Troubles Ahead

[sourkraut]

Big Game Forever

Ryan Dinner ResizedDear Friends,




This week, a group of 20-30 environmental journalists from major newspapers around the country gathered in Salt Lake City to discuss a possible listing of Greater Sage-grouse. I was invited to speak to the group about the importance of state management efforts. I was not the only speaker at the event. Federal regulators from the Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service spoke to the group, as did one western Sage-grouse biologist and a full-time ESA and environmental attorney.



I have to admit. I was surprised by what I heard. A strong theme was that states can't be trusted to manage our wildlife and the answer was more heavy-handed regulation threatening access to and use of our public lands. They are also pushing for an unprecedented level of control over millions of acres of state and private land in your state.



These decisions are being made right now. This year, the Bureau of Land Management is considering more restrictions on millions of acres of public land. The Forest Service is doing the same. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is preparing to make a decision on whether to list the species for the 3rd time in 10 years. The bottom line is that state management plans are still not being given full consideration. Most of the focus is on more federal regulation, either through an Endangered Species Act (ESA) listing of the species or through more restrictions on millions of acres of public, state and private land in our states.



After the other presentations, I had an opportunity to address the group. My message was simple: Balanced conservation under state management authority is producing the real results that more federal mandates can't produce. The truth is, we don't need to choose between conservation of Sage-grouse and healthy western economies.



As you know, BigGame Forever has been engaged with our members and policy makers on a regular basis concerning the progress states have been making to conserve and grow sage-grouse populations. States have put an astounding amount of time, work, and public resources towards this effort. In the past few years, western state's have updated state management plans to address the concerns of federal regulators and to further increase certainty that state plans will conserve and improve sage-grouse and their habitat. These plans not only benefit Sage-grouse, they improve conditions for other important species that share in their habitat, such as mule deer.



BigGame Forever is advocating common sense solutions that responsibly protects our way of life, and will promote healthy sage-grouse populations and a healthy sagebrush steppe ecosystem. One key point I highlighted is that state expertise and local support matters. If we focus on implementing proven management practices instead of more regulation, we can achieve the goal of healthy populations of sagebrush dependent species like Sage-grouse and Mule Deer.



Unfortunately, it appears that federal regulators are not listening. They appear to be moving forward with a "one size fits all" approach, planned and executed from Washington, DC. This is not only questionable from a conservation standpoint, it could be downright counterproductive for long-term Sage-grouse conservation. These plans will also have major impacts to our local economies, education funding and our Western way of life. It could severely restrict activity on upwards of 165 million acres of some of the best mule deer, elk and upland game hunting in the country. It threatens to undermine the progress states have made to recover the species and restore the health of these landscapes.



The relentless attack on state wildlife management is growing. It appears that Congressional action is needed to protect state management of our wildlife and access to our public lands.



In the coming days we will need your help. Your support makes all the difference. Working together we can ensure a brighter future for wild game and our rights as hunters.




Ryan Benson

Founder and President

BigGame Forever

 

[elkun]

the state has sh0wed what it will do with our land , over and over ,,sale sale sale,,,biggame forever is no better.. the feds suck but they are the better of the two!!

 

[1911]

Hahahahahaha do you want to dance with the devil or eat cheese and drink wine while Nero plays. Take your filthy lucre elsewhere. It is no better or worse than those you feign to fight.

 

[piper]

You have to be joking. You sound like an advertisement for developers.
Sorry bud but sometimes people need to stick up for wildlife, it can't speak for itself.

Big game forever promotes economic development? Too bad it doesn't stick up for wildlife. There are plenty of groups sticking up for economic development.

The truth is that the sage grouse is telling us how sick our habitat is, along with mule deer and a bunch of other species.

Good for the feds, I support protection for the western wildlife, and that means making a few choices.

 

[huntin50]

Ryan,

Thanks for the info. Some who know you, know that you like many are concerned about the government closing off land that we like to hunt. It is too bad some critics really don't know you.

The Feds are using the ESA to block sportsmen access, increase predators IE. like wolves, and grizzlies, and now Sage Grouse so fewer hunting permits are needed. "let nature take its course and manage it self". The Feds think they know best how to manage western lands, DC thinks they know better that our local western biologists and experts. This current administration continue to cave into liberal anti-hunting and environmental groups. The same administration also say that the world is much safer than 6 years ago, the economy is good, we just need to have the rich pay more taxes, so we can give out more food stamps,and increase the min raise to 15 dollars and all is well. Maybe they will hire more federal grouse biologist and pay them six figures. We just need Hilary to get in to office. We can trust her with our future hunting. She and her administration will always tell the truth. Wink wink.

If the State try's to block our lands or sell them, we can vote them out of office. What do we do if the Feds cave into these environmental groups? I know this has been debated. We all have our own opinions, Personally I trust our local government more than the Feds.

 

[grizzly]

Having the states take over and "manage" (read: drill, mine, graze) or sell the land will not affect the Feds desire, power, or ability to list Sage Grouse or any other species as Endangered. To imply otherwise is disingenuous.

The land grab has absolutely ZERO affect on Sage Grouse since The Endangered Species Act is blind to landownership.

If we are trying to improve the economy, lets drill more of the Western US. If we are trying to save wild lands, animals, and public access to the outdoors for our posterity... let's NOT drill more of our land and sell the rest off just hoping to cover our newfound expenses.

SFW has forever been telling us "habitat, habitat, habitat" and then they want to develop that same prime habitat? Do they think we're idiots? Or maybe Don Peay thinks we are just a bunch of greedy hunters like those "greedy fly fishermen" (his words, not mine) that wanted to be able to fish on the rivers that have been public for generations.

If listing Sage Grouse under ESA is a potential reality and under legitimate consideration, how do you think a liberal administration would feel if western states were ramping up more drilling on that same land?

States are spending millions of dollars to prove to the Feds that they are good stewards of the land and maintaining Sage Grouse populations without Federal intervention. Can you imagine how that conversation would go if Utah was out yelling "It's our land and we'll do as we wish"? Sage Grouse in the State of Utah would be listed by the end of the year.

And what are the possible outcomes of listing Sage Grouse, from a purely wildlife perspective? Better habitat for millions of deer, elk, antelope, game birds, small game, etc. That doesn't sound too bad, now does it.

I for one, would give up the opportunity to shoot two Sage Grouse per year for the benefit of all other species that populate the same ground.

From a purely hunters perspective... Isn't habitat improvement, reclamation, and preservation what we want?

Grizzly

 

[huntin50]

I think hunting, habitat improvement, and preservation is what I want, Most sportsmen want, what Don Peay wants, what SFW members want. What RMEF,DU,MDF,and All the other groups want.

I haven't read where SFW or any wildlife group wants to develop prime habitat? Please inform us with direct quotes.

I personally don't care who manages our lands to hunt, as long as we have access, able to control predators. and do wildlife projects, transplants, etc.

We desperately need new leadership in the Country, and more trust from our leaders.

 

[grizzly]

Anybody that wants the State land grab to pass is trying to develop public land. ALL OF THEM!

The rosiest picture painted by the State-sanctioned study required 20% increase in oil production annually as well as oil prices of $50.00/bbl above where they are today. It also required Utah keep 100%, instead of the current 50%, of natural resource royalties and that the Feds maintain all wildfire control and suppression costs. It also stated that the best-case scenario would require the "disposal" of public property and that hunting and sportsmen access would have to be minimized for more profitable activities. All of this would allow Utah to break even; but not ever recover the initial startup costs and capital investment. Which means no more money for the State of Utah anyway...

The state says they want to manage Utah lands better. "Manage" means sell, develop, drill, mine, log, graze, and any other profitable endeavors. Hunting, fishing, camping, hiking will not be considered, it says so in the State's own report.

SFW claims a neutrality position on this proposal, which is egregious and cause for immediate rebuke by all true sportsmen. SFW also claimed neutrality on the Stream Access and then Don Peay said "greedy fly fishermen" had violated "private property rights", which we now know was ruled to be false as a Utah Court overturned closing a particular stretch of river with more litigation ongoing.

SFW should have been standing with Stream Access proponents, not fighting them. SFW now should be standing with Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, other true sportsmen organizations, and hunters everywhere to fight this.

Grizzly

 

[shotgun1]

First I'd like to hear or see the minutes from that meeting myself. Sorry I don't trust Benson or believe anything he spews out his piehole.

2nd, I don't believe everything I read on the Internet. I'd like to read for myself what exactly the restrictions the BLM and forest circus have planned according to Benson.

3rd, if the survival of sage grouse was left up to Utards they would be extinct in 5 years.

 

[huntin50]

Griz,
Pretty big assumptions. EVERYONE that wants the land grab wants development. Really?

From what I have been told SFW is neutral currently.

You have a hard sell to think SFW or any wildlife conservation group would want development of prime habitat. They have raised millions for wildlife for 20 years, did habitat improvements, wildlife transplants, water projects, highway fencing and underpasses, got money for UEA so sportsmen could hunt on School trust lands, and not make them private CWMU's, helped maintain access for hunting in National Monuments, pass prop 5 to protect hunting, trapping, fishing, predator control, and sportsmen access. Now you THINK they want to do a 180 degree turn and ruin all their hard work and make things worse for hunting.

I have a hard time believing any sportsmen group would want this.
You might be missing a few pieces to the puzzle here.

 

[BuzzH]

The only piece of he puzzle being missed is SFW not being in full opposition to this crap idea of transferring public lands to the State.

It isn't going to make one bit of difference if every last sporting group were to oppose the selling and/or development of State Lands.

How much good has it done Sportsmen to oppose the sale of the State lands that were sold to private owners in WY, UT, MT, AZ, NM, CO, etc.?

While I cant speak to the specifics of each State, I can say that the 700,000 acres that Wyoming has peddled off, Sportsmen had no voice, they had no say.

The sportsmen in Utah, and every other Western State, are not organized enough, or powerful enough, to even be a consideration to developers, extractive use industries, large wealthy landowners, and certainly not the State Legislatures.

You're living in fantasyland if you honestly believe a State like Utah wont sell off a lot of any newly acquired lands they may get from the Feds in a land transfer. You're living in even a bigger state of denial (pun there), if you honestly believe that sportsmen and wildlife will be given equal consideration in State land Management decisions. It wont happen, mainly because most all state lands are managed under State statute to make money for the school trust.

Those management decisions rarely, if ever, mean anything positive for wildlife, hunting, recreation, etc.

Further, your rights to appeal management and/or land disposal issues under State management, are much more limited.

Your State Legislature will sell hunters down the fuggin' river in a heart-beat if it means a profit for the State...end of story.

There's a small part of me that would like to see this happen in Utah...and only in Utah.

You'd find out really fast how much your State legislature, extractive industries, and developers really care about your wildlife, recreation, and hunting heritage.

The only way that the transfer of public lands to the States makes sense is if you ignore the facts and don't think about it.

 

[grizzly]

I plainly said in my post that SFW claimed neutrality on this issue, just like they claimed neutrality on the Stream Access bill, but then Don stupidly spoke against "greedy fly fishermen". Do you want me to provide you with the links? We could also discuss how individual chapters HAVE openly supported the Land Grab fraud, but I chose to leave that out for now, but I will give you those links too if you would like.

Anybody that says they support the Land Grab and simultaneously says they don't want to see development on that very land (whether it is pieced and sold, roaded for mining/drilling, developed into ranchettes, etc...) is 100% wrong. There is absolutely NOBODY saying those are both options. The success of one is predicated on the execution of the other. Frankly, state-owned public land that remains as it is today... is impossible.

EVERYBODY THAT SAYS THE STATE SHOULD "MANAGE" THEIR LAND ALSO WANTS TO INCREASE USE ON THAT LAND... WHICH REQUIRES DEVELOPMENT OF SOME SORT!

Vacant, public, and pristine land does NOT increase revenues for the State, in fact it does the exact opposite... it costs money with very little return. If the land remains status quo, there will be no natural resource royalty, no property tax, no income tax, no job growth. We will only get increased costs to maintain roads, campgrounds, and law enforcement.

-------------

huntin50, if you would like to discuss SFW and their position in all this and the future that awaits if their influence continues, lets you and I get together sometime and talk about it. I think we'd do a lot better job of conveying concerns than on an online forum.

Grizzly

"There can be nothing in the world more beautiful than the Yosemite, the groves of the giant sequoias and redwoods, the Canyon of the Colorado, the Canyon of the Yellowstone, the Three Tetons; and our people should see to it that they are preserved for their children and their children's children forever, with their majestic beauty all unmarred." - President Theodore Roosevelt

 

[huntin50]

Griz,

I'm not claiming to have all the answers.

I plainly said I'm for whats best for the future of hunting and wildlife, as well as sportsmen access.

I haven't researched how many acres of State ground Utah has,if they have sold or traded land. Why and what reasons. Who decides its OK to sell State land etc.

I would think if any State sold off land that sportsmen used for hunting, unless it was a fair trade for other land, sportsmen groups would raise hell and vote those who were doing the selling out of office and send a message to others.

The current federal government and environmental groups are hard to trust as well. The ESA wanting to block access and have the Feds control management for grouse will be another problem for hunters, ranchers, and people who enjoy the out doors. Just like wolves have been bad for hunting.

I don't have time to research all the issues. I just volunteer what time I have to make things better.

I do know of some groups that has influence to protect sportsmen access, and our the future hunting in Utah. I'm glad we have a voice. I don't know who introduced the bill, why he did it.

 

[grizzly]

huntin50, I believe you when you say you want what is best for sportsmen. And I believe that is the reason you have done so much good work on behalf of SFW over the years. And I understand why it is so hard to do the research required for a fully knowledgeable opinion when we are fed so much BS from every angle.

However, somebody else did do that research... I have copied a post from Randy Newberg below. It was originally posted on his own hunting forum, so hopefully he considers it okay to post here since I gave him credit for it. If not, I'll remove it immediately.

Please read below as he is extremely educated and has done more research on this subject than probably everybody else on MM combined.

Grizzly

---------

" Anyone who thinks selling public lands, or transferring Federal lands to the states, is a good idea, probably won't like what follows.

People who want states to take over the public lands, here are a couple examples of what they have in store for you.

In Colorado, you can't hunt State Trust Lands. So if you support state control of Federal lands, you can cross off hunting access to 23 million acres, just in Colorado.

In New Mexico and Wyoming, you cannot camp on state lands. So, if you support transfer of Federal lands to the states, you can forget about your backpack hunts on those lands. You can't camp there, so how you gonna hunt those backcountry areas? Not feasible to hike in six hours each morning and back out six hours that evening, only to repeat the process every day.

In Montana, hunters can only camp on state lands for two days and you must camp within 300 yards of the nearest access point. So much for my backcountry hunts. The mule deer I shot last year and the mountain goat hunt we did this year were both backpack hunts deep in the backcountry. Those hunts would all be down the tubes if Montana controlled the Federal lands.

Those are just a couple quick examples of how hunters will be screwed over by state take over of these Federal lands.

Yeah, we all have frustrations over Federal management, but those privateers who are using this frustration for their own personal ideologies have no answers to the questions that impact hunters, anglers, hikers, campers. These "sell the public land" promoters are merely opportunists who see frustration as the opening to employ their takeover tactics.

Those who think transferring Federal lands to the states is a solution, answer me these questions:

Q: How will the states manage the lands any better, when the majority of gridlock on Federal lands is due to complications of the Endangered Species Act?

A: The states won't do it any better. They will also be subject to the ESA. When the lawsuits mount and the states do not have the resources to continue the court battles associated with proposed management action, this will then be used as the reason for which the lands should be sold.

Q: How will states tell ag producers that your current AUM for public grazing will go from $1.35 per AUM on Federal lands, to $10+ per AUM on State lands?

A: They won't. They will probably lower the AUM price on state lands. And these now-state managed lands will be just as unprofitable for grazing as they are in Federal hands. Or, ranchers on these lands will see a 7X increase in their grazing fees.

Q: How will states pay for the huge costs of fire control on these lands, when they currently are asking the Feds to pay those costs?

A: They won't pay the cost. They will either sell the lands to cover the cost, or they will keep asking the Feds to pay the costs.


Those are just a few of the questions the privateers ignore and deflect. They know they have a shallow argument and hope the voters swallow the sound bite without digesting the consequences.

These privateers operate on the fringe; the territory of big egos and small ideas. They represent very few; mostly the donors who are writing checks with the intention of realizing a great return on their "political investment."

Make no mistake, these privateers intend to disinherit you of your American birthright - the greatest public lands legacy in the world. If we let them, we get to answer to our children and grandchildren as to why we let them down.

If you are a politician promoting this effort to lay the pipe to Americans; to steal this birthright from our children consider yourself forewarned. We're coming after you. "

---------------

 

[BuzzH]

A quick search of some facts about Utah's State lands.

Under the enabling act of 1894 Utah was given every section 2, 16, 32, and 36 in every township...or about 7.5ish million acres.

Of that, Utah has sold about half and currently has 3.82 million acres. In simple terms, about 30% of current private lands in Utah were once State trust lands. Think about that one for a minute. Having an additional 3.5 million acres to hunt, fish, trap, and recreate on, probably wouldn't be a bad thing. Too bad its all behind "no trespassing" and "keep out" signs now...not much access to that land these days. Not much in the way of the public being involved in management decisions on that land now either.

I wonder where Sportsmen were, and how much impact they had on the decision makers, 3.5 million acres of State lands were peddled in Utah?

Time to wake up, get on board, and stop this madness.

No matter how you look at it...in the end, this is 100% about land disposal.

I will roll the dice all day long with the Feds maintaining ownership, the alternative is a sure loser.

 

[grizzly]

If you don't believe that the Republican Party Platform promotes the selling of Federal Land, please see the Ryan Budget (our former VP candidate):

http://budget.house.gov/uploadedfiles/pathtoprosperity2013.pdf

and in particular, this passage:

"Sales of Unneeded Federal Assets: In the last year alone, Republicans put forth proposals to sell unneeded federal property. Representative Jason Chaffetz has proposed to sell millions of acres of unneeded federal land. Likewise, Representative Jeff Denham?s bill to authorize the sale of billions of dollars worth of federal assets would save the government money, collect corresponding revenue, and remove economic distortions by reducing public ownership. Such sales could also potentially be encouraged by reducing appropriations to various agencies. If done correctly, taxpayers could recoup billions of dollars from selling unused government property."

Presidential Candidates Ted Cruz and Rand Paul have openly said they support the selling of Federal Land. As hunters, we should seriously consider no longer supporting the Republican Party, en masse.

And this "billions of dollars" that would be recouped... where do Land Grab supporters think this money is going to come from? Oh yeah, the states will have to foot the bill which means selling more land. The money has to come from somewhere.

Grizzly

 

[flatlander]

I am currently taking "Big Game Forever" statement with big skepticism. I am all for moderate uses of our natural resources but giving to the state takes all check and balances.

Sportsmen need to find some allies in Congress. After voicing my displeasure to Senator Crapos (ID) regarding his vote for the budget amendment to transfer, sell and dispose, it felt like a slap in the face and upon deaf ears.

 

[grizzly]

Thanks for the facts on Utah, BuzzH.

Combined with the information on the other states from Randy Newberg we have a very good understanding of history. History is best used as a guide for the future and the pathway laid before us is crystal clear.

We cannot allow these politicians to sell the birthright of our children to pay for the budget shortfalls that they created in the first place.

Grizzly

 

[Homer]

LAST EDITED ON Apr-13-15 AT 05:51PM (MST)[p]somewhere...somehow....income has to be produced.... all the neat land to recreate on has to be paid for.

Has the state lands Utah sold produced revenue???....continuing revenue as in taxes....

 

[Birdman]

Not sure how this was brought into the land grab issue but what was talked aboutin the meeting was to have Utah DWR be the ones to manage the sage grouse and not the feds. The feds want to lock up the land so the sage grouse can come back and the state wants to control the management of the sage grouse so land is not locked up. Why is the comments about the landgrab.

Life is not about waiting for the storm to pass, It's about learning to dance in the rain

 

[wileywapati]

If you believe it will be the State managing these
Birds I've got a fiasco of a deer plan to show you.

More special interests and shenanigans.



"The future is large scale auction tags.
The majority of the tags should go up
for auction anually. It MIGHT even be
good to allow second sales of auction
tags as in outfitters purchasing tags
and then re-selling them to the public."
TRISTATE 8/17/2012

 

[BuzzH]

The State of Utah has had 15+ years to manage sage grouse.

Ryan Benson bilking the State of Utah out of taxpayer money to lobby DC to keep them off the list isn't much of a "management plan".

Seems to me if the State of Utah was really interested in managing sage grouse, they wouldn't throw their money down a rat-hole like BGF.

Benson isn't doing jack chit to actually help the State of Utah manage sage grouse, nor is he and BGF doing anything to improve SG habitat or work toward a viable solution.

I would be holding RB and BGF accountable for every penny...oh, that's right, the Citizens of Utah decided they don't need to have an accounting.

Smart...

 

[Wildman]

First of all, for all of you who would like a thorough discussion of the federal land transfer issue, I would recommend reading the previous thread about it. Many of the same issues were discussed in depth there. It can be found at:

http://www.monstermuleys.info/cgi-b...z=show_thread&om=22593&forum=DCForumID5&omm=0

It is unfortunate that many of you throw the Sage Grouse issue and SFW/BGF into the same bag, because the Sage Grouse issue is independent of SFW/BGF. You shouldn't let your feelings about SFW/BGF blind you about the Sage Grouse issue. The SG issue is huge and has the potential to completely change the way much of the federal land in the State of Utah is managed. It is unfortunate that SFW/BGF have lost credibility by a lack of transparency in their organization, but don't let that blind you about the significance of the threat that a listing of Sage Grouse is.

 

[piper]

Show the facts on the feds locking up the land because of sagegrouse? Not hyped up lies, how about the facts?

Grazing is probably the main reason behind the collapsing western sagebrush ecosystem, sorry it is what it is,
but don't confuse better grazing practices with hunters being "locked out"

 

[Wildman]

Grizz,

"The land grab has absolutely ZERO affect on Sage Grouse since The Endangered Species Act is blind to landownership."

It is true that ESA would not lose jurisdiction if the land were transferred to the states. But to say it would have zero effect may not be completely true. The state would have a much stronger bargaining position if it owned all the land. The one thing that the state has ZERO affect on is what happens of federal land.

But ESA is not where the biggest gains could be made with the land transfer. Although ESA would remain in effect on state lands, things like NEPA would not, because NEPA is specific to federal lands.

 

[piper]

So let's hear about the significance of the threat of sagegrouse listing, FROM A HUNTING PERSPECTIVE.

And why is the ecosystem collapsing?

 

[grizzly]

SFW/BGF has lost credibility partly because of their handling of Sage Grouse and the millions of dollars they've taken under the Sage Grouse banner. They've intertwined themselves with Sage Grouse, nobody did it to them.

BGF chose to make their email centralized on a State v. Fed theme, clearly implying that local control would somehow lessen the likelihood of a Sage Grouse listing, when in fact it would likely have the exact opposite influence and make a listing more likely.

Grizzly

 

[Wildman]

If people want to use SFW/BGF as an excuse to ignore the threat that a Sage Grouse listing would pose to access on public land, I guess there is nothing I can do about it. I believe it's a mistake, and that is completely independent SFW/BGF.

 

[Wildman]

piper,

Are you insinuating that a Sage Grouse listing does not have the potential to limit access to all types of activities on parts of federal land?

 

[BuzzH]

You're not solving the real issue.

Defending RB SFW/BGF and their lack of direct action on solving the sage grouse problem isn't going to prove anything.

The only reason that sage grouse aren't listed currently, is because of the pro-active approach that the Federal Land Management Agencies, extractive industries, State GF departments, Universities, Landowners, and dozens of NGO's have taken to work collaboratively on this issue.

Its not because RB took a few million from the UT taxpayers to lobby the hill that sage grouse are staying off the list.

In true form, as evidenced by that letter penned by Benson, he isn't giving any credit to those that have been working on the issue for 15+ years. Rather, in true SFW/BGF form, the issue becomes a divisive, money-making agenda to them.

This issue isn't going to be solved via a wedge being driven between those that are doing the heavy lifting to keep sage grouse off the list.

Rather than be part of the solution, BGF has made the decision to be part of the problem...it pays better for their agenda.

 

[piper]

Money grubbing in the political arena is a Utah tradition.

No one wants to talk about the reasons sagegrouse, mule deer and other species are in such decline, why the habitat is in poor condition.
Cattle grazing in marginal habitat? Could restrictions on grazing be the reason for the exaggerated BS?
Domestic animals are the elephant in the room when it comes to habitat, wildlife and hunting in the west, make no mistake.

So some of you should be honest about your arguments and reasoning.

 

[Wildman]

piper,

Are you insinuating that a Sage Grouse listing does not have the potential to limit access to all types of activities on parts of federal land?

 

[Wildman]

BuzzH,

Much of what you said is true. My only point is that people shouldn't be ignoring the Sage Grouse Listing issue.

 

[BuzzH]

LAST EDITED ON Apr-14-15 AT 01:26PM (MST)[p]Who is ignoring the sage grouse issue?

Many groups, individuals, etc. have been engaged in dealing with it, by working toward improving habitat, protecting core areas, etc. etc. etc.

That's the type actions that it will take to keep the birds off the list.

What isn't going to work is Ryan Benson trying to point the finger at the Federal Land Management Agencies, D.C., etc. as to why sage grouse are not doing well. That letter of his is an absolute joke, and a real kick to the crotch of those that have been taking exhaustive measures to keep SG off the list.

I applaud the work that has been done in many cases throughout the West...work that is being done in spite of the crap that RB/BGF spew at every opportunity.

The only way SG will remain off the list is if we continue to take measures that keep the population stable or growing.

Finger pointing isn't going to deny the science and the numbers that will ultimately determine listing or not listing.

If BGF is serious about stopping the listing of SG, then I suggest they stay out of D.C. politics, quit pointing fingers, and start spending money on habitat improvements, securing core habitat, etc.

 

[Birdman]

Everyone jumping to conclusions about BGF and R B. First of all where have the millions of dollars you speak about come from. Not from the state. Also there is no statement about the land grab. The big push is that BGF wants the state to be the ones in charge of the sage grouse and not the feds. I don't see a big asking for money, but an issue where if the State controls the recovery of the sage grouse the land will not be in the danger of shutting down to the public. The feds have a reputation of shutting down more than needed. It is the Utah DWR that wants to control the recovery instead of having the feds. That would be best for the hunters etc..

 

[grizzly]

Birdman, sorry buddy but you lost me when you said, "Where have the millions of dollars you speak about come from. Not from the state."

The State of Utah has literally given millions of dollars to BGF to "lobby" to not list Sage Grouse. When an amendment was proposed requiring quarterly reports justifying the expense of taxpayer funds, BGF argued it would be like "giving the playbook to the enemy" and that they should be able to keep the use of the funds secret. Basically they told Utah taxpayers to write the check, sit down, and shut up.

As for any change in macro-environmental management. If you don't want the Feds meddling in wildlife, fighting the listing of Sage Grouse is not the way to change that. Landownership war is not the way to change that, as the Endangered Species Act is blind to whomever owns the land.

The only way you're going to get the Fed's out of wildlife preservation is to get Congress to scrap the entire Endangered Species Act or dramatically rewrite it. Sorry, but that is NOT going to happen.

And you know what... I don't want it to happen. ESA oversteps in areas, but it is also the only reason we have many of the plants and animals we have today. Plus once an animal is listed on the ESA, it is eligible for countless millions of dollars that are otherwise unavailable and can be used only to perpetuate the species. This is good for Sage Grouse and most other species that share their habitat.

We know one thing beyond a reasonable doubt... without Federal Government intervention, we would likely not have Bald Eagles or American Bison alive on Earth today. Both of those glorious species were on trajectories that led to nowhere but disaster and only the Federal government could save them. Sage Grouse were nearly innumerable only a few generations ago and now their numbers are dwindling, too.

If I have to choose between protecting Sage Grouse and drilling more prime antelope/deer habitat in Wyoming... then I'll take the Sage Grouse and enjoy the antelope and deer that benefit as well. The oil will always be there, the Sage Grouse may not.

Grizzly

 

[piper]

LAST EDITED ON Apr-15-15 AT 01:10AM (MST)[p]What is wrong with people? Where does this talk about shutting down the west come from? Two bit rural politicians, the local cattlemans association?

Grizzly bears, bald eagles, and lots of species have been and or are on the list.

So what? Do you despise taking care of the land and wildlife?

 

[Birdman]

The State of Utah has not given BGF anything. They have invested in BGF to protect their interests. Utah claims they could loose up to $20 billion dollars and a quarter million jobs if the feds take control. Where do the numbers come from? From the people that are dealing with the feds over this issue. They are more in the know than the public is. It is really scary to them and according to the DWR will most likely affect hunting and recreation in that area. The State and the DWR have been involved in meetings with the feds over this. They aremuch more aware of what is going on.

 

[Wildman]

piper,

Are you insinuating that a Sage Grouse listing does not have the potential to limit access to all types of activities on parts of federal land?

 

[Wildman]

Grizz,

Thanks for your emotional defense of the Endangered Species Act. It helped me understand that our differences are likely irreconcilable.

 

[BuzzH]

Birdman,

You honestly believe giving RB a pocket full of taxpayer money is all that's needed to address the issue of Sage Grouse and keep them off the list?

What a joke.

The science is going to decide if SG are in need of listing.

The way to keep SG off the list is to invest in proper SG management...period. Not throwing money at RB/BGF to have lunch with Senators and Congressmen.

If you're pinning your hopes on BGF having enough sway to keep SG off the list by greasing some politicians, be prepared for a major disappointment.

 

[Hawkeye]

Birdman-

The state has not given BGF anything? Since 2010, the State of Utah has given BGF millions of dollars to lobby on the wolf and sage grouse issue. I don't want to get into a debate about the merits of those efforts. However, assuming it makes sense to lobby on those issues, and assuming that BGF is best situated to lobby on behalf of the state, shouldn't the State of Utah's agreement with BGF spell out exactly what BGF is going to do in exchange for those monies? And shouldn't BGF be required to report back in detail and be audited regarding how those funds were spent? That is my main beef with this issue. There seems to be a pattern of no transparency or accountability with these folks.

When the auditor reviewed the Wolf funds given to BGF back in 2013, his report was an embarrassment to the state, the DWR, BGF and taxpayers. Read it for yourself: http://le.utah.gov/audit/13_11rpt.pdf

Now the State of Utah is handing over $2 million a year to BGF and they are still playing the same old games. http://www.sltrib.com/home/2279953-155/utah-lawmakers-set-to-give-sage My favorite quote from this article is a few legislators wanted to include requirements "detailing efforts, results and general expenditures," Sen. David Hinkins responded by stating "It's like giving the playbook to the opposing team. We should have some confidentiality of what our game is." Therefore, BGF got another $2 million in tax payer money with little, if any, reporting or accountability requirements.

Sounds a lot like the handling of the convention permits in the early years before sportsmen threw a fit.

-Hawkeye-

 

[eelgrass]

piper, you do understand that there are biologists out scouring the country side looking for bugs or plants to place on the ESA that could very well impact the mine you work in, right? I hope you never lose your job because of it. Actually I do because then maybe you will understand how some of the rest of us feel. But if you do lose your job you'll just blame it on Reganomics, so it will be lost to you anyway.

Here's a list of endangered insects in America. Like the Sage Grouse, I'm pretty sure they are all important indicator species from which we can judge the over all health of the environment.

http://www.earthsendangered.com/continent9I-all.html

Eel

It's written in the good Book that we'll never be asked to take more than we can. Sounds like a good plan, so bring it on!

 

[Birdman]

Hawkeye, you call it giving, I call it as the state says investing through BGF for the future of the state. One thing is for sure, the state feels its investment with BGF is working and benefiting the the states interests or they would not do it. The discrepancies have been discussed and cleared up.
Buzzh, the state wants to be the one to handle the sage grouse in the state. Why, because they are afraid of what can happen with the feds doing it. With all the surrounding states doing the same thing trying to keep control of the sage grouse and keeping the feds away there must be a pretty good reason. BGF knows what they are doing and seem to do it well. You can agree or disagree but the state agrees with the results and that is all that matters.
Now people can sit on their hind ends and complain about what is going on with the decisions or they can get involved and do something. Sitting on mm may make you think you are involved but most state officials do not take time to read mm and the complaining.

 

[BuzzH]

Birdman,

You talk as though the States HAVENT had the last 15-20 years to deal with SG issues or the control to do so at the State level.

Some States have obviously done a much better job than others in rolling up their sleeves and getting to work on SG recovery, Wyoming having done the most. Wyoming has been successful because they have taken aggressive actions, via a collaboration of various stakeholders, to address the core issues that have/are causing SG declines.

Why are you paying RB/BGF for something you already have?

That money would be better spent actually working to recover SG, not trying to fight the G to keep them off the list, in particular if listing is deemed appropriate via the science.

RB/BGF do not get to decided if SG are listed or not, and neither will they be able to force those making decisions on listing, to ignore the science and merits of listing.

If you want to continue down the path of doing nothing to actually recover SG, protect their habitat, and core areas...that will surely lead to one thing and one thing only...assured listing.

Count on it.

 

[Hawkeye]

Birdman-

So the state in now investing in BGF? You make it sound like the state is buying stock in a publicly traded company. With regard to your statement that the state is happy with what they are getting in return, you are probably correct. Unfortunately, the legislature and the DWR appear to be very content to hand out money and tags without requiring any level of accountability or transparency in return. It is only when sportsmen complain or the auditor raises a red flag that they attempt to address the problem. For all we know, BGF could be using state funds to lobby the state for additional monies. In fact, that is one of the concerns expressed by the state auditor.

-Hawkeye-

 

[Deerlove]

Birdman you crack me up!

 

[wileywapati]

Sorry Tristate, Birdman just kicked you out of the
Signature hall of fame with his "investing with BGF"
Line.

Perhaps the best line of bullchit I've ever seen on this site.

What say y'all does my Tristate signature get refreshed by that
Jewell Birdman just graced us with??




"The future is large scale auction tags.
The majority of the tags should go up
for auction anually. It MIGHT even be
good to allow second sales of auction
tags as in outfitters purchasing tags
and then re-selling them to the public."
TRISTATE 8/17/2012

 

[piper]

LAST EDITED ON Apr-15-15 AT 06:58PM (MST)[p]Eel- Almost everyone knows we are losing the ecosystems, just because biologists document the decline doesn't mean it's a sinister conserted effort to destroy humans or whatever it is people want to think.

There are an amazing amount of species in decline, and don't kid yourself, it's because of humans.

Sad?, yea I think so, but it's life.

Does that mean we should always say, "if a species can't adapt,screw them"?
I guess that's where the differences of opinion lay.

Make no mistake about this one though, it's about millions of bovine grazing on the arid western rangeland.

If you care about the plight of mule deer and other species that live in the sagebrush ecosystems, then you should care about sage grouse also.

 

[Birdman]

The state stands to loose up to $20 billion dollars and over 200,000 jobs if the msnagement of sage grouse is done by the feds. That is the reason they are doing what they are doing.
Now what is showing here is lots of people speaking about a subject that they really have no idea what is going on. I understand talks go on during the day and most work. People working on this do so during their work hours. Public does not attend. The truth is most the statements about this subject by mm members have no idea what is going on.

 

[shotgun1]

"The state stands to loose up to $20 billion dollars and over 200,000 jobs if the management of sage grouse is done by the feds."

That's the biggest crock of crap and you know it! Take a long look in the mirror and shack yourself Birdman.

 

[Birdman]

Since so many like to quote the salt lake tribune as always printing the truth, here is a quote from them.


State leaders believe the money will be well spent if it prevents a sage grouse listing because they say the resulting restrictions on grazing and energy development would deal a $20 billion blow to the state's economy and prevent the creation of up to 250,000 jobs.

 

[piper]

Even the legislature doesn't believe that, as stupid as they are.
It's called hype, and they want dummies to get excited.

Just because a paper quotes someone doesn't mean it's the truth.

Tardsville, and to think I was born there?

 

[Birdman]

And to think I should know better. Some things in that paper are correct and some things are not. Depends on what side you are on. O by the way piper, the state legislators, as stupid as they are, do believe that. But then again, but then again, I forget that since you guys do not attend any meetings you know exactly what is going on. MM people know it all. Why the hell do I waist my time going to meetings when I can get the exact truth on mm.

 

[Hawkeye]

Birdman-

Don't assume that you are the only person that researches the issues, attends meetings and talks to the people involved. Many of us have been actively involved in these issues for a long time. We just don't agree with you. In the last few weeks, I have wasted far too much time reading about these issues and talking to people involved, including local politicians. For instance, I recently had a very pleasant conversation with Mike McKell, the state legislator who sponsored the bill to give BGF and additional 500k this year to lobby on the wolf issue. I also had breakfast this week with Ken Ivory of the American Lands Council this week to discuss the movement to transfer public lands. I knew that I generally disagreed with both of these individuals but I took the time to go directly to the person involved, listen to their point of view and share my concerns. I learned some things from those conversations and I appreciated the fact that both of them were willing to talk to me even though they knew in advance that I had concerns. It is foolish and dismissive to assume that those who disagree with your position or the position of SFW and BGF are simply uninformed and do not understand the facts.

-Hawkeye-

 

[Wildman]

BuzzH,

You seem to be insinuating that Utah hasn't done much about the Sage Grouse issue. I assume you are aware of these efforts,but I will post the link for everyone else.

http://www.utahcbcp.org/

 

[Wildman]

piper works at a mine? Boy, I never would have guessed that. I thought for sure he was a tree hugging government employee. Just goes to show you can't lump people into categories.

 

[Wildman]

pipe,

I know I'm wasting my time with an ecological evangelist like yourself, but I thought your quote was interesting.

You said, "Make no mistake about this one though, it's about millions of bovine grazing on the arid western rangeland.

If you care about the plight of mule deer and other species that live in the sagebrush ecosystems, then you should care about sage grouse also."

Although that quote is directly inline with the ecological evangelist gospel, it's not necessarily backed up by the facts.

The one fact is it is arid western rangeland, but that is where the facts end and the ecological evangelicals start to write their own version of events. Utah- and particularly Southern Utah- has always been very arid- so much so that the early European explorers found many of the natives in these areas using insects as a staple for protein in their diets. Of course the ecological evangelical gospel would like you to believe in the fairy tale that these lands were originally full of big fat mule deer running everywhere. It just wasn't the case. Of course, when European settlers brought bovines into this environment, they quickly overgrazed what little vegetation there was. But the concept that it was some mule deer dream haven beforehand is just not the case. Because of concerns about overgrazing, massive land improvement projects occurred during the first half of the twentieth century. And guess what, as the land improvement projects took hold deer numbers started to grow- far surpassing the original numbers encounter before European settlement. The positive correlation between the land improvement projects of the 1900's and the massive deer numbers of the mid 1900's is just a fact. What the ecological evangelicals don't like to tell you is that by achieving their goal of returning these arid rangelands to their pre-European "pristine" condition, it will return deer numbers to pre-European numbers. And that is exactly what has been happening for the last 40 years since the eco evangelicals have pushed their "all natural" management strategies into federal land management.

I know there are some who think they would like to chase around these arid rangelands in a loin cloth and eat grasshoppers for protein in their diet, but most of us would prefer to hunt the game population that were available during the 1960s. The concept that all of this "ecomania" is going to give hunters plentiful hunting opportunities is just a fairy tale. In fact, it is a large reason for the low deer numbers we currently have.

Piper, if my conversations with you in the past are any indication, I suspect it is a lost cause talking to you about things like a positive correlation between the land improvement practices of the mid 1900s and the coinciding mule deer "hay days", but maybe someone else will be open minded enough to see the connection.

 

[Wildman]

And unfortunately, pipe, just because some ecological science journal says it doesn't make it the truth either- and that truly is unfortunate, but true nonetheless.

 

[piper]

True story Wildman, I've built plenty of fences and fed cows also, like to backpack, love wilderness, have a trophy room, an ATV, a mule and a bumper sticker that says" use the quads God gave you"

I have no doubt that the hey days of muleys were mostly a result of humans, they were also unsustainable and the condition of the western rangeland now is a part of the same process.

The numbers of mule deer in America before colonization can only be remotely the guessed at. Other species were documented more thoroughly, and there was a lot of big game in America at one time.

But as far as the west being a wasteland before settlers? I personally don't buy it.

 

[Vanilla]

LAST EDITED ON Apr-16-15 AT 11:08PM (MST)[p]Birdman, you're saying two different things but trying to pass them off as the same. Originally you said it would cost the state $20 billion and 250,000 jobs. That at a minimum implied those were already there. The quote you pulled from the Tribune clearly anticipates those as FUTURE monies and jobs.

Which begs the question: What exactly does the state want to do in sage grouse habitat that will generate 250,000 more jobs and $20 billion?

The follow up to that question is how on earth are those activities going to help deer, elk, etc and also benefit Utah hunters?

There very much are many wolves in sheep's clothing running around on this issue. And it's unfortunate that the wool has been pulled over so many people's eyes. Wake up folks! 250,000 more jobs aren't created by maintaining public hunting access to wild lands. It is a factual impossibility for those two things to co-exist.