Randy Newberg Political activist

Tristate

Tristate

Long Time Member
Messages
8,883
SO on another thread I noticed this video link


SO I watched it. All I got was spin and half truths. In a snooty way Randy calls people for state ownership of public lands political activists. Then he tells viewers if this happens there will be no more hunting fishing or camping on these lands.

I live in a state where most lands are private. There is a lot of public state land. I gent to hunt camp and fish all I want.

How does he get away with saying untruthful things like this?
 
Randy is a very accessible guy, why don't you ask him directly @ OnYourOwnAdventures? Or is that a violation of the troll code?
 
Thanks elk duds. But I also want to know why so many here are buying into the lies.

I have no reason to lie to yall here. But when I tell people the truth that I get to hunt fish and camp all I want in state and private lands all of my posts got nuked. Is there a secondary motive to this petition which I have missed and yall won't talk about?
 
Tri we love the public lands out west. If they become private we would be shut off from them. For example, my dad grew up hunting and fishing on a piece of land that is now private. He can't fish or camp on it. In order to hunt he has to draw a high odds tag or pay 6 grand. I know you don't mind paying the big money to hunt, but surely you can see why we don't want the state to take over land which can lead to the privatization of land.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jun-29-16 AT 08:36AM (MST)[p]There was not a single spin or "half truth" anywhere in that video. There was also no mention anywhere from start to finish in it where he in any way, and especially not in a "snooty way", referred to those wanting to transfer Federal lands of the states as "political activists". That, however, IMHO would be a good description of those wanting that transfer if you dig down and see exactly what the end result would be! He also did not state for certain what you mentioned, but rather the strong possibility of the sale of such lands which would result in no hunting, camping, or other recreation on those lands. All you have to do is look up the statistics for each of the western states to see the huge amount of Federal lands they were entrusted with when each became a state and how many millions of acres in those states were divested and can no longer be used by the public. You stated that where you live in Texas it's mostly private land. I believe everyone on this site knows that is more than accurate because the public land in Texas is infinitesimal compared to what we are talking about in the western states. If anyone has ever hunted in Texas like I did for over 20 years they would certainly know how expensive it is because leasing land is about the only way a person can hunt down there on a regular basis if they don't own it or have a landowner that's a close friend. Your taxidermy profession certainly gives you a big advantage to get on places and you have mentioned that in some of your posts regarding trading your professional work for hunting rights at times! Hunting rates are through the roof in Texas and it's not uncommon for a landowner to charge thousands of dollars per gun just to hunt the deer season. The better places in the southern brush country now cost from $5K to upwards of $10K per gun! That certainly puts most of the middle class into either not hunting, going to the very limited public lands that are either overcrowded or have controlled hunts by draw to limit the possibility of accidents, or go to another state to hunt OUR public lands. You can have Texas and all it's problems that the vast private lands create and we'll keep our millions of acres of Federal lands throughout the western states that we can all use for free!
 
LAST EDITED ON Jun-29-16 AT 08:53AM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Jun-29-16 AT 08:45?AM (MST)

Tristate.....you do have a reason to lie and I've read it first hand!
You lie to fight from admitting when you're wrong. I don't think I've ever read a post from you being humble.
Here's some advice...when the majority of the replies to your comments suggest you are incompetent or naive, or you are delusional and sniff too much glue, your credibility is COMPLETELY GONE!
You might want to suppress yourself from typing and pushing send.
Better yet...maybe heed the advice from Mr. Styler and his normal email practice and write a post, take a day to see if your feelings have changed, then maybe send it.



"Wildlife and its habitat cannot speak. So
we must and we will."
Theadore Roosevelt
 
Tri,

Why would you say that. Many, many years ago I could hunt most of the private, farm and mountain land in the State of Utah. Now if it is private most(I could almost say,"ALL") have no trespassing signs up and you pay to play on that land. Another couple of million people in our state and the pay to play plan will probably be here even on Federal lands, at least for a quality hunt, unless you have 50 bonus points.

Once in a while your spot on, but you've just got to get off the juice.
 
Yeah you live in a state with such amazing access!!! LOL!

Try Colorado for example we are fighting right now to try and get access to our state owned lands. The majority of which are blocked off....
 
SO someone quote me in a lie.

Put one up here.


Cannonball,

Having to pay to trespass doesn't mean hunting, fishing, and camping have ended like Randy says. Its just different. The animals and fish don't know who owns the land. They don't know if the sportsman paid money or was invited or just walks on. The game is the same it just means your decisions to be a sportsman are fiscal decisions now.
 
Schoolhousegrizz,

I had lands I grew up hunting that I can no longer hunt. I know the feeling. But I move on. I find other paths and new places. I can understand why you want public land to stay public but there is nothing more to it than to satisfy your own desires. I don't see people that want public lands to stay public wanting them to pay for themselves or develop for other uses or to benefit other people that aren't sportsmen. I don't see these same people wanting to spend large sums of money to make public land better for wildlife. That's pretty self serving and selfish.
 
Tri, I will try to explain the issues westerners have with the potential sale of public lands. I will refrain from any name calling or derogatory comments. I hope you will give me the same courtesy.

In that other thread you said something about how you got to hunt and camp any time you wanted to and it didnt cost you anything. Then you turned around and told us you guided a couple of hunters and did some taxidermy in exchange for a hunt. That means you paid to hunt there. You traded goods or services for the priviledge of hunting private land. You PAID for it.

I have known people from your home state and when we talked hunting the first thing they would say when I asked where they hunt would be "I have a lease". I know there is public land in Texas too but the majority of the hunting is on private land, correct? And to access it, especially with some degree of exclusivity, you must pay in some way. Correct? Thats fine. That system works for you. Its a system born out of necessity simply because Texas is mostly private land (I dont have that percentage number but it is high).

In my state we have 86% federally administered land. If you take out the land used by department of defense you probably still have 70% public land. I can access that land any time I want, for almost any purpose, completely FREE of charge. I dont pay a fee. I dont barter or trade anything. I can, in most cases, pull off the road and camp, hunt, fish (where theres water), shoot, ride or just watch the sun set. I dont think you can say that about states that are mostly private land.

I hunted and camped and recreated on public land maybe 50 or 60 days last year. And it didnt cost me a dime in access fees. And with the exception of a hunt on air force land, I didnt even have to ask permission.

We also have an issue here where huge chunks of public land are land locked by private land whose owners do not allow trespass for access. In some cases one could fight that in court and win but should I have to in order to access public land?

There are many many private ranches in Nevada that have game animals on them. I think its safe to say that very few of those landowners allow the general public to hunt on their land. And that is certainly their choice and they have that right. I am not criticizing them for it. But I dont want a lot more of it which could happen if lands were transferred to the states and subsequently sold.


The way of life we enjoy in the west is founded around the public land we can recreate on. Its why we live here. You have your very personal and valid reasons why you live where you do. I would not think of changing your way of life. Our public lands are our way of life. We dont want that to change. This current movement is based on the desire for control of the land. Period. No matter who ends up owning it, if the states controlled it, things would change. Large tracts of land would be sold in the name of economic development. And those then private lands would be, for the most part, off limits. Those lands that would be sold are the ones with the highest value. In many cases those are the same lands that offer the best hunting and recreation opportunity. State governments cannot afford to administer that much land. They would need revenue from them to afford it. And that revenue can only come from privatization or user fees or taxes. All those things would change my way of life.

So you see why I am protective of that? Am I being selfish? You bet I am. And I dont apologize for that. Im being selfish for myself, my family, mu friends and even for people like you who I dont even know.


www.sportsmensaccess.org
 
NVB,

I can appreciate your honesty. At least you can honestly say you are in it for selfish reasons. My answer is don't be selfrighteous with people who have their own selfish reasons for the land transfer then. None of yall are better than one another you just have different motives.

As for whether I have paid to hunt YOU BET I HAVE. But you also didn't post the rest of that quote where I told you I went whitetail hunting TOTALLY FREE. I get offered free turkey hunting, free deer hunting, free hog hunting, free bird hunting every year here. Maybe I am clueless that I have become a celebrity or something but I doubt it. But then you start talking about "some degree of exclusivity". Public lands have ZERO degree of exclusivity so why are we worried about not having exclusivity on private??

I notice a lot of people on this thread are now talking about this is an access issue. OK at least that sounds truthful. RANDY didn't call this an access issue. He stated hunting fishing and camping were going to end. THERE IS A BIG DIFFERENCE THERE.

I also notice none of these people that say I tell lies have quoted me in one yet.
 
This is Randy Newberg, the ?political hunting activist.? Happy to say that.

In a time when most our issues are being dragged to the political arena, seems hunting needs more "political activists," not less. Politicians and their well-financed friends have realized that hunters don't like politics; they've realized our groups formed as 501(c)(3) organizations have restrictions on their political activity; and they have taken the decisions away from scientists and biologists and handed those important decisions to Congress, Legislatures, lobbyists, and political appointees.

With that reality, I suggest that some degree of "political activism" is required of anyone who want to see hunting have a bright future.

I am blessed to have a wonderful wife who accepts the huge time and financial commitment that comes with being a "political activist." She is willing to let our home finances fund much of what I do. She shares the same passion for wild places, wild animals, and public lands as I do. As such, we will continue to be "political activists" for the cause of hunting and public access until such time as I am returned to the earth.

I've spent 25 years involved in hunting politics/policy, on a local, state, and national level. I use that experience to try gauge what I feel is most important to the future of hunting. I then advocate for the causes I see as highest priority; in this case the puppet politicians and their big money sting pullers trying to screw hunters out of their public hunting access.

As it relates to public lands and public access, it is pretty simple to me. Every study shows that the biggest reason for loss of hunters/hunting is lack of hunting access. Additionally, 70% of hunters west of the Great Plains hunt primarily on public lands. The other 30% use public lands for some of their hunting or the animals they hunt spend time on public lands. Pretty simple set of facts to build an argument for.

That paints a really clear picture for me. I'm going to use my platforms to advocate for public hunting access, in this case, public land access. It's that simple. So long as I have a breath in my body, my platforms and my advocacy will be focused on public hunting access on currently accessible public lands.

Some may not like it. Fine. The beauty of America is that anyone can get involved and advocate for a cause they feel is important. It takes a commitment of time, a lot of work, and maybe some money. To build platforms with a high volume, it takes a lot of time, effort and money; just ask Founder.

Some people prefer the option of hanging out at the coffee shop to complain about their life, or they snivel to their buddies down at the local pub, or they might even troll internet forums to complain about others who have taken the initiative to try do something beneficial. Every day is an opportunity to make a difference or to whine and snivel. We all get to make that choice each morning.

As for my "political activism" on the topic of public land access, it is only increasing. I have an entire 16-episode YouTube series on the folly of this State Transfer smoke screen. Right now, we are on episode #6.

I've taken plenty of flak for the episodes we've released. That is a sign of being on the right path. As a former Vietnam fighter pilot told me when I was being hacked on a few years back, ?You know you're over a valuable target when the flak gets heavy.?

I'll take heavy flak and the risks that come with "political activism," all day/every day, as compared to sitting around and whining that the other guy is giving a message I don't like. If I don't like it, I need to create my own message and find ways to turn up the volume so self-interested politicians hear the message.

Gotta run. I've committed to spend the day in Billings with media and serve on a panel discussing this stupid idea that transferring Federal lands to the states is somehow going to solve all our problems. I usually don't make a lot of friends among the anti-public land crowd with my comments and supporting evidence of how that stupid idea is an effort to use public lands as currency for settling political debts, with a huge side-effect that to screw hunters out of their hunting grounds. But, that implies I am concerned about the hurt feelings of those wanting to screw hunters out of public hunting lands - NOT!

BTW, you can always look me up in the Bozeman phone book. My phone rings all hours of the day. If you are in Montana, you can always stop by. I'm pretty easy to find at my CPA firm (My real livelihood is disinheriting the Federal Treasury) or my house. Or, you can email me ? [email protected].



"Hunt when you can - You're gonna' run out of health before you run out of money!"
 
THanks Randy for a little honesty finally. If you are a political activist why do you start painting a picture of all the people who want the land shift as being a political activist? As if no regular guys like myself are for it.

Why do you feel it necessary to use a scare tactic like telling people that hunting camping and fishing will come to a halt because of this.

I know you feel somehow I am just some internet complainer but I assure you I do A WHOLE LOT of work just like you. Now I ain't exactly TV material, my brother got all the looks in my family, and I have a really awesome wife too that understands when I have to get up at three in the morning and drive to the capitol to give testimony before the commission. She doesn't have to deal with the threats I get for doing it also. I sit on the state taxidermy board. I am an SCI, MDF, NWTF, and HSC member. I EVEN DONATE EVERY YEAR TO RMEF, FOR THE PAST DECADE, TAXIDERMY. SO don't sit and whine to me about your hard fight that like your the only one slugging it out.

AM I a political activist that wants the land transfer. I have no idea. But I can tell you this, if I was a nobody hunter without political ties I would still be for the land transfer because its the right thing to do. I side less and less with people who feel they need to spin a topic to win their fight.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jun-29-16 AT 10:41AM (MST)[p]>NVB,
>
>I can appreciate your honesty.
>At least you can honestly
>say you are in it
>for selfish reasons. My
>answer is don't be selfrighteous
>with people who have their
>own selfish reasons for the
>land transfer then. None
>of yall are better than
>one another you just have
>different motives.

***If you call "self righteous" wanting everyone to continue to have free access to OUR public lands, then so be it, and I doubt that any of us will apologize for it!

>As for whether I have paid
>to hunt YOU BET I
>HAVE. But you also
>didn't post the rest of
>that quote where I told
>you I went whitetail hunting
>TOTALLY FREE. I get
>offered free turkey hunting, free
>deer hunting, free hog hunting,
>free bird hunting every year
>here. Maybe I am
>clueless that I have become
>a celebrity or something but
>I doubt it. But
>then you start talking about
>"some degree of exclusivity".
>Public lands have ZERO degree
>of exclusivity so why are
>we worried about not having
>exclusivity on private??

***I touched on this in my previous post, but you obviously didn't read or comprehend what I stated or don't have a legitimate argument to contradict my statement. My statement was that you have a business where you are in contact with many hunters and it's not surprising that many are landowners with such little public land that there is in Texas. Those people are either bartering with you for your services or maybe are doing it for free for a possible freebie in the future. Maybe it's because they feel sorry for you or maybe it's just because you're just such a great guy! However, most ordinary people with common jobs down in Texas don't even get free hog hunts, even though they are a dreaded nuisance because they are "ready made cash cows" if you don't have property and want to hunt them! So far there has only been one rather nasty post directed at you on this thread and I hope it stays that way. I think it will if everyone, including yourself, just states and debates the facts in an adult way that many of us don't do when you start things down the wrong path yourself.

>I notice a lot of people
>on this thread are now
>talking about this is an
>access issue. OK at
>least that sounds truthful.
>RANDY didn't call this an
>access issue. He stated
>hunting fishing and camping were
>going to end. THERE
>IS A BIG DIFFERENCE THERE.

***It's always been an access issue whether you have just come to that conclusion or not and that was the entire gist of the Randy video. It's either to lose the land completely to private interests that may not let anyone on at all or charge fees where none are now charged or have the states controlling them for just one reason and that is strictly for profit with no public access. It has already been shown the huge amount of lands the various states had control over and because they couldn't make a profit they sold it. That, in turn, has eliminated it's use by us, the Federal taxpayers. We don't want that to happen any more and it certainly will one way or the other if states get that land and then have to dispose of it because they can't make a profit, which is they only thing they look at compared to the multi-uses that OUR Federal lands are used for.

>I also notice none of these
>people that say I tell
>lies have quoted me in
>one yet.

***What you don't consider lies is in your mind and not what is actuality and I'll just leave it at that because you just now have admitted that we are talking an access issue when that's what it has been from the start and you kept spinning it every which way to suit your needs to argue with people.

PS: The only spinning being done is that last post of yours and especially the past paragraph!
 
LAST EDITED ON Jun-29-16 AT 11:10AM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Jun-29-16 AT 11:08?AM (MST)

Haha! Heaven forbid that I want public lands to stay public so millions of others and I can use them. Texas sounds like my idea of hell. Come out west and see what you are missing. Also, I have never bashed you for hunting private lands. I see you are now bashing me for wanting public land to stay public. Take off the white wig and quit judging everyone. By the way, all the money that sportsmen put out there improves the land and helps wildlife. If anyone deserves credit for improving habitat it is obviously anglers and hunters.
 
No topgun I call selfrighteous a bunch of people who paint themselves as better than others when their motivations and goals are just as selfish as their opponents.


You also have a distorted and incorrect view of my business. The majority of my business doesn't even come from Texas anymore. I get trailer loads of animals killed right off of public land where we all like to hunt. Quit making assumptions about me and my business because you haven't been right yet.

Let me ask you this if Randy is right and this is going to end hunting fishing and camping WOULDN'T I BE THE GUY SCREAMING THE LOUDEST AGAINST IT? If hunting and fishing ends you loose a recreational event and I loose my livelihood.
 
I have hunted public lands in Utah, New Mexico, Colorado, Montana, Oregon, Idaho, and Alaska. That doesn't stop me from doing what I think is right. If you think think that last post was "bashing" you need to get some thicker skin. Nobody is attacking you here. I asked for your response and you gave one thankfully. I gave my opinion to it. That's how a conversation goes. It doesn't mean you are being judged.
 
this sounds to me like tristate wants the land transfer to happen because it benefits him, what I mean is that just like in where he lives he knows people that own lands and they trade work for hunting rights to there land or what ever they have worked out. so for him it works out nice he gets to hunt, fish and camp without having to worry about other people in his spots because he knows he will have a spot.

I have not been on the forum very long so I do not know the history with everybody on here and I am not picking sides. but if the lands are taken over by the state and sold off that is exactly how it will be, only people that know people will be able to hunt, or fish and camp. the rest of us will have to pay big money and at that point it is to late there is no going back.

I hope I am not hijacking the thread but I am new to this debate over the land transfer, so for debate purposes, tristate how will the land transfer benefit you? or how do you feel they would benefit the sportsman that use the land say a guy like me?
 
LAST EDITED ON Jun-29-16 AT 11:31AM (MST)[p]Tri:

You are welcome to call it "scare tactics." Everything stated in that video you refer to is supported by state statutes, studies, and other facts.

I doubt you will do this, but if you watch the YouTube series we produced on the topic, every point, every comment, is provided with citation and evidence to support the points being made. And the final part of messaging is to take those points of facts and present a conclusion. That is called advocacy.

The other side is using the facts they want to advocate the message they desire. I intend to do the same for the side of the argument I support.

I get that since you want State Transfer, you want to call my message a scare tactic. Just how it goes in the world of messaging. American Land Council tells their people I am a "Leftist Fear Monger." That tells me we are on the right track with the right message.

I often gauge our effectiveness by who is complaining and how loud they are complaining. Being in the crosshairs of ALC and many of their fringe operators tells me I am proceeding exactly as our strategy has directed.

If you think that hunting is better off under State Transfer, then knock yourself out. Get after it and throw your support to that cause.

As most know, I think State Transfer is a train wreck for hunting. That is why my support, platforms, and activism are toward defeating that idea.

As far as my use of the term "political activists" in that video, yes, that is a fact. Activists are who I see pushing for State Transfer. I've been to DC twice in the last two years. I am engaged on the issue with most the national players in the hunting world. The folks pushing State Transfer are not the dude you meet down at the feed store, they are not my brother who is a local logger, they are not the waitress at the diner.

The people pushing State Transfer are well funded professional lobbyists representing some very powerful interests who would get rid of hunting tomorrow, if that was a casualty of getting what they want. Those people are political activists; activists with the money, power, and connections that make it hard for average hunters to battle against. These groups pay millions to professionals to do their bidding.

Meanwhile, the guy with three kids, teaching scouts or Hunter Ed, needs to work some OT so his family can go fishing for a long weekend this summer. He and his wife are busy raising a family, volunteering for school or church, maybe even helping a fund raiser for a conservation group that invests in public land habitat improvements.

While the average folks are doing the working, breathing, living, crying, and dying in this country, hoping to provide a better life for their family, these high-powered and well-financed activist groups are taking advantage of that fact and using the DC political machine to screw over these folks who are busy being hard working contributors to their community.

That, is a fact. I've seen it first hand. I talk to people on the inside, every week, and they explain where the pressures are coming from. The pressure isn't from the logger, or the waitress, or the mechanic, or the taxidermist. It's coming from people who see a lot of power to be had and a lot of money to be made from the end result of State Transfer.

If your opinions align with that effort, go for it. My opinions do not. And if calling it for what it is offends a few, so be it.

Odds are, I'm never going to convince you that State Transfer is a bad idea. I'm not going to lose any sleep over that.

You are comfortable with the mostly private land hunting model that works as it does in your area. You support efforts that would change the hunting model for the rest of us to be more like the private land hunting model you have. You are entitled to support that idea. In other words, you support policies that impose your value system and your way of doing things on the rest of the folks who have a different value system and a different way of doing things.

These folks are not asking you to change your value system or your way of doing things, as it relates to hunting access. Easy for you to criticize them, given it is no disruption to the model you've grown accustomed to.

I suspect that if outsiders came and tried to change the model of how you have your hunting access, you would be screaming pretty loud. But, seems that since that is not how this State Transfer idea is playing out, where it is expansion of a model that you support and removal of a model public land hunters like, you won't see it from the perspective of the people who will be most impacted. Again, the beauty of America and our right to have differing opinions.

I guess time will tell which side has the more compelling argument. In the meantime, expect to see more facts from me. If you want to call them "scare tactics," go right ahead. It only shows the power of our argument, the facts we are using, and the effectiveness of how we have presented the message.

"Hunt when you can - You're gonna' run out of health before you run out of money!"
 
>No topgun I call selfrighteous a
>bunch of people who paint
>themselves as better than others
>when their motivations and goals
>are just as selfish as
>their opponents.
>

You seem a little self righteous yourself when you tell us we don't know what we are talking about because we don't agree with you.



>
>Let me ask you this if
>Randy is right and this
>is going to end hunting
>fishing and camping WOULDN'T I
>BE THE GUY SCREAMING THE
>LOUDEST AGAINST IT? If
>hunting and fishing ends you
>loose a recreational event and
>I loose my livelihood.

Maybe you SHOULD be screaming! Maybe, just maybe, if you stopped arguing over the semantics of whether western hunting will "end" or only be greatly diminished, or whether YOU are able to hunt and camp, the potential consequences if this movement succeeds might just sink in. I'm talking about the consequences in the WEST. Not how it is in Texas. We are not Texas.

I know you like to argue and play devils advocate to make US all think about things differently. You call us names and berate us for wanting things to stay the same as they are. You have even called us welfare hunters who want everything for free. Why don't you let someone else be devils advocate for a change and YOU think about things from someone else's perspective than your own. Have you ever even been west of New Mexico? Ever hunted in Nevada? Nevada is definitely NOT Texas.

As was said, if you are in favor of this transfer idea then knock yourself out. You will be working to cut your own throat and that of future generations.



www.sportsmensaccess.org
 
"You are welcome to call it "scare tactics." Everything stated in that video you refer to is supported by state statutes, studies, and other facts."

There isn't one credible study or fact that shows land transfer will end hunting, fishing, and camping. Not one. It may change accessibility. It may change tag distribution methods. It may change habitat management but it will not END outdoor recreation. To say it will is irresponsible and a scare tactic.

I will try and watch the youtube videos. Unlike many here I am not apposed to hearing other people's views. That's why I watched this cartoon.


"I get that since you want State Transfer, you want to call my message a scare tactic."

No. I want to call it a scare tactic because it is exaggerated and untrue. I don't care if you have an opposing view. I care that you believe your position is so weak you have to resort to spin.


"I often gauge our effectiveness by who is complaining and how loud they are complaining. Being in the crosshairs of ALC and many of their fringe operators tells me I am proceeding exactly as our strategy has directed."

I gauge my "effectiveness" by doing what is right and sitting back and watching what I tell people will happen come true.

"If you think that hunting is better off under State Transfer, then knock yourself out. Get after it and throw your support to that cause."

I think hunting will be the same. I think the herds will be better under state transfer, and I fix and protect wildlife before I argue over who gets to kill the last deer.


"The people pushing State Transfer are well funded professional lobbyists representing some very powerful interests who would get rid of hunting tomorrow, if that was a casualty of getting what they want. Those people are political activists; activists with the money, power, and connections that make it hard for average hunters to battle against. These groups pay millions to professionals to do their bidding."

You mean like me????? I am a powerful lobbyist or interest group????? I own a taxidermy studio I built on my own. I go to church, volunteer, donate, work 70 hours every week, I HAVE THREE KIDS. How does my support and the support of others like me suddenly get struck from your vision just because we want land transfer? I'm real Randy. Hell I even donate to your company, but suddenly you don't think I count or I am a lobbyist with powerful interest. THANKS FOR MAKING AN RMEF SUPPORTER FEEL IRRELEVANT. You're welcome.

You haven't asked me Randy where the pressure comes from. You just tell people like me and call it a fact. That's insulting.

By the way I do try and change problems in my hunting model here. But your little cartoon said that was MY land out there too. Did you forget that. Or are the only public land owners people who agree with you?

" Easy for you to criticize them, given it is no disruption to the model you've grown accustomed to."

I am not criticizing them. I am criticizing this system. Don't demonize me just because we disagree.

" In the meantime, expect to see more facts from me."

Your pretty loose with the word "facts".
 
Tri,

You stated that transferring public lands to the states is the "right thing to do". Can you please be specific as why that is the "right thing to do"?

Nemont
 
Let me pose a hypothetical question. Tri, you keep making this big deal that the video referred to the land as yours too. If states got control of the land (they already control the wildlife) what if they then told all non-residents to pound sand? What if they said "we no longer have to allow people from other states to hunt since it our land, our wildlife"? I don't know if there would be a good legal argument against it. I know which argument worked last time this idea came up but not sure it would apply any more.

www.sportsmensaccess.org
 
I've avoided this thread like the plague, but I honestly want to know the reasons you support the transfer tristate? You mentioned the healthier herds of wildlife but what else? I'm not posting this to bash or argue with you, I honestly want to hear your side of why you support the transfer.
 
"You seem a little self righteous yourself when you tell us we don't know what we are talking about because we don't agree with you."

Where did I tell you that you don't know what you are talking about? You don't have to tell lies to discuss this NVB.

"Maybe, just maybe, if you stopped arguing over the semantics of whether western hunting will "end""

THAT'S NOT SEMANTICS. Like I said that's my living you are talking about. IT may sound like semantics to you but when a political activist starts telling people on the internet that is the future, I have to respond.

I have hunted many states west of New Mexico. I have not hunted Nevada.
 
Tristate you're just a complete troll. You are bombarded with facts and common sense reasoning and yet you just continue to argue with rhetoric, most of it ideological. Randy is one of the most amazing advocates for hunting there is today and the fact you don't agree with him because of your ridiculous ideology and call him a liar or conman is sad and shows everyone just how small and pathetic of a person you are. Attacking a great advocate with his facts straight like Randy just further confirms the lowlife you are.
 
Nemont and huntthewest, I believe your questions are pretty much one and the same so I will try and answer both at once.

I believe state agencies and private land owners are much better stewards of wildlife than the federal government is. Plus I believe that the time is coming very very quickly when all of the non-hunters and even anti-hunters realize they own that wildlife and land too and you will soon be dealing with a bunch of people from New Jersey telling you that you can't hunt on their land in Utah. I am trying to keep power out of their hands.
 
You have not watched any of the videos yet you are calling Randy's message untruthful?

Why don't you spend some time watching the 6 videos that are currently live. You may actually learn something. You can also see where the "scare tactics" are being pulled from.

The people wanting these lands transferred to the State and the ones filling the pockets of lobbyists could give a damn about any of us average hunters. They care about owning vast tracks of lands in the name of money.
 
No problem NVB. Then I go hunt somewhere else. But why would they? My state hasn't told out of state hunters to "pound sand". My state has some of the cheapest non-resident hunting there is. But if that is what a state wants to do I'll respect it.

The feds can tell you anytime they want that access is denied.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jun-29-16 AT 03:02PM (MST)[p]Tristate,
please continue to spew your incoherent nonsense all over the internet for everyone to see. I want the world to see the type ignorance coming from the center of the land transfer movement.
By the way, in the time it took you to read this post, Randy Newberg has done more for western hunting and wildlife conservation than you have in your entire life.
 
Oneye,

How am I a troll? THIS IS MY THREAD! You think I attacked Randy???? He tells everyone my voice doesn't count after telling me I own that land too. I am not attacking your lord Randy. I am attacking a political cartoon that contained little more than spin. Randy in turn has blasted wild assumptions about who I am and whether I matter and doesn't even realize I DONATE TO THE COMPANY HE SITS ON. He went straight to class warfare with this junk because he couldn't stand on the issues.
 
ANd you know that how Appaloosa? Because you watch youtube???


See Randy, that's the kind of logic you have on your side.
 
>I believe state agencies and private
>land owners are much better
>stewards of wildlife than the
>federal government is.

Better than which Federal Agency, FS or BLM?
 
LAST EDITED ON Jun-29-16 AT 02:57PM (MST)[p]Trying to debate or discuss anything with Tristate is absolutely impossible with the baloney you get back no matter what it is about! This thread absolutely shows that his idea of wildlife management and outdoor recreation is strictly ruled by the money it will generate and nothing else. To turn the Federal lands over to a state to manage when now everyone in the US owns those lands and has a say shows how far off this guy is on things. So it goes when the state he lives in is 99% private property with big dollars needed to hunt on it IF you can even find an available piece of property that doesn't cost five figures or more per person!
 
LAST EDITED ON Jun-29-16 AT 03:09PM (MST)[p]>No problem NVB. Then I
>go hunt somewhere else.
>But why would they?
>My state hasn't told out
>of state hunters to "pound
>sand". My state has
>some of the cheapest non-resident
>hunting there is. But
>if that is what a
>state wants to do I'll
>respect it.
>
>The feds can tell you anytime
>they want that access is
>denied.


You have got to be kidding me with that absolutely stupid comment about Texas having "some of the cheapest NR hunting there is"! Are you talking about the less than 1% (%1 so you can understand my comment)of public land in the state because the other 99% is probably the highest cost of anywhere in the US?!
 
Tristate,


In western states with lots of federal lands, it is the State F&G depts that manage the game herds now. From what I see they seem to struggle at that mightily.

Can you provide any empirical evidence that State management of lands is the road to go on? Also if the State's dept of F&G currently manages those herds, how does simply changing the title holder make management of the game herds better?

Yes the Feds could say not hunting on public lands, so can somebody who purchased the lands from the State. In former I can go to my congressional delegation for a change, I can vote and I can voice my discontent, in the latter I just have to deal with it.

Nemont
 
Tristate,

You mention the state and landowners being better stewards, but the state already controls the wildlife. I actually do agree with you that SOME landowners do more habitat improvement for wildlife than is done on public lands but these are a minority in my opinion. You mention access but what would prevent some of the special interest groups or person who are against hunting and conservation from purchasing the lands and not allowing hunting/recreation at all? If the land were to go into private ownership would the states have to dramatically reduce tag allocations due to the limited amount of land for sportmen to hunt on, and if so where do they make up the lost revenue?
 
LAST EDITED ON Jun-29-16 AT 03:34PM (MST)[p]>ANd you know that how Appaloosa?
> Because you watch youtube???
>
>
>
>See Randy, that's the kind of
>logic you have on your
>side.


Yep, youtube....
here are a few others if you have a chance to look:
Bugle Magazine
The Missoulian
Billings Gazette
Bozeman Daily Chronical
Salt Lake Tribune
Outdoor Channel
Sportsman's Channel
Property and Environmental Research Center
The Trace
Hunting Life
Extreme Elk Magazine

Anyway Trisate, where can we find your credentials, other than monstermuleys.com?
 
Every parcel of State Land I've hunted (probably 20) has been piss poor for wildlife when compared to its BLM and National Forest counterparts. The number one reason is the State, in this case Colorado, closes the parcels to public activity so they can sell the rights for cattle and sheep grazing, who then push out any wildlife that happened to be there. Where is the public benefiting except for the one rancher? We can't even go on it!!!!!! The parcel is than opened to the public for hunting season, where there are almost no animals. Not to mention many of these parcels are put up for private sale every year, and completely disappear. Therefore, putting public land in State hands is exactly what Randy Newberg said. Completely shite for the public!!!!!!!!!!
 
I knew in the beginning I wouldn't influence Tristate's opinion. That never happens. He loves to argue. To the point he is unreachable. I do hope that some of what the rest of us said here, including Randy, helped to solidify the rest of you MM patron's stand against the transfer idea.

I've had all I can stand of this thread. Thanks to those of you who signed the sportsmensaccess.org petition.

www.sportsmensaccess.org
 
>I knew in the beginning I
>wouldn't influence Tristate's opinion. That
>never happens. He loves to
>argue. To the point he
>is unreachable. I do hope
>that some of what the
>rest of us said here,
>including Randy, helped to solidify
>the rest of you MM
>patron's stand against the transfer
>idea.
>
>I've had all I can stand
>of this thread. Thanks to
>those of you who signed
>the sportsmensaccess.org petition.
>
>www.sportsmensaccess.org

You had to have known as soon as Trollstate got on here that the thread would go to hell in a hand basket just like it did. If he could ever make a post with anything of substance on anything it would probably give a number of us a heart attack!
 
GO on those federal lands and go actually manage for wildlife. Yall all want to discuss who gets to decide what dies. I am talking about managing what lives and making it better so you can go kill it. How well do the feds let you go do widespread habitat projects for wildlife?

The fact is if you manage what is close to you you get better management. If you decide what people tell you needs to happen from two thousand miles away in a government office you get declining deer herds. What do you know that's what we have?
 
If the Federal Lands are transferred to the state-- who and how is the administration of those lands going to be funded? Would the Federal government cut our Federal taxes so that Utah could raise our taxes to pay for that administration? These are some of the facts as I see them-- The Feds could declare "our public lands" as a National Monument, park etc and issue an executive order that all hunting would be controlled by the FS or BLM or some other Fed. agency. Unfortunately, the Feds could be manipulated by a number of organization that are heck bent on eliminating hunting outright for all of us. If the state was given control of the lands they could (and probably would at some point) sell off a piece here and piece there to raise money for whatever they determine as appropriate. Big money has a powerful influence on career politicians.
At this point I would only accept the concept and reality of a land transfer if there was a state constitutional amendment that states specifically that all "public" lands transferred would continue to stay open to the public at least as presently administered and that any sale of public land to ANY entity for ANY purpose would have to be approved by a public vote of at least 2/3rds of the voting residents of the state in an election year. I would not accept any caveats that leave any doors open for devious career politicians or their lawyers to circumvent that constitutional amendment. The feds and the state could become equally dangerous to our hunting heritage. I believe we must insist that absolute safeguards must be in place before any type of transfer on public lands takes place.
 
>GO on those federal lands and
>go actually manage for wildlife.
> Yall all want to
>discuss who gets to decide
>what dies. I am
>talking about managing what lives
>and making it better so
>you can go kill it.
> How well do the
>feds let you go do
>widespread habitat projects for wildlife?
>
>
>The fact is if you manage
>what is close to you
>you get better management.
>If you decide what people
>tell you needs to happen
>from two thousand miles away
>in a government office you
>get declining deer herds.
>What do you know that's
>what we have?

Tristate,

I live in a county with over 2 million acres of public lands. The habitat is in good to great condition but the way the state manages the herds sucks.

Can please explain to me how changing whose name is on the title to these lands makes the State of Montana manage differently than they are doing now? They don't currently have the resources to even police these lands adequately. If those lands were in the hands of the state of Montana, zero would change in regards to management of the big game herds. In fact there would be fewer places for mature mule deer bucks to hide out during our hunting season if the State of Montana controlled these lands.

Just my observation from being on the ground here in a place with a lot of public lands and seeing how they are managed.

Nemont
 
LAST EDITED ON Jun-29-16 AT 04:34PM (MST)[p]>I live in a state where most lands are private. There is a lot of public state land. I get to >hunt camp and fish all I want.
>
>How does he get away with saying untruthful things like this?


Tri,
Why don't you try to go elk hunting on state land in New Mexico? Let us know how that works out for ya.


*****************************************************
Greenhorns educate yourselves. Wherever SFW goes, scandals and corruption follow. Write your legislators:

http://kutv.com/news/local/allegations-of-corruption-surround-utah-hungtin-and-conservation-expo

https://www.cascwild.org/don-peay-the-man-who-would-be-king-baron/

http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs...ares-north-american-hunting-model-“socialism”

http://www.standard.net/Recreation/...16-Western-Hunting-and-Conservation-Expo.html

http://www.mtbullypulpit.org/2012/06/pox-on-fox.html

http://www.thewildlifenews.com/2013...on-essentially-buy-utah-division-of-wildlife/

http://westernvaluesproject.org/tax...hunting-energy-industry-over-hunters-anglers/

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/02/u...-but-hunters-cry-foul.html?smid=pl-share&_r=2

http://www.themudflats.net/archives/25891

http://www.sltrib.com/news/4054427-155/rolly-lawyers-criticism-of-herbert-leads
 
You can disagree with whatever you want. Trying to discredit valid information and someone's useful information because it doesn't fit into your political ideology is just another discredit to you. I just don't know how much farther you have to go before you are as low on the pole as someone like Alex Jones. You're the definition of a troll Tristate. You're an agitator who should never be given the time of day. The information Randy puts out there is valid and useful, so I don't need to talk about the land transfer in this post because 90% of sportsmen understand what it means for those that use public land, the other 10% are uninformed, in denial, or just stupid. If I had to pick one for you I would pick the latter of those three, but I don't believe you're actually stupid, just a loser with nothing better to do than argue your ideologies that are nothing more than opinions you have based in no fact or logic. People are blasting you because your incoherent rambling of useless information gets old. You leave a bad taste in people's mouth when you trash a good mans name like Randy's, but stand up for the corruption and disgusting behavior of SFW. Tristate here's what we know about you for sure, you don't care about wildlife, you don't care about hunting, and ou sure as hell don't care about access and the legacy that has created the successful conservation in this country. If you did you wouldn't hold the opinionated ideologies you do that go against and are harmful to all of those things. Take your ball and go home, everyone's tired of playing with someone who does nothing but talk s*** because they can't come to the reality of the rules of the game.
 
Why would anyone want to sell off their land so you won't be able to use it any longer? Public lands belong to all of us, if you like hunting private then knock yourself out tristate.

Give me one compelling good reason to sell any of it?

Then instead of accusations od half truths and lies why don't you list them out and give your facts to why you are correct.

Were waiting tic toc tic toc............
 
>SO on another thread I noticed
>this video link
>
>
>
>SO I watched it. All
>I got was spin and
>half truths. In a
>snooty way Randy calls people
>for state ownership of public
>lands political activists. Then
>he tells viewers if this
>happens there will be no
>more hunting fishing or camping
>on these lands.
>
>I live in a state where
>most lands are private.
>There is a lot of
>public state land. I
>gent to hunt camp and
>fish all I want.
>
>How does he get away with
>saying untruthful things like this?
>
Having known Randy for about two decades, about the last things that come to mind when describing him are "snooty" and "untruthful".

He is better described as extremely intelligent and unchallenged in generosity with his time and efforts for those who regularly hunt and recreate on public land.

I can understand those who (TriState) have not come to love a place or activity that doesn't come without writing a check, kissing some ass, or having a special connection.

I will agree that Randy is a political activist supporting wildlife conservation and all those who hunt and recreate on public land. Too bad some folks aren't more appreciative.
 
Randy your time is to valuable to spend it on Tritip. If I thought he may learn something from you it would be different.

Tritroll, are we talking about giving local control to the same group that closed off a couple thousand miles of water to Utah's fishermen? The same group that approved a nuclear waste facility on state lands? The same local politicians that demanded that an elk herd be wiped off of public lands?? Just wanting to clarify.




"If the DWR was just doing its job, and
wildlife and hunting were the actual focus,
none of this process would even matter.
But that is not the focus or the goal in any
of this. The current DWR regime, and
SFW were born out of wildlife declines,
and are currently operated and funded
under that paradigm. Those 200 Expo
tags would not even be worth anything if
the focus was where it was supposed to
be, and wildlife and tags were plentiful.
But under the current business model,
that is how the money and power is
generated. It is generated through the
rising "value"(monitization) of a declining
resource. A resource that is supposed to
be being beneficially managed for the
masses that own that resource, ie. US.
The problem is obvious, hedging is not a
long term sustainable strategy, and
others have to lose, for some to win. In
this case it is us, the many, and our
resources, that are being forced to lose,
because there is a minority who's power
and money is derived from our loses."

LONETREE 3/15/16
 
I actually think dealing with Tristate is a good thing. This is a national debate. The majority of representation comes from states with wildlife models similar to what we have here. Even scarier is that Ohio "AKA - Cluster of a swing state" has gone so far as to break the public trust with its native game and classify some as livestock to allow private ownership. There are a lot of Tristates out there, this audience just happens to be a lot of folks who enjoy the open West. I love our hunting here in Texas, (actually love the hands-on management of things over the actual hunting), but the room to roam that the Western states provide is sure nice as well.
 
I certainly am against the state (I'm in Idaho and this topic is being kicked around as well) selling the land to the highest bidder. With that being said, the federal overlords do a piss poor job of forest and range management. Catastrophic wildfires are not sound management. The Forest Service where I'm from is systematically closing roads and trails. I know, I know every hunter is an ironman triathlete and can pack an entire camp in and at the end of the hunt pack your entire camp and a 6 point bull back out. But for the rest of the ten months out the year that we aren't hunting, people are cutting firewood, picking huckleberries, mushrooms and generally just out enjoying the forest. There is a genuine distrust between federal agencies and local folk in rural areas. Giving the states and locals more say in what happens in their national forests would go a long way towards restoring some of that trust. I honestly believe that some of the environmental groups would like nothing more than to wipe every trace of human activity off of federal lands.
 
I'm so glad trystate is willing to further the cause by starting threads and arguing his side.

Maybe Randy should invite him to argue his side on podcast episode :)
Justin
 
It seems asenine to me a man from Texas has the right to his opinion of his public land, wants to give that right away. This reminds me of a video of college kids signing a petition to restrict their first amendment rights on campus. Any body that thinks one type of government will manage ANYTHING better than another for the long hall, for my kids kids, is insane! Stay in Texas and don't come hunt our states.
 
Founder could you start a new state "Texas" I'm tired of seeing all these post of people wanting to hunt in Texas. It seems to be a never ending topic. Oh ya back to this topic, I hope we never loose what we have. I know it is a very slippery slope. A few years ago I got into it with Buzz and his then sidekick Topgun about using general funds to pay for wildlife things. Once the door gets open there is no turning back. Just sitting around the campfire telling stories about how it used to be. Oh wait we wont be able to have a camp fire either. Unless we are more fortunate then others. Hope I hit pay dirt soon so I can buy up my favorite mountain.

DZ
 
LAST EDITED ON Jun-29-16 AT 11:17PM (MST)[p]I find this arguement interesting. I personally want to see the land stay in the hands of which ever keeps it most open. I believe that is what we all want. There are a few things to consider that most on here overlook soley based on who is posting them. I believe that Tristate is valid in his concern that at some point there could be a national push to stop hunting on federal public lands. If you don't beleive that you are very naive. Just look at our national elections currently. Our president is not decided by those that live in the country, that spend time in our mountains, that visit with us at the coffee shops, it's not the taxidermist or logger. It's the big city population masses that decide who the president will be. Well if that same population mass decides they don't like hunting then it's over and I think it ought to scare the shittt out of all of us how quick that could happen. I also see the dangers of turning it over to the states. I beleive the true answer is within the words Randy has written. However the reality of it is something that many of you destain. The reality solution is for hunters and sportsmen to have an activist voice. A strong one that fights with in the system whether on a state level or federal level to keep lands open. One that is well funded and can't fight the fights without being beholden to anyone except the sportsmen. An activist group that has actual teeth and can strongly push its agendas. There is not such group currently and in the end it may well be our demise for not having one. SFW is too beholden to state funding and has lost its teeth being too worried about pleasing some.! RMEF is too concerned with being politically correct, MDF, DU, PF, NTA all wonderful conservation groups but not lobbyists and activist that will drive into to dirty system of politics. We must have a voice and a strong voice that is willing to play the game if we truly want our hunting heritage to continue on. Lee and Joey Will probably call me slimmy for pushing that agenda. But I love hunting, fishing and time in the outdoors with my family more than anything. So pour me shot and let's talk contracts.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jun-30-16 AT 06:22AM (MST)[p]Well I am back. After working eleven hours yesterday in this Taxidermy shop that Randy doesn't think I have and then going home to my three kids that want to be hunters that Randy doesn't think I have I crawled out of bed at 5:30 this morning and got back to work which Randy doesn't think I do. What do I realize when I check on my thread????

Nothing.

Yall have produced nothing. At any point any of you could have produced a valid document or study, ESPECIALLY RANDY, to combat my argument that the claim of hunting fishing and camping will end because of land transfer, AND NOT ONE OF YOU DID IT. Instead yall threw mud at me, including Randy. Yall talked tough, and yall talked about what you wanted. Not one of you tried to support the cartoon's claim that hunting, fishing, and camping will end because of this.



This next paragraph I want yall to read slowly and closely. I like hunting the west the way it is now. I WISH IT DIDN'T HAVE TO CHANGE. But here is the problem. We as sportsmen have been putting the cart in front of the horse for decades now. AND HUNTING HAS SUFFERED BECUASE OUR GAME HERDS HAVE SUFFERED. No matter what happened with the herds we sportsmen argued over harvest. All we ever did for the most part was alter our harvest. Truthfully we put very little and still put very little back into growing and managing the wildlife on these public lands. I AM WILLING TO GIVE UP MY HARVEST MODEL THAT WE ALL LOVE IF IT MEANS THE HERD COMES FIRST FROM NOW ON. I am willing to change even though I may not like as much how I have to hunt for the rest of my life. Yall haven't realized the west and the herds themselves are in constant change. But we have been belligerent and won't be dynamic ourselves. THEY SUFFER BECAUSE OF THAT.

Not only do we have the problems we refuse to deal with now because all we focus on is the hunt but an even greater threat rests out there on the Horizon. Anti-hunters and non-hunters all over this nation that are realizing they own that land and they can put their foot on our necks and they will do it. AND YOU WANT TO MAKE SURE THEIR BOOt LACES ARE TIGHT.

Imagine someone starts to get to do a collared study on mountain lions in Yellowstone. There is one really special mountain lion that everybody saw with a cub and videoed it and put it on youtube. They name the mountain lion Poky. Now the lion leaves Yellowstone just doing what they do and is treed and killed by an out of state collar. Legally. The anti-hunters flow this info out all over middle America. They tell America that the lion had been lured out of Yellowstone. Fences had been cut to get it into this huntable zone. Special dogs that evil dog handlers inject with steroids and narcotics to fight these brave lions were used to chase and terrorize the cat for days. They will say it was all about money. Some evil fat white guy with erectile dysfunction paid 10K to do this and make himself feel like a man. IS IT TRUE? Heeeeeeck no. But it doesn't matter Jimmy Kimel is crying like a girl in front of his audience. Even Megan Kelly is ripping up the heads of SCI every evening and every soccer mom in America says hunting has to end. Then the anti-hunters tell them guess what "THEY KILLED POKY ON YOUR LAND".

That's your future fellas. You say you want public lands for your children. That's very noble, but look at the future our children will have to face.
 
Can't win a debate, change the subject. Segue was extremely weak as well. Now I recall why I stopped spending time on MM.
 
>LAST EDITED ON Jun-30-16
>AT 06:22?AM (MST)
>
>Well I am back. After
>working eleven hours yesterday in
>this Taxidermy shop that Randy
>doesn't think I have and
>then going home to my
>three kids that want to
>be hunters that Randy doesn't
>think I have I crawled
>out of bed at 5:30
>this morning and got back
>to work which Randy doesn't
>think I do. What
>do I realize when I
>check on my thread????
>
>Nothing.
>
>Yall have produced nothing. At
>any point any of you
>could have produced a valid
>document or study, ESPECIALLY RANDY,
>to combat my argument that
>the claim of hunting fishing
>and camping will end because
>of land transfer, AND NOT
>ONE OF YOU DID IT.
> Instead yall threw mud
>at me, including Randy.
>Yall talked tough, and yall
>talked about what you wanted.
> Not one of you
>tried to support the cartoon's
>claim that hunting, fishing, and
>camping will end because of
>this.
>
>
>
>This next paragraph I want yall
>to read slowly and closely.
> I like hunting the
>west the way it is
>now. I WISH IT
>DIDN'T HAVE TO CHANGE.
>But here is the problem.
> We as sportsmen have
>been putting the cart in
>front of the horse for
>decades now. AND HUNTING
>HAS SUFFERED BECUASE OUR GAME
>HERDS HAVE SUFFERED. No
>matter what happened with the
>herds we sportsmen argued over
>harvest. All we ever
>did for the most part
>was alter our harvest.
>Truthfully we put very little
>and still put very little
>back into growing and managing
>the wildlife on these public
>lands. I AM WILLING
>TO GIVE UP MY HARVEST
>MODEL THAT WE ALL LOVE
>IF IT MEANS THE HERD
>COMES FIRST FROM NOW ON.
> I am willing to
>change even though I may
>not like as much how
>I have to hunt
>for the rest of my
>life. Yall haven't realized
>the west and the herds
>themselves are in constant change.
> But we have been
>belligerent and won't be dynamic
>ourselves. THEY SUFFER BECAUSE
>OF THAT.
>
>Not only do we have the
>problems we refuse to deal
>with now because all we
>focus on is the hunt
>but an even greater threat
>rests out there on the
>Horizon. Anti-hunters and non-hunters
>all over this nation that
>are realizing they own that
>land and they can put
>their foot on our necks
>and they will do it.
> AND YOU WANT TO
>MAKE SURE THEIR BOOt LACES
>ARE TIGHT.
>
>Imagine someone starts to get to
>do a collared study on
>mountain lions in Yellowstone.
>There is one really special
>mountain lion that everybody saw
>with a cub and videoed
>it and put it on
>youtube. They name the
>mountain lion Poky. Now
>the lion leaves Yellowstone just
>doing what they do and
>is treed and killed by
>an out of state collar.
> Legally. The anti-hunters
>flow this info out all
>over middle America. They
>tell America that the lion
>had been lured out of
>Yellowstone. Fences had been
>cut to get it into
>this huntable zone. Special
>dogs that evil dog handlers
>inject with steroids and narcotics
>to fight these brave lions
>were used to chase and
>terrorize the cat for days.
> They will say it
>was all about money.
>Some evil fat white guy
>with erectile dysfunction paid 10K
>to do this and make
>himself feel like a man.
> IS IT TRUE?
>Heeeeeeck no. But it
>doesn't matter Jimmy Kimel is
>crying like a girl in
>front of his audience.
>Even Megan Kelly is ripping
>up the heads of SCI
>every evening and every soccer
>mom in America says hunting
>has to end. Then
>the anti-hunters tell them guess
>what "THEY KILLED POKY ON
>YOUR LAND".
>
>That's your future fellas. You
>say you want public lands
>for your children. That's
>very noble, but look at
>the future our children will
>have to face.


Tri what makes you think the anti's won't infiltrate and manipulate state ownership. I would rather have herd health a little down than completely locked out of MY and YOUR land.
 
I'll bet private timber companies are all over this. SPI owns a lot of ground in my backyard forest. Thankfully they allow hunting but NO camping no recreational shooting and limited wood cutting. I burn wood in the winter, wood I cut on public land. The magnitude of forest land would overwhelm states so bad they would immediately HAVE to start piecing it out. Little by little. by by freedom. The sportsmans heritage act already in congress is very important to all of us. Stick with that.
 
Well 5hopefull, how much do those state legislators and governors listen to the moaning of antis and soccermoms in New Jersey now?
 
>Well 5hopefull, how much do those
>state legislators and governors listen
>to the moaning of antis
>and soccermoms in New Jersey
>now?


Your talking of the Bears I assume. The Bears are a real problem there and it's clear to MOST of the residents there. Here the deer aren't a nuisance to the general population so it's easier to sway the uneducated.
 
I could see the Plum Creek/Campbell Group/Rayoniers types being excited about it. Campbell bought up a lot of acreage in our area about a decade ago...they have no issue fragmenting it and selling, even if it is bringing in steady revenue from recreation. One very prestigious hunting club is on the market right now even though lease fees bring in roughly $400k/yr & climbing plus upkeep.
 
Wow Tristate, you are a real piece of work. I think this thread can be boiled down to 99.9% respect for Randy and his efforts and 0.01% tolerance of your behavior.
 
For any of the Utahns reading this post (which I admit I didn't-- don't have the time to waste on unchanged minds)---

Take a look at the bill passed this Spring by the Utah Leg. HB0276 outlines how the State would manage the Federal Lands if they are successful in the bid to take them.

http://le.utah.gov/~2016/bills/static/HB0276.html

Lines 468-493 outline the possible sale of some/much/most of those lands. You notice that to sell over 200 acres they need Leg approval. BUT-- whoever is the "Director" can authorize the sale of up to 200 acres without any oversight. So who would this "Director" be? The Governor would appoint him/her. And then a different Governor would appoint another him/her. 190 acres sold off the Cache here and there or off the Beaver here and there. Lets sell off a parcels of 160 acres on the Henry Mtns and Provo Peak. Do you guys really trust a "Director" with what are currently Your Public Lands?

I had a talk with my State Rep last week. I give him credit that he actually talks to people-- but he stated lands will be sold. Ski Resorts are definitely part of the expansion possibilities. Expansion of cities (which in Utah means climbing the mountain and there goes the winter range), Expansion of privately owned Ranches/Farms (his words-- but he didn't answer where they'd get the water), etc....

People are welcome to their opinion, but I find myself worrying more about what I am told by the decision makers, rather than worrying about what "might" happen. Utah will sell lands. The Feds might, maybe in half a century or two, restrict hunting on public lands. Don't fall for the scare tactics of ifs and buts about the scary Feds.......
 
LAST EDITED ON Jun-30-16 AT 09:06AM (MST)[p]There ain't no "ifs or buts" in these scare tactics. In the last five years the US federal government has choked out African lion hunting and %95 of the elephant hunting on land and with animals non of us own. Don't kid yourself about their power and veracity. USFWS is an anti-hunting organization RIGHT NOW.

I have more evidence to back up my position than Randy and everyone on these threads has to support the claim that land transfer will end hunting, fishing, and camping.
 
I trust soccer moms in New Jersey to be able hunt and access public lands 100 times more then I trust the greedy slimeball politicians in Utah who probably already have hundreds of thousands of acres promised out in exchange for favors.
 
Good post Packout and good info. The anti-hunting crowd knows that a full frontal assault on us would never fly, so I think that they just find ways to chip around the edges. Transfer of Public lands to the states might allow them have implemented a rule here and there in the transfer documents that could give them more leverage and doom our hunting heritage.
 
Tristate,

Can you link to the evidence you have backing up your claims?

Can you answer the question of how a change of name on the title holder will change the management of game herds since in the Western states the F&G departments already do that on Federal lands? I am on public lands usually at least once a week if not more so I can't see where just transfer ownership solves anything in regards to big game herds.

I get the argument that hunting could end on those lands. Hunting is restricted or forbidding on a lot of State owned lands in the west TODAY.

If it is distrust of government that drives it, I don't trust state government any more than the feds. You can buy off a part Montana Legislator with some premium booze and nice cut of prime rib, you need real money to get into the game in DC. Neither should be trusted but of the two, my distrust in the State is at least equal to DC.
 
>LAST EDITED ON Jun-29-16
>AT 11:17?PM (MST)
>
>I find this arguement interesting.
>I personally want to see
>the land stay in the
>hands of which ever keeps
>it most open. I
>believe that is what we
>all want. There are
>a few things to consider
>that most on here overlook
>soley based on who is
>posting them. I believe
>that Tristate is valid in
>his concern that at some
>point there could be a
>national push to stop hunting
>on federal public lands.
>If you don't beleive that
>you are very naive. Just
>look at our national elections
>currently. Our president is
>not decided by those that
>live in the country, that
>spend time in our mountains,
>that visit with us at
>the coffee shops, it's not
>the taxidermist or logger.
>It's the big city population
>masses that decide who the
>president will be. Well
>if that same population mass
>decides they don't like hunting
>then it's over and I
>think it ought to scare
>the shittt out of all
>of us how quick that
>could happen. I also
>see the dangers of turning
>it over to the states.
> I beleive the true
>answer is within the words
>Randy has written. However
>the reality of it is
>something that many of you
>destain. The reality solution
>is for hunters and sportsmen
>to have an activist voice.
> A strong one that
>fights with in the system
>whether on a state level
>or federal level to keep
>lands open. One that
>is well funded and can't
>fight the fights without being
>beholden to anyone except the
>sportsmen. An activist group
>that has actual teeth and
>can strongly push its agendas.
> There is not such
>group currently and in the
>end it may well be
>our demise for not having
>one. SFW is too
>beholden to state funding and
>has lost its teeth being
>too worried about pleasing some.!
>RMEF is too concerned with
>being politically correct, MDF, DU,
>PF, NTA all wonderful conservation
>groups but not lobbyists and
>activist that will drive into
>to dirty system of politics.
> We must have a
>voice and a strong voice
>that is willing to play
>the game if we truly
>want our hunting heritage to
>continue on. Lee and
>Joey Will probably call me
>slimmy for pushing that agenda.
> But I love hunting,
>fishing and time in the
>outdoors with my family more
>than anything. So pour
>me shot and let's talk
>contracts.

I can't speak for Joey, but I would never call you slimy for pushing that agenda (or any other). Name calling, insults and rude remarks are not in my nature nor are they effective ways of persuasion. All they do is stir up negative emotions and make any situation harder to deal with.

(I haven't had a chance to discuss this thread with the rest of UWC leadership, but I'm going to stick my neck out a bit and reply to your post in UWC's behalf. I may regret this later, but it wouldn't be the first time I've screwed up.)

This may surprise you and others, but in light of the fact that we cannot avoid the reality of this issue (and others) and because you have acknowledged that SFW is too beholden to the State of Utah for funding, I (and I think most of the UWC members) would accept, if not welcome, a chance to pull the leadership of all these groups together (including SFW) in a neutral setting where we can calmly, rationally, discuss and work on our common goals for the future of wildlife and hunting, fishing, trapping, camping, viewing, biking, hiking, ATV'ing, etc. in Utah's fabulous outdoors.

That doesn't mean we won't still have differences that will need to be addressed in the proper settings, but there's no reason to fight over everything just because we don't agree on some things and some kind of organization as you've suggested would be a way of presenting a united front to our common foes.

UWC has no confidence that the State of Utah will or could manage all those lands for the benefit of hunters and fishermen as shown in all the papers and interviews we've seen and we adamantly oppose the transfer of Federal Lands to the States. They may claim that they can better manage the land, but for all the money and non-residents sportsmen's groups bring in, it pales compared to the numbers we see with skiing, drilling, mineral extraction, commercial and residential development, lumber, etc. and, financially, we (and wildlife) end up on the bottom of the totem pole. We've been assured that would NEVER happen, but NONE of the Utah politicians we've interviewed is willing to put that in writing, especially without some backdoor disclaimers that would not allow them to remain accessible to not only sportsmen but to the animals themselves. Afterall, deer and elk migrate and fences, roads, houses, and shopping centers make that more difficult. Ya can't save hunting if you don't save the animals.

Addmittedly, the Feds aren't always easy to deal with either, but any kind of harsh confrontation becomes counterproductive to outdoorsmen and there's no guarantee that the State of Utah would be any easier to deal with. The state officials also have their own agendas and much of it includes the maximum production of funding regardless of the method. Such an organization as you've proposed would be needed even if the State did get the land!

Unfortunately, UWC doesn't have the wherewithal (I won't go into details.) or connections to pull something like this together, but we're certainly willing to contribute what little we can in the way of funding, voices, manpower, morel support, ideas, and, if nothing more, our name to such a cause as long as it begins and remains conducive to our mission statement and our desire to keep the majority of Utah outdoor families in the game regardless of their incomes or priorities.

I look forward to hearing more about this idea. Thanks!

Lee, UWC
 
I agree with Nemont. I don't fully trust The Feds and especially not the State.

We just need to be vigilant with our lands and make sure our interests are addressed while addressing all others who own the land with us.

It's very easy for Soaring Hummingbird, the dreadlocked hippie, to file one law suit, backed up by 50 anti hunting organizations, to end all shooting/hunting on Federal property. It's not going to happen tomorrow, but it's in the long range plans guaranteed.
 
"I have more evidence to back up my position than Randy and everyone on these threads has to support the claim that land transfer will end hunting, fishing, and camping." -tristate

Another lie.
 
Vanilla,

Here's your chance. Show me the lie. Where is the evidence that land transfer will end hunting, fishing, and camping. You and others have had a day to find proof and not even Randy will post it here. You talk the talk but you ain't got no walk.

I showed you a place where the state and private citizens own way more land than the feds and we have more hunting, fishing and, camping than Utah. So I have more proof than Randy or you.
 
To me it is simple. Right now federal lands belong to all us citizens so you could say all our names are on the title.

If these federal lands are transferred to the states as a citizen of a state with virtually no federal lands I am potentially locked out.

For example hypothetical: Wyoming (pick the state) now says "these lands are now only for the use of the title holders."(citizens of that state)They are the owners and this could potentially happen.

Or, even worse these lands are sold to private interest so now all but the new owners are locked out.

So, what would our compensation be? A smaller debt so reckless Politian's can go back to their drunken sailors spending sprees? What evidence would we have that this wouldn't happen? There is plenty of evidence in our history that suggest that would happen.

What evidence is there that the states would manage these lands better? None, again there is more evidence to the contrary.

What evidence is there that these states can afford to manage these lands? None, why take the risk? It could likely cause taxes in those states to be raised to afford the management.

Is there any evidence the states wouldn't then sell these lands to private interest? No, just the opposite as our history shows.

So, simply tell me why on earth would anyone advocate to do this? There is no logic in it.

Now, as much as hate what this word has become I do believe there is plenty of room for "reform" of the current management practices including improved access.
 
Southwind you make a completely logical argument for your position. And what you state I don't have a problem with.

But that still doesn't mean that hunting, fishing, and camping ends.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jun-30-16 AT 11:29AM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Jun-30-16 AT 11:15?AM (MST)

TriTroll, in all your shite threads, I've never seen you form a valid and convincing argument, and yet you accuse all of us of no proof? You should join the wolf activists on your local street corner. You're just a troll to multiply thread counts. Your lame.

I don't know how many eye witness accounts are needed to prove you wrong, but we've more than done so here.
 
How do you know if tristate is 100% full of crap and talking entirely out of his rear end? When he's posting on Monster Muleys.

Just because you say it's so, doesn't make it so. You're a proven liar. I won't discuss any issue with you. You're a liar. Period.

Prove me wrong. Go ahead, give me the proof. Until you give undeniable evidence that you're not a liar, I'm right, because I said so. (Sound familiar???)
 
>
>
>But that still doesn't mean that
>hunting, fishing, and camping ends.
>

They would for many of the people currently using the public lands.

Just curious why you think the States would preserve this access but the Feds won't? The State owned land here is already far more restricted in how the public can use them vs the Federal Public lands.

Can you explain how changing the name on the title changes the way the F&G dept's. manage the big game herds?


Nemont
 
Two examples off top of my head would be colorado where state trust land is off limits for public use. The other would be New Mexico where a significant portion of state land is off limits and is leased out for other uses. Maybe the residents of those states can elaborate? Would these not qualify as examples or facts of land transfer ending recreational opportunities on public land?
 
>Two examples off top of my
>head would be colorado where
>state trust land is off
>limits for public use. The
>other would be New Mexico
>where a significant portion of
>state land is off limits
>and is leased out for
>other uses. Maybe the residents
>of those states can elaborate?
>Would these not qualify as
>examples or facts of land
>transfer ending recreational opportunities on
>public land?


I mentioned that and more in post #46. Yet it's not enough proof for the troll.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jun-30-16 AT 12:08PM (MST)[p]Wow guys. I totally missed the Colorado example. I was not aware hunting, fishing, and camping had been outlawed there. If you can't tell I am being sarcastic. You know I swear I went hunting in Colorado last year. Maybe my oldstimers disease is flaring up.

Look guys if Randy would have just talked straight we wouldn't have this problem. If he would have said land transfer could change western hunting, camping and fishing, I COULD HAVE AGREED WITH HIM. If he would have said some of yall's free rides or even free access MAY end I wouldn't argue that. But no he tried to scare people into signing a petition with melodrama and exaggeration.

I think most of yall are taking up the battle of what he probably meant and trying to blow past the cartoon was political spin.
 
Wow Vanilla. You really don't digest crow worth a darn. I find it amazing how little a person in your profession knows about truth or proof.
 
Tristate is a childish troll. He doesn't understand logic, fact or reason. His only goal is to argue, confuse, distract and frustrate. Anyone who has spent any time on these forums sees him for what he is. There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with another's point of view. However, with tristate it is impossible to have a legitimate dialogue or discussion. Randy is a class act and straight of a talker, and Tristate is a childish troll. I try to avoid name-calling but that is proven fact borne out of hundreds of his mind-numbing posts and comments.

-Hawkeye-
 
In Wyoming you can not camp or build a campfire on state land. If it's state agricultural land (hay fields,etc) you can't even access it.
 
Wow Hawkeye. You didn't even try to defend Randy. You just went straight on the personal attack when I haven't even called Randy a name. You gave up immediately because you didn't know how to defend your beliefs.
 
Grosenntre,

SO if Wyoming would hurry up and sell all that land then it would be up to the land owners what can be done. Sounds like you could actually get more freedom there.
 
It's sad when an individual such as Tristate brings nothing but BS to the conversation and sits here and tries to tear down a very credible and passionate person. I guess when you're the exact opposite you do what you have to to try and prop yourself up.
 
How did I try and Tear down Randy? I told him personally that something he said on here was rude and that his petition cartoon was spin. That's it. On the other hand I have been called almost every name in the book on this thread. I am sure your hero Randy is a great fella. But that doesn't change what this is.

Keep attacking me boys instead of dealing with the issue. You're really bringing wildlife back.
 
>How did I try and Tear
>down Randy? I told
>him personally that something he
>said on here was rude
>and that his petition cartoon
>was spin. That's it.
> On the other hand
>I have been called almost
>every name in the book
>on this thread. I
>am sure your hero Randy
>is a great fella.
>But that doesn't change what
>this is.
>
>Keep attacking me boys instead of
>dealing with the issue.
>You're really bringing wildlife back.
>

LOOK AT YOUR 1ST POST ON THIS POST. YOU CALLED HIM A LIAR when everything has said and done is proven with fact. You still have not watched one of his videos. So stop with the BS you freaking troll of the south. You are ridiculous.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jun-30-16 AT 02:16PM (MST)[p]>SO if Wyoming would hurry up
>and sell all that land
>then it would be up
>to the land owners what
>can be done. Sounds
>like you could actually get
>more freedom there.


What set of facts do you base that statement on? If the State of Wyoming would bequeath that land to the Feds it would be open for all to use, wouldn't that provide more freedom/ Just saying there is more freedom on Federal Public land today, than most private land everywhere. Not many landowners who open the gate to multiple use public camping, hunting and fishing all for the price of zero.

Is the issue purely semantics with you? You would have been okay if Randy would have said, "Hunting, Fishing and Camping opportunities for almost everyone in the west will be adversely and permanently reduced"?

Nemont
 
Actually nowhere in the first post did I call him a liar. You can't even get that straight. But since you want to talk about that HIS LIES WILL TEAR HIM DOWN. Not me calling him names. If he doesn't want to look like a liar which by the way YOU ROBILAND brought up, MAYBE HE SHOULDN'T BE SPREADING A LIE or ideas he can't support with anything more than fears and feelings.

What I am taking him to task on HE HAS NOT PROVEN WITH FACT. You Robiland are lying about that. In fact I showed a giant example where millions of people still hunt fish and camp on both private and state land and have done so for over a century but you won't admit you could have your "facts" wrong.
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

PXL_20231020_213220814.jpg
IMG_20160807_160226.jpg
High Country Lounging
MTC_0115.JPG
IMG_4378.jpeg
IMG_4219.JPG
Wyoming 10-18-80 Alex's first buck.jpg
Elk.jpg
We6OUJBoSxmKJoAhYMIDnA.jpg
1710518772797.png
Big Wide Typical
IMG_0048.jpg
Back
Top Bottom