BLM Policy Punted like a Political Football | Fresh Tracks Weekly (Ep. 74)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 чер 2024
- Randy Newberg TAKEOVER!
Marcus and Michael are busy catching Walleye and Smallmouth so Randy stepped in to deliver this week’s news.
On this week’s episode, we are celebrating Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation’s 40th Anniversary. In the last 40 years, RMEF has amassed 12,000 members, conserved 8.9 million acres as well as improved or secured access for 1.5 million acres. The mission continues!
To signup for RMEF visit this link - www.rmef.org/join/
40th Anniversary Articles
www.rmef.org/elk-network/cele...
www.rmef.org/40th-anniversary...
Also on this week’s episode, Randy digs into the “politicizing of wildlife management”. Nevada, Vermont and Kansas are in the news for bills that could shake up their Wildlife Commissions appointment process.
Nevada - knpr.org/show/knprs-state-of-
nevada/2024-04-26/why-nevadas-wildlife-commission-is-under-scrutiny
Vermont- legislature.vermont.gov/bill/...
www.howlforwildlife.org/vts258
Kansas - www.kslegislature.org/li/b202...
congressionalsportsmen.org/ne...
momentum-during-kansas-veto-session/
To get involved and stay in the know, consider signing up for HOWL’s email list - www.howlforwildlife.org
Upcoming news! The Wyoming corner crossing case appears at the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver. To catch up on the case, check out the below links.
wyofile.com/corner-crossing-h...
publicland.org/wp-content/upl...
lawsuit.pdf
Lastly, a severe case of Mange will be impacting the Eastern Black Bear populations of Virginia and many neighboring states.
The WyldLife Fund - Pronghorn Fund - thewyldlifefund.org/preservin...
For this week’s deeper dive, Randy plays referee in the latest game of Political Football. The House of Representatives just passed the WEST Act, an Act that would eliminate the BLMs current
proposal to put conservation and landscape productivity on the same footing as other uses under the “Multiple Use” mandates Federal land agencies are required to operate
under.
To read the entire 176 page proposal, the WEST Act, and editorials from Outdoor Life, check out the below links.
www.outdoorlife.com/conservat...
www.outdoorlife.com/conservat...
www.blm.gov/public-lands-rule
www.blm.gov/sites/default/fil...
Health-Final-Rule.pdf
www.blm.gov/press-release/int...
balanced-management-public-lands
Join Fresh Tracks+ For Early Access - www.freshtracks.tv
GOHUNT Gear Shop - Promo code RANDY for 10% off in the gear shop. bit.ly/46Jp5EW
GOHUNT INSIDER Use promo code RANDY to get $50 of store credit when you sign up for goHUNT INSIDER. bit.ly/481yo46
Kenetrek Boots- Buy a pair of boots and get a free pair of gaiters when promo code RANDY is used at checkout. kenetrek.com/
Ollin Digiscoping System - Save 10% with promo code RANDY ollin.co/
Outdoor Class - Save 20% on your membership with promo code Randy. app.outdoorclass.com/checkout...
Elkhorn Coffee Roaster - Save 15% on orders over $30 with promo code RANDY. elkhorncoffeeroasters.com/
Alpacka Raft - Save 10% on some pack rafts with promo code RANDY. alpackaraft.com/
MTN Tough - 30 Day Free Trial when using code RANDY. Be sure that monthly subscription plan is selected on the payment page.
lab.mtntough.com/checkout/subs... - Розваги
Thank you Randy for sharing this great information. You truly are a blessing You put everything in a easy way to understand this information
God's Blessings to you and your team on all your endeavors
Randy, in a world of culture wars and misinformation, I greatly appreciate you taking the time to brake this down accurately for folks in this (our) community.
Well said Randy! That word needs to get out to a larger audience for sure.
Thank you Randy for keeping us informed and discussing issues that don’t really make into the mainstream media.
You're 100% right on the BLM issue. Keep screaming from the glassing spot! We need to put aside our party loyalties, and look at the issues at face values! THANK YOU!
Put away our party loyalties??? Our country will not survive another 4 years of uncle Joe's commie circus. There's too much on the line including our hunting rights. The poorer you make 2/3 of this country you'll not only see chaos in our cities, it'll transfer to our wildlife in the form of poaching for food.
Randy, the best speech on the truth about the condition of wildlife conservation and wild places I have seen ------- after more than 50 years as an advocate for the same things you addressed. I have been involved with and the leader of several national conservation organizations along with our state and their governing body. I have never heard more succinct, explanatory, on target and just plain common sense ideas than you just expressed. I wish we could clone you! Thanks for all you do and thanks for your work for wildlife and wild places. P.S. I have testified before the US Senate 3 times, before 3 US Sec. of Ag, our state Legislature more times than I can remember, and met with our congressional delegation, both in DC and in our state ----- so I am on your team when it comes to action.
Thanks for being a voice for wild place and wild things.
Good stuff Randy, agree with you 100%!!!!
Thank you for informing all of us, and all your hard work Randy.
Awesome! Thanks!
Yup that was refreshing!! Thanks Randy
Class is in session, thanks Professor Randy.
Randy, you’re somewhat right. The difference is that this rule is now taking place in the context of states’ packing their commissions with ideologues who are nonconsumptive conservationists.
well done Randy, I agree with you on this. thanks. I talk with many hunters, I truly wonder how important conservation is to them. They seem to want their cake and eat it too. I am not saying all, just most I talk to here in Utah and Wyoming. Just my opinion.
Love these talks , Thank you Randy , Fresh tracks and Crew. You guys are the best
It looks like you read a document I didn't read. Randy, regarding spoon feeding, if you read it and say it is good or bad I'm with you. You are doing the heavy lifting. I wish I could be on a "Randy's list" of followers that you can use as leverage. Whatever you think is best I'm with you on it. I hope you have a lot of influence in Washington. Thank you.
It's economics! The companies involved in resource exploration have deeper pockets and longer reach to persuade politicians and BLM.
Highest and Best for one is different than for another.
Yes, I understand. The problem now is enforcement, in my area. We have existing laws on national forests concerning UTV/ATV use, over grazing on allotments, dispersed camping, length of stay (living in rv’s on public lands) etc that are largely unenforced because the enforcement agencies have been told to not enforce. They are constantly getting threatened & harassed. It seems that folks are willing to kill another person because they were told they can’t do something that is illegal.
Excellent points. Thanks for the useful links. I'll refer all of my friends to this site.
Randy, I worked for the BLM for 12 years. (Recently moved on to a new career). When I worked there what I observed was excitement. Excitement that conservation would have an actual seat at the table for use consideration.
This political football is absurd.
Randy for President!
Straight talk!
When the SHERIFF speaks you better be listening! Thanks Randy and crew 👍🏻
Good on ya, Randy
I hope you get 1 million subscribers so more people can hear your voice. You say it Best!
In my opinion the language of the Rule is the issue here (not politics). The two biggest areas where hunters will be impacted are... One, under the new BLM rule "commercial use" would NOT be allowed on any conservation lease allotment. Hunting/fishing outfitters are considered commercial operators. Therefore, outfitting would not be allowed on any conservation lease. Two, conservation lease allotments will have the ability to regulate (or prevent) hunting based on the perceived definition of conservation of the individual (or NGO) that purchases the allotment. This very likely could prohibit public access to hunters if, for example, an anti-hunting organization implements a conservation lease on a portion of public land.
It frustrates me to no end that wildlife-oriented policies are not on the list of "Zoning designations" for land-use laws here in Oregon. If I spend a lifetime restoring cut-over low elevation timberland to it's original oak savanna state, rather than replant into a Douglas-fir mono-culture (on marginal quality growing ground) as mandated because its officially zoned "forest", I get no support from the state and can in fact get in trouble.
Thanx
Amen!
Policy set aside you have to admit one of the political parties wants to do away with firearms defeat any firearms guess which one
Yup, you're right. And policy set aside, you have to admit that one of the political parties wants to get rid of public land. Both sides have let their fringe elements dictate policy and it screws over hunters.
Randy, thanks for your opinion. Please address hunting in a conservation lease. That is where I’m hung up. Thanks
There will be hunting, same as there is today. If you read the proposal, any group leasing for conservation values does not get to restrict access of other parties, the same as a grazing lease doesn't allowed the lessee to deny access by the public. So, there continues to be hunting access even if there is a conservation lease.
Corporations need to stay off of public land
Here's my solution. If you are a corporation and you are near or next to a public land, you must sell or move your corporation so you are around other corporations so that you have your own private land around other private landowners to not interfere with the public land and use because that is best use scenario.
Why should a corporation ruin our hunting like how you are upset that solar Farms are ruining the migration pattern of deer and other animals!
Your cattle that are grazing are ruining the migration and habits of the natural animals.
So get your corporation grazing animals off of public land
Randy: go read it for yourself, don't let them spoon feed you the ideas.
Also Randy: Spoon feeds you ideas
Do you realize that most every small operator who has a public land grazing permit is incorporated and operates as a corporation?
I've read it. No spoon feeding for me.
Rec . Gov Anybody? Anybody? Market based solutions?
We can say what we want. 100 years from now it's gone, long gone. Only outlaws will hunt the kings deer...
Good afternoon Randy newberg what can i do about a handicap elk hunt in Oregon? Please let me know... elden
The market would determine its use, that's what worries me. The antelope would not be as worth as much as the ,say housing track.
Housing is not an allowed use under "multiple use."
So what if an antihunting group leases land to stop hunting or antiforestry tries to stop closed burns or logging needed for young forests.
Read the proposed rule. Leasing to exclude others from accessing these lands is not allowed.
@@Fresh_Tracks I don't have time to read the rule. I thought that excluding hunters would be a long shot. One thing I can definitely see though is people using it to stop cutting trees. In some cases maybe a good thing sometimes not. But the people I'm talking about don't know the difference
@@dn88s The the logging companies and their billionaire owners go elsewhere for logging. Lots of other places will allow tree cutting. Hasn't been an issue in Oregon for us. CWD has though and its because of the logging companies. Frankly, I'd rather they didn't ruin my forests with their mono crop and chemicals but what can you do.
@@huntforagefish4730 billionaire owners? All the logging companies working around me are small businesses. Even the cuts purchased by the behemoth called Boise paper are contracted out and actually cut by those small privately owned local businesses. People like to point and scream about the big scary corporations, but in reality most of the US economy is still small businesses.
@@jaydunbar7538 Well the ones around me aren't. Weyerhaeuser, Georgia-Pacific, Hampton Lumber, and Roseburg Forest Products. All rich as hell.
Being from Oregon, the political games played with wildlife and habitat management disgust me. Very informative video. You used the term "highest and best use" which I would be careful with. We are losing many acres of farm and forest land by arguing its highest and best use is residential or industrial development. It also needs to be managed appropriately.
The problem I see with the new Public Lands Rule is everyone, including you and me, see “conservation” in a different light. I know several public lands ranchers who view themselves as “conservationists,” yet their grazing allotments are overgrazed and look like dog shit. Environmental extremists also view themselves as “conservationists” yet their idea of conservation is to limit access and to preserve nature without any anthropogenic influences. The idea of some of these groups (e.g., Sierra Club, Western Watersheds Project, Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, Center for Biodiversity) having “conservation” leases on our public lands scares the piss out of me. The same goes for wild horse groups who want nothing on the landscape other than wild horses. You’d be hard pressed to find a BLM document or management plan that doesn’t already include conservation and/or mitigation for wildlife as part of their proposed action. I’m having a hard time understanding why this new rule is really needed, but I do appreciate your perspective.
So, what do you think about trump saying give be billions and ill make environmental decisions go away?
Stupid idea. Like I said, I don't care who comes up with the idea. If it's good for wildlife and hunting, I'm for it. If it's bad for wildlife and hunting, I'm against it. I don't give two hoots about politicians or parties. I'm focused on the policies.
@@Fresh_Tracks i agree, but hes offering free passes to kill our oceans and grasslands and prairie anything to get votes. Votes to give big oil free range i think that right there is criminal.
The problem with this is that your definition of “conservation” is quite different from what DC defines “conservation”. What happens when the BLM decides highest conservation use is keeping you and I off the BLM because of some “critical habitat” or endangered species. Is there any language about public access in the proposal?
Yes, there is language to keep public access.
Only concerns I have are the current 30x30 and 50x50 plans that are being pursued. Couple that with this administrations constant over stepping and continued disregard of civil rights. Always apprehensive to give fed gov more power coupled with our current environment of public private partnerships. I admit it have not read this proposal but if there is not an ironclad gurantee for public access to the lands no matter the use exerted then it is a non starter. And with this administration along with the previous constantly allocating non existing powers to themselves through executive orders I am still a little hesitant to change. But as far as conservation rights being able to be bought over other I agree with Randy. But I just can't help but feel in the pit of my stomach that this is just another move to keep hunter and the public off of lands. Prob I have is we have had several instances now where bills are Harold as being one thin only to find it is nothing like that. The inflation reduction act and the latest no warrant search bills being examples.
I want conservation, just don't trust the gov to stay true to their world, follow the law or constitution, keep the public s best interest at hand, or just plane ol not screw us
This all makes a lot of sense. I don’t know what the motivation is for those opposing it. My ONLY concern when I hear a proposal giving “conservation” values equal weight in management decisions is how the radical “environmental” activists co-opt the intent of the legislation in order to “protect” every piece of land from use because it might have a detrimental impact on some rare hairless rat species or something equally as stupid. They do it all the time. What’s the chance they could use this policy for their own purposes?
The odds are almost zero, likely zero. Most the land is already leased, so the rule protects existing leaseholders. The crazy fringe litigates those issues all the time because they make a profit litigating under the Equal Access To Justice Act. They don't have the money to lease huge tracts when they have to bid against other uses such as energy, mining, etc. No money in it for them, as there is in litigation. If you haven't yet, I suspect if you read the rule it will address that concern.
So Newberg's complaint is about Congress making laws that prevents the executive branch from making laws.
I guess the accounting degree didn't explain who was supposed to make laws.
So Congress makes laws. The executive branch enforces the law. The judicial branch decides how the law relates to the constitution.
So if you're asking me to decide between Congress making laws and the executive branch. I will side with Congress every single time. Amazingly, the executive branch makes approximately 10x the rules and regulations of the legislative branch.
The complaint is not about Congress making laws. That's how it's supposed to work. The complaint is how these were a great ideas when a prior administration proposed most of this stuff, but now the same ideas are bad because of who is in office.
I'm not asking you to decide between either Congress or the Executive. I'm just pointing out how the partisan hypocrisy, on both sides, are a big part of what causes us to not have the quality land management we should/could have.
So Randy was angry man screaming at the sky again.
Nice to know.
I agree that politics that run down a line is bad. I don't like people complaining about a new rule that the executive branch made, even if it was something adopted by a previous administration, because that means you are giving power to someone who isn't elected. I don't agree with the bill, but I would rather have Congress making laws than the executive branch. Even if they are bad laws.