’s 2014 Assessment, 60 percent of forest users were hikers. Hunters made up only 2.5 percent.
[/B]
The vast majority of visitors to the Pisgah-Nantahala today are day-hikers, backpackers, mountain bikers, anglers, equestrians, climbers, runners, and other outdoor enthusiasts. These groups generally support stronger protections for the national forest and [B]a more inclusive, 21st century outlook on the uses and values of the Pisgah-Nantahala.
[/B]
…..
“I could have stayed safely in my conservation corner and advocated for more wilderness,” says Martin. “But then everyone else would stay in their corners and nothing would change. After years of working on forest planning, it was clear that we needed a new, more cooperative approach.”
Martin invited timber and hunting leaders to join together with conservation and recreation representatives to form the Nantahala-Pisgah Forest Partnership. After three years of meetings and dialogue, the partnership has reached broad conceptual agreement on most of the forest planning issues: they have agreed to recommend more logging acreage while also increasing the amount of protected areas for conservation.
However, the Forest Service decided not to formally recognize the partnership. Instead, the Forest Service spent over $100,000 to create its own group: the Stakeholders Forum. It includes many of the same representatives from the partnership, but it also adds a few outspoken members who, thus far, have impeded any compromise. As a result, the Stakeholders Forum has been deeply entrenched and unable to reach consensus.
“The Forest Service has undercut our middle-ground partnership and stacked their Stakeholders Forum with a few extremists from hunting groups who are unwilling to compromise at all,” says Martin.
“The original partnership did not reflect the full spectrum of users,” replies Forest Service deputy supervisor Matt McCombs. “The Stakeholders Forum is a more diverse representation of forest interests.”
[B]21 of the 27 members of the Stakeholders’ Forum are older white males. There are no minorities or youth representatives.[/B]
[/QUOTE]
[Emphasis mine]
[url]http://www.blueridgeoutdoors.com/go-outside/1-million-acres-future-pisgah-nantahala-belong/[/url]
13.) Wild Bob - 08/04/2017
Yes...unfortunately, so much in our world is becoming homogenized and becoming a one-size fits all approach (in regards to managing land uses as well). And as you mentioned Swampy, the hunting community makes up such a small portion of that in the grand scheme of things. There are still areas in our country where the public perception of the majority of 'Outdoor enthusiasts' are considered to be the hunters, but that is the exception, not the norm, and those places tend to be in very remote areas.
Then, on top of that, we have the infighting to contend with among factions of our own 'hunting' groups jockeying for influence of management of these 'wilderness' and 'natural areas.' For example, out here in the west, there are several groups that support hunting values and uses of undeveloped areas...but because they butt heads with the 'Beloved Party' and the money hungry politicians that support energy and natural resource development - the other side is trying to paint these groups as 'liberals in disguise' and 'groups with hidden special agendas, that just want to lock out the average Joe who hunts off his four-wheeler.' It's like anything else; be the group that can scream the loudest, twist the truth, keep everyone's ear and all of a sudden...never mind the facts; perception becomes reality!
I must say, it's all very depressing and if I focus too much on it....It starts me thinking about dropping off the face of the earth.
Picture this:
A cart is slowly pushed down a deserted alley in D.C., Sean Spicer and Jay Carney are pushing the cart together...
"Bring out your fake news, bring out your bullshit! Bring out your fake news, bring out bullshit!"
A couple back doors slowly open and two guys are pushed out; one from a democrat building and one from the republican building across the alley. They both stumble and catch themselves as they stand there swaying...
One guy says, "Hey wait a second... I'm a fact, not fake!"
The other guys across from him says, " Hey, me too!"
Carney and Spicer each grab them and shove them on to the cart saying, "No difference, it's all the same once we get this out to the press!"
But, in reality this battle has been going on for decades in some form or fashion - look at the battle over the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, locked down in 1980; that battle began in the 50s. So many of these use and land management issues have not been front and center in many people's attention. IMHO, as our ranks shrink (hunters), the contrast and intensity will only become more and more of an issue on these matters.
It sucks and this really is a depressing topic for a Friday (or any day for that matter!) Thanks Swampy! LOL. :-)
Then, on top of that, we have the infighting to contend with among factions of our own 'hunting' groups jockeying for influence of management of these 'wilderness' and 'natural areas.' For example, out here in the west, there are several groups that support hunting values and uses of undeveloped areas...but because they butt heads with the 'Beloved Party' and the money hungry politicians that support energy and natural resource development - the other side is trying to paint these groups as 'liberals in disguise' and 'groups with hidden special agendas, that just want to lock out the average Joe who hunts off his four-wheeler.' It's like anything else; be the group that can scream the loudest, twist the truth, keep everyone's ear and all of a sudden...never mind the facts; perception becomes reality!
I must say, it's all very depressing and if I focus too much on it....It starts me thinking about dropping off the face of the earth.
Picture this:
A cart is slowly pushed down a deserted alley in D.C., Sean Spicer and Jay Carney are pushing the cart together...
"Bring out your fake news, bring out your bullshit! Bring out your fake news, bring out bullshit!"
A couple back doors slowly open and two guys are pushed out; one from a democrat building and one from the republican building across the alley. They both stumble and catch themselves as they stand there swaying...
One guy says, "Hey wait a second... I'm a fact, not fake!"
The other guys across from him says, " Hey, me too!"
Carney and Spicer each grab them and shove them on to the cart saying, "No difference, it's all the same once we get this out to the press!"
But, in reality this battle has been going on for decades in some form or fashion - look at the battle over the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, locked down in 1980; that battle began in the 50s. So many of these use and land management issues have not been front and center in many people's attention. IMHO, as our ranks shrink (hunters), the contrast and intensity will only become more and more of an issue on these matters.
It sucks and this really is a depressing topic for a Friday (or any day for that matter!) Thanks Swampy! LOL. :-)
14.) Swamp Fox - 08/04/2017
Glad to be of service, LOL.
While I think the article cited above was well done and well-intentioned, I think it rests on some fundamental flaws that the author is probably not even aware he relies on.
Rather than be a buzz-kill on a Friday, I'll encourage people to read the whole thing and throw in their two cents if they have some. :beer:
While I think the article cited above was well done and well-intentioned, I think it rests on some fundamental flaws that the author is probably not even aware he relies on.
Rather than be a buzz-kill on a Friday, I'll encourage people to read the whole thing and throw in their two cents if they have some. :beer:
15.) DParker - 08/04/2017
[QUOTE=Wild Bob;50616]A cart is slowly pushed down a deserted alley in D.C., Sean Spicer and Jay Carney are pushing the cart together...
"Bring out your fake news, bring out your bullshit! Bring out your fake news, bring out bullshit!"
A couple back doors slowly open and two guys are pushed out; one from a democrat building and one from the republican building across the alley. They both stumble and catch themselves as they stand there swaying...
One guy says, "Hey wait a second... I'm a fact, not fake!"
The other guys across from him says, " Hey, me too!"[/QUOTE]
"You're not foolin' anyone."
"Bring out your fake news, bring out your bullshit! Bring out your fake news, bring out bullshit!"
A couple back doors slowly open and two guys are pushed out; one from a democrat building and one from the republican building across the alley. They both stumble and catch themselves as they stand there swaying...
One guy says, "Hey wait a second... I'm a fact, not fake!"
The other guys across from him says, " Hey, me too!"[/QUOTE]
"You're not foolin' anyone."
16.) Swamp Fox - 08/04/2017
:-)
"That's better than what I had."
+2
"That's better than what I had."
+2