Sportsman's Group Prioritizes Protection For Conservation Budget

[Tim Smith]

The wild lands referenced above will restrict access much like we have seen here with our recreation area (ONSR)

Do you have any evidence that these federal wild lands acquisitions will not be accessible? Certainly that is not true for the vast majority of Federal land.

You also have not explained why federal hatcheries are good but federal protection of natural reproduction is bad.

[awhuber]

I can think of three reasons why you would think this way.

1) You are standing on the party line for these budget cuts.

2) You hate anything good that has come from Washington.

3) You totaly misunderstood the meaning of what is hapening here.

That list is close to why I thought you would think this way...just sub hate with love

[Outside Bend]

I know here on the upper current alot of the most scenic spots are privately owned.

But the river and adjoining property is managed through public easements. There's no comparing that arrangement and streams like the Gasconade, Current, Black etc- where a more free-market approach has been taken. All you have to do is look at the list of 303 (d) streams in the state to show that private industry hasn't been kind to our public waterways, and that those waterways receiving protection are streams which are doing well.

Our MDC seems to think they have plenty of cash to buy public lands.

MDC has the luxury of a sales tax. Many state agencies don't. Many states in the northeast and mid-Atlantic are looking at selling public lands to gas fracking developers, as are states in the west, in order to augment their budgets.

Feds owning land does not guarantee access either. The wild lands referenced above will restrict access much like we have seen here with our recreation area (ONSR)

The property is being bought to provide public access. That's the point. The Feds aren't going to prevent people from hunting and fishing on property they bought so people have a place to hunt and fish.

You're confusing multiple use with closing public access. They may restrict how you can get there (ATVs, horses, etc.) But you can still use the area. That's not the case with private property.

[awhuber]

Do you have any evidence that these federal wild lands acquisitions will not be accessible? Certainly that is not true for the vast majority of Federal land.

You also have not explained why federal hatcheries are good but federal protection of natural reproduction is bad.

well I never said that.

The wild land policy takes wilderness designations away from congress. Here is a good read on the hearing held on this subject.

http://www.roadracingworld.com/news/article/?lnk=rss&article=43481

[awhuber]

But the river and adjoining property is managed through public easements. There's no comparing that arrangement and streams like the Gasconade, Current, Black etc- where a more free-market approach has been taken. All you have to do is look at the list of 303 (d) streams in the state to show that private industry hasn't been kind to our public waterways, and that those waterways receiving protection are streams which are doing well.

MDC has the luxury of a sales tax. Many state agencies don't. Many states in the northeast and mid-Atlantic are looking at selling public lands to gas fracking developers, as are states in the west, in order to augment their budgets.

The property is being bought to provide public access. That's the point. The Feds aren't going to prevent people from hunting and fishing on property they bought so people have a place to hunt and fish.

You're confusing multiple use with closing public access. They may restrict how you can get there (ATVs, horses, etc.) But you can still use the area. That's not the case with private property.

Here on the ONSR they are closing roads that have been used since before it was designated a recreation area. What I am saying is they will tell you one thing and do another.

[Tim Smith]

well I never said that.

You may not realize it, but you said exactly that. Without EPA protection, most rivers in the US would be dead wastelands and the only hope to improve the imparied ones we have now is through EPA protection.

The wild land policy takes wilderness designations away from congress. Here is a good read on the hearing held on this subject.

http://www.roadracingworld.com/news/article/?lnk=rss&article=43481

Ok. So your position is that lands that are now not available to the public are somehow "not accessible" because if the Feds acquire them and open them to the public, you can't ride your ATV on them??

[awhuber]

You may not realize it, but you said exactly that. Without EPA protection, most rivers in the US would be dead wastelands and the only hope the imparied ones we have now have for improvement is through EPA protection.

Ok. So your position is that lands that are now not available to the public are somehow "not accessible" because if the Feds acquire them and open them to the public, you can't ride your ATV on them??

Thats a stretch I floated and caught fish before 1970.

In the MTNF you cannot ride an atv cross country.some roads are closed to traffic also.

I still walk alot but my wife doesnt get around like she used to.

[Outside Bend]

Here on the ONSR they are closing roads that have been used since before it was designated a recreation area. What I am saying is they will tell you one thing and do another.

You say the Feds can't take care of the property they already own, it bothers you when they take measures to take care of their property by restricting ATVs? You can't have it both ways.

ONSR isn't saying one thing and then doing another. Those areas are still publicly accessible- just not with an ATV, and for good reason.

[Tim Smith]

Thats a stretch I floated and caught fish before 1970.

In the MTNF you cannot ride an atv cross country.some roads are closed to traffic also.

I still walk alot but my wife doesnt get around like she used to.

Not a stretch at all. We have 100 million more people in the country than we did in 1970. Without strong regulation you would have kissed much of what you hold dear goodbye by now.

And if you're satisfied with your position that the Feds should not buy more land because your wife can't ride an ATV off-trail on it, then you're welcome to it.

You would have landed more light bulbs if you had stuck with the need to reduce the deficit.

[Tim Smith]

You say the Feds can't take care of the property they already own, it bothers you when they take measures to take care of their property by restricting ATVs? You can't have it both ways.

ONSR isn't saying one thing and then doing another. Those areas are still publicly accessible- just not with an ATV, and for good reason.

He's trolling for a rise.