# Biden Administration Negotiating Away Hunting?



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

This would be unfortunate. I’ve read a lot of posts on this forum pontificating that the left is the champion of access to public lands. Pretty sad to see even the possibility that the Administration is negotiating away our rights to hunt on public lands. 






New joint filing could disrupt hunting opportunities in national wildlife refuges


Sportsmen’s Alliance calls on hunters to voice their concerns




www.gohunt.com


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

There is no way to know what's being negotiated at this point, is there? It could be bad or I could involve a compromise that only offers up CBD promises for increased funding in places that are already non-consumptive. Looks like we'll know by April 1 either way.

I've never been a fan of how these press releases are just slightly tweeked to look like different reporting. It makes sense for Sportsman's Alliance to get it's membership worked up, it's how special interest groups maintain their funds. But this seems unnecessarily preemptive. Come April 1 we may indeed have a reason to fight back. Or it could turn out the administration has a legitimate reason to avoid it going to trial. 🤷‍♂️


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I hope it’s much ado about nothing. If nobody reports on this and nothing changes, could April 1st be too late?

And the question needs to be answered: why are no hunters at this negotiation table? If hunting is closed on these public lands, isn’t that a bad thing for hunting and hunters and public land access and usage?


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

I assume that if your agenda is to shut down hunting it would be easier to just negotiate with people with the same agenda. No?


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

I assume that if your agenda is to shut down hunting it would be easier to just negotiate with people with the same agenda. No?


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

If you wanted to shut down hunting, you could just make it too expensive for the majority... Limited supply and extremely high ammo prices and the like. 

Oh wait...

-DallanC


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

It sounds like it is going along the normal path for this administration. Trump opened them up and Biden is looking to shut them down.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

"Normal path for this administration" It kinda depends on who's telling the story. Here's a quote from the Biden Administration's Interior Department August 31, 2021:
.........................................................................
The Interior Department on Monday announced an expansion of hunting and fishing rights across 2.1 million acres, which it tied to the Biden administration’s lands conservation target.
The announcement applies to a single national fish hatchery and 88 national wildlife refuges, according to an Interior announcement.
“Increasing access to outdoor recreation opportunities is essential to advancing the Administration’s commitment to the conservation stewardship of our public lands,” Interior Secretary Deb Haaland said in a statement. “Responsible hunting and fishing helps to promote healthy wildlife habitats while boosting local recreation economies.”

“Today’s announcement furthers a rich tradition of providing quality outdoor recreation experiences to the American people on our public lands,” Service Principal Deputy Director Martha Williams said in a statement. “By expanding these opportunities, we are enhancing the lives of millions of Americans while stimulating the national economy to which hunting and fishing contribute significantly.”
The announcement comes just over a year after the Trump administration announced an expansion of hunting on 2.3 million acres at nearly 150 refuges and hatcheries................................................................................


Despite the greater acreage in the 2020 announcement, the department called the latest expansion the greatest in recent history in terms of total hunting and fishing "opportunities." An Interior spokesperson told The Hill the 2020 expansion included only 859 new opportunities. The latest expansion will include 910 expanded or new opportunities, the department said.

I'm sure the anti-hunters and bird watchers think these new opportunities for we consumptive "outdoorsmen" are an overreach..unfair. They could be right, the majority of the voting population doesn't engage in consumptive recreation. 

The GoHunt story is taken from the Meateater. Isn't that the dude that ate raw bear meat and got trichinosis?


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

Vanilla said:


> This would be unfortunate. I’ve read a lot of posts on this forum pontificating that the left is the champion of access to public lands. Pretty sad to see even the possibility that the Administration is negotiating away our rights to hunt on public lands.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So in 2021 the Biden Administration expanded hunting and fishing opportunities on 88 public wildlife refuges, 2.1 million acres. Now we're approaching the midterm elections and "non-consumptive" outdoor voters are concerned they're getting screwed, after all, these are "public" lands.

I hope there's no net loss for hunters and fishermen during this Administration but public lands are for everyone...compromising, sharing, is important, is American.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

wyogoob said:


> The GoHunt story is taken from the Meateater. Isn't that the dude that ate raw bear meat and got trichinosis?


That's the problem with some of these internet stories. One has to exert as much work trying to figure out the agenda of the presenter as you do dealing with the facts at hand. 

That said, lets hope this is a nothingburger. I must admit that it would not surprise me if this could be another "yo-yo" effect like the monuments.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

Catherder said:


> That's the problem with some of these internet stories. One has to exert as much work trying to figure out the agenda of the presenter as you do dealing with the facts at hand.
> 
> That said, lets hope this is a nothingburger. I must admit that it would not surprise me if this could be another "yo-yo" effect like the monuments.


Yeah, I vote for sticking to the facts.......uh, like we did back in the day when the UWN was a political forum disguised as an outdoor forum.....ha 

I've doing a little background research on the issue, and the rags that are spinning it, and it looks like there's going to be a number of entities challenging the Biden Administration's new hunting and fishing opportunities on public lands.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

wyogoob said:


> So in 2021 the Biden Administration expanded hunting and fishing opportunities on 88 public wildlife refuges, 2.1 million acres. Now we're approaching the midterm elections and "non-consumptive" outdoor voters are concerned they're getting screwed, after all, these are "public" lands.
> 
> I hope there's no net loss for hunters and fishermen during this Administration but public lands are for everyone...compromising, sharing, is important, is American.


My challenge with this line of thinking is my hunting or fishing doesn’t prevent them from doing anything they want to do, so why should they want prevent me from doing what I want?

There are certainly areas of public lands/waters that are not appropriate for all activities, including hunting or fishing. And all those activities can have reasonable regulations, but giving up hunting and fishing opportunities to appease a tree hugger’s fragile sensitivities will never be a justification for closing fishing and/or hunting on public lands.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

Vanilla said:


> ...............................................
> 
> ...................................................but giving up hunting and fishing opportunities to appease a tree hugger’s fragile sensitivities will never be a justification for closing fishing and/or hunting on public lands.


Bingo!!! Winner, winner, chicken dinner!!! Exactly what the Biden Administration's Interior Department thinks. Besides giving hunter and fishermen more opportunities they recognize that hunting and fishing is a valid conservation tool.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

wyogoob said:


> Bingo!!! Winner, winner, chicken dinner!!! Exactly what the Biden Administration's Interior Department thinks. Besides giving hunter and fishermen more opportunities they recognize that hunting and fishing is a valid conservation tool.


I hope you’re right Goob!


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Vanilla said:


> I hope it’s much ado about nothing. If nobody reports on this and nothing changes, could April 1st be too late?
> 
> And the question needs to be answered: why are no hunters at this negotiation table? If hunting is closed on these public lands, isn’t that a bad thing for hunting and hunters and public land access and usage?


It's pretty common for negotiations to be limited to parties involved in the lawsuit, correct?

And I'm personally not against reporting I'm just tired of these special interest notifications being minorly tweaked to look just different enough to fake the appearance of actual reporting. It's not just this time, it's a common strategy and ploy that I think should be called out.

And I'll be writing my reps if they decide on a compromise that reduces access that it inconsistent with the laws they mentioned.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Yes, that is common. But one could argue if you are talking about taking away the rights of specific group of people on a public issue, those people are the aggrieved party. But no, not every public interest group gets a seat at the table for litigation negotiations.

It is not common for the government to negotiate a situation like this rather than litigate it and change the law if a court rules against them. When talking about public policy, that is generally how the system really works. Defend the position (if it’s defensible) and change it if courts rule against you.


----------



## Pumpgunner (Jan 12, 2010)

One thing that keeps sticking with me about all these public lands access fights is that it is completely in the interests of those who wish to take away public land rights to pit the users against each other. It's the ancient divide and conquer technique. If they can convince hunters that bird watchers and tree huggers are the enemy, and vice versa, then when it comes time to develop public land then instead of facing a solid front of public land advocates from across the spectrum then they will be facing a divided group that's a lot easier to overcome. ATVers, hunters, hikers, bird watchers, mountain bikers, hippies, and anyone else who loves public land only stands to lose if they can't work together.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

Pumpgunner said:


> One thing that keeps sticking with me about all these public lands access fights is that it is completely in the interests of those who wish to take away public land rights to pit the users against each other. It's the ancient divide and conquer technique. If they can convince hunters that bird watchers and tree huggers are the enemy, and vice versa, then when it comes time to develop public land then instead of facing a solid front of public land advocates from across the spectrum then they will be facing a divided group that's a lot easier to overcome. ATVers, hunters, hikers, bird watchers, mountain bikers, hippies, and anyone else who loves public land only stands to lose if they can't work together.


Yeah. I think we're doing better in that regard, at least on this issue. I can remember when the bird watchers use to harass waterfowlers out in the marsh. I don't see much of that anymore and most, or many, of those same bird watchers finally realized that duck stamp money paid for that Wildlife Refuge so now they buy duck stamps and encourage their peers, family and friends to do so.


----------



## T-dubs-42 (Sep 8, 2015)

Pumpgunner said:


> One thing that keeps sticking with me about all these public lands access fights is that it is completely in the interests of those who wish to take away public land rights to pit the users against each other. It's the ancient divide and conquer technique. If they can convince hunters that bird watchers and tree huggers are the enemy, and vice versa, then when it comes time to develop public land then instead of facing a solid front of public land advocates from across the spectrum then they will be facing a divided group that's a lot easier to overcome. ATVers, hunters, hikers, bird watchers, mountain bikers, hippies, and anyone else who loves public land only stands to lose if they can't work together.


I completely agree. Imagine also a time when all these other groups pitched in monetarily to this cause in the same proportions that hunters and fisherman do. That would be the time to get some serious work done. In this case it seems to me like the Sportsman's Alliance is taking themselves a little to seriously and see themselves as some sort of holy crusaders for sportsman. It turns out we have an entire service at the federal level that is dedicated to dealing with these exact issues and surprisingly enough it also turns out this service is listed in the lawsuit; amazing stuff. I feel sorry another special interest group has to stay home from this party, but they weren't invited. It's probably best the people hired to do this job are the ones doing it.


----------

