# Bundy Bunglers march on



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Militiamen and woman camping on Cliven Bundy's cattle ranch are packing up and heading to Utah where another protest against the Bureau of Land Management will happen Saturday.
> 
> Ryan Payne, a Montana resident who had been staying at the ranch for a month, said he drove eight hours to arrive in the eastern Utah town this morning. Three militia members from the ranch and a handful of people from a group called Citizens Action Network came to Utah, too, he said.
> 
> ...


http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2014/ma ... attle-blm/

These guys are going to hurt the second amendment. Now they are headed to a non motorized area to ride their 4X4 in defiance of government regulations. What's next a cross country 4X4 in Yellowstone Park? It's starting to look like what we have is a group of radicals looking for excuses to confront the government. There are a thousand ways to do that so why anti habitat? Is this just another stunt from the Sagebrush Rebellion? Earth First on the left and Sagebrush Rebellion on the right, why can't they just meet in the desert and have at it. Both political spectrums have become so screwed up I can't relate to either anymore.


----------



## duckp (Mar 13, 2008)

Amen.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Plains wrote,



> Now they are headed to a non motorized area to ride their 4X4 in defiance of government regulations.


Defiance of government regulations???? Hmmm!!!!! The governemnt uses its surrogates to get these closures in the first place.

https://www.sharetrails.org/node/8130

What I Did This Hunting Season

Editorial by Dave Skinner
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Richard Beardall sitting next to a desert bighorn taken in a 'once in a lifetime' hunt in Utah. Which sportsmen group fights for the rights of Richard Beardall? "Not the National Trails and Waters Coalition, thats for sure." Richard supports BRC and is a Board Member of the Utah Shared Access Alliance. --photo by Richard Beardall I was minding my own business up here in Whitefish, Montana, when a Colorado friend forwarded me a November 17 Associated Press story about a group calling itself the "Colorado Sportsmen United for Public Lands Protection." This group is allegedly worried the "concerns of hunters and anglers may get drowned out" and has sent a letter saying so to Governor Bill Owens and the Colorado Roadless Task Force, chartered by the Colorado legislature to make recommendations on the management of Colorado's 4.4 million acres of "roadless" areas.

Being a sporty fellow who loves a good hunt and never having heard of this bunch, I had to try "Googling" this "Colorado Sportsmen United" group.

The first thing I learned was CSUPLP (nice acronym, huh?) didn't exist before AP wrote its story. The AP story was all I had to go on, but it was enough. AP reported CSUPLP's leading member groups as: Trout Unlimited, Colorado Wildlife Federation, National Wildlife Federation and Colorado Backcountry Hunters and Anglers.

Quoted as a "member" of this group was one Brian O'Donnell. But good old Google shows Brian has a day job, as Trout Unlimited's public lands director. His resume also includes stints as executive director of the Alaska Wilderness League and several years running the Wilderness Society's Wilderness Support Center in Durango.

Another "sportsman" representing this new group is Matt Kenna, Colorado Backcountry Hunters and Anglers' vice-chair. Kenna openly describes himself as a "hard-core environmentalist." In fact, he is . . . He's a lawyer for the Western Environmental Law Center in Durango. His clients include the Center for Biological Diversity and Forest Guardians, two of the most lawsuit-drunk, "hard-core" environmental groups around. Remember the Heartwood case last summer that blew the Forest Service permitting process out of the water? Matt was the lawyer.

As for both the Colorado and National Wildlife Federations, well, I like to hunt private ranches. The NWF's lawsuit over prairie dogs didn't go over too well with my ranching friends.

"But Dave," you ask, "can't 'hard-core' environmentalists represent a majority of hunters and anglers?" Not in my book. Backcountry Hunters and Anglers national board member David Petersen (also a Trout Unlimited employee, not coincidentally Colorado Coordinator for Roadless Protection) once wrote an essay ironically subtitled "A Reasoned Rant" for Wildlands Center for Preventing Roads. Petersen describes himself as part of "a minority segment of hunters, at least 20%, having a strong 'nature/naturalistic' outlook." Only this 20% are "true hunters" according to Petersen. The rest? Well, the kindest thing Petersen calls the other 80 percent, including me, is "armed motorheads."

So what's going on here? It's simple, really: Environmental groups, funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts and led by Trout Unlimited, are trying to manipulate Colorado's Roadless Task Force by strategically and falsely representing themselves as the "true" voice of "hunters and anglers," all of whom miraculously support the Clinton roadless initiative.

It's not the first time the enviros have tried this: During the Clinton roadless brouhaha, and especially during the 2004 presidential election season, a small but significant number of newspaper articles hit the streets with a bottom line reading "hunters and anglers support roadless areas." Those articles can be trailed back to a Trout Unlimited/Pew Trusts lobbying effort called the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership. In 2003 alone, Pew granted just over $1 million dollars to Trout Unlimited's National Office, for "support for a national alliance of hunters and fishermen working to protect fish and wildlife populations on federal public lands."

Sounds like a lot of money, huh? But consider this: Pew was singled out in 2001 by Michelle Cole of the Portland Oregonian as the "biggest bankroll for the roadless protection campaign" that included at least $9.7 million worth of environmentalist lobbying by a "dozen of the nation's wealthiest foundations" on behalf of the Clinton Administration "roadless initiative."

Pew funds went to National Audubon, which redistributed these funds to other groups such as the Heritage Forests Campaign with the clear intent the funds were to be used for a coordinated campaign in support of the Clinton Roadless Initiative. A few more million to Trout Unlimited to hammer the Bush Administration's alternative to Clinton's travesty is chump change for the $4.5 billion Pew Trusts.

Unfortunately, Pew and their 'Roosevelt Partnership' are not alone in falsely representing themselves as the "true" voice of "hunters and anglers." One of my all time personal favorites is the Natural Trails and Waters Coalition (NTWC). NTWC's website says they work "to protect and restore all public lands and waters from the damage caused by dirt bikes, jet skis and all other off-road vehicles." Their director, Scott Kovarovics, works for the Wilderness Society out of their Washington office.

A couple more clicks on NTWC's website brings up this gem: "The Natural Trails and Waters Coalition is coordinated and directed by a nine member steering committee, with one representative from each of the following organizations -- American Hiking Society, American Lands Alliance, Bluewater Network, Colorado Mountain Club, Great Old Broads for Wilderness, Sierra Club, Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, The Wilderness Society and Wildlands CPR. TWS and Wildlands CPR co-chair the steering committee."

First, notice NTWC, which, like the "Coalition" is often described as a "hunter and angler" group by the press, doesn't have a single sportsmens group on its steering committee . . . they're all wilderness activist groups and ALL anti-OHV.

The strategy is obvious. The biggest strategic failure of the Clinton roadless campaign was the Green failure to recruit sportsmen. Pew recognized this and funded a "solution" that it might even have the added bonus of splintering the gun-rights and sportsmen's coalition. Pew has never given a dime to defend the Second Amendment.

The bottom line here is wilderness groups will use whatever means possible, including dishonestly representing themselves as sportsmen, to close as many areas as they can to motorized use. Their fervent hope is the vast majority of, um, "armed motorheads" will then focus their attention on places they can still ride and play, leaving the "lockup coalition" free to push that last bit for not just de-facto wilderness, but big-W Wilderness.

So now BRC members, including the vast majority of you who also hunt and fish, have another environmentalist assault to deal with: A fabricated effort to over-blow hunting-season OHV problems into a "justification" for slamming the door shut year-round to motorized recreation of all forms on every acre possible.

How do we keep the legitimate issues in hunting-season OHV use from being hyped by our great environmentalist friends into blanket year-round closures? Behave yourself. Most of us know there is a time to ride, a time to hunt, and doing both at the same time is illegal. Ride smart. If conditions are sloppy enough to leave a mess, walk. Don't tolerate stupid hunting behavior or lousy riding from others, either. Get a hunting license. Even if you are too busy to hunt, even if it is just an over-the-counter doe tag, being a licensed sportsperson gives you legitimacy as a supporter of fish-and-game management. This can be critical when your local wildlife agency comes out against motorized recreation, as Montana just did on the Rocky Mountain Front. Join your local rod-and-gun club or a true sportsmen group, one that actually has hunters on its steering committee. It's a good way to make sure no "OHV's stink" press releases get past the membership without an honest debate. Volunteer with your fish-and-game on OHV education programs. If they don't have one, BRC will be happy to help you get one going.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Trout Unlimited
> Colorado Wildlife Federation
> National Wildlife Federation
> Colorado Backcountry Hunters and Anglers.


These sound like a good bunch of guys. I can see their point about some roadless areas. I'm getting to old to get back into them, and get tempted to take the other side, but let the next generation enjoy the things we have. I'll just have to stifle my self serving wishes. 
I sort of think listing the above organizations as the enemy may have lost the debate for you Shaug.



> As for both the Colorado and National Wildlife Federations, well, I like to hunt private ranches


So if this guy hunts private ranches what's his beef with roadless areas in wilderness? To me it looks like he doesn't want them to be good hunting areas so the rich can pay to hunt private land. Lets face it 90% of hunters will never be able to pay $5K for an elk hunt. However, many can buy a tent, sleeping bag, and an out of state license. Many of us have enjoyed public lands. With the population increasing we need some roadless areas so we don't drive all wildlife onto private ranches. Hmmm so that in itself my be the opposition we see from private landowners. They want to be the only game in town.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Hey Plains, want to see something interesting?

http://www.backcountryhunters.org/index ... -are/staff

The executive director for back country hunters and anglers is none other then Land Tawney. Remember him?

He used to be the regional director for the national wildlife federation. He came to ND to help kick off the fair chase initiatve.

And he started a group in Montana called Sportsmen for Obama. You scratch my back I'll scratch yours. Obama makes sure that the national wildlife federation gets the money they need and then then if the fed/gov wants roads and access closed guess who steps up to help?

And Land Tawney is president of Montan Hunters and Anglers Action. It doesn't really have any membership but come election time it is flush with money for democrat candidates.

http://www.lobowatch.org/gh/DisplayLarg ... efix=Large

In the comments section here is Land Tawney defending dingy Harry and Nevada's roadless rule and wilderness.

http://newwest.net/topic/article/harry_ ... 1/C41/L41/

Land Tawney says: 
March 12, 2010 at 12:02 am 
Painting Senator Reid(NV) with the same brush as former Rep. Pombo(CA) is a stretch if not a leap. If you remember, Rep. Pombo proposed to sell public lands to make up for our nations deficit&#8230;hunters and anglers stepped up like never before and his idea was soundly defeated and ultimately Mr. Pombo was sent home. Sen. Reid has done quite the opposite when it comes to public lands. He has defended the roadless rule, helped establish National Parks and Recreation areas in Nevada, and most recently helped maneuver one of the biggest public lands bills ever through congress with over 8 million acres of new big "W" wilderness..a far cry from the legacy of Rep. Pombo. When it comes to mining..things get a bit stickier. All you say about Reid's personal connection to the industry is true. The political contributions are true. The position of power he holds in congress is true and certainly has been a roadblock to mining reform. That all said, Sen. Reid is in a perfect position to actually make reform of the 1872 Mining Law a reality..brokering a deal between conservationists and the industry. Until this deal is made&#8230;mining reform may go another 138 years without revision&#8230;.

No Plainsman, I don't think people should be able to drive an ATV across Yellowstone National Park. However, all other lands should be multiple use and that includes ATV's. If someday the fed/gov uses its surrogate non-profits to shut out hunting on these public lands, will you be for that too?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> No Plainsman, I don't think people should be able to drive an ATV across Yellowstone National Park.


Good.


> However, all other lands should be multiple use and that includes ATV's.


Multiple use doesn't mean everything. If there are roads there already then let people use them, but like Montana close them so wildlife has security when they are calving and wintering.

If someday the fed/gov uses its surrogate non-profits to shut out hunting on these public lands, will you be for that too?
I'll try everything I can think of to stop that. Keep in mind I have said over and over again that I think grazing is a good management tool. Yet to win debates some call me anti grazing. Those people lie and the worst part is they know it.

Land Tawney. Remember him?

Not really, only from your past posts.



> And he started a group in Montana called Sportsmen for Obama.


Sportsmen for Obama is like chickens voting for Col Sanders. I don't think I like that Tawney guy, but if someone does something right I sure am not going to try stop him. Sort of like that blind pig that finds an occasional acorn.

So now I have a question. Do you really think these guys running around playing Rambo is good for our public image?


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Plains wrote,



> If there are roads there already then let people use them


Which part do you not understand? They are not maintaining existing roads and if a culvert gets washed out they close the road.

No access. The Blue Ribbon Coalition has been there for sportsmen hikers and bikers.



> So now I have a question. Do you really think these guys running around playing Rambo is good for our public image?


You remind me of King George saying to the continentals with their matchlocks, "now what do you boys need with those assault rifles."

Most people think the Revolution started when the colonials threw the tea into the Boston Harbor. But there was more to it. Huge lodge pole pine were needed to build masts for the kings sloops of war and merchant marine. A g-man would go into the forest and make a hatchet mark on a tree. No one was to harm or harvest that tree. The people had to work around it. The g-men took things too far and marked trees way out into Vermont and New Hampshire. There was no way that tree could be successfully transported to a harbor.

The people disregarded the hatchet marks. The g-men went out to enforce the law and the people tarred and feathered them. Real tar and feathers. Plainsman, they started a war. Patriots or Rambos? You tell me.

Maybe Utah should take the lead and take control of all the land within their borders?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Patriots or Rambos? You tell me.


More like idiots because the supported a criminal. Now they simply want to create a problem that doesn't exist. There are roadless areas all over the country. Yes, I wish I could get into some of those, but without horses I can't. Yes, I would like to get into some of those, but secure wildlife populations for the next generation are more important than me getting to where this old carcass will no longer carry me.

If there are roads there now, but they are no longer going to maintain them then maybe that's one of those cuts you keep saying we need to make. Save the money.

Are you looking at this from a wildlife perspective, or do you think the government should maintain roads simply for the rancher who wants to drive in and check his cows? A million dollar road for one man? Hunters normally are very supportive of things beneficial to wildlife. That's why hunting and fishing groups are supporting this roadless area. Are you like those people in Greece who thinks the government needs to cut spending, but don't touch my golden calf?


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Plains wrote,



> More like idiots because the supported a criminal.


Show me where he has been convicted other than trial by media?



> Now they simply want to create a problem that doesn't exist.


The BLM closed roads that used to exists. That's the problem that exists now.



> There are roadless areas all over the country. Yes, I wish I could get into some of those, but without horses I can't.


In the future horses will be banned because they leave apples on the trails that hikers have to step over. Divide and conquer. Pit one group of users against another until all users are out.



> Yes, I would like to get into some of those, but secure wildlife populations for the next generation are more important than me getting to where this old carcass will no longer carry me.


Will vast wildlife corridors and wilderness areas create secure wildlife populaions or will it create a predator pit like what is happening now?



> Are you looking at this from a wildlife perspective, or do you think the government should maintain roads simply for the rancher who wants to drive in and check his cows? A million dollar road for one man?


As usual you have to make it stupid.



> Hunters normally are very supportive of things beneficial to wildlife. That's why hunting and fishing groups are supporting this roadless area.


Pretend hunting and fishing groups. As usual you try to keep the charade going.



> Are you like those people in Greece who thinks the government needs to cut spending, but don't touch my golden calf?


Members of the Golden Dawn party are running for political office from jail. Everybodies golden calf would get the axe equally. 
Plains, would you vote for them or would you vote for the usual kept party candidate?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Are you looking at this from a wildlife perspective, or do you think the government should maintain roads simply for the rancher who wants to drive in and check his cows? A million dollar road for one man?





> As usual you have to make it stupid.


Yes I think it would be stupid too, but I asked the question very seriously, and I seriously think that's the reason for the people going to protest.



> Members of the Golden Dawn party are running for political office from jail. Everybodies golden calf would get the axe equally.
> Plains, would you vote for them or would you vote for the usual kept party candidate?


I have never heard of them so it wouldn't be likely I would vote for them. Explain further please.

You gst and I have gone over this cut spending thing before. I explained that for the better of the country all would have to take cuts. Both of you kept asking if I would cut XY or Z. I said everyone. You kept asking about XYZ. To me that indicated you wanted me to agree XYZ needed to be cut, but you had pet things you didn't want cut. Or my best guess is you simply wanted to divide me from groups that didn't want XY and Z cut.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Plains wrote,



> I have never heard of them so it wouldn't be likely I would vote for them. Explain further please.


Golden Dawn plus google search equals research done by Plainsman himself.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

shaug said:


> Plains wrote,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I see your trying to give me homework like gst did in the past. I'm not interested in that, but I did look up Golden Dawn. Wikipedia listed an Australian publication that called them a far right extreme fringe group. So are you and Bundy founding members? :wink:


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

It is rather fun and refreshing to watch far right organizations shake the tree a little bit.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

shaug said:


> It is rather fun and refreshing to watch far right organizations shake the tree a little bit.


Ya, I'll have to agree with you on that. As long as they are not trying to rob someone else.


----------

