Here's my comment awaiting moderation:
Hello Jason,
First, thanks for your support of keeping public lands in public hands. We need all the help we can get against politicians who want to steal one of America’s greatest treasures – our ability to roam freely, hunt, fish and hike on America’s public lands. Second, thanks for getting involved in politics. It’s a thankless task as you can see but it is important that hunters engage in the political process beyond simply supporting the NRA or other groups. Thoughtful, reasoned debate is in short supply in this country and we need more ambassadors to our sport who can thread the PR needle than ever.
I have been a full-time advocate for public land, hunting, fishing, access and wildlife management since 2002, working in Wyoming, Montana and on federal issues in Washington D.C.I’d be happy to connect off line if you want some deeper insight into what’s actually going on in politics beyond the transfer and sale of public land.
On Trump, I can’t say one way or another what he would do because, honestly, he’s blowing dog whistles designed to get the most votes. Campaign promises are usually cast to side once someone gets elected. I’m hopeful that’s not the case with Mr. Trump, but I do worry about the company he’s keeping in Don Peay.
Mr. Peay & Mr. Benson have long been a boil on the butt of western wildlife and politics. The wolf is the highest profile issue, and I’d point to this press release by the NRA, SCI, RMEF & many other groups in 2011 when the wolf issue was hot and heavy:
http://billingsgazette.com/lifestyl...cle_e8040da9-af35-54c3-8cc6-44cedc466bfd.html
I worked on the Simpson/Tester delisting rider along with just about every sportsman in Idaho & Montana. SFW/BGF were no friends to us when it came time to getting the work done. They, in fact, tried to kill the delisting rider when they didn’t get everything they wanted. They originally wanted to exclude wolves from ever being considered for listing under the ESA – which sounds good until you realize it would never pass under the cloture rule. One senator could have killed it. It also would have set a horrible precedent in terms of Congress politically managing wildlife rather than science and wildlife agencies. Something I hope we all can agree would be bad for critters we chase and critters we don’t.
Furthermore, we’ve fought off SFW & BGF when it comes to elk management in Montana. They supported a bill that would have forced testing & slaughtering of some of our most vulnerable elk herds, even the Northern Yellowstone Herd which is just now starting to make a comeback. They also never showed up when access fights were hot and heavy and they have backed politicians who actively support the transfer and sale of public lands in Montana.
In Wyoming, they killed a license fee increase which led to less access funding through the Wyoming Game & Fish’s Access Yes program. That budget cut also has hurt warden retention, overall health of the agency and even fish stocking programs. As someone who worked on the wolf issue for over a decade, I can honestly say that they are one of the main reasons why Wyoming doesn’t have control over their recovered wolf population today.
In Alaska, their hand-picked head of the Alaska Game & Fish had to retire in disgrace once it became public that he was not much higher up the rung than a common poacher:
http://www.hcn.org/blogs/goat/amid-scandal-alaskas-wildlife-conservation-director-quits
I could go on, but would rather do that privately than air a bunch of other dirty laundry about how they have tried to purchase influence with legislators who attack public lands and the scientific management of wildlife.
Thanks for all you do, please don’t hesitate to reach out if you’d like to talk more.
- See more at:
http://blog.kuiu.com/2016/01/27/trump-industry-leadership-meeting/#comment-93628