CONSERVATION IS UNDER ATTACK!

[Tsgman]

Thanks for posting!  I just went to "Howl For Wildlife" and sent this in via their setup.   It's kind of like hitting the easy button to speak up on these type of issues.  The site is well worth checkout if interested.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[Mossberg90MN]

I was just reading this this morning, I can't believe that a Republican isactually doing this, what an idiot.

Sent from my moto g pure using Tapatalk

Without jumping into a larger political conversation, there are 58 cosponsors to this bill and they're all Republicans (https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8167/cosponsors?s=1&r=3&overview=closed&fbclid=IwAR2eyMOO7QMXiF0FBlVtqobvu3WsUNVwC9VMZr36SYj8UDNXyf-s8fHMR2w).

The truth is that any time public lands are placed on the chopping block, the end game of this legislation, it's at the hands of Republican representatives. Think Jason Chaffetz a few years back trying to sell off all that land in Utah and effectively ruining his own political career. Hell, think about Senator Mike Lee in Utah earlier this year trying to sell off all that BLM land. Regardless of your greater politics, that's where the threat on public lands always comes from. Always.

Anyhow, here's a link to the bill with a super helpful link at the side to contact your rep. https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8167?fbclid=IwAR3UBApKGx3HKBjItcLHP595CByEgqSLQ9hKJpD0oAH_OiXIcm9yVxE4Ny8

Pittman-Robertson has carried the load of conservation for 85 years. It's one of the most effective pieces of legislation in our history. It makes up roughly 80% of all conservation dollars in this country annually, last year alone to the tune of $1.5B. I beg you to write your reps this Fourth Of July weekend.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Unfortunately true... I remember when Chaffetz did that, and it did pretty much end him.

The republican politicians are fixated on privatization. In theory, if you sold the public parcel that is maybe getting neglected by the state, to someone that was going to cherish the property and practice healthy wildlife management then that is good overall for the habitat. The problem is selling it to a corporation that's going to liquidate the resources and destroy the habitat, which unfortunately... that's who's got the $$ to buy, and probably who's been whispering in there ear to sell off in the first place.

To clarify, I'm not by any means for the selling of public and I wish states would acquire more. Just trying to explain why it always seem that it's republicans selling off land.

Just a theory...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NCL]

The sell off of public land has been a Republican Party idea since James Watt in the Reagan admiration. If I remember correctly the idea was even a party plank in the Bush era. It has been widely discussed in the West over the last 40 years.

[Crghss]

Think some are confusing selling public lands with giving BLM management to states rather then the Feds. While there are some that want to "sell public land" most just want states to manage the land not BLM.

For many western states there are chunks of public land everywhere. Some ranch's will surround a big piece of BLM land. For decades (Centuries?) ranchers used this land freely, treated it like there own.

Then Feds put a stop to it. Over time wanted everyone to pay leasing fee. Put regulations around how land could be used. Of course "environmentalist" wanted to completely stop ranching, mining, timbering on public lands. Some want all access stopped, just open space for nature. So the battle began.

If you want to know more google Sagebrush Rebellion.

[Crghss]

But to the OP, I contacted my congressman. We need to keep Pittman–Robertson Act in tact.

But I do believe, as others have mentioned, we need to expand it. To tax more then hunting & fishing gear. Everyone using the land needs to contribute.

[GobbleNut]

Agreed.  We need to keep the P-R program intact.  We also need to make sure public lands stay public,...regardless of the politics involved in either case. 

[the Ward]

Agreed.  We need to keep the P-R program intact.  We also need to make sure public lands stay public,...regardless of the politics involved in either case.

This for sure, and other recreational users also need to pay their share.

[GobbleNut]

Agreed.  We need to keep the P-R program intact.  We also need to make sure public lands stay public,...regardless of the politics involved in either case.

This for sure, and other recreational users also need to pay their share.

While I totally agree with this, as others have pointed out in the past, the "fly in the ointment" with making the non-consumptive-user public pay their share is that it opens the door for them to have their "fair share" of say in how our public lands are managed.  Unfortunately, that does not necessarily bode well for us consumptive users since we are greatly outnumbered by those other folks. 

At least, the way it is set up now with sportsmen footing the bill (with regards to P-R funding,...and also the Dingell-Johnson Act for fishermen), we have a justification for our current stance that "we are paying the bills, so we should have more say in matters of wildlife management",...and specifically with regards to the use of hunting as a management tool for wildlife. (One needs to look no further than the on-going debates about hunting on National Wildlife Refuges to see what happens when consumptive and non-consumptive groups are lumped together in the decision-making process)

The "trick", if you will, to solving the potential dilemma of the above, is to have totally separate funding mechanisms in place for each user group, both of which address similar problems while at the same time keeping them separate and distinct in terms of policy making.  I am pretty certain there are some such programs already in existence, but I don't keep up with those enough to know how well they work or how much funding they provide for actual wildlife and conservation efforts. 

[the Ward]

Agreed.  We need to keep the P-R program intact.  We also need to make sure public lands stay public,...regardless of the politics involved in either case.

This for sure, and other recreational users also need to pay their share.

While I totally agree with this, as others have pointed out in the past, the "fly in the ointment" with making the non-consumptive-user public pay their share is that it opens the door for them to have their "fair share" of say in how our public lands are managed.  Unfortunately, that does not necessarily bode well for us consumptive users since we are greatly outnumbered by those other folks. 

At least, the way it is set up now with sportsmen footing the bill (with regards to P-R funding,...and also the Dingell-Johnson Act for fishermen), we have a justification for our current stance that "we are paying the bills, so we should have more say in matters of wildlife management",...and specifically with regards to the use of hunting as a management tool for wildlife. (One needs to look no further than the on-going debates about hunting on National Wildlife Refuges to see what happens when consumptive and non-consumptive groups are lumped together in the decision-making process)

The "trick", if you will, to solving the potential dilemma of the above, is to have totally separate funding mechanisms in place for each user group, both of which address similar problems while at the same time keeping them separate and distinct in terms of policy making.  I am pretty certain there are some such programs already in existence, but I don't keep up with those enough to know how well they work or how much funding they provide for actual wildlife and conservation efforts.

Good post. While true, some of these groups still have some pull without equal contributions. It would be nice if we could form alliances with some of them for our mutual benefit, and that of preserving public land use.

[slicksbeagles1]

I disagree with letting the others into the mix of helping pay for usage! If we let them in then eventually the tree huggers will take over we need to leave everything like it is this is one of the only things left that is not broke in our country. The way I see it the one's  for this must be primed to make a lot of money. If any of my representatives or senators vote for this I will vote against them from now on!

[greencop01]

As usual a public law that actually works and 53 Republicans want to tear it up. We have to defeat this travesty and we can start by voting these bums out of office.