# TRCP Public Land survey



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

http://www.trcp.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/17144-TRCP-Presentation-d4-1.pdf

Good in depth study by TRCP that shows hunters and anglers of all Stars and Stripes are really on the same page. We may disagree on the details at times but it seems we are all on the same page for the most part.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> http://www.trcp.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/17144-TRCP-Presentation-d4-1.pdf
> 
> Good in depth study by TRCP that shows hunters and anglers of all Stars and Stripes are really on the same page. We may disagree on the details at times but it seems we are all on the same page for the most part.


Very interesting. The highest percentage of sportsmen are southern white Republicans. A Trump supporter from Utah is quoted, "Pollution of water is a big issue and we need to improve the quality of our water and help conserve this great resource." Ironic, given Trump's actions against the Clean Water Act less than a week ago:

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/trump-administration-moves-withdraw-clean-water-rule-48308940

Also, the goals listed on page 18 were significantly more important for those who voted for Clinton than Trump. There seems to be a bit of cognitive dissonance among Trump supporters, because if those goals really are important to them, why would they support an administration that acts against conservation at every opportunity?


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

paddler said:


> Very interesting. The highest percentage of sportsmen are southern white Republicans. A Trump supporter from Utah is quoted, "Pollution of water is a big issue and we need to improve the quality of our water and help conserve this great resource." Ironic, given Trump's actions against the Clean Water Act less than a week ago:
> 
> http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/trump-administration-moves-withdraw-clean-water-rule-48308940
> 
> Also, the goals listed on page 18 were significantly more important for those who voted for Clinton than Trump. There seems to be a bit of cognitive dissonance among Trump supporters, because if those goals really are important to them, why would they support an administration that acts against conservation at every opportunity?


Your deep seated, seething hatred of republicans always comes out regardless of the conversation. Must be terrible hating people just because of their political affiliation like you do.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

LostLouisianian said:


> Your deep seated, seething hatred of republicans always comes out regardless of the conversation. Must be terrible hating people just because of their political affiliation like you do.


Just discussing the survey, LL. Calm down.


----------



## OriginalOscar (Sep 5, 2016)

paddler said:


> Very interesting. The highest percentage of sportsmen are southern white Republicans. A Trump supporter from Utah is quoted, "Pollution of water is a big issue and we need to improve the quality of our water and help conserve this great resource." Ironic, given Trump's actions against the Clean Water Act less than a week ago:
> 
> http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/trump-administration-moves-withdraw-clean-water-rule-48308940
> 
> Also, the goals listed on page 18 were significantly more important for those who voted for Clinton than Trump. There seems to be a bit of cognitive dissonance among Trump supporters, because if those goals really are important to them, why would they support an administration that acts against conservation at every opportunity?


Page 4 - 37% Republican, 36% Independent, 20% Democrat. How again are Democrats sportsmen?


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

OriginalOscar said:


> Page 4 - 37% Republican, 36% Independent, 20% Democrat. How again are Democrats sportsmen?


I know. Their methodology says they set quotas so that the surveys were proportional by region, but only 18% were from the west while 37% were from the south. Not sure I fully understand that. But, as a 65 year old democrat from the west who lives in an urban area, I apparently represent a very small demographic. But then I spend a lot more on hunting and fishing than the mean, also.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

How did a poll that highlights important overlap in values and priorities between the political parties turn into a partisan fight?

I find it heartening that there is so much common ground. People clearly don't vote for candidates for a single cause so the question remains how do we foster unity outside of elections on issues that so clearly affect us all?


----------



## OriginalOscar (Sep 5, 2016)

backcountry said:


> How did a poll that highlights important overlap in values and priorities between the political parties turn into a partisan fight?
> 
> I find it heartening that there is so much common ground. People clearly don't vote for candidates for a single cause so the question remains how do we foster unity outside of elections on issues that so clearly affect us all?


See post #2 where paddler went identity politics and victim.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

backcountry said:


> How did a poll that highlights important overlap in values and priorities between the political parties turn into a partisan fight?
> 
> I find it heartening that there is so much common ground. People clearly don't vote for candidates for a single cause so the question remains how do we foster unity outside of elections on issues that so clearly affect us all?


Good question. It's clear that single issue voting sportsmen should vote straight Democratic. Whether it be preventing the transfer of public lands, or preserving sage grouse habitat, or supporting the Clean Water Act, or restricting drilling, or providing funding for conservation, or keeping our national monuments, sportsmen are strongly in favor. However, the current administration has been very active against all of these interests. Further, the Republicans have long pursued an agenda exactly the opposite of what sportsmen desire. Why is that? Why do sportsmen vote for people who act against us? And, how do we build unity when Democrats are vilified for voting for candidates whose policy positions are in the best interests of sportsmen?


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

paddler said:


> Further, the Republicans have long pursued an agenda exactly the opposite of what sportsmen desire. Why is that? Why do sportsmen vote for people who act against us? And, how do we build unity when Democrats are vilified for voting for candidates whose policy positions are in the best interests of sportsmen?


Simple - Republicans, by nature, are pro-Capitalism and lean toward a free market economy. Democrats lean more Socialist and a sense of commonality. To have a strong free market Capitalist economy, you need reliable energy. Unfortunately, the trade-off is compromising the "integrity" of some habitat, "clean" air, and "clean" water.

What I think Mr. Trump is doing in "trying to cut a deal" is to make both sides of the isle work toward a solution that works for everyone. Only a 5 year old thinks compromise doesn't apply to them...


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Paddle,

I think I understand the heart and intent of your statements even if I disagree with the tone. There were alot of take aways from the last election for the democrats. I think one is that the old narrative about party identity is not longer working. I think that includes the assumption of black and white clarity regarding conservation you stated above. Clearly that message did not appeal to enough voters to win votes for the executive, congress or state elections.

Related to that is the need to work with greater ambiguity and being less harsh in judgement to those who carry differing worldviews. If democrats truly think their land policies are the best and only solutions than they need to do a better job recruiting citizens. There are a fair amount of moderate and independent citizens who are willing to ignore a limited sense of party loyalty if/when the message and policy content have enough appeal. I don't have a simple solution to that but I suggest it begins with more listening to those people and less partisan judgement. I recognize that will never be a viable solution to some on the left given the way many of us value party identity but I am hopeful enough folks will see that light to foster change.

The old guard is losing on the left. And I firmly believe that includes environmentalist. I actually believe the method of achieving many of the "wins" over the last 1-2 decades paved the way for the "losses" the left sees happening in land and resource management right now. There seems to be a predictable "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" to any form of politics. The vehemence and certainty of groups like SUWA and Sierra Club fostered a similar resistance on the right that we are seeing in full force. 

I don't have to agree with those on the right when I listen but its in my best interest to understand the content of their values if I want to see sustainable change. Its uncomfortable but that means I need to accept more ambiguity. I can still passionately disagree with public statements that can be verified (like the Brian Head Fire rhetoric) but I have learned that attacking the people and their political identity often causes more harm than good. People will fall back to established camps if they believe they are being attacked which seems to be the MO of most of conversations involving land management and conservation.

I am imperfect at applying these lessons myself but I am trying. I abandoned any membership with the organizations on the left years ago even though I value many of the same outcomes. There have just been too many red flags over the last decade for me to ignore. Which is a shame as I think there are plenty of goals that could have been achieved if the rancor of partisan identity hadn't escalated to this extent.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

Well, the survey shows that Democrats (Clinton voters), rate the 10 environmental issues on page 19 as "very important" approximately 24% more than Trump voters. But, obviously, people don't vote solely on environmental issues, even those who identify as sportsmen. Take Utah as an example, party affiliation is a cultural, perhaps even religious issue for many. So long as that is the case, and people vote party instead of policy, I'm quite pessimistic that unity will come to pass.

Noel's rhetoric was mentioned above. It was inflammatory and completely completely devoid of truth, and this is a pattern of behavior. Trump and his administration are a disaster. The Senate health care plan has a favorability rating of 18%, yet they persist in trying to push it through. Will any of these people pay a price? I don't think so. Unity has no chance unless and until the electorate changes. Personally, I will resist those who wish to harm the environment to the best of my ability.


----------



## gdog (Sep 13, 2007)

High Desert Elk said:


> Only a 5 year old thinks compromise doesn't apply to them...


...or a Utah Republican :mrgreen:


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Interesting that 90% of Clinton voters think it is very important that public lands are preserved for future generations. Yet only 71% of those same voters think it's very important to ensure access for activities such as hunting and fishing. Maybe this is illustrative of the issue for conservative leaning sportsmen and why they don't buy into the left? 

I think it's a major misnomer to assert that the democratic platform is friendly to hunters and anglers. Obviously, without healthy environmental conditions and wildlife populations, hunting and fishing won't exist. But extremist environmentalists, almost all of which lean left, are not friends to me as a sportsman. Just as proposals by "sportsmen" that restrict large swaths of public marshes and reserve them only for a certain type of hunting that less than 3% of waterfowlers in the state utilize. Some people just want to do things their own way, and keep everyone else out. Not all those people that want this register as Republican, as we've learned from experience. 

Where are the results of this survey for those of us smart enough not to vote for either of those two people listed?


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

Vanilla said:


> Interesting that 90% of Clinton voters think it is very important that public lands are preserved for future generations. Yet only 71% of those same voters think it's very important to ensure access for activities such as hunting and fishing. Maybe this is illustrative of the issue for conservative leaning sportsmen and why they don't buy into the left?
> 
> I think it's a major misnomer to assert that the democratic platform is friendly to hunters and anglers. Obviously, without healthy environmental conditions and wildlife populations, hunting and fishing won't exist. But extremist environmentalists, almost all of which lean left, are not friends to me as a sportsman. Just as proposals by "sportsmen" that restrict large swaths of public marshes and reserve them only for a certain type of hunting that less than 3% of waterfowlers in the state utilize. Some people just want to do things their own way, and keep everyone else out. Not all those people that want this register as Republican, as we've learned from experience.
> 
> Where are the results of this survey for those of us smart enough not to vote for either of those two people listed?


Okay, V, this has to be one of your more ridiculous arguments. The question you refer to shows that indeed 71% of Clinton voters voted "Yes" on the access question, the sixth item down on page 19. You failed to mention 71% is actually higher than the 67% of Trump voters who stated it was very important.

Your statement that the Democratic agenda isn't friendly to hunters and fishermen is demonstrably false. Do the math like I did. The responses to every item on page 19 are higher for Clinton voters than Trump voters by an average of over 24%. If you need help with the calculations, PM me.

Finally, let me be clear. Anyone who voted for Trump and all those who either did not vote at all or voted third party enabled Trump's election. You own all of the anti-environmental actions committed by him. Pruitt's appointment, rolling back the CWA, attempting to delay the methane rule, withdrawing from the Paris Accord, Zinke's appointment, the BS national monument review, to name a few, plus all the future damage done in his attempt to erase Obama's legacy. All of it. You think that was smart?? Stupid is as stupid does.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

Vanilla, true statement(s). This is apparent with the reintroduction programs of wolves and grizzlies without state input and management as the apex predator, not hunters, to wildlife management of elk, deer, and...

Look at CA and where they are on predator control vs. wildlife management.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

High Desert Elk said:


> Vanilla, true statement(s). This is apparent with the reintroduction programs of wolves and grizzlies without state input and management as the apex predator, not hunters, to wildlife management of elk, deer, and...
> 
> Look at CA and where they are on predator control vs. wildlife management.


Idaho and Montana were part of the working group for the Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Plan while Idaho, Montana, Washington and Wyoming were all included in the Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan. State agencies often have a strong presence on species listed by the ESA. For evidence, see the attached recovery plans:

Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf

Grizzly Bear


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

paddler said:


> Finally, let me be clear. Anyone who voted for Trump and all those who either did not vote at all or voted third party enabled Trump's election. You own all of the anti-environmental actions committed by him. Pruitt's appointment, rolling back the CWA, attempting to delay the methane rule, withdrawing from the Paris Accord, Zinke's appointment, the BS national monument review, to name a few, plus all the future damage done in his attempt to erase Obama's legacy. All of it. You think that was smart?? Stupid is as stupid does.


Paddle,

That logic is dangerous and flawed. By that process anyone that voted for Obama "own" all his actions as well, from the civilian deaths in the middle east to the worst degradation of press freedom of any modern presidency (Trump's record is currently incomplete). That is not quite how the process works. If that is a common mantra on the left than I forsee many more losses in the future.

To the original intent of this thread, those who seem to align more with conservative ideals have highlighted just a few reasons why the black and white idea that democrats are the only option for those focused on conservation is a flawed conclusion. There is more than one way to skin a cat.

For example, agencies long ago realized the ESA would be more successful with local cooperation. Over time the federal government created opportunities for Safe Harbor Agreements and Habitat Conservation Plans that recognized incidental take was likely to happen but could be offset/mitigated with cooperation between land owners and the government. More often than not we see these programs encouraging those with differing ideals reaching across the aisle in the name of compromise that respects private land ownership but also conservation of endangered species. Cooperation versus compliance is a big deal in the realm of human dynamics of wildlife management.

I think there is clearly some history between several forum members here. That said, I just don't see how those on the left lobbing partisan and ideological grenades from decades old bunkers will lead to recruiting new members or support. I get the desire/need for resistance against elected officials but that seems like a dangerous and counter productive tool to be used against the very voters you need to win movements and elections.

Worth a consideration, or not. Who truly knows what the future holds? But if the past and present are any indication than these issues come down to capturing the vote of moderates and independents, not the loyalist on either wing of the political spectrum. The poll this thread started with seems evidence that there is plenty of those folks to engage if you have the right message and messenger.


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

paddler said:


> Vanilla said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting that 90% of Clinton voters think it is very important that public lands are preserved for future generations. Yet only 71% of those same voters think it's very important to ensure access for activities such as hunting and fishing. Maybe this is illustrative of the issue for conservative leaning sportsmen and why they don't buy into the left?
> ...


And as a Clinton voter you own 50 million butchered dead babies since roe v wade


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Paddler, you can yell as loud as you want. You can continue with ad hominem attacks. It doesn't mean any of the rest of us have to buy the crap you're selling. 

Raw raw, go team.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

backcountry said:


> Paddle,
> 
> That logic is dangerous and flawed. By that process anyone that voted for Obama "own" all his actions as well, from the civilian deaths in the middle east to the worst degradation of press freedom of any modern presidency (Trump's record is currently incomplete). That is not quite how the process works. If that is a common mantra on the left than I forsee many more losses in the future.


Certainly voters aren't responsible for unforeseen future acts by those for whom they vote. Trumps anti-environment agenda was a big part of his campaign, and has been a Republican mantra since before the "Drill, Baby, Drill" of the 2008 election. He promised to roll back environmental protections acts and his administration is doing so at every turn. His supporters voted for this and we are now reaping the rewards. Indeed, they own it. Period.

Some think that those who voted third party or not at all share no blame for Trump. However, the election offered a binary choice, only Trump and Clinton had any chance of being elected president. Anyone who did not vote for Clinton bears responsibility for Trump's election and his stated agenda, just as if Clinton had won those who didn't vote for Trump would have shared responsibility for her administration had she prevailed.

I'm incredulous that you mention any negative impact you think Obama may have had on freedom of the press given Trump's war on the media. That's just crazy. Saying his record is incomplete, while true, doesn't mean we cannot draw reasonable conclusions about his actions thus far. His attacks are completely unprecedented. Each day we hear about "Fake News", WWE wrestling CNN to the ground, attacking reporters personally, etc. Really? Have you been under a rock somewhere?



backcountry said:


> To the original intent of this thread, those who seem to align more with conservative ideals have highlighted just a few reasons why the black and white idea that democrats are the only option for those focused on conservation is a flawed conclusion. There is more than one way to skin a cat.
> 
> For example, agencies long ago realized the ESA would be more successful with local cooperation. Over time the federal government created opportunities for Safe Harbor Agreements and Habitat Conservation Plans that recognized incidental take was likely to happen but could be offset/mitigated with cooperation between land owners and the government. More often than not we see these programs encouraging those with differing ideals reaching across the aisle in the name of compromise that respects private land ownership but also conservation of endangered species. Cooperation versus compliance is a big deal in the realm of human dynamics of wildlife management.
> 
> I think there is clearly some history between several forum members here. That said, I just don't see how those on the left lobbing partisan and ideological grenades from decades old bunkers will lead to recruiting new members or support. I get the desire/need for resistance against elected officials but that seems like a dangerous and counter productive tool to be used against the very voters you need to win movements and elections.


I harbor no animosity for anyone. V apparently doesn't care much for me, no big deal. But I find many of his posts, like the most recent, intentionally deceptive. To say that Clinton voters don't think protecting access for hunters and fishermen is important because just 71% responded favorably was ridiculous. As I said in a previous post, I just provide context. The context is this case is that the study showed that 67% of Trump voters responded favorably. Just another example of V posting rubbish. I thought it important to clarify for those here who might not review the study and could therefore have been misled. V is V, no big deal. When folks post rubbish, I will point it out when time allows.



backcountry said:


> Worth a consideration, or not. Who truly knows what the future holds? But if the past and present are any indication than these issues come down to capturing the vote of moderates and independents, not the loyalist on either wing of the political spectrum. The poll this thread started with seems evidence that there is plenty of those folks to engage if you have the right message and messenger.


More than anything I think the study demonstrates that people profess strong feelings about conservation, but those beliefs are left behind when they enter the voting booth. Be it blind party affiliation, or a litany of other issues; healthcare, or immigration, or tax policy, or gun control, or Planned Parenhood and a woman's right to make her own reproductive decisions, or gay marriage, or whatever, protecting the environment takes a back seat.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

backcountry said:


> Idaho and Montana were part of the working group for the Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Plan while Idaho, Montana, Washington and Wyoming were all included in the Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan. State agencies often have a strong presence on species listed by the ESA. For evidence, see the attached recovery plans:
> 
> Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf
> 
> Grizzly Bear


State agencies only have the presence as a formality...

Initially, they are hardly allowed to govern it. NMDGF has lost that battle for the Mexican Wolf to the Fed FWS.

The states only manage when the feds allow them to.

The point is, the bureaucracy would prefer animals to manage population, not humans.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

Paddler, no, I don't believe there is a push to destroy the environment. When the EPA can kick a rancher off their property because they decide a dry wash is now a navigable waterway, something needs to be done and some sense brought to the madness.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

paddler said:


> I'm incredulous that you mention any negative impact you think Obama may have had on freedom of the press given Trump's war on the media. That's just crazy. Saying his record is incomplete, while true, doesn't mean we cannot draw reasonable conclusions about his actions thus far. His attacks are completely unprecedented. Each day we hear about "Fake News", WWE wrestling CNN to the ground, attacking reporters personally, etc. Really? Have you been under a rock somewhere?


That paragraph is telling and has parallels to your overall political statements. Did you know the US had a unusually steep drop in its Press Freedom rating during Obama's eight years in office? This isn't my opinion but tracked by several non-partisan agencies like the Reporters Without Borders. For 8 years these organizations down-ranked the US which got little to no attention with the mainstream left (hence my lack of surprise with your "incredulous" comment). You are correct to be concerned about the theme of the Trump administration but where were those clarion calls when Obama: denied an unprecedented # of FOIA requests, denied press credentials to photojournalist and only allowed for the release of state sponsored photographs of major events, or Obama bypassing the traditional press corp and instead granting audience to friendlier media? Sound familiar? It should as he did much of the same thing Trump has done and been chastised for but the left was largely complacent when their man was in office.

How is this parallel to the topic of conservation? There is a logical inconsistency in not turning the content of constructive criticism personally and politically inward. At a minimum it provides ample ammunition for any opposition and at its worst it exposes the unstable ground an entire movement is based upon.

You seem to clearly be a die hard democrat. That is fine and I can wholeheartedly support voting your values. But voting your values is not the same as engaging in personal attacks. Do you see the tone of comments like "do you live under a rock" directed at people who have alot of overlap with your values/goals (I am a moderate independent but have left-leaning tendencies with land management)? Science and voter's values don't always align well with actual land and wildlife management.

I have to sincerely ask....are you willing to change your views and political behavior? If not, how can you sincerely expect others on forums like this to see past your aggressive posts and be vulnerable to the science you seem to value or any constructive criticism you provide? There is some valuable information in your posts buts all too often buried between insults. That criticism should be problematic if your interactions here are intended in any degree to be persuasive.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

High Desert Elk said:


> State agencies only have the presence as a formality...
> 
> Initially, they are hardly allowed to govern it. NMDGF has lost that battle for the Mexican Wolf to the Fed FWS.
> 
> ...


I can understand that perspective, High Desert Elk, but think there is clearly more nuance to that reality. The listing of a species is only the start of the process whose ultimate goal is delisting (hence the recent attempt by the USFWS) which requires extensive relationships with the state wildlife agencies, hence their active role at the table. The delisting criteria the working groups create is often a compromise between the competing values of the stakeholders involved.

Clearly, once a species is listed as endangered the ESA stipulates that the federal agencies become accountable for the recovery. So we agree that in some fashion states lose authority. But there are two caveats. First, the states had potential to manage these species (at least this is largely true for species other than migratory waterfowl) in a sustainable manner without federal interference. Two, the ESA mandates collaboration with state agencies and is a pivotal step for maintained recovery after delisting, hence their roles on working groups and the Memorandum of Understandings we normally see during the process. These aren't formalities but have real life consequences to how and why species are delisted and then maintained. The USFWS (and NOAA for many non-big game speciess) have have authority while listed but that is intended to be a temporary guardianship.

I also think the statements about human role in management are significantly more complex. Clearly the listing as endangered requires some of the most invasive, active management efforts by people. That is an inherent reality of the system. But you are correct, harvesting, what the ESA calls take, is severely limited. That seems self-evident given the species that make it through the gauntlet of listing are on the verge of extinction or extirpation. Disagreeing with the ESA is a completely different conversation but for now the law requires rigid practices that exclude the state permitted hunting of listed species. A change to that reality is up to Congress, not the managing agencies.

I am less familiar with the exact relationship between NMDGF and the feds. The timeline shows that up until 2010 they collaborated on the recovery plan and the NMDGF actually had an MOU with the USFWS. I don't fully understand why New Mexico does not currently have an MOU regarding the species but the statement that "Initially, they are hardly allowed to govern it.... NMDGF has lost that battle for the Mexican Wolf to the Fed FWS" is inconsistent with the documented history of close collaboration. NMDGF was actually a co-defendant alongside the USFWS in a 2010 lawsuit filed by private groups. I am willing to dig deeper into why that changed (would help if you can provide some primary documents or authoritative sources) but the state had more than a decade of collaboration with the feds before their recent parting.

I would think digging deeper into the diverse approaches to predator management would require its own thread. Its a complex subject and I think is emblematic of how difficult creating policy is compared to the simplistic questions this study builds consensus from.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

backcountry said:


> That paragraph is telling and has parallels to your overall political statements. Did you know the US had a unusually steep drop in its Press Freedom rating during Obama's eight years in office? This isn't my opinion but tracked by several non-partisan agencies like the Reporters Without Borders. For 8 years these organizations down-ranked the US which got little to no attention with the mainstream left (hence my lack of surprise with your "incredulous" comment). You are correct to be concerned about the theme of the Trump administration but where were those clarion calls when Obama: denied an unprecedented # of FOIA requests, denied press credentials to photojournalist and only allowed for the release of state sponsored photographs of major events, or Obama bypassing the traditional press corp and instead granting audience to friendlier media? Sound familiar? It should as he did much of the same thing Trump has done and been chastised for but the left was largely complacent when their man was in office.
> 
> How is this parallel to the topic of conservation? There is a logical inconsistency in not turning the content of constructive criticism personally and politically inward. At a minimum it provides ample ammunition for any opposition and at its worst it exposes the unstable ground an entire movement is based upon.
> 
> ...


Sorry, you seemingly compared Obama's relationship with the press to Trump's, and appeared to give Trump a pass because he's still in office. A more accurate view is that Obama never met with Russian officials in the oval office, barring the American press while allowing foreign press access. Obama never threatened to end daily press briefings, never sought to delegitimize the press, never said a female reporter had "blood...






He never had a reporter forcibly ejected from a press conference:






Obama, nor any other president, continuously called the press "Fake News", or "The Enemy of the People":






The difference between the transparency with regard to the press between the present and previous administrations is stark, even laughable. Your statements downplay those differences, and I take exception.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Its not a zero sum game, Paddler. I have plenty of criticisms of Trump's behavior but he is still in his first year in office and the full weight of his policies hasn't been rated by the relevant non-partisan groups. When they ultimately do rate him I would not all be shocked that the press freedom index drops again. That said, there is a fundamental difference between rhetoric of a bombastic personality and the actual measures of the executive branch. You can see that right? And I think you missed the point of that comparison; I'll take that a failure on my part to convey my idea well enough.

The questions I have asked stick and are actually relevant to the poll. I also don't agree with the ideas of many of those here or the way in which they attack other ideas but it has become plenty obvious to me that the left is losing because of the type of strategy you employ on these conservation topics. And when the left is pushing moderate independents, including folks who voted Clinton, away what does that say about the viability of their candidates and policies in the years to come? The last election cycle has shown I am not alone in that conclusion. 

I forecast this strategy of just constantly telling right-leaning sportsmen that they are politically wrong in their convictions and responsible for all the perceived environmental ills in the years to come will only lead to greater losses. Sadly, the left has been bleeding membership and representation and doesn't seem to have healed that wound nonetheless figured out what caused it.

I wish your the best, Paddler, even if we clearly disagree on strategy.

-Signed a left-leaning former USFS employee with a degree in wildlife biology (emphasis in human dynamics) who would be more than happy to see my political concerns proven wrong in the years to come


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

I am accustomed to making judgements based on incomplete information. It's my job. I don't see a need to wait to pass judgement on Trump. I saw all I needed to see with his birther BS. Indeed, his entire life story is predictive of how this presidency will go down. His actions since taking office only confirm my predictions. The only question is how much damage he will do before leaving office.

I never said it was a zero sum game. I said it was silly to criticize Obama's relationship with the press and his administration's transparency in light of Trump's actions.

I don't agree with the assumption that the left, or moderates, are losing. Clinton won the popular vote by nearly three million votes, despite Russia's interference in favor of Trump and probable collusion by the Trump campaign. I hope for and expect a correction in the future. Trump's favorability is in the toilet, just where it belongs. I do not see myself as a wild-eyed liberal, rather a moderate with a prediliction for conservation. I'm also realistic enough to know that winning over Trump's die hard supporters is a tall order, and convincing others, as on this forum, that they're voting against their own interests is nearly impossible. Won't keep me from trying, though.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

Paddler, keep digging...


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

I guess I will bite on this one.

I can do without all the hyper-partisanship, but I did think this comment was worth a reply. My comments refer to the State of Utah and not necessarily nationally.



paddler said:


> There seems to be a bit of cognitive dissonance among Trump supporters, because if those goals really are important to them, why would they support an administration that acts against conservation at every opportunity?


It does seem that in many issues regarding the outdoors, (TPL/public lands policy, stream access, the environment) the Democratic platform represents a stand far more favorable to the Sportsman than what the Republicans have done. IMO, it *should* be an opening for "D"s to have a bit more electoral success than they currently have here. However, it seems like the "D"s have never had much interest in making these issues a major point in their campaigns.

Case in point.

In the last race for Governor, I thought Weinholtz was a viable candidate. (Admittedly, I've never been a big fan of Sherbert) Based on all the recent actions by the legislature and our congressional delegation, TPL was an issue in the news and something on peoples minds. I wanted to see Weinholtz use it as a major issue in his ads and speeches. What happened? The only mention I saw in his ads was showing a 2 second pic of a scruffy looking dude in hunter orange. Yeah, that'll work. IMO, "D"s are missing the boat. They seem more content to appeal to their liberal partisans living in Salt Lake City and call the rest of the citizenry names than actually really trying be competitive in a real election here and going after issues (like the ones we talk about here!) that appeal to a broader cross section of voters.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

Catherder said:


> I guess I will bite on this one.
> 
> I can do without all the hyper-partisanship, but I did think this comment was worth a reply. My comments refer to the State of Utah and not necessarily nationally.
> 
> ...


Interesting point. It would be nice if Dems highlighted the differences between the parties on environmental issues. Although, judging from the discussions on this forum, where I do the best I can to illustrate these obvious differences between the Repulican's anti-environment agenda and the pro-conservation agenda of the Democrats, perhaps they think their message would fall on deaf ears.


----------



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

High Desert I've got to ask, what would be so bad about the very animals who managed things long before we got here to become a part of managing things again? I can't see a downside to that personally, as an outdoor enthusiast I would love to have wolves restored to their original habitats, including Utah. Sure it will be an interesting and difficult transition at first, but who's to say that wolves couldn't be integrated into a new style of management? It's such a young concept that to strike it down would be a direct blow to an iconic and vital species. As a sportsman sure you will lose a trophy bull every now and again, but to me hunting has never come close to being about the size of the animal, it has been about the ability I have to participate in an environment where I don't really belong and to go head to head with some magnificent creatures on their terms. Although humans, most directly hunters are the most important part of a successful management system, I believe we should interfere with nature and it's courses as little as possible, because in the end that's what conservation is about right? As far as the whole state vs. fed argument. I will take the USFW over the UDWR any day, more experience, better track record.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

T-dubs,

The safety cages at school bus stops in and around some of the areas where wolves have been reintroduced (in NM) tells me something isn't right. I would never put USFWS ahead of NMDGF. They don't have a better track record. 

Why do you say you don't belong in the environment? Man is and has been the apex predator for quite some time now. Reintroduced predator species need protection because...?

Normally, those in favor of a "good idea" have the least to lose. Ranchers in my state hate the wolves.


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

It's totally silly to take the position that any specific political party or ideology is 'for' or against sportsmen. The fact is that only sportsmen are for sportsmen. 

For the first 30 years of my life, I got to experience how the un-controlled left treated sportsmen. This included punitive laws, gun control, denial of access to public lands, harassment by govt officials, collusion with big business, good 'ole boy deals, etc.

Now I have spent a decade of my life in Utah and I see the same types of things from the un-controlled right. 

What we as sportsmen have and cherish in the form of resources and rights are very valuable. Those in power from either side will always strive to take or control that which is valuable.

Sorry for the intrusion of reality. Back to the nose-thumbing and name calling.-----SS


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

Springville Shooter said:


> It's totally silly to take the position that any specific political party or ideology is 'for' or against sportsmen. The fact is that only sportsmen are for sportsmen.
> 
> For the first 30 years of my life, I got to experience how the un-controlled left treated sportsmen. This included punitive laws, gun control, denial of access to public lands, harassment by govt officials, collusion with big business, good 'ole boy deals, etc.
> 
> ...


SS you nailed it bro! But unfortunately too many ideologues cannot see the forest for the trees. Having had family members and very close friends in high government positions of both parties I have seen how these people operate. One thing is said to the constituents to gain favor and another thing is said behind closed doors with the power brokers. It is nothing more than two sides of the same coin and only fools don't realize it.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

High Desert Elk said:


> Why do you say you don't belong in the environment? Man is and has been the apex predator for quite some time now. Reintroduced predator species need protection because...?


because residents of the West exterminated or extirpated most wolf species with impunity. We are one of the few species (not only) that has the tendency to kill prey to the point of extinction. Most of other animals deal with direct and indirect consequences of reduced prey populations and are held in check in some fashion or another.

Healthy ecosystems have healthy populations of predators. They more than just hunt prey, the role we most often compare with hunting. There has been plenty of study to support the hypothesis that apex predators directly/indirectly create a "trophic cascade" in terrestrial and even aquatic ecosystems. There is the Yellowstone study (made recently famous by the unfortunately exaggerated/overly-confident video) but also studies throughout North America, including the effects of surviving populations in Canada. While ecology is a relatively young science the findings of the last decade or so have actually exceeded the predictions most biologist originally had about the role of apex predators.

The role of humans is clearly accepted by wildlife management. Its legally inconsistent with the temporary status the ESA grantsdesignation a species. Once a predator is delisted the state agencies are still required to sustain populations but that can often involve sport hunting.

High Desert Elk, do you have a recommended solution that fits within the parameters of the ESA? I know plenty of ranchers despise the reintroduction of wolves. I can understand that perspective given not only the financial loss but also the broader impact it has on their life and culture. But unless the ESA is overturned (which I would resist), then we are stuck upholding its policy. Thoughts?


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

That in itself is the reason for the reintroduction program(s) - to take humans out of the equation as the only variable to control population. Humans fulfill that roll quite nicely without dropping the string or pulling the trigger through loss of habitat from development of ANYkind. Road kill ranks at the top of the list as well.

Just because past actions "exterminated" the existence of a species does not mean you do not belong to the environment. Would we belong better if we wore loin cloths and carried sharpened sticks tip hardened in a fire? At what point, if ever, did humans ever belong...?

These studies most cite and read are based on removing humans as the only means to species population control. Pure science as food for thought when weighing in on all possible aspects and impacts.

So - introduce wolves, bears, or mountain lions to control population 24/7 as long as people don't complain about lost hunting opportunity from reduced perimit numbers.

I would love to see a thriving population of wolves and grizzlies on the Wasatch Front, but good luck keeping them there...


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

High Desert Elk said:


> That in itself is the reason for the reintroduction program(s) - to take humans out of the equation as the only variable to control population. Humans fulfill that roll quite nicely without dropping the string or pulling the trigger through loss of habitat from development of ANYkind. Road kill ranks at the top of the list as well.
> 
> Just because past actions "exterminated" the existence of a species does not mean you do not belong to the environment. Would we belong better if we wore loin cloths and carried sharpened sticks tip hardened in a fire? At what point, if ever, did humans ever belong...?
> 
> ...


99.999999% of all extinct species became extinct due to factors other than man or man made....FACT


----------



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

Like I said there's no easy way to control the re-introduction of a top predator species, but we'll never know how to cope with and manage them if they aren't introduced on a broader scale. It'll take years and years before an effective system that can please ranchers (to a certain degree cuz they are some cranky folks) and control large big game populations as well as predator populations. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't. Like backcountry said, so far the results have been postive, particularly out of the Yellowstone region, with some bumps along the way. I think a strong predator presence in the local ecosystems would be immensely positive for the local deer and elk herds, as well as the outdoorsman, and hey if the animals can manage themselves effectively, and we simply participate and minimize some contact, that'll give the USFW and State agencies less opportunities to screw up. When I say I don't belong I meant I feel that humans are far enough removed from when we were a integral part of the environment, relying on it for everything in life. So I guess I'm kind of a reintroduction myself in that sense.


----------

