Commentary
Imagining a Divide Among Hooks, Bullets and Greens
By Hal Herring, 3-09-06
 | |
|
One of the newer conservation groups in the West is the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership (TRCP), a group dedicated to the tradition of hunters and fishermen as pragmatic conservationists, speaking out for protecting habitat and watersheds where wildlife can thrive, and where hunting and fishing can be preserved even as population and development pressures soar. The group invokes the name of Teddy Roosevelt to underscore its message of tough-minded sportsmen acting for conservation -- this is no bunch of wild-haired Earth First!ers, no pencil-necked urban Sierra Clubbers or bird-watchers who quail at the sight or thought of blood.
It is conservation as a traditional and time-honored conservative ideal. The TRCP is working on issues related to the energy boom in the wildlife migration corridors of the Green River in Wyoming, among many other projects. And they have recently added their voices to the many in the West calling for protecting the remaining unroaded public lands as was called for in the Roadless Rule, which was unceremoniously dumped by the Bush adminstration. In doing so, the TRCP bucked a minor tidal wave of right-wing organizations, including the National Rifle Association, which has recently come under scrutiny for claiming to be an organization for hunters, but offers vast support for the nation's most ferociously anti-conservation and anti-public lands politicians.
The TRCP has a distinctly Republican flair. That such an organization has questioned the Bush administration's agenda regarding the environment and the public lands has thrown at least one writer, at a major western newspaper, over the precipice.
Sean Paige, an editorial page editor at the Colorado Springs Gazette, in a syndicated column titled "Hook and bullet clubs shooting themselves in the foot" writes: "In an alliance of odd bedfellows, hunting and angling clubs are joining forces with their natural enemies, environmental groups, in a bid to preserve their happy hunting grounds across the United States. Both groups are lining up behind a Clinton-era plan to create 60 million acres of "roadless" areas in national forests, as this 6-year-old battle shifts to the states."
He goes on, "... unless typical Americans stand up and demand the continuation of the multiple use rules that long guided national forest policy, they may soon find their access to public lands severely limited, as these areas become the exclusive playgrounds of ecological or recreational elitists who aren't willing to share."
Mr. Paige took up his post at the Colorado Springs Gazette in 2002, after a stint with the Competitive Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C. The Institute is a "think-tank," where scholars think about how to debunk myths like global warming, or the idea that any nation needs regulations to control pollution or protect wetlands or air or drinking water. Some of their thinkers have attacked the medical journal The Lancet for being anti-busisness. They all seem to do their best thinking when their coffers are filled with contributions from industry, including ExxonMobil, which has given them over $1.6 million.
Before he came to the Gazette, Paige produced stories for Sun Myung Moon's paper the Washington Times, and wrote for the National Review Online and others. He exposed the complicity of the federal government in shark attacks on the Florida coast ("The Jaws Of Government: Are The Feds To Blame For Shark Attacks?"), and headed out to sea in a leaky boat with the last commercial fishermen of the Florida Keys, to show how their rights are violated by marine reserves set up to protect fish and coral reefs. Reason magazine – (the publication of the Reason Foundation, whose former President Lynne Scarlett is now Assistant Secretary of the Interior) published Paige's story "Alternative Fuel Follies" about the absurdity of trying to find alternatives to gasoline. His "Wildfire Witch Hunts Will Likely Miss the Real Culprits" focuses on the Washington state fire that killed four firefighters. Guess who the real culprits turn out to be? Yes, it was the federal land managers, and they did it by setting up a Natural Resource Reserve where the forest had been allowed to grow without being logged.
The editorial attack on hunters and fishermen is an odd one, and is odder still for the level of pure invention that pervades it. Paige actually wrote an earlier version of this editorial and published it on Februaryt 12th. That version, while a bit more repetitive and amorphous, was more heartfelt. In it, he writes "Hook and bullet clubs are joining forces with gang green in an effort to preserve their happy hunting grounds…" The newer version, which appeared in papers across the US, is more measured. For example, he himself no longer calls hunters and fishermen "camflage-wearing yahoos," he attributes that descriptive phrase to some "people he knows."
The idea that hunters and fishermen are the "natural enemies" of environmentalists is invented by Mr. Paige. The fact that hunters and fishermen have been among the premier conservationists of the US is acknowledged by almost anyone familiar with the history of our country and its wildlife. And the idea that hunters and fishermen only care about roadless areas because they would have some kind of "exclusive" place to hunt game and seek fish is also invented, in this case, invented by a mind that is utterly stumped by the idea that any human being could respect the natural world for any reason other than for what could be torn from it to make a profit. One cannot help but marvel at such a fantastic failure of the imagination, and wonder at what life experience could produce it. Has the writer never once marveled at the colors of a trout in clear water, the sunlight on the hide of an elk? Has he never once taken joy or solace from the sound of water rushing down from snowfields melting in the heat of the spring? Perhaps Mr. Paige could make some new hunting and fishing friends, in Colorado Springs, step forth from his office, and go out to see what the TRCP members are talking about. Colorado is a treasurehouse of such experiences, despite the best efforts of, apparently, citizens who view the world much as does Mr. Paige.
And speaking as a hunter and conservationist myself, though not yet a member of the TRCP, I'll take a risk on favoring the protection of the last unroaded lands in the lower forty-eight. If in the future, some dark lunatic fringe of bunny-huggers seizes power and tries to bar me from hunting there, at least I'll still have something to fight for. I'm not too worried about bunny huggers seizing power. I am worried about those editorial writers who invent ideas to try and divide and conquer their ideological opponents. I do worry about what our country would look like if thinkers like Mr. Paige were unopposed by those who can imagine some value beyond the proverbial thirty pieces of silver.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
If Hal Herring isn't aware there are divides on environmental and public lands issues all across the West, or if he thinks hunters and anglers think monolithically on the roadless issue (or any other), he ought to get out more. Does he actually live in Montana, or dial such half-witted hatchet-jobs in from Long Island? If these divisions are a figment of my imagination, I'm not alone. Since the column gained wider readership, I've heard from many hunters and anglers, as well as a few Forest Service personnel, who agree that the exclusionist impulse and recreational correctness lurking behind the roadless policy are threats to all national forest user groups, including hook and bullet types.
If Herring and other fans of Clinton's roadless policy support the creation of de-facto wilderness areas, or an overturning of the multiple use mandate, on 60 million acres of national forests, they should just say so and bring the matter before Congress, instead of using the roadless subterfuge. That hunting and fishing groups would support such a policy change is myopic and self-defeating, in my view, because they could be the next “industry” to be shown the door.
That Herring thinks the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership and some of these other groups are “Republican” only proves my point, since I'm sure he would agree that Republicans can be as short-sighted, selfish, elitist and exlusionist as any other group. The point isn't whether these special interest groups lean left or right – my question is, can they see beyond their narrow self interest, and are they willing to share the “public” lands with other people? Being skeptical about Clinton's misbegotten, eleventh-hour roadless rule – which was foisted on the West without adequate buy-in, resulting in six years of lawsuits and controversy -- doesn't make one pro-road, since even without the plan, and even if these matters were handled at the forest or regional level, there are plenty of safeguards in place to ensure that the West isn't going to be paved over. I'm not pro-road or pro-“industry” -- I'm anti-exlusionist, pro-public access and a believer that a workable balance can be struck without this rule.
I'm not going to re-write the column here. It speaks for itself. If there are substantive critiques, bring them on. Trying to attack me personally, or do a cut-and-paste hatchet job designed to discredit my work, doesn't win the argument or contribute to a substantive debate. Herring knows how to Google, and how to cut and paste selectively – isn't this blogging stuff a whiz! This piece was written before “interviewed” me; he phoned for a longer chat only after I shamed the editor of this site into a little professionalism. It's these kinds of hit-and-run postings that give blogs a bad name.
Why, I wonder, are so many who contribute to “New West” so mired in the same old arguments and ways of thinking?
Sean Paige
Editorial page editor,
Colorado Springs Gazette
Yes, I see the light! Mr. Paige IS thoughtful and independent. It's the rest of us "mired" in muddy thinking and broad characterizations.
Before Mr. Paige decides to light out after me as a tree hugger for my support for roadless areas, wilderness, wolves, bears, coyotes, mesopredators, cutthroat trout, oldgrowth forest, and the public trust in wildlife, perhaps I should tell him first that I am a former Army officer with 8 years service in Special Forces and I have the command of two A-teams to my credit. I haven't hugged a tree since I last parachuted into one at Fort Bragg. I would like to know how hard Mr. Paige's life has been.
I have hunted and fished since I was old enough to hold a rod or .22 rifle or .410 shotgun, growing up in the rural South. I have traveled all over the world both on my own and in active military service and have seen first hand the extraordinary damage that civilized, commercial cultures--the kinds of cultures that the Cato Institute, the American Enterprise Institute, and PERC hold up as worthy as respect--have done to wildlife and land. In the old world where civilization has held sway for several thousand years, there is nothing but devastation of land, wildlife and the human spirit. That's why these people have been killing themselves for so long, and will continue to do so. They have nothing, and oil won't be around for much longer.
Hal is absolutely correct in his criticisms of Mr. Paige, and I thank him for pointing out where Mr. Paige calls home--the libertarian, free-market, privatizing our public heritage think tanks that have no intellectual credibility for their so-called scholarship, but they sure get a lot of money from the corporations to spread the libertarian propaganda that has driven the Reagon and both Bush administrations.
The kinds of economic policies Mr. Paige and other libertarian apologists advocate have no rational or practical credibility, and the proof is in the Old World and even here in Wyoming and the West and quite frankly the entire continent, where the pursuit of private property rights above all else has gone a long way toward destroying whatever good life the majority of people might have.
These policies also actually work against the so-called anti-exclusionist policies he claims to support because they assert, along with John Locke, that natural resources have no value unless subjected to human labor and turned into economic goods and services. If we've learned anything, it's that John Locke missed the boat; the more we exploit, the more we ruin. There's no value added to our lives from commercial exploitation of land, water, and wildlife. That's an ecological truth. Pretty soon there won't even be anywhere where the ATV/snowmobile folks can go.
If anyone should support the protection of roadless areas and work actively as conservationists, even working with the tree and bunny huggers, it is hunters and anglers, because it is hunters and anglers who understand best the great doctrine of the public trust, which calls for sovereign governments, the people, to protect their common heritage, even to the seventh generation, a concept given us by Native Americans, against the selfish short-term exploitation of land, water, and wildlife, even by ourselves as individuals and special interest groups. It is a discipline to which we as a people should subject ourselves to, as soldiers subject themelves to discipline. It is we who can see first hand the damage done by roads, for example, because they are the first tendrils of the cancer of commercial exploitation of hunting and fishing lands and waters.
The access argument is bunk and comes from people who so little respect for themselves that will learn no discipline. They're fundamentally lazy. I myself am partially disabled from military service and if anyone should have a right to an ATV, it's me. That's what we hear from the pro-access folks. But I took the harder route and learned to ride and pack horses, and I can still ski and snowshoe, and my access to roadless areas and wilderness is no different than it was twenty years ago.
Now, just what is the ATV/snowmobiler/lazy hunter argument again about their rights to tear up riparian areas, uplands, and forests just so they can have "access"?
You want access, work for it on the ground as I and so any other committed hunters and anglers have done.
Oh, and by the way, I live in rural Wyoming at the base of the Absaroka Mountains, not in New York City or Wash DC. It's great horse country. Get out and see it.
Hal, keep up the good work. Thanks for a fine op-ed piece.
First, Hal never wrote that all anglers and hunters think alike on this issue. Nor did he suggest that there are no issues with this proposed policy, as Mr. Paige states. Nor, as far as I can tell, is there any argument that Herring's quotations were inaccurate. Further, although Paige call this a "hatchet job,” nowhere does he state that anything in the article was taken out of context or contains inaccurate facts.
By the way, Mr. Herring is not from Long Island, unlike recent Washington D.C. transplant Paige.
Finally, Paige's ridiculous question as to why "so many who contribute to “New West” so mired in the same old arguments and ways of thinking" can be answered simply. It is Paige's Reagan/Bush free market uber alles thinking that is old. It's been the model for Washington insiders (of which Mr. Paige forms a part) since the early 1980's. Mr. Paige dutifully trots out the shibboleths of this era in an attempt to create an "us versus them" status. While great for political fundraising, it simply divides us, making it more difficult to enact broad, necessary change. The "New West" writers I've encountered on these pages are anything but stale thinkers.
Op-ed pieces are just that - opinions. Mr. Paige is full of them, but apparently believes no contrary opinion is acceptable. Too bad. He might actually learn a thing or two.
Thank you for your response. I am aware that there are widely varying and strongly held opinions concerning environmental and public lands issues, not just in the West where I live, but globally, and I have written about some of them. Hunters and anglers, not being clones, hold a variety of opinions, also. Many of them, I would posit to you, would disagree with you that working to preserve roadless landscapes on the public lands, in a time when man’s activities and endeavors co-opt so much of the earth’s surface, makes them “narrow minded and self-serving.” They might, in fact, view their work as broad-minded and selfless, in the service of a greater good and for the people of the future. That would be opinion, which is what we are dealing in here today, you and I.
I feel that you are in a minority in believing that roadless country is “exclusionary.” This debate has been carried on ad nauseum , but there are no regulations that exclude people from hunting fishing and otherwise using roadless lands. There are no proposed regulations to exclude people from these areas. The facts that there are no roads does not violate the “mutiple-use mandate” to which you refer. Fishing and hunting, hiking and wandering in country that has not been used for logging and mining is part of the multiple uses of our public lands. The argument could be made that industrial uses of the land –clearcutting, or mining, or the kind of energy development that anyone can witness right now across the west, does indeed create a single-use landscape, does indeed violate the “multiple use mandate” that you seem to hold up as the greatest good for these lands. But
I doubt that you would object to that use as “exclusionary.” As I read your editorial, your previous work, and the comments you have made here, what I see first and foremost is that you seem to not recognize any intrinsic value in natural landscapes, or intact ecosystems. You may say that you object to regulations to protect this or that, or that you object to the “misbegotten, eleventh hour roadless rule” but I believe what you really object to are the obstacles to the profit-seeking enterprises that you view as the greatest good. That you are quite willing to resort to name-calling and mockery to further your barely hidden ideological agenda is what first drew me to your editorial.
When editorial writers use names like “gang green” or “camoflage-wearing yahoos” to describe those who hold different opinions, it makes readers like myself wonder who these writers are. A body of work can explain something about who a person is and what they believe.That is why I searched out your work on the web, and why Ms. Lowery supplied the links to your stories in the piece that I wrote.
I do live in Montana, and have since I first visited here during the fires of 1988. I do get out quite a bit, for my work, and in my other pursuits. I admit that I spend a bit less time in the small town bars and taverns that at one time were a kind of second home to me, and where white-lipped, spit-flying anti-environmental and anti-government rhetoric like yours were the order of the day (and night). In the bars, such rhetoric was kind of amusing. In the pages of a major newspaper it seems a bit out of place.
I found it refreshing that you called me a “Montana hillbilly” in our telephone conversation. The Long Island reference here is a bit of a reach. The idea that you “shamed” Ms. Lowery into “a little professionalism” is preposterous and offensive.
Thank you again,
Hal Herring
I recently joined the TRCP and agree with many of their positions and disagree with others. I don’t believe we should lock up hunting and fishing domain for which only those financial able to hire outfitters or have their own horses are able to use. There should be middle ground that graces the uniting goal--- preservation of habitat and wildlife. We have a decreasing trend of new hunters and fishermen. Logic tells us this trend line will lead to the extinction of public sportsmen if it is not arrested. Let’s look to enablization efforts that keep seniors in the field longer and encourage more women and youths to enjoy the outdoors.
Craig Moore
What I find troubling is the advent of hunter/fisher consumers that seem to be entirely focused on motorized access to streams and forests, and on "take" by any means or any cost.
This group happily endorses new mining and logging roads so they can be first into the area on their ATVs to blast and hook away. This group endorses full-scale predator control efforts, never mind that big game herds may temporarily explode and overwhelm their forage -- all for the temporary advantage that there would be more animals to shoot.
I use the word "shoot" rather than "hunt" because that is the mind-set of more and more so-called "sportsmen" who are all about powerful ATVs, firepower and a wide-range of technological advantages that give a greater and greater edge to man and less of an edge to game.
Fair chase seems an increasingly archaic notion to this group, who rail against food-storage regulations, not for the regulations themselves, but because the regs represent the expansion of grizzly bears and the policies of the hated feds.
Logic, rationality and science are all readily sacrificed on the alter of blind fear, anger and an all-consuming greed to shoot and hook as much and as fast as you can -- nevermind if anything is left for future generations.
1. I believe in wilderness areas (and more of them in some areas) and multiple use areas (where multiple use extends to uses I dont directly partake in but this does not mean all uses or include unlimited abuses. It means responsible longterm management for this generation and the future).
2. I believe wilderness areas can be responsibly opened to bikes in at least some areas on a test basis. Horses / bikes different impacts; horses probably have bigger ones.
3. ATV access to more,appropriate and managed multiple use areas can be increased to accomodate public desire to access outdoor experiences by that means. This does not mean expansion to all areas ATVers want to reach but a posture of no increase does seem elitist to me (a hiker and not an ATVer)and it is not absolutely impossible to accomodate responsibly. This requires however require bigger budget for proper trails, environmental safeguards and remediation, and enforcement (posted restricted areas clearly at roadhead, bigger fines, perhaps criminal penalities or vehicle forfeiture for multiple restricted area violations)
4. Roads are valuable for outdoor access and often for fire safety activities as well. The road / wilderness black/white complete opposition is overstated. If both sides showed some willingness to compromise around the edges there might be more wilderness areas or at least national recreational areas and other semi-wilderness designated areas with a few local specific exceptions including minor road intrusion where a public purpose is served and the impact is modest. Showing a willingness for this does carry a threat for exceptions to be abused as they frequently have been but a completely rigid environmental position has many costs too (designations never made or reversed or not enforced or funded properly...).
5. More forest thinning as part of a true fire safety / management plan (not deep wilderness cutting, backdoor increase in general cut)supported by forest & fire experts would have my support. I'd rather pay for more defensible forest fire containment lines and landing sites /camps thru the forest than very expensive and dangerous containment after a huge fire develops and does far more damage than a "normal" fire does to the forest as ecological commmunity, timber source, recreation retreat.
>>I recently joined the TRCP and agree with many >>of their positions and disagree with others. I >>don’t believe we should lock up hunting and >>fishing domain for which only those financial >>able to hire outfitters or have their own >>horses are able to use. There should be middle >>ground that graces the uniting goal--- >>preservation of habitat and wildlife. We have a >>decreasing trend of new hunters and fishermen. >>Logic tells us this trend line will lead to the >>extinction of public sportsmen if it is not >>arrested. Let’s look to enablization efforts >>that keep seniors in the field longer and >>encourage more women and youths to enjoy the >>outdoors."
No offense intended, but these are false claims. In fact, you are pretty much entering the territory of spreading misinformation.
The parks do have easy access. So do most of the national forests. It's not hard to drive up to a campground in a national forest or a park and camp. There are close to 400,000 miles of roads in national forests. The Roadless plan changed none of this. When I go camping, often times I will setup at a car campground for a basecamp for further exploration. The one I stay at in the Gallatin NF is within a half mile of a million acre wilderness. Anyone can get to it. There is no access issue. WSA'a have fairly flexible management. Then of course there are the unprotected roadless areas, which number in the millions of acres. Some of these roadless areas allow for off road vehicle use, mountain bikes and so forth. What the Roadless Initiative by former USFS Chief Mike Dombeck did was keep the "status quo". All current uses of roadless areas would be intact. The one thing that would change is there would be no new roads built , and no net loss of rare roadless land. So all it essentialy did was just keep things from fragmenting. They were not granted full protection as an official wilderness area. But they were protected enough so that their wild character could not be destroyed by logging roads. And believe me, I'm not anti-road. I need them to get to areas in the national forests -we all do. I enjoy crusing the roads in the national forests, enjoying some of the fine scenery, camping and fishing along the way. But I also appreciate balance. I grew up fishing up in the U.P., around the Ottawa National forest. It's a million acre national forest with splendid hunting and fishing opportunities. But it's also been logged on almost every acre, except for a few wilderness tracts of 20,000 acres or less ( the Mcormick and Sylvania). Almost none of the original virgin forest has remained except in those two wilderness areas I mentioned ( both were private tracts donated to the USFS to keep as wilderness - one of the rare cases where a private landowners love of the land kept the axes at bay). So we have about 36,000 acres of untrammelled land in that national forest, versus a 900,000+ acres that have been roaded and cut. That's a very poor balance. And don't get me wrong - the Ottawa national forest is spectacular and incredibly wild compared to anything you can find in Illinois, and anything in Michigan outside of Isle Royale national park and the Procupine Moutnains state park. Coming from southern Wisconsin and Illinois, the Ottawa national forest feels like the Alaskan outback, and it serves a very useful purpose. But the balance is very poor on that national forest. The caribou are gone, so are most of the moose thanks to massive clearcuts that brought in too many white tail deer, which pass on a deadly brainworm to the moose. Rivers that used to bubble with coaster brook trout are now silting up.
And perhaps the saddest of all is that the Ottawa national forest only has one 4,000 acre area left that is an unprotected roadless area. They got it all - almost every acre.
Contrast that with the superior national forest, which is 2.1 million acres in size, and has a 1 million acre wilderness area (half of which was logged at some point). Moose thrive there. Wolves thrived there and repopulated the upper midwest because of the BWCAW. There are still a few small unprotected roadless areas in the Superior national forest.
Now that is balance.
Compared to the Superior National forest, the Ottawa is a tame go cart track. Sure, the Ottawa is still fantastic, but after visiting both national forests, you tell me which experience is "superior". And that's what we are talking about here - a top notch outdoor experience. And anyone can enjoy a great national forest or national park experience - wether young, old or disabled. The access is fantastic. Reinstating the roadless rule would have absolultey no effect on that, because all it did was keep the status quo.
Sean Paige, you are an embarrassment to sportsmen, and to anyone who enjoys the outdoors in general. It's sad to see that some people are still card carrying members of the "flat earth" club. You have no facts on your side. Your entire argument is emotional reactionarism. You fail to realize that the multiple use mandate not only means setting aside areas for resource management, but also setting aside areas for no resource management. See, "multiple use" doesn't mean log, mine and roadbuild every last acre. There are 400,000 miles of roads in the national forest, eight times the U.S. interstate system. Access is not an issue, and it never has been. That's just what the companies use to keep dividing the national forest user base so they can keep getting that nice, free timber from Uncle Sam. The USFS roadless and official wilderness areas also allow hunting, fishing, hiking, wildlife watching, rafting, snowshoeing, canoeing, mountain climbinb, family picnics, photography, and on and on.
Now tell me, are 400,000 miles of roads enough for you on 200 million acres of national forest? Or should we just road up the rest of it so we can all have one big go cart track with no wild areas? Imagine getting out of your automobile to hunt that mule deer, only to walk 100 yards and run into another road with another truck parked, and another hunter. *That's* the type of hunting experience you promote - a strange Disney-esque tame woodlot where the only choices in hunting are grouse and white tail deer because the best habait was eradicated. "Hey, as long as I can fish my neighbors bass pond, and shoot the penned in pheasants at my neighbors ranch, I'm an outdoorsman, right?"
Sean, you owe an apology to outdoor enthusiasts everywhere with your idiotic, misinformation filled articles. Shame on you.
Map of the nations wilderness areas:
http://www.wilderness.net/index.cfm?fuse=NWPS
http://www.wilderness.net/index.cfm?fuse=NWPS&sec=manage
1."The Bureau of Land Management manages about 270 million acres, 7,391,704 of which are Wilderness. Among other activities, the Bureau conserves these lands and their historical and cultural resources for the public's use and enjoyment. "
2."The Fish and Wildlife Service conserves the nation's wild animals and their habitats by managing a system of more than 500 national wildlife refuges and other areas, totaling about 91 million acres of land and water, 20,699,117 of which are Wilderness. "
3."The Forest Service manages national forests and grasslands. It conducts forestry research and works with forest managers on state and private lands. The Forest Service oversees nearly 200 million acres of national forest and other lands, 34,877,591 of which are Wilderness. "
4."The National Park Service was established to protect the nation's natural, historical, and cultural resources and to provide places for recreation. The Park Service manages 51 national parks and more than 300 national monuments, historic sites, memorials, seashores, and battlefields. It oversees 43,650,796 acres of Wilderness. "
Really? I thought supporting participation of seniors, women, and youths in field sports such as hunting is something we all could support. Did you know that in wilderness and proposed wilderness areas that wheeled game carts are prohibited? I don’t know of many seniors, women, or youths that will walk 10 miles over rugged terrain, shoot a 225lb deer, drag it 2 miles to a retrieval point, and then walk 5 miles to get their vehicle and drive to the retrieval location.
Regarding declining field sports participation see: http://federalaid.fws.gov/surveys/surveys.html
“A comparison of estimates from the 1991, 1996, and 2001 Surveys reveals that millions of Americans continue to enjoy wildlife recreation. While the number of sportspersons fell from 40 million in 1991 to 37.8 million in 2001, their expenditures increased from $53 billion (adjusted for inflation and comparability between Surveys) in 1991 to $70 billion in 2001.
Fishing — Fishing continues to be a favorite pastime in the United States. In 2001, 16% of the U.S. population 16 years old and older spent an average of 16 days fishing. Comparing results of the 2001 Survey and the 1996 Survey reveals that the number of all anglers declined 3% and overall fishing expenditures fell 17% — a 16% drop in trip and a 22% drop in equipment expenditures.
From 1991 to 2001, the number of all anglers declined 4% and expenditures increased 14%. Saltwater fishing increased 2% (not a statistically significant change)) but freshwater fishing declined by 8%.
Hunting — Six percent of the U.S. population 16 years old and older, over 13 million people, hunted in 2001. They spent an average of 18 days pursuing their sport. The number of all hunters declined by 7% from 1996 to 2001 and there was a 12% drop in expenditures (not a statistically significant change).
Comparing 1991 to 2001, the number of all hunters declined by 7%. Although the number of all hunters fell, the number of big game and migratory bird hunters remained constant. The decreases occurred in small game (-29%) and other animal (-26%) hunting. Hunting expenditures increased 29% from 1991 to 2001, primarily due to equipment expenditures.”
If you wish to have continuing conversation with me on this issue, I would appreciate that you use your real name. Just a suggestion.
Craig Moore
Your point about women, youth and seniors is not valid. 95% of the lower 48 is not roadless or wilderness. The majority of our public lands are roaded and developed. There is no access problem accept in the minds of companies who want to keep that fast, free buck from Uncle Sam.
"I don’t believe we should lock up hunting and fishing domain for which only those financial able to hire outfitters or have their own horses are able to use. There should be middle ground that graces the uniting goal--- preservation of habitat and wildlife. We have a decreasing trend of new hunters and fishermen. Logic tells us this trend line will lead to the extinction of public sportsmen if it is not arrested. Let’s look to enablization efforts that keep seniors in the field longer and encourage more women and youths to enjoy the outdoors."
Let's agree to disagree over the necessity of arresting the decline of field sports participation while perserving and enhancing habitat and wildlife.
Here is the quote I am referring to:
"I don’t believe we should lock up hunting and fishing domain for which only those financial able to hire outfitters or have their own horses are able to use."
Roadless and wilderness lands don't lock anyone out of anything. You can raft, float, hike, walk ,fish , hunt, wildlife watch and so forth. Also, if someone did need a road to access the national forests, they have 400,000 miles of roads in the national forests, more than 8 times the U.S. interstate system.
There is no "access issue" on national forest lands. It's just made up nonsense.
Go get'em tiger, I am done with you on this subject.
Send me an email at . I would like to discuss this subject with you in further detail.
Sincerely,
Brent