hikers need hunters and vice versa : Outside Magazine

[JoseCuervo]

A good article and Outside Magazine from the hiker side talking about the importance of being with hunters.

Hopefully hunters understand how important it is to be with hikers.

https://www.outsideonline.com/2155826/public-lands-defense-glimmer-bi-partisan-cooperation


The economic numbers for Utah are pretty impressive in the article. It really points out how stupid the Utah delegation is. And how poorly at math some of the people like Jason Chaffetz , the biggest coward in DC, are.

 

[u1299]

Look at it this way, if everyone was a hunter how good would hunting be? It would be a little crowded out there no? Seems better to try and get along with the non hunters who don't mind if we hunt and don't actively try and disrupt or stop us from doing what we love. I know and like plenty of non hunters, and at the same time hate plenty of hunters or those who call themselves hunters (Nugent) comes to mind...

 

[JoseCuervo]

From the article....

To recap: a decades-long gambit by Republican lawmakers to convince the American public that giving away our 640 million acres of public land is somehow pro-state’s rights and anti-big government is coming to a head this year with the party controlling the executive and legislative branches. What the Great Public Land Heist actually represents is a concerted effort to steal the American public’s natural heritage and give it to energy and mineral extraction interests. The heist brings no benefits to the American people and no benefits to states whatsoever.

First, Republicans in Congress voted in the first week of January to remove the need to achieve fair value for any land sold in a bill so ridiculous that it suggests even federally owned buildings, like the nation’s capital, are worth exactly zero dollars. Then Chaffetz introduced HR 621 to sell off a small, fractured selection of “disposable” public lands across the country. It felt like a trial run for selling off more.

Chaffetz made a big deal about the “disposable” label coming from the Clinton administration but failed to mention that it was labeled as such during an effort to fund Everglades restoration. He was picking and choosing language to justify stealing from you and me.

That awoke a sleeping giant, as all sides of the fractured and diverse outdoor industry rose up to oppose it. Hunters and anglers don’t want to lose access to the public land that supports animal conservation. Environmentalists don’t want to lose our nation’s clean water, clean air, and unspoiled spaces. Hikers, campers, and the businesses that support them don’t want to lose trails, rivers, and campsites. The issue united citizens from across the political spectrum.

 

[Southern Elk]

Good stuff.

 

[Gr8bawana]

I think a lot of hunters and many here will find it very difficult to see the benefit in aligning with hikers because they automatically assume they must be bunny hugging liberals because they choose to be hikers and not hunters. It doesn't mean they can't be both.

 

[elkduds]

they automatically assume.

Getting past this will make a HUUUGE difference (emphasized with clenched fists of tiny hands). We have to revisit who is the Us and Who is the Them in Us vs Them. That is how I became a single issue voter in the last election. I picked her, hoping to avoid what we are going through now. If you think that makes me your opponent, I submit that proves my point.

 

[OriginalOscar]

Good article. I'd like to see outreach to other public land users; camping, ORV, grazing. Big tent!

 

[rtraverdavis]

I'm the only guy in my close group of friends that hunts. The rest of everybody love wild places just as much as I do, they'd just rather be out in them carrying a camera or fly rod than a rifle. I've tried converting some of them, but I haven't won anyone over yet. They give me a little crap about my camo, I give them a little crap when they tell how good my venison is even though they don't want to go out and get their own venison. They come with me to scout in the summer, but I'm the one behind the scope in the fall. It works out just fine.

But here's the important part: every one of them has called their elected representatives to advocate for our public lands, just like me.

 

[James Riley]

Good article. I'd like to see outreach to other public land users; camping, ORV, grazing. Big tent!

How many grazers do you know who want to see public lands remain in public hands? Not saying there aren't any. Just curious about them in the tent.

 

[BuzzH]

How many grazers do you know who want to see public lands remain in public hands? Not saying there aren't any. Just curious about them in the tent.

At a recent Wyoming BHA event, I gave a little talk about public lands. On my way back to my table, an older lady stopped me and started asking me questions about public lands. Turns out she was a local landowner, who still owns a relatively small ranch in an area surrounded by a bunch of larger ranches owned by wealthy absentee landowners. Absentee landowners that use their ranches as a hobby, a way to collect landowner tags, and have a place to play.

It wasn't long until she told me that she was afraid if the BLM she and her family have been leasing for decades, were all of sudden given to the State of Wyoming in a transfer, that she would likely lose the leases as they would be much more expensive, too expensive. She said if that were to happen, she would likely have to sell, more than likely to one of the wealthy, absentee hobby ranchers she is surrounded by. I assured her, that many are doing everything they can to make sure that Federal public lands stay in Federal hands. She is also now a member of BHA...and I don't even know if she even hunts or fishes! Frankly, it doesn't matter, we need to be united on the threat of transfer.

We're always going to have arguments and disagreements within the ranks of the public land users. Always going to have discussions/disagreements about the "most judicial use of the lands, for the greatest numbers, over the longest time, for the greatest good, without impairment to the productivity of those lands". I'm fine with that, as long as we still have Federal control of the lands. We need to have those public lands in place, or we don't have anything to argue about.

Finally, after I left the BHA event and thought about it more...I couldn't help but think about the comments that a Senator from Baggs made on the NPR piece I was interviewed in. That senator made a comment along the lines of how some "ranchers feel their way of life had been stolen from them".

I wonder if that Senator has ever thought about how the small ranchers, like the one I talked to, are very damned likely to have "their way of life stolen from them" if public lands are transferred to the States?

This issue is uniting people like no other issue I've ever seen, and that is exactly how its going to be won.

 

[James Riley]

Hey Buzz, if they are out there, I say let them in the tent. I'm just so used to the Range Magazine vitriol that I was curious to see what's out there. They ain't the hobby/Ex*X*on types and yet I have a hard time seeing them helping out. I guess there are a few.

 

[onpoint]

At the MT Public Land Rally, a very nice lady quite older than myself, tapped me on the shoulder and asked me where I got the BHA sweatshirt I was wearing. I am going out on a limb and guessing she doesn't hunt anymore - if she ever did. But she was at the event smack dab in the middle of it. She told me, actually hollered to me - the crowd noise decibels were up there - she'd be getting one.

 

[Straight Arrow]

...a very nice lady quite older than myself...

That may have been an acquaintance of my wife and me, who I saw at the rally. She is an active member of the Sierra Club and an avid hiker. Although not a hunter, she appreciates my passion for "armed hiking" to hunt. I think your conversation highlights the importance of collaboration in succeeding in our efforts to preserve public lands.

 

[OriginalOscar]

At a recent Wyoming BHA event, I gave a little talk about public lands. On my way back to my table, an older lady stopped me and started asking me questions about public lands. Turns out she was a local landowner, who still owns a relatively small ranch in an area surrounded by a bunch of larger ranches owned by wealthy absentee landowners. Absentee landowners that use their ranches as a hobby, a way to collect landowner tags, and have a place to play.

It wasn't long until she told me that she was afraid if the BLM she and her family have been leasing for decades, were all of sudden given to the State of Wyoming in a transfer, that she would likely lose the leases as they would be much more expensive, too expensive. She said if that were to happen, she would likely have to sell, more than likely to one of the wealthy, absentee hobby ranchers she is surrounded by. I assured her, that many are doing everything they can to make sure that Federal public lands stay in Federal hands. She is also now a member of BHA...and I don't even know if she even hunts or fishes! Frankly, it doesn't matter, we need to be united on the threat of transfer.

We're always going to have arguments and disagreements within the ranks of the public land users. Always going to have discussions/disagreements about the "most judicial use of the lands, for the greatest numbers, over the longest time, for the greatest good, without impairment to the productivity of those lands". I'm fine with that, as long as we still have Federal control of the lands. We need to have those public lands in place, or we don't have anything to argue about.

Finally, after I left the BHA event and thought about it more...I couldn't help but think about the comments that a Senator from Baggs made on the NPR piece I was interviewed in. That senator made a comment along the lines of how some "ranchers feel their way of life had been stolen from them".

I wonder if that Senator has ever thought about how the small ranchers, like the one I talked to, are very damned likely to have "their way of life stolen from them" if public lands are transferred to the States?

This issue is uniting people like no other issue I've ever seen, and that is exactly how its going to be won.

Well stated. I've encountered many similar folks with public grazing leases in Utah. PLT or Federal Monument designation create the same question of future livelihood and lifestyle.

Many people don't actually know any ranchers in rural parts of the west. Easy to judge folks you don't know and don't want to!

 

[James Riley]

Anyone who really thinks there is a constituency to tap in the grazing crowd, and who has some social skills, should arrange a sit-down with the editors of Range and do a little recon. If a bunch of real-deal buckaroos and cowboys start showing up at "town hall" meetings with the Rexall Ranger Politicians with their boots and hats, it could get interesting. Just remember, a lot of these folks ride for the brand and sometimes the brand is Exxon.

 

[Hunting Wife]

I wish we could get over the need to wrap everyone in a nice, neat little label that automatically defines what we think they believe. The problem is that people think there are only two "teams", and that a "team" requires absolute convergence of opinion and beliefs on every subject. That's just plain dumb. Society doesn't work that way. The members of My "team" depends on the game. If I'm playing "Keep It Public", I fully expect to have a different set of teammates than if I'm playing "Obamacare". All that matters is that they really come to play on game day. So yes, we need hunters, hikers, campers, glampers, metrosexuals, mountain bikers, landowners, investment bankers, Trumpsters, and Hippies who support public lands to be on our "team". I don't need to know, like, or care what other teams they choose to play on for other games, because I've got other teammates for those.

 

[onpoint]

"metrosexuals"
Come on , you gotta draw the line somewhere.............

Brings to mind Blazing Saddles - "we won't take the Irish!"

 

[BuzzH]

Well stated. I've encountered many similar folks with public grazing leases in Utah. PLT or Federal Monument designation create the same question of future livelihood and lifestyle.

Many people don't actually know any ranchers in rural parts of the west. Easy to judge folks you don't know and don't want to!

Don't muddy the water with PLT and Monument designation, they aren't the same issue. The monument designation creates much less worry for existing lease holders, in particular when the managing agencies don't change under monument designation (like the current ones in Utah and Nevada).

As JR has pointed out, there are many ranches owned and controlled by those that would be off the rails happy with PLT and fully support it. I can point you to dozens of large landowner types, agribusinesses, grazing associations, corporate ranches, etc. that would be very happy to see PLT happen.

There is a clear separation on the issue with landowners who would support, and who would oppose, PLT.

All I can tell you, is that if I were the owner of a small family ranch with a few federal leases, I would NOT be on the same team as the corporate ranches that have been continually trying, and successfully, squeezing out the family ranchers for decades. PLT would help facilitate the squeeze being put on the family farms and ranches even quicker...and why, I'm sure, the lady I talked to was smart enough to figure out PLT would kill her family ranch.

 

[onpoint]

Where's Albus? "Resident" opinion would be interesting. No sarcasm here - really.

 

[James Riley]

Many people don't actually know any ranchers in rural parts of the west. Easy to judge folks you don't know and don't want to!

You are correct that many people don't actually know any ranchers. But for the record, I'm not one of them. I've been thick with ranchers and the men and women who actually do the work for them. And that is where I get a lot of my opinions.