Ban on lead on Federal land

[doubleh]

I am glad my state has lots of Federal land. My state has basically made hunting off limits on state land except for legal hunting seasons. Want to hunt coyotes or other unprotected species on state land? Nope, except during a hunting season that you have a license for. Doesn't make sense at all. I'm not sure about the last few years but the state used to employ predator control officers to try to keep the coyote numbers in check. I had an interesting conversation with a game warden a few years ago. I couldn't get him to come right out and that it is a stupid policy but I got a smile out of him when I said so. BLM land? Go get them anytime of the year.

 

[barnbwt]

Public land for its own sake is a terrible waste of a precious & finite resource; you know what I mean, thousands of acres inaccessible by any practical method, neglect or apathy for how it is used/misused by people, or just closed off outright as is increasingly the case (monuments are accelerating in their accumulation of land). Seeing remoteness itself as something sacred is a silly and shortsighted mindset most typical among cloistered urbanites who won't ever venture to the boonies, in my experience. Right up there with "noble savages'" morally superior way of life and all that.

If the state were actually interested in better serving sportsmen/etc, they would focus on improving site access & facilities so as to make better use of already ample acreage for such endeavors. Owning an entire region to sit on is just pure greed, same as it would be for any owner.

" If you do not live in Public Land states it is hard for you to understand. "
I've lived in both Washington and Texas. I know plenty well in which one a person can make a decent living away from the coastal cities, and which one has a crushing heavy hand when it comes to water rights and environmental impact. Texas has plenty of public parkspace for all sportsman and recreation, it is just concentrated in the most scenic areas which happen to be far from civilization in this state. Washington could lose half its federal acreage and still have more than enough room for all its recreation in the best spots, but then state/federal officials wouldn't be able to make people jump.

The feds realized how much potential power they'd given away through the Homestead Act, and vowed to not make that mistake again.

"The real danger to the loss of Public Lands is wealthy land owners. They want the lands turned over to the states. They then buy it from the local political hacks. The Bundy Mafia blocked roads to hunters on Public Lands. They and others are land pirates. "
Well, the Bundy-infested area *was* going to be made into a solar farm for a politically connected donor on the cheap, so whatever. I'd argue that small private holders are the bigger long term threat; no way you'd get 500 separate 10acre tracts to give you hunting rights. Not to mention, the wealthy grant big tracts to the public all the time on the condition they be developed for public use (the big one, Yellowstone, for instance, which was so awesome a gift from the Rockefellers they never paid taxes again, lol). Most modern parks get their land this way, even after "irreversibly giving it away for all time" to private use.

TCB

 

[Jason_W]

I just did a little research and there are no rules prohibiting hunting and fishing on lands designated national monuments, though obviously if the monument is small and in a populated area, there won't be any hunting. It mostly looks like prohibitions are on industrial land use (mining, grazing, logging, etc.).

 

[Dog Soldier]

I am glad my state has lots of Federal land. My state has basically made hunting off limits on state land except for legal hunting seasons. Want to hunt coyotes or other unprotected species on state land? Nope, except during a hunting season that you have a license for. Doesn't make sense at all. I'm not sure about the last few years but the state used to employ predator control officers to try to keep the coyote numbers in check. I had an interesting conversation with a game warden a few years ago. I couldn't get him to come right out and that it is a stupid policy but I got a smile out of him when I said so. BLM land? Go get them anytime of the year.

The hunting on State Land is legal here. Varmint hunting and fishing is allowed the year around. How ever no over night camping is allowed.

 

[buck460XVR]

Public land for its own sake is a terrible waste of a precious & finite resource; you know what I mean, thousands of acres inaccessible by any practical method, neglect or apathy for how it is used/misused by people, or just closed off outright as is increasingly the case (monuments are accelerating in their accumulation of land). Seeing remoteness itself as something sacred is a silly and shortsighted mindset most typical among cloistered urbanites who won't ever venture to the boonies, in my experience. Right up there with "noble savages'" morally superior way of life and all that.

Yours is an opinion value by very few people in this country. For most of us, Public lands are some of the most precious resources we have. Millions of acres of wetlands providing habitat and breeding grounds for waterfowl that otherwise would be turned into tiled and drained poor pasture at the cost of fragile fawn and fauna that live no where else in the world. Without public protection the Sequoias would have been cut down and turned into lumber years ago and the Gem we call Yellowstone gone forever because of human greed. The millions of acres of public land in this country can be enjoyed by anyone that hunts, fishes, hikes or just like to take pictures of scenic beauty. Make it all private and it will be enjoyed only by a few with deep pockets and turned into strip mines, sand mines and private ranches. Public land in most areas contributes many times more to the local and state economy than any amount of taxes that would be paid. Much of public land was once private and was unfarmable and abandoned. We have thousands of acres around me that came back to the state and feds because of unpaid taxes. As fgor enhancing the enviroment on public land, we have seen in the past what so called "enhancements" have done to our environment. For the most part those enhancements were short term and only helped a few. Maybe deer numbers increased but so did damage to habitat and the ecosystem within that habitat. Invasion species artificially planted like German brown trout forced out native species. Sometimes Mother Nature is best left alone.

 

[Dog Soldier]

Public land for its own sake is a terrible waste of a precious & finite resource; you know what I mean, thousands of acres inaccessible by any practical method, neglect or apathy for how it is used/misused by people, or just closed off outright as is increasingly the case (monuments are accelerating in their accumulation of land). Seeing remoteness itself as something sacred is a silly and shortsighted mindset most typical among cloistered urbanites who won't ever venture to the boonies, in my experience. Right up there with "noble savages'" morally superior way of life and all that.

If the state were actually interested in better serving sportsmen/etc, they would focus on improving site access & facilities so as to make better use of already ample acreage for such endeavors. Owning an entire region to sit on is just pure greed, same as it would be for any owner.

" If you do not live in Public Land states it is hard for you to understand. "
I've lived in both Washington and Texas. I know plenty well in which one a person can make a decent living away from the coastal cities, and which one has a crushing heavy hand when it comes to water rights and environmental impact. Texas has plenty of public parkspace for all sportsman and recreation, it is just concentrated in the most scenic areas which happen to be far from civilization in this state. Washington could lose half its federal acreage and still have more than enough room for all its recreation in the best spots, but then state/federal officials wouldn't be able to make people jump.

The feds realized how much potential power they'd given away through the Homestead Act, and vowed to not make that mistake again.

"The real danger to the loss of Public Lands is wealthy land owners. They want the lands turned over to the states. They then buy it from the local political hacks. The Bundy Mafia blocked roads to hunters on Public Lands. They and others are land pirates. "
Well, the Bundy-infested area *was* going to be made into a solar farm for a politically connected donor on the cheap, so whatever. I'd argue that small private holders are the bigger long term threat; no way you'd get 500 separate 10acre tracts to give you hunting rights. Not to mention, the wealthy grant big tracts to the public all the time on the condition they be developed for public use (the big one, Yellowstone, for instance, which was so awesome a gift from the Rockefellers they never paid taxes again, lol). Most modern parks get their land this way, even after "irreversibly giving it away for all time" to private use.

TCB[/QUO
I would like to know why not paying your grazing leases for 20 years is a noble thing. The American taxpayers had to pick up the bills. The thousands of ranchers who hold grazing leases pay their bills.

http://www.thewildlifenews.com/2014...bundys-land-is-not-solar-farm-for-harry-reid/

 

[Zoogster]

Public land provides more than just recreation, it often provides the densest vegetation and cleaner water sources than anything near industry or commercial farming, or private use.
Trees in high numbers fix carbon, clean the air, reduce wind speed, and even effect the weather. While giving the population an inexpensive way to get good exercise and get space to roam like our ancestors did for thousands of years. The wilderness provides sanity, clean water, and zones of wild fauna that is itself a treasure and regional identity.

The real travesty in some of those land cases on public land is people the government loaned the land to started to feel entitled to it, when the government is already doing too much by giving away our land to private people to begin with. The land is for everyone not a small number to develop ranching lifestyles unsustainable without public land and then fence it all off from public use. Its not for big business to extract all the natural resources out of it polluting the land around it before giving it back either.
It is to provide a lot more to the entire population long term.
I can promise you the weather will get really undesirable in the middle and eastern parts of the nation if the western forests were damage and thinned way out. Those forests pull moisture and keep the gulf air from combining with as much from the pacific. You are in for a ton of floods and huge blizzards along with more tornadoes etc without those forests.

 

[barnbwt]

A) The Bundy's are freeloaders
B) A properly run public land administration would have made a written contract, foreclosed upon them, and booted them off decades ago, so
C) Someone more honest could make a living there, as opposed to making it a closed area unreachable by man, and therefore of little benefit to anyone. (In reality, this was all to free up land for green energy developers affiliated with Reid, so he's a corrupt SOB, too)

TCB

 

[barnbwt]

Also, public usage of land does not mean it is destroyed; it simply means that value can be wrought from it in any number of ways (logging, mining, hunting, trapping, farming, commercial, industrial, and yes, watershed, recreation, backpacking, camping, hiking, and other valuable activities that don't involve destructive resource extraction), which is why we have these things called environmental regs and zoning codes. Sorry, but there is no reason at all that land should ever be shut off to human access for any reason but security for a sensitive installation (which can include certain natural features within reason, and which so important to warrant protection, deserve guided access by rangers)

Yeah, I know it's an unpopular belief that nature itself isn't very valuable to man, unless he can interact and benefit from it in some way. But that is exactly how the original Conservation movement saw the situation, that by providing park access, treasures like Yellowstone would not be torn up by short-sighted resource explorations, that do not yield as much value in the long run as their natural beauty. Similarly, I have very little reason to value lands I cannot access, and would not object so strongly if some future administration opens them to mining/drilling, but if a good park or other site access allowed me to form an appreciation for the area, I would argue for its protection.

Whatever, most people will never understand this, and it will lead to dams being torn out of the West Coast to protect stupid salmon, and the lower quality of life afterward will not be able to afford such luxuries as protected lands at all. It is worth remembering why such destructive exploration was originally tolerated; poverty. Economic behavior is human behavior, and is immutable.

TCB

 

[Jason_W]

Also, public usage of land does not mean it is destroyed; it simply means that value can be wrought from it in any number of ways (logging, mining, hunting, trapping, farming, commercial, industrial, and yes, watershed, recreation, backpacking, camping, hiking, and other valuable activities that don't involve destructive resource extraction), which is why we have these things called environmental regs and zoning codes. Sorry, but there is no reason at all that land should ever be shut off to human access for any reason but security for a sensitive installation (which can include certain natural features within reason, and which so important to warrant protection, deserve guided access by rangers)

Yeah, I know it's an unpopular belief that nature itself isn't very valuable to man, unless he can interact and benefit from it in some way. But that is exactly how the original Conservation movement saw the situation, that by providing park access, treasures like Yellowstone would not be torn up by short-sighted resource explorations, that do not yield as much value in the long run as their natural beauty. Similarly, I have very little reason to value lands I cannot access, and would not object so strongly if some future administration opens them to mining/drilling, but if a good park or other site access allowed me to form an appreciation for the area, I would argue for its protection.

Whatever, most people will never understand this, and it will lead to dams being torn out of the West Coast to protect stupid salmon, and the lower quality of life afterward will not be able to afford such luxuries as protected lands at all. It is worth remembering why such destructive exploration was originally tolerated; poverty. Economic behavior is human behavior, and is immutable.

TCB

What do you define as inaccessible? It would be interesting if there are extant stats on what percentage of public land is closed, by the government, to all human entry. I'm new to the western US so the public land debate out here is still new to me. In Vermont and Maine, there was a little bit of public land as well as a lot of land that was technically private, but public in practice. The latter came in the form of vast swaths of paper company land in Northern Vermont, Maine, and New Hampshire. Such lands were open to hunting, fishing, and even some leases for the construction of cabins. Ironically, as the paper industry declined and the companies began to sell off their land, a big swath of it in Maine was bought by a very left leaning, anti-hunting billionaire who promptly closed it to all traditional uses. There's a downside to privatization. Admittedly in this case, it was technically private selling to private, but it's definitely an example of what could happen if vast swaths of public land are sold off. You envision industry taking over, but what if alliances of extreme environmental organizations took over big chunks of land and declared it "for looking at only"?

I think it's also important to acknowledge that economies and industries evolve and change and sometimes a practice or entire industry goes obsolete. I mean, do we mourn the fact that the advent of the electrical grid put lamplighters out of business or that modern refrigeration tech put an end to icemen? We have to be able to adapt and I think we need smart economic policies in place to help those whose professions disappear as opposed the current policies of either giving them the proverbial finger or trying to wind back the clock and bring back the old ways that are no longer possible or practical.

I'm certainly no head in the clouds, tree-humping, absolutist greenie. I'm not naive enough to think that we can cease all logging, mining, farming, and fossil fuel extraction. I'm just ok with those industries not being allowed to operate absolutely everywhere at every time without a thought to minimizing runoff, pollution, etc. Sustainability isn't necessarily a damn dirty hippy ideal, it's more about making sure that the resources we need as civilization are available as long as possible.

So this thread doesn't run fully into off topic locked territory (which would be a shame since it's probably among the top ten most civil internet debates currently active) I'll bring it back to the proposed lead bans on public lands. I believe a while back there were leaked emails indicating the data in the California condor study was at least presented manipulatively to favor a lead ban. As someone who really appreciate cold, dispassionate science, not cool. It's also too broad a ruling: A hard, flat nose big bore bullet that punches straight through an animal without fragmenting clearly isn't going to deposit much lead in the entrails. Also, wouldn't burying the gut pile keep the condors out of it?

I have no doubt that lead ammo bans on public land are simply a punitive FU against people and activities too many on the left find inherently distasteful (hunting, shooting, etc.). Obviously grass roots action and petitioning is worth a shot, but so is a search for a projectile material that is as cheap as lead but non toxic. I don't see such an endeavor as capitulation so much as it is a counter FU to the extreme environmentalists that says, "no matter what you ban, we're smart and industrious enough to work around it and keep doing our thing." And then a new albeit small industry springs up manufacturing lead free but cheap bullets.

As a final note, What do you have against salmon? They're delicious and can be an industry in and of themselves.

 

[Haxby]

This came from the Fish and Wildlife Service. So, it looks like this only pertains to hunting and fishing on National Wildlife Refuges, and maybe some National Monuments.

 

[Dog Soldier]

If you want to hunt in the West on your own no Outfitters it is yours to use. You can get Public Land Maps from the BLM to plan your trip. The only Caveat is when entering a Wilderness area. All non-residents in our state must have a guide or be with a resident of the state.

 

[browningguy]

Speaking of Orwellian, is it 1984 yet?

 

[Dog Soldier]

browningguy, I am not sure what you mean? But if you go into the high altitudes over 6,000' and up you may need a person conditioned to High altitudes. Finding yourself having an altitude sickness attack and no help can be fatal.

 

[Jason_W]

browningguy, I am not sure what you mean? But if you go into the high altitudes over 6,000' and up you may need a person conditioned to High altitudes. Finding yourself having an altitude sickness attack and no help can be fatal.

And wilderness rescues cost the taxpayers a lot.

 

[buck460XVR]

Similarly, I have very little reason to value lands I cannot access, and would not object so strongly if some future administration opens them to mining/drilling, but if a good park or other site access allowed me to form an appreciation for the area, I would argue for its protection.

In the case of those public lands out west that are inaccessible to the public because they are landlocked by private lands, I agree, or some form of easement rights needs to be obtained. Many of those landlocked areas are used by those private landowners surrounding them, and if they don't allow access to them, then they too should not be allowed to use them. Around here many public lands have limited access, which means foot traffic only, not motorized vehicles, and for good reason. I heartily agree with that policy. Allowing motorized vehicles is just asking for destruction.

 

[Dog Soldier]

Very true land locking goes back to the Frontier times. Water is most important to land values. The settlers would patent the land around the available water. That way no one could settle on the surrounding lands. You could buy a section and control miles of land.
This continues today. Land owners buy the access to public lands and gate it. Even if it is so narrow you can step over it. You can be charged for trespassing.
Montana laws some better. You can access a water shed and follow it across private land staying below the high water mark. As far as I know it is still that way? It may have changed?

 

[22-rimfire]

Believe that is still true in the West and any "navigatable" waterway in the east.

In PA the state pubic lands are generally state game lands. In my state, the public lands that are potentially huntable have been deemed wildlife management areas (WMA's) and the fact that you can't just wander out and do some safe plinking on them saddens me.

 

[Jason_W]

In the case of those public lands out west that are inaccessible to the public because they are landlocked by private lands, I agree, or some form of easement rights needs to be obtained. Many of those landlocked areas are used by those private landowners surrounding them, and if they don't allow access to them, then they too should not be allowed to use them. Around here many public lands have limited access, which means foot traffic only, not motorized vehicles, and for good reason. I heartily agree with that policy. Allowing motorized vehicles is just asking for destruction.

That I didn't know.

If I were ambitious and had even a little business sense, I could see starting a nonprofit dedicated to buying easements to public land. Money talks and if the price is right, I'm guessing a good number of landowners would sell a narrow strip of their land. Not all would, of course, but some is better than nothing.

 

[barnbwt]

In the case of those public lands out west that are inaccessible to the public because they are landlocked by private lands, I agree, or some form of easement rights needs to be obtained.

It is not uncommon at all to hear about areas out west that had been accessible for hunting/camping/etc for decades (or centuries) that have recently been closed down as the land is 'upgraded' to monument status & slated for preservation. Like I said, I believe in the utility of conservation, which is about getting the most value from land for the foreseeable future; preservation is merely a waste of everyone's time and ultimately only serves to squander a resource. Beauty and unspoiled nature are resources as much as water or oil, and you can either try to exploit them for everyone's benefit (and/or profit) or you can hoard them for some forgotten future to exploit for themselves (because they will eventually be utilized by people in some fashion)

Landlocking is definitely an issue, and both private & .gov are equally bad about abusing it for selfish reasons. For some reason it is not viewed like water rights out west, where a change in water usage is treated as outright theft of another's property. Re-zoning or deeding your land to remove or moot access rights to another's land can devalue it to practically zero, same as would damming or dumping pollutants into the upstream watershed, or installing a tall fence that blocks natural movement of game animals. Any of those actions typically open the perpetrator to liability. Rather than a non-profit, I would argue that a diligent parks service should be sewing up access rights to areas they wish to protect & promote for conservation or environmental reasons; it'd be pretty easy, too, just don't charge property taxes on the routes in question, and voila, you'll have owners beating down your doors to give access through their property.

Back to the topic of the thread, it does appear like Trump will be rescinding all of Obama's more recent gun-related EOs (in addition to many others), so at least for the time being it seems like he is walking the talk. We'll all be able to breathe easier once the ink has dried, of course. Now, not that I endorse the method of governance by the Executive, or anything, but it might not be a bad idea to put together a thread for "Gun/sporting related EOs and regulations" sort like DC Dalton does for proposed legislation in congress. If for no other reason than to keep them separate so people know which officials to complain to.

TCB

 

[Hardtarget]

Just wondering...how many wars have fought in Europe with rifles in the last 150 years. Any guess regarding the metric tons of lead shot all over Europe? Now...how many people do we hear of dying of lead poisoning because of those tons of bullets ? Seems to me that if it (lead) was really a problem we'd know more about it. "course I'm probably wrong about this. to simplistic.

Mark

 

[buck460XVR]

Just wondering...how many wars have fought in Europe with rifles in the last 150 years. Any guess regarding the metric tons of lead shot all over Europe? Now...how many people do we hear of dying of lead poisoning because of those tons of bullets ? Seems to me that if it (lead) was really a problem we'd know more about it. "course I'm probably wrong about this. to simplistic.

Mark

The ban of lead projectiles on public lands has little to do with the threat of lead poisoning to humans. It's about the threat to wildlife. Basically the ingestion of lead pellets by waterfowl as they seek grit(why the ban first was for the hunting of waterfowl and now is directed at wetlands) and the ingestion of lead fragments by scavengers while picking carrion. While there is a smaller threat to humans, this ban is basically about wildlife. Lead was banned from paint and children's toys because they chew on crib rails and stick anything and everything in their mouths. Most State wildlife agencies also recommend not eating "right up to the hole" when consuming large game shot with expanding bullets. Lead needs to be inhaled or ingested, so until folks in Europe start eating or snorting dirt, they are probably safe.