# Sportsmen's Heritage Act of 2012



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

H.R. 4089, dubbed "The Sportsmen's Heritage Act of 2012" has passed the House with a 274-146 vote and has been sent to the Senate for discussion and a vote there. While there is some good in the four bill legislation, some say that it can undo other legislation that has offered protection to some species of wildlife and protection to some habitat. However, every time we as sportsmen purchase a new firearm or ammo, we contribute 11% to conservation. I'm kind of torn but I do support the use of lead in fishing which this protects from enviro-crazies.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr4089

http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/18/house ... %E2%80%99/

http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/201 ... 4089RH.pdf

http://www.unitedwildlifecooperative.org


----------



## BradN (Sep 25, 2007)

More money for the expansion of the Wolf reintroduction program?


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

Ha! Smells of it. Can't wait for the dog and pony show and a different colored, all new power point presentation. Join, Donate, Watch Us Walk On Coat Tails Circus. Vomit.

I can't quite tell in the legislation itself if it sets up a clearing of the ESA or softens it any to address delisting at all, but there are some absent groups that weren't on the bang wagon of this that might claim credit if it does down the line. We'll have to wait and see.

www.unitedwildlifecooperative.org


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

I am pretty certain that this bill would undermine the Wilderness Act and open designated wilderness areas to motorized access, logging, mining and gas exploration. If that is the case, that right there would be enough to make me go against it full force.


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

There are four seperate elements that need to be passed and I'm not sure which one would open wilderness lands to motorized access, logging, mining and gas exploration. That sounds like a "D.P. was asleep and didn't make it to the bandwagon so he's going to badmouth the effort" kind of downtrott. I can post the text of the individual bills if you'd like. Free of charge...but I'm tired from being a failed Utah LE turkey hunter, so they could resemble bills paid by the secret service for some kind of oddly named "salad" down there in Columbia....who knew? 

H.R. 2834: The “Recreational Fishing and Hunting Heritage and Opportunities Act” is designed to protect and enhance access and opportunities on Federal lands for hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting. 

H.R. 3440: The “Recreational Shooting Protection Act” prevents the closure of national monuments managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to recreational shooting. It will apply retroactively to all BLM monuments. A hearing was held sometime in January.

H.R. 1558: The “Hunting, Fishing and Recreational Shooting Protection Act” amends the Toxic Substances Control Act to clarify the original intent of Congress to exclude lead ammunition from the provisions of the Act. The bill amends the Act to exclude lead fishing tackle from EPA jurisdiction.

H.R. 991: The “Polar Bear Conservation and Fairness Act of 2011” amends the Marine Mammal Protection Act by authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to issue importation permits to hunters for polar bear trophies legally taken in Canada prior to the listing of the polar bear as threatened under the Endangered Species Act in 2008.


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

I added the link to the bills text to my origional post but just for good measure:

http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/201 ... 4089RH.pdf

Nowhere in this bill does it "require open up huge swaths of protected wilderness areas to public hunting, and facilitate sport hunting in national parks by requiring the National Park Service to use "volunteer" hunters to carry out wildlife management programs within the park system?even though Congress has long prohibited the practice on these lands" as some would like the public to believe. It also doesn't allow for the killing of baby seals or sport killing of baby wooley mammoth either (they are extinct, but I would put it past someone to make the claim). I have asked some serious questions of some folks on how this really impacts the parks, wilderness areas, poisoning of wildlife, etc. I have asked for disclosure of their responses as a member of the media or at least a summary statement of their private response in support. I will post those as they come in.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

Reading through H.R 2834 it does appear to me that it undermines the Wilderness Act and could potentially allow for mining and infrastructure in places like the Uintas. This may be far fetched. Maybe not. I could be reading it incorrectly.


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

I think the ambiguity is that it could force the hand of the BLM to decide what is most important? In other words, is your concern that to stop over access, they issue exploritory of small mining claim permits? That would be the only way they could punch through using the language of this particular bill. But again, this bill limits scope of what it can do which is unique in that it doesn't extend powers to different branches and secretaries as most of its kind would in order to enact. THAT for me says that the language is what it is on its surface an not meant to be misconstrued for special interest. At least I hope. 

I've seen some good trees up there by Mirror Lake that would make a great log home, however. Hmmmm....


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

http://www.ammoland.com/2012/04/19/hr-4089-bad-for-backcountry-hunting-fishing/#axzz1sjExdhAC

Worth the read.


----------



## Cooky (Apr 25, 2011)

I wish I was as good as some of the older guys at recognizing the motives of newer members.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

What is that supposed to mean? I think this bill has a lot of good things to it, mostly good in fact. The problem I have is that it seems to open up our wilderness areas to road building, mining, logging etc. I have read the bill twice now. I am all for making hunting and fishing permanently accessible but to me that does not mean making it accesible to the point that all areas can be driven to. I am very surprised that this is being accepted by sportsmen. Disgusted in fact. I keep rereading certain parts trying to look for my misinterpretation and I am not finding it. I REALLY hope I am wrong.


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

I'm looking to pave your backyard Cooky! Lookout!


----------



## Cooky (Apr 25, 2011)

klbzdad said:


> I'm looking to pave your backyard Cooky! Lookout!


You are invited to my back yard. Sent me a PM when you you would like to come out and I'll make lunch.


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

So, your concern comes from a very valid place within the second draft and a report that was sent out (link below) that contained the ambiguous text that would have allowed that access you were concerned about.

http://www.eenews.net/assets/2012/04/16 ... _pm_01.pdf

I too would have agreed and hopped on the "b$#@@#" you talkin' 'bout? bandwagon HOWEVER, the language was cleaned up in the bill and removes language that would allow for the access your good friend David Lien and even Ben Lamb were concerned about in the original bill that is now on its way to the Senate (link below).

http://www.eenews.net/assets/2012/04/16 ... _pm_01.pdf

Now who lives closest to Cooky so I can start unloading paving equipment and smelly tar burners. And will this road lead to good mule deer winter habitat....I'm still uncertain :O•-:

Just kidding Cooky.....I've been reading this forum for a long time and decided I couldn't contain myself anymore. You'll find I'm just as interested in saving trees and bushes as saving mule deer and those stupid little fish in the Virgin River nobody ever sees.


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

Cooky said:


> klbzdad said:
> 
> 
> > I'm looking to pave your backyard Cooky! Lookout!
> ...


I'll bring some Apple Beer. And forget the pavement. I'm allergic. :mrgreen:


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> What is that supposed to mean? I think this bill has a lot of good things to it, mostly good in fact. The problem I have is that it seems to open up our wilderness areas to road building, mining, logging etc. I have read the bill twice now. I am all for making hunting and fishing permanently accessible but to me that does not mean making it accesible to the point that all areas can be driven to. I am very surprised that this is being accepted by sportsmen. Disgusted in fact. I keep rereading certain parts trying to look for my misinterpretation and I am not finding it. I REALLY hope I am wrong.


I think paragraph 3 pretty much takes care of your concern, does it not?

*"(3) Paragraphs (1) and (2) are not intended to authorize or facilitate commodity development, use, or extraction, or motorized recreational access or use."*

This was different than the first bill that upset many folks including BHA and others.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

H.R. 4089 is nothing more than a collection of wedge issues, designed to split hunters out of the conservation movement, and consolidate political power and money. It is, as a whole anti-conservation.

H.R. 2834 Is a wolf in sheep's clothing(I cant believe I used that). It unequivocally chips away at the foundation of the the 1964 Wilderness act. While the language was cleaned up and clarified, all that did was take it from a Trojan horse to a key stepping stone. There is no eminent threat of Wilderness closure to hunters. Hunting is already part of the long established wilderness ethic. Who are these anti-conservation groups? Google "Browns canyon wilderness study area". The right to such a wilderness closure, currently falls to the states anyway. This bill takes that right from the states and gives it to the federal government. This is a big government bill with a price tag of 150 million dollars.

H.R. 3440 Is another farce. Here is a story about were this bill came from http://azstarnet.com/news/local/ironwoo ... bfc88.html The bumpkin proletariat should be able to shoot up everything everywhere, right? Do you think the general public distinguishes between white trash "target shooters" and hunters? no. And some anti-conservation pro-poaching folks want to keep it that way. It keeps their pockets full of money at the expense of habitat and wildlife. This is another wedge issue to split hunters and their dollars away from the conservation movement by attempting to make this about gun rights.

H.R. 1558 This is another anti-conservation Trojan horse. This bill arose after a petition was submitted to the EPA to regulate ammunition as a toxic substance(which it is). And yes it was an anti gun movement. The EPA quickly denied the petition, as they have multiple times a year for 30 years. The proponents(anti-conservationists) of this bill have stated that there is no evidence that lead is harmful to wildlife. Well [email protected] the water fowl conservationists, you here that? we're going back to lead shot. That's right, non-toxic shot never helped wildlife, we don't need it. [email protected] the ducks, condors and eagles any how. Pro-conservation hunters have made huge progress with ammunition manufactures to develop and introduce non toxic shot into the market place. Some anti-conservation groups see this kind of progress as a threat to their power and to their pocket books. Why embrace non toxic shot? Take AZ and the CA condor as an example. The only thing hindering population recovery is poaching, and lead poisoning. If we police our ranks, and demand once again that poaching is unacceptable(yes people make mistakes, they then have to pay the consequences) that takes care of one piece of it. Introduce non toxic ammunition to condor ranges, and Viola! healthy sustainable condor populations. Why should You are care? Good question. If we remove condors from the endangered species list it will free up billions of dollars for other wildlife and habitat work.

H.R. 991 The "fairness" act, this is nothing more than a BS back door means to poach AK polar bears. It seems that poaching is getter bigger with the anti-conservation crowd, coincidence? I think not. All you will need to import your illegally taken AK polar bear, is a Canadian tag issued prior to 2008. The people that purchased Canadian polar bear tags were notified that they would not be able to import their kills, it was a known, they purchased them anyway. From the North American model of Conservation: Wildlife species are considered an international resource. Some species, such as migratory birds, transcend boundaries and one country's management can easily affect a species in another country. This is the issue that Defenders of Wildlife was against, not for. If PETA was for deer, would you automatically be against them?

Furthermore none of this is about introducing the big bad wolf, or boogie men under your beds. Those are completely separate wedge issues used to pry hunters and their money away from the conservation movement. As a HUNTER and a FISHERMAN these issues and others should be very simple. The only litmus test is whether or not it is good for fish, wildlife, and habitat, non of these things are. If you exercise the free agency you are inherently born with, and don't quiver like 7 year old little girls at every mention of the boogieman, it would be as clear as an early morning in October.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Also, I have pulled my support from several "conservation" groups for supporting this convoluted BS. Ask your leadership what side of this issue they are on. If they are not on the right side of it, demand otherwise. What is good for wildlife, is good for hunters. I reccomend getting on the right side of this and other conservation issues. Wake the [email protected] up! The conservation movement has been, and is being hijacked!


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

Lonetree, I have read it several times now in its current form and I find no reason to disagree with what you say. I think a lot of people are backing this thing because they have put blind faith in somebody else and have not taken the time to break it down and read it themselves. The published "intention" of the bills and the written word are clearly two different things. The "good parts" of these bills are duplicates of things that are already in place. The bad parts are not anything that I believe most hunters/conservationists would want at all.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Muleskinner, Yep, a whole lot of non thinkers.

The general public, Like I said, you want to be on the right side of this thing. Take a look at where Don Peay is at right now. For those that remember what I said a few months ago, I was not ******* around. It is time to take the Conservation movement back from the power brokers and profiteers. You can sell out for comfort and mediocrity, or like Theodore Roosevlt and Aldo Leopold, walk the path of righteousness. Your choice gentlemen.


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

I'm out of Mountain Dew....I'll stock up tomorrow, research, catch up, and respond but I agree with some and not will all that Lonetree posted. Like Muley, I've read the text a dozen times as it sits now in the Senate. I've also spoken with a sitting Senator about this and one of his aides and will take questions raised to them tomorrow if I can get them on their wives phones (can't GRAMA request the wive's phones. And then I'll digest.....I do need the Mountain Dew though 

I do know someone who LEGALLY took one of those bears. There are two distinguished groups of polar bears discussed on the house floor before the package was passed. I'll attempt to clarify but this will allow him to bring his LEGALLY taken bear that he received NO such notice on into the US. It sits right now in an airport common area as a decoration. Meh..... Pulling support for conservation groups....that's hashing the mellow!


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

klbzdad, tell me again how this is a conservation bill? It grows wildlife how? While you are speaking with the politicians(conservationists I'm sure) please ask them who has lobbied them on this. As for Polar bears, if this bill was to clear a few bears, not a problem, but that is simply not the case. 

As for conservation groups, Backcountry hunters and anglers has come out on the right side of this. As an ardent conservationist, I am not swayed or confused by murky wedge issues, conservation is conservation is conservation. And those things that take away from, and dont further conservation, are just that.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

I've been reading and reading about this deal, looking for solid answers to a few key questions. The answers aren't there - just lots of rhetoric. So I see two issues.

This thing reads as though it was written by a high school drop-out. No offense to drop-outs, but legislation of this magnitude (management of 36 million acres) demands better. The sponsors are capable of much better, yet chose to be vague. That alone is sufficient cause for anyone who values our "heritage" to oppose it.

More worrisome is the divisiveness of the Act. The time has come for sportsmen to have a serious "come to Jesus" talk and get clear on a fundamental issue: Do we stand for conservation, regardless of political ideology? Or do we stand for political ideology, regardless of conservation? Yes, there are communist liberal socialist organizations in opposition of this fraud. But it's still a fraud. And if being pro-conservation makes me one of "them", so be it.


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

Lonetree, you noted NAWCM. I have emailed the Orion Institute for their input on the Act. I have also asked SCI and the NRA to answer the very question, "HOW IS THIS A CONSERVATION BILL?" with the understanding that true conservation isn't making sure money continues to flow despite what ammunition sportsmen chose to buy. The only lead ammunition I chose to purchase just happens to be the kind I would be forced to use because of the bad decision of another two legged creature so I guess I'm not filling their lobbying coffers either. I will ask who is lobbying them on this bill. They don't always speak about that for obvious reasons but only because we put our long standing friendships before politics first. They just so happen to care about some of the same things I do. That said, the caffeine hasn't gone to work yet, I will let you know. Finn, I relate, I get that there are serious questions and to everyone in this discussion...anything the government is about to "preserve" anything I'm the first in my circle to laugh out loud. I work in the media, its my job to be skeptical.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

It will allow for the destruction of America’s pristine Wilderness Areas.
Although named the “Sportsmen’s Heritage Act,” HR 4089 will actually spoil the best hunting and fishing grounds available.
It will allow for widespread motorized access, construction of new roads, logging, mining and oil extraction in areas that are already protected.
Many of these areas rightfully allow recreational shooting; this bill would force managers to support recreational shooting even in areas where it could be dangerous to the public, or lead to the destruction of natural and cultural resources


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Coffee is on, I'm good to go. 

Muleskinner, fortunately, some of the worst of that has been stripped from the origonal language. Not only is this a wedge issue, though, this is a weather vane issue. You get to find out allot about what you can get away with, putting legislation like this up. And like I stated before, if it gets watered down, its still a stepping stone,rather the intended trojan horse.

klbzdad, this type of legislation is designed to make fence sitters, that are not solid in their beliefs say, but......but.....but what about fishing tackle. There is no threat to fishing tackle, this is reactionary, and dangerous. You can disregard the ideaolgy triggers, there is no threat that is being countered here. But yes, by all means, get some more people to tell you how to think. BTW, the NRA is not a conservation org.

Finnegan, starting to see the big picture  Some of this is kind of like when an organization is against legislation, that you would think they would be for. I mean they said they were against it, or uhh, I mean they have now said it was a misunderstanding. Well it was good for the bottom line ;-)


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

I'm fully aware of what the NRA is and what they stand for. I'm curious if they will take a public stance on conservation. I'm also not a "fence sitter" and I don't need YOU or anyone else telling me what to think....I've watched how you like to push folks into your views, you're no different than a school yard bully. You asked questions or rather suggested some things about this legislation and I offered to seek answers based on what you presented. I will seek answers to either support you or, God forbid, refute your wisdom, oh wise one! 

I remember someone who didn't like me in Kindergarten because I didn't like the same kind of music he did and I was tall and lanky and from different social circles than his family....so he and his little group of friends used to push me around and slap me during recess. I put up with it until fifth grade when I eventually had enough and kicked his @ss. I didn't come here looking for an argument or criticism by those who don't agree with me or who I don't agree with, only discussion. You can't learn unless you discuss, yeah?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

klbzdad, glad to see the caffiene has kicked in  Feel free to kick my Bully @ss. If you think for your self, you would not need to check with anyone on your thoughts. Yes I am an elitist know it all that uses the bully pulpit to push people around. Heelers know better than sheep, rachers know better than heelers.


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

There is a difference in fact checking and thought checking. My mind can be changed but that is through common sense. You would agree that Government and Common are the two polar ends of a magnet and will never work together as our government was originally intended. I therefore, cannot and WILL NOT, forge my thought or opinion based solely on what the government tells me (including my friendly senator and my friend, his aide). 

Elitist? NAW.....Opinionated? Yes..... and that isn't a bad thing if we're staying on topic and not making this personal. That is how the government works...remember? Distraction, Redirection, Re-Education is the method of praying on apathy in order to forge your views into the brains of others. THAT is DANGEROUS.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Let me reiterate, This bill does not protect against any known or real threat. Opposing this does NOT open the door to rights, freedoms or privledges being revoked. It is crafted to appear as though it is in defense of something, when in reality no defense is needed. In fact, just the opposite is true. If you support this bill, it will erode fish, wildlife, and habitat conservation. Or at a bare minimum, make those things harder to protect and conserve in the future. The title is a misnomer.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Hey guys. This is a GREAT discussion. I am learning a great deal in the exchange of opinions. I appreciate the discourse and greatly encourage it to continue. 

Just a reminder to keep language clean (don't drop an F-Bomb with @ in the middle just to beat the filters) and don't make things personal. The opinions have been expressed very well otherwise. I hate to see such articulate thoughts and discussions littered with bad language when it adds nothing to things. 

Keep the discussion going and going great. 

Thanks guys.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Gary, noted, thanks.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Backcountry hunters and anglers has come out in opposition to H.R. 4089, for a number of reasons.

The wilderness society has come out in opposition to H.R. 4089, partly based on the potential to actually reduce hunting quality.

The Orion Institute, has conceded these before mentioned stances.

And I recieved a response from the United Wildlife Cooperative that is in agreement with the above stances.

No response from some Orgs.

Support those, that support conservation, and demand better from those that dont, or that pretend to. This legislation "is a solution in search of a problem". If it aint broke, dont fix it, put down the meth pipe.


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

And of course the NRA has declined to comment only to say they are in full support of the Act because it insures that there will be no further decline in the future America's Shooting Heritage in or on public lands in the United States. 

I fully support any statement made by UWC as a member and encourage further discussion on the matter. 

Personally, I feel that the bill should have been written without the ambiguity that allowed for it to even be questioned to begin with. Why would the federal government want to spend more tax payer money enforcing new laws where laws already exist? BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT IT DOES TO GROW! Duplication almost always becomes an issue for law enforcement as well, but also opens the door for mismanagement as interpretation becomes at the behest of the one doing the interpreting at any one given moment. 

Any bill introduced into Congress can be picked apart. There are bits and pieces that are associated with special interest but we should all question anything that is rhetorical and produces more spending. 

So, the disturbing parts about this bill in regard to conservation remains the inability for anyone to actually slam the door on any industry in our back country or wilderness. How come that is so hard to do? Lobbyists. Plain and simple. Lonetree points to one in particular that has made is bed and gets to sleep in it now too. So taking a stand now requires not only discussion, but action on these kinds of issues. My discussion today with someone who actually has a vote, was a simple plea to NOT vote in favor of this bill. The answer to my plea was, and I'm safe in quoting, " I will take that under advisement." Even my childhood friend is now a Washington DC woosie drone! That didn't take long!


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

In the spirit of conversation........

I saw the that the UWC is in favor of this bill in the spring news letter. I would really like to hear from the proponents of this bill as an argument for it. Having met a few of the guys and reading post from many people on other threads, I find it hard to believe that everybody has read the bill thoroughly enough to understand the implications of it passing. I am particular interested in any positive aspects of the bill that are intended to enhance access and opportunities on Federal lands for hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting.

In its current form the bill will surely "enhance" the opportunity to have ATV trails, roads, drilling, mineral production and other infrastructure placed on federal lands which include existing monuments and designated wilderness areas. Does this enhance the very things that we strive to protect? We already have access to hunt and fish wilderness areas. Does wildlife benefit by creating additional methods of getting there? Does it benefit the wildlife to shut an area down to hunting and fishing if the managers determine that it would be in the best interest to mine the same land?

I believe that if most of you read the bill, and read between the lines, you would be against this bill. I would bet that you would find that it really does very little to enhance anything. The protections that are being promoted by advocates are already present in existing laws with regards to our wilderness areas.

Don't turn a blind eye to something just because it being challenged by groups that are historically against hunting game. Be additionally careful in aligning your beliefs with anybody that claims to have your best interest in mind by default. Read it for yourself, read claims by both sides and then read the bill again. You shouldn't need anybody to tell you what the "intent" of the bill is. It is vague by design and needs amended badly.

http://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/op...tsmens-heritage-act-it-really-win-outdoorsmen

http://rivermud.blogspot.com/2012/04/sportsmens-heritage-act-laws-with-cool.html

http://wilderness.org/content/we-need-your-help-stop-Sportsmens-Heritage-Act


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

+1 Those are some good alternative views to consider Muley.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> I saw the that the UWC is in favor of this bill in the spring news letter. I would really like to hear from the proponents of this bill as an argument for it. Having met a few of the guys and reading post from many people on other threads, I find it hard to believe that everybody has read the bill thoroughly enough to understand the implications of it passing. I am particular interested in any positive aspects of the bill that are intended to enhance access and opportunities on Federal lands for hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting.


This is the problem, even in the case of UWC. It is being sold as and looks like a great thing, when indeed there are some not so shiny things involved.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

klbzdad said:


> I fully support any statement made by UWC as a member ...


Case in point. I'm a member with a vested interest in the organization since day one. But UWC has been dead wrong before and likely will be again. I share the ideology and I'm proud to stand with you all. But I'm not much good to the organization if that loyalty overpowers my responsibility to think for myself. Otherwise, it's Kool-Aid for everybody.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

So..........does the UWC take members votes to determine the stance that it is going to take or is it determined by a select few?


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

I think Tree would have to answer Muleskinner's question, but the NAMWC Model is the basis by which UWC was founded. I think with anything you can look at something on the surface and surmise that a fake diamond looks a lot like a real one until you examine it closer. This legislation is no exception. I'm the biggest screw up there is. Probably the biggest on this forum in my early twenties if anyone cares to compare.

Even if I disagree with a statement that comes from UWC, I will support it because the group is a true cooperative and is centered on the seven tenants of the NAMWC Model. Being a part of a cooperative allows you to be an individual whereas being a part of just another group, in my humble opinion, is nothing more than assimilating to be just one of the Borg. 

On topic, Muley we've discussed access on this bill. the access is already there. In fact, it might well undo the hard work that myself and many others have done to close duplicate roads that weren't part of original management plans. The meat of this bill makes it a money bill. Forcing both spending by sportsmen and spending by the federal government on new laws where there are already laws in place that do what this is all trying to do. Basically, "a solution looking for a problem." Any omnibus bill equates to spending and in reality, the only exception to this bill that I would endorse is the exception for polar bears ALREADY taken that need to be brought into the US. I would not support any future bears being taken. The state of Utah already has a program to encourage the use of non-lead ammunition, so why undo that with more federal legislation? Even with the amendment of 104 (e) (3), the critics of this bill are still emotionally against it. I don't blame them, there isn't much substance to it other than it criss crosses other legislation which is never good. No? So what is left? Nothing that isn't already given to sportsmen or women or those who enjoy the outdoors in general. It just creates avenues that we don't need which could end up harming what it claims to be protecting.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

klbzdad

Polar bears: I can agree with your sentiment in general. With a few loop holes closed, that probably is the only merit this bill has.

The focus now needs to be on letting our senators know where we stand on this. You are ahead of the curve, and leading the pack on that point. We all need to do the same.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

I am not trying to stir the pot in regards to how the UWC comes to it's decision. I was just curious.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> So..........does the UWC take members votes to determine the stance that it is going to take or is it determined by a select few?


UWC takes positions based on the consensus of the membership as much as possible, even if the reps don't necessarily agree. If you saw the newsletter, you saw the links to the current surveys. More surveys are on the way. More member input is gathered by phone, emails, forum posts, face-to-face at UWC events, etc. Of course, there are occasions when UWC reps have to wing it as best they can. I suspect the support of this bill might be one of those occasions.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

Yep I get that. I have received a few PM's on this matter now and one in particular addressing my questions above.

Having not been on here for real long I forgot about the request on the b/d ratios. Aligning myself with a group has been a lot of work on my part and I have learned a lot about many other groups along the way. I have zero complaints about the UWC and plan on getting more involved and doing what I can to help. There are always going to being differing opinions but I have recognized that I have been asked to have a voice here. That goes a VERY long ways.....Even if I run the risk of sounding stupid at times.


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> There are always going to being differing opinions but I have recognized that I have been asked to have a voice here. That goes a VERY long ways.....Even if I run the risk of sounding stupid at times.


No way man! Your contributions to discussions here and other boards are great! I again will always go back to the best lesson I think I learned in my early years of stupidity (the 20's). That lesson was taught to me by my grandmother one night when she caught me in a drunken state, peeing in her laundry hamper instead of the toilet. I don't remember ever doing that but in the denial of it and in drinking in general the next morning, she said, "Son, you can lie all you want to me, but you can't lie to yourself, and you can't lie to the Lord!".

My point is you never know under what cuircumstances your next most valuable lesson will be learned and in today's hurry up and hurry faster world, sometimes these forums are the best place for adults to learn from other adults. Even if they are hot messes in the head to begin with! :O•-:


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

I received the email from the UWC that retracts its backing of this bill in its current form. A personal "Thank You" from me to those that have taken the time to reconsider this bill as it is written. I am in the process of writing a letter to the people that need to read it and reconsider their stance.

Orrin G. Hatch
US Senators for Utah (R)
Phone202) 224-5251
Fax202) 224-6331


Mike Lee
US Senators for Utah (R)
Phone202) 224-5444
Fax202) 228-1168

Jason Chaffetz 
US Representative for Utah district 3 (R)
Phone202) 225-7751
Fax202) 225-5629

I am not the best at this kind of thing. I would rather fix a fence or shovel dirt for hours on end than to spend an hour writing a letter, but I feel that it is very important to the future that we must protect. If anybody wants to jump in that has experience doing this I would step aside or help out. Any takers?


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

Still looking for help there Muley? Let me know. BHA did have a nice form letter to help although I would modify it to fit your personal preferences and make it sound like YOU wrote it. Speak from the heart brother....that's the best you can do and it will go a lot further.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

I received a PM from a person that has written several similar things for various orgs in the past including UWC. He is going to put together a rough draft and send it to me. I am hoping to come with something that the UWC would endorse that many people could be a part of. My personal voice will not make a difference. "It takes a village" is a term that comes to mind.


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

Here ya go. I know the phone numbers were given out. Here are the addresses in Washington. Hatch is only in Utah for election season. I've included their webform email dohickies.

Hatch, Orrin G. - (R - UT)	Class I
104 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING 
WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5251
www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/c ... mail-Orrin

Lee, Mike - (R - UT)	Class III
316 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING 
WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5444
www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

I have to wonder if writing Utah's Republican delegation will do any good. The political environment being such as it is, neither Hatch nor Lee could oppose this thing even if he wanted to. It really isn't a partisan issue, but the sponsors want us to see it as some kind of bold stand against Obama. :roll:


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

I agree Finnegan. I just can't sit back though and watch this thing pass through and possibly get signed in it's current from without doing anything. I will send it to everybody I can regardless of their affiliation.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Yep, no reason not to act. We might not break these nuts, but we might get them loose for the next guy.


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

+100 ALL

I'm almost certain Senator Lee would like to know what Utah sportsmen are thinking about this. Especially with a certain grey haired, badly tanned, "you know who" trying to get his attention. Just sayin'


----------



## redleg (Dec 5, 2007)

If it means more access, it is good for hunters. I have hunted around mines and oil rigs, that doesn't bother me. It doesn't bother the wildlife either.
But locked gates and closed roads prevent hunting. If we want the younger generation to enjoy hunting, they have to be able able to hunt. They need to be able to obtain permits and they need access to land that has wildlife. Too many special interests are trying to eliminate hunting by restricting licenses and access to land. lets not ally ourselves with those anti-hunting special interests because we fear free enterprise will be allowed to go on on while we hunt.


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

redleg said:


> If it means more access, it is good for hunters. I have hunted around mines and oil rigs, that doesn't bother me. It doesn't bother the wildlife either.
> But locked gates and closed roads prevent hunting. If we want the younger generation to enjoy hunting, they have to be able able to hunt. They need to be able to obtain permits and they need access to land that has wildlife. Too many special interests are trying to eliminate hunting by restricting licenses and access to land. lets not ally ourselves with those anti-hunting special interests because we fear free enterprise will be allowed to go on on while we hunt.


This isn't a free enterprise protection Act, its about protecting wilderness that protects habitat vital to wildlife. (<-------WHOA!!!! Kinda not what I mean to say! EDIT 04/28/2012) In the Act is describes sportsmen as conservators of wildlife and habitat yet ignores the tenants of the NAMWC which was the basis of what was believed by Theodore Roosevelt when he established the means to protect wilderness and these traditions of hunting and fishing in America.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

I swallowed my tongue just to catch my breath.


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

Oh, actually.....this could get good.

o-||


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

redleg said:


> If it means more access, it is good for hunters. I have hunted around mines and oil rigs, that doesn't bother me. It doesn't bother the wildlife either.
> But locked gates and closed roads prevent hunting. If we want the younger generation to enjoy hunting, they have to be able able to hunt. They need to be able to obtain permits and they need access to land that has wildlife. Too many special interests are trying to eliminate hunting by restricting licenses and access to land. lets not ally ourselves with those anti-hunting special interests because we fear free enterprise will be allowed to go on on while we hunt.


 :lol:


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

What exactly are you guys opposing? Could you be more specific. I mean very specific.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

ridgetop said:


> What exactly are you guys opposing? Could you be more specific. I mean very specific.


How about:
"The fact that recreational fishing, hunting, or shooting occurs on adjacent or nearby public or private lands shall not be considered in determining which Federal public lands are open for these activities or for setting levels of use for these activities."

Or:
".......... Lands may be subject to closures or restrictions if determined by *the head* of the agency to be necessary and reasonable and supported by facts and evidence, for purposes including resource conservation, public safety, *energy or mineral production, energy generation or transmission infrastructure, water supply facilities, protection of other permitees,* protection of private property rights or interests, national security, or* compliance with other law.*"

Or:
"Nothing in this title requires a Federal agency to give preference to recreational fishing, hunting, or shooting over other uses of Federal public land or over land or water management priorities established by Federal law."

Or:
"Nothing in this title shall be construed as interfering with, diminishing, or conflicting with the authority, jurisdiction, or responsibility of any State to manage, control, or regulate fish and wildlife under State law (including regulations) on land or water within the State, including on Federal public land.

There are other issues that could be considered, but these are the ones that are most glaring. We can get to the others later if need be.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

I oppose the ENTIRE bill. Is that specific enough, ridge? 8)


----------

