HuntTalk Podcast

kansasdad

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 30, 2011
Messages
3,998
Location
Wichita
On your first podcast you discussed a couple of issues that intrigue me, could you explain why you support transfer of wildlife management from the Feds to the States (as part of the wolf discussion) but yet oppose the transfer of public land ownership and management from the Feds to the States?
THis is an excellent question. I think the short answer is that in the wolf example the managers of the resource will/should be professionals using scientific principles to manage that states wolf population. As regards the land transferred to the states for control, you then are relying on Governors and state legislatures to manage this new "resource". Lots of room for politics and abuse as history might show, and historians predict.
 

Big Fin

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2000
Messages
13,775
Location
Bozeman, MT
Randy,
Great work! I enjoy and learn a ton from both your shows and your podcast. You help me become a better hunter and a more ethical hunter. You’ve helped shape my hunting views and methods. So many of my friends like to hunt from the truck or make the hunt as easy as possible but you’ve taught me that with hard work comes much success and greater enjoyment.
On your first podcast you discussed a couple of issues that intrigue me, could you explain why you support transfer of wildlife management from the Feds to the States (as part of the wolf discussion) but yet oppose the transfer of public land ownership and management from the Feds to the States?
Thanks, glad you like what we do.

As to your question, both of my positions are based on the idea that we should not change these two important aspects, just to appease a few whiners. Those two aspects being State authority over wildlife management and Federal ownership of Federal lands.

I support retention of wildlife management at the state level, where it has always existed. The courts have ruled that wildlife is a state purview. The courts have honored that concept and we have a remarkable wildlife recovery to show for it. It is a bit of a misstatement to say I support transfer from Feds to State, as wildlife authority exists with the states. The ESA being an exception. In the case of the ESA, the Feds step in and take over, until such time recovery occurs and then control is transferred back to the states. that is what I was referring to in the wolf discussion.

With wolves, it was a relocation under section 10(j) of the ESA, with 10(j) being considered relocations and restorations of "experimental and non-essential" populations. As part of that, the states were promised management authority upon meeting certain criteria; criteria that was long ago surpassed. To not transfer control to the states as promised, undermines the credibility of entire process and surely makes it hard for affected people to see the ESA as anything other than a mechanism of abuse by those litigating the wolf issue.

As to the transfer of public lands, these are currently Federal lands. They should stay as Federal lands and should be better managed than they currently are managed, but Congress refuses to do it. Why should the ownership change, other than for the purpose of disinheriting the existing beneficiaries for who these lands are held in trust (US Citizens)?

I'll try this example below:

Assume that 325 of us inherit lands that are held in a trust for all of us. I chose 325, as that represents one beneficiary for each million people in the US. Let's assume I am the lone MT beneficiary, given we have about a million people in Montana.

I get to looking at the trust assets and I see that about 10% of the trust assets are in Montana. I make a claim to the trustee that he should transfer the MT lands out of the trust and put them in my name, due to the fact that I live near these lands.

Yeah, it will screw the other 324 beneficiaries out of their ownership of these MT lands and they will take a 10% hit to their value. But, I'm pretty cozy with the trustee, so this should be no problem.

Then, we have two beneficiaries that split time between ID and WY. Another 15% of the trust assets are located in those states, so the trustee has told these two beneficiaries that he plans to give them all of these ID and WY assets. Hell with the other 322 beneficiaries.

The one Alaska beneficiary sees this going on and he makes a claim to the trustee that the 25% of trust assets in Alaska should all go to him. After all, he lives there.

The trustee doesn't care that he has just screwed the 321 other beneficiaries out of 50% of their trust assets, so he goes through with the plan of distribution 50% of the trust assets to these beneficiaries in MT, ID, WY, and AK.

Now, imagine if this was a trust with assets other than Federal land. Imagine if you were one of the beneficiaries of a trust that held trillions of dollar of public traded stocks and the trustee decided to screw you and 320 other beneficiaries out of 50% of the trust value and hand it over to the other 5 beneficiaries. Sounds pretty crooked. And it is.

Some will try to rationalize why it should be a different situation because it is Federal land and not Exxon, Google, Apple, GE stocks. In reality, it is the same. Just that politicians who have the trustee responsibility hope the rest of the beneficiaries are not paying attention.​

And none of this gets to the fact that when me and the three other beneficiaries get our land (50% of the trust value), we can sell it, block off access, or do whatever we damn well please. Not a single thing the other 321 beneficiaries can do about it, once the Trustee hands it over to us

Look at states that do just that.

Colorado - No hunting, fishing, camping, hiking on state trust lands.

WY and NM - No camping on state trust lands.

MT - Restricted camping on state trust lands and NO off-road travel.

NV, UT, WY, AK have sold large portions of their state trust lands to private parties, none of which are now open to public access. These western states are tooled up for selling lands. Just last month, UT sold off another 3,000 acres that we will never again have access to.​

Not sure if I am making the point here. These Federal lands have always been Federal lands. Keep it that way and get on with the hard work of properly managing them and get the politicians out of the habitat of cutting sweetheart deals on Federal lands that make it impossible for Federal land managers to manage these lands in a more profitable manner.

And likewise, States have always been the trustees/managers of wildlife. Keep it that way.

All these claims for change are nothing more than trying to screw the masses for the benefit of a chosen few.

Everyone knows the changes needed for better Federal land management. Yet the trustees, Congress, have no interest in such. They lack the political spine to do what is right for the land and right by those of us who are beneficiaries of the lands. Rather than fix it and manage like a qualified trustee would manage, the politicians are using these lands and the values their provide to repay political debts. Transferring these lands does us no good. Fixing the Congress who is mismanaging them is a true solution.
 

idfishnhunt

Active member
Joined
Dec 2, 2012
Messages
1,074
Location
Idaho
As to your question, both of my positions are based on the idea that we should not change these two important aspects, just to appease a few whiners.
It's funny...this statement right here applies to a whole lot of what is in the news right now.

I'd have to wonder...if the capitol was on the west side of the U.S., if things might go down differently. They are so far removed from what we are doing out here...they don't have the emotions or link to the land, wildlife, and resources like we do. Even though they are locals that we vote into office...not always the ones we want. It still seems they are not on the same wavelength.
 

Big Fin

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2000
Messages
13,775
Location
Bozeman, MT
Spent a couple hours on Monday rambling with Steve Rinella on his Meateater Podcast. Next time he's in town, we are doing a couple hours for the Hunt Talk podcast.

Some of you asked that Jim Posewitz be a Podcast guest. He will be doing a podcast with me on Friday. That Pozcast should roll out in late August or early September.
 

idfishnhunt

Active member
Joined
Dec 2, 2012
Messages
1,074
Location
Idaho
Spent a couple hours on Monday rambling with Steve Rinella on his Meateater Podcast. Next time he's in town, we are doing a couple hours for the Hunt Talk podcast.

Some of you asked that Jim Posewitz be a Podcast guest. He will be doing a podcast with me on Friday. That Pozcast should roll out in late August or early September.
Awesome...just you two talking should be a wealth of information that I could listen too a few times. There is a lot of these issues that I hear about them...but I really don't understand them, and you just talking about them in casual conversation really makes me understand them a whole lot better.

Your doing a good thing...keep it up...and keep them coming!
 
Joined
Aug 14, 2013
Messages
280
Location
Billings, MT
Spent a couple hours on Monday rambling with Steve Rinella on his Meateater Podcast. Next time he's in town, we are doing a couple hours for the Hunt Talk podcast.

Some of you asked that Jim Posewitz be a Podcast guest. He will be doing a podcast with me on Friday. That Pozcast should roll out in late August or early September.
That is awesome! I sent Jim a link to a blog post I wrote about his book "Beyond Fair Chase" last year. I keep it in my pack all the time now as sometimes we need a reminder. He ended up sending me another book and a letter. I enjoyed the first episode by the way. I hope this keeps up.
 

Paul in Idaho

Active member
Joined
Aug 9, 2012
Messages
569
Location
southwest Idaho
Some of you asked that Jim Posewitz be a Podcast guest. He will be doing a podcast with me on Friday. That Pozcast should roll out in late August or early September.
That's great news! I'll be looking forward to that one.
 

d-bone20917

Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2012
Messages
358
Location
Eastern Idaho
Great job Randy! These are the type of podcasts we need... just an honest discussion of hunting issues. Looking forward to hearing you and Rinella together.
 

ColoradoKurt

New member
Joined
Jul 8, 2015
Messages
30
Location
Denver, CO
THis is an excellent question. I think the short answer is that in the wolf example the managers of the resource will/should be professionals using scientific principles to manage that states wolf population. As regards the land transferred to the states for control, you then are relying on Governors and state legislatures to manage this new "resource". Lots of room for politics and abuse as history might show, and historians predict.
I agree with your assessment that state ownership of land opens up to politics and abuse and I see that with wildlife managment as well. I see an inconsistency between ownership and wildlife management. There is politics and heated rhetoric with wildife management at the state level especially with the topic of wolf reintroduction to new states and the management of wolves in states with current populations. Too much for my taste. Essentially we have hunters saying kill all wolves and the tree huggers wanting wolves running rampant. We need a balance in our wildlife management. Some Americans want to see and hear wolves when they are hiking and hugging trees and that's ok by me. But we also need to manage that population, maintain a genetically sustainable population, and that requires some hunting. Both sides must compromise and get along. That isn't happening now in my opinion.
 

ColoradoKurt

New member
Joined
Jul 8, 2015
Messages
30
Location
Denver, CO
Thanks, glad you like what we do.

As to your question, both of my positions are based on the idea that we should not change these two important aspects, just to appease a few whiners. Those two aspects being State authority over wildlife management and Federal ownership of Federal lands.

I support retention of wildlife management at the state level, where it has always existed. The courts have ruled that wildlife is a state purview. The courts have honored that concept and we have a remarkable wildlife recovery to show for it. It is a bit of a misstatement to say I support transfer from Feds to State, as wildlife authority exists with the states. The ESA being an exception. In the case of the ESA, the Feds step in and take over, until such time recovery occurs and then control is transferred back to the states. that is what I was referring to in the wolf discussion.

Everyone knows the changes needed for better Federal land management. Yet the trustees, Congress, have no interest in such. They lack the political spine to do what is right for the land and right by those of us who are beneficiaries of the lands. Rather than fix it and manage like a qualified trustee would manage, the politicians are using these lands and the values their provide to repay political debts. Transferring these lands does us no good. Fixing the Congress who is mismanaging them is a true solution.
Thank you for the response. I appreciate your time. This is why I am a huge fan of yours and Steve Rinella. Very thoughtful and ethical. We need more Newbergs and Rinellas and fewer Nugents.
I agree that state land ownership can be more easily susceptible to fraud and corruption. I am also concerned that wildlife management is getting that way too. Far too political. In Colorado we had citizen initiatives that passed and are now in our Constitution that restrict mountian lion and bear hunting. That isn't acceptable to me. Our Courts are far too involved as well, we see that with wolves now.
But our wild resources, both land and wildlife, should be managed to benefit all of us, hunters and non-hunters alike and I fear complete state management will also fall victim to fraud and corruption. Having some Federal oversight seems to calm the extremes of both the hunter and non-hunter alike; especially in controversial topics like wolf reintroduction.

Keep up the excellent work Randy!
 

Gunflint

Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2011
Messages
188
Location
Minnesota
How many have already subscribed? I did!

I think you will have lots of followers on this!

Thanks for doing this
 

nuevo_eph

Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2014
Messages
422
Location
Socorro, NM
I don't use iTunes, please get on Stitcher if you can (or let me know if there is another android method to get it.).

Thanks!
 

jzeck2

Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2013
Messages
193
Location
South Dakota
Loved the first podcast.

Randy, just got done with the first podcast and loved it. Like you I am a life member of the NRA and RMEF, and also like what TRCP and Back Country Hunters are doing. However I don't need any of them to tell me what is right or wrong. I can make up my own mind given the facts (real ones not made up ones).

I am also a hunter education instructor and have a hard time stomaching some of what is portrayed as hunting in the media. To much Horn Porn. I can live my entire life and if I never have to hear from the motor city mad man and that would be fine by me. I could also care less about the score of some poor animal shot off a private hunting operation. As my grandfathers both passed on to me; "You can't eat the horns".

I hate the thought of turning over federal lands to states many of which will turn around and sell them or lease them. I also think we will eventually have a huge issue with the private game farms where animals are raised like livestock. It will be, if it is not already, a huge tool to be used by the anti hunters and has been shown to endanger wild populations because of disease.

Love the work the Meat Eater Crew and you do. It's time to shake things up. Nobody has all the answers but shouldn't we be willing to listen to alternatives. Keep up the good work
 
Top