The Political Sportsman

Time for a little introspection...

2012-02-08T08:03:00.000-08:00

There's a chance--a small one, or course--that I've managed to get this all wrong. I've spent the last year or so railing against the machine, pointing out all the bought-and-paid-for elected officials out there who do the legislative bidding of The Man. Perhaps I need to look elsewhere.

In truth, we, as hunters and fishers, are to blame. We, as a whole, are either apathetic or so programmed by tradition that we end up as part of the problem when go to the polls and send ambitious politicians to Washington or to state capitols all across America. We're brainwashed.

Damn it. I think it's our own fault. We're robotic idiots who vote the way we vote because that's all we've ever done. We assume that the folks who claim to fight for good old-fashioned family values and claim to be economically and fiscally responsible and who want to make sure our American way of life is protected from those who would destroy it are also fighting for our rights to hunt and fish and experience the best of America on our terms. We assume that public lands will always be public and we take for granted that access to these wonderful places will always require only a little desire and the means to get there.

What we see...

And when folks ask us how we feel about our hunting and fishing heritage, and the public places that belong to us simply because we're Americans, we tell them how important they are to us. We want public lands kept intact and not sullied so some robber baron can make a buck and leave a mess behind. We want wild places and wild things in our lives, and we are making the connection between these wild places and the opportunities they offer to us when we wander into the wilderness with a rifle slung over our shoulder or a fly rod in our hands. We get it.

What they see...

And then we go to the polls and send some pandering ass to DC, where he busily works to ensure all his funders get what they paid for, which, if you think about it, is the same thing we want: access to our public lands, freedom from all the constraints of an overbearing government and the right to make a living. The only difference is, deep-pocketed political funders want to treat our treasured resources--the ones that belong to all of us--like a ghetto crack whore. They want to sink drills, dig open-pit mines, inject fluid, take away anything of economic value, leave a sticky mess behind and then get the fuck out.

And there's no conscience. No looking back. And our apathy lets it happen.

"The price of apathy towards public affairs is to be ruled by evil men."

-Plato

These days, we're all enamored by the idea of replacing the dude in the White House with someone who's a bit more in touch with what Americans really want. Someone who shares our values and appreciates hard work. We want someone who's not going to take so much pity on the lazy and destitute or the dipshits on Wall Street or in Detroit who essentially pushed themselves to the brink of disaster and then had to beg for help from the rest of us, who are now really struggling thanks largely to the mistakes of these clowns. And we want someone who stands firmly behind the Second Amendment and will protect our right to own and use firearms.

And for some reason, that's where we stop wanting. That's the end of the wish list.

The other day, I read this (video above, for proof), and reality hit me. On the surface, this is the type of guy we'd all like to see in the White House. He's articulate. He's successful. He's clean-cut and well-spoken, and certainly he's very bright. But at his heart, he's another god-damned One Percenter with no interest in the common man. No, he says, he wouldn't have bailed out Wall Street, even though a massive percentage of his campaign funds come from that very classy lane in Lower Manhattan. He would repeal the "job-killing" health care bill, even though he crafted one virtually identical to it in his home state of Massachusetts (where public lands are minimal). He wouldn't have bailed out the automobile industry, even though his old man was once the governor of Michigan. He wouldn't cut money from our defense budget, even though that's where the bulk of our spending lies.

And, it seems, he'd be willing to liquidate public land, apparently because his cronies in Utah during the 2002 Olympics said they didn't know why there was so much public land out there, and what it was for, other than to develop coal and gold reserves or to appease the most extreme environmentalists.

Ask yourself, the next time you've got a big bull elk in the crosshairs, or the next time you cast that fluffy Stimulator to that rising cutthroat ... "Am I an extreme environmentalist?"

Unfortunately, I think it's safe to say that most of us who hunt and fish (and, after three years into the presidency that was supposed to be so liberal and extreme, still own all of our guns) seem to think we're somehow contractually obligated to vote for uninformed elitists like this, simply because they attach the right letter next to their names when they appear on the ballot. And, judging from the bought-and-paid for lapdogs in DC, we have a pretty shitty track record--we send these assholes to DC all the time, only to scratch our heads and wonder why in the world they'd be so stupid as to try and bend over for industry interests that just want to rape and pillage the very lands we hold most dear.

But, in our hearts, we know. They're bought. They're paid for. They're working for their constituents who really matter to them. We're the fucking proletariat drones who mindlessly punch chads next to candidates' names because they are rumored to support the values we hold most dear.

We need to snap out of it. We need to think for ourselves. We need to reexamine those values, and decide, quite frankly, if we'd be able to exercise any of them without public land and our time spent exploring them as a backdrop. Do you like hunting with your son? Or your father? Do you like time around the campfire with good friends? Do you like being able to wander up into the hills and disappear up a hidden trout stream for a few hours once or twice a month? Do you dream about that Alaskan fishing trip, or the Montana elk hunt from your urban refuge?

How about those values? Family. Relationships. Time spent outdoors. Don't those count?

Think for yourself. Turn off the brainwasher and tune into reality. Above all, start voting for the values you hold most dear, not the ones you're told you hold most dear.

It's time we stopped being part of the problem, don't you think?

Another Energy Industry Stooge

2012-02-03T11:32:00.000-08:00

Lamborn... apparently standing in front of the land he'd like to
see leased to the energy industry for cut-rate royalties.

You'd think some Congressional ass clowns like U.S. Rep. Doug Lamborn would come up with some original ideas when it comes to extracting energy resources from beneath some of the best fishing and hunting country left in the Lower 48, right?

Nope.

The U.S. Department of Interior announced this week that it's going to scale back Bush-era plans to extract oil from shale in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming, largely because there's no proven way to do it without sucking up most of the region's water, trashing some of the most scenic and economically important land in the nation and, of course, spending more than the commodity is worth at market, even now with a barrel of oil coming in at about $100. Instead, federal resources will go into continued research and development. The idea, they say, is that a patient, deliberate approach to developing the science behind the potential extraction of untold amounts of oil from beneath this land is the way to go.

You know... figure out how to do it right. Makes sense, huh?

But Lamborn won't let pragmatism get in the way. He's advocating for a "full-speed-ahead" approach that advocates leasing these lands in the shale belt for reduced state and federal royalties. What the hell is this idiot smoking? And if it's the stuff he can get with the most sought-after prescription in Colorado, how's that glaucoma coming along?

Oh, wait. He's probably not smoking anything. He's an industry stooge. One look at his most recent campaign fundraising report will tell you exactly why he's asking communities on Colorado's Western Slope to bend over and take it up the grungehole from the oil and gas crowd. The oil and gas industry is his largest funder, and the Congressman is simply trying to give the industry its money's worth.

Never mind how we get it. Just get it. And save the industry
some cash in the process.

Trouble is, there's not a smidgeon of creative thought coming from this hard-core right winger when it comes to energy resources and how best to go about getting at oil and gas without trashing the land, the habitat and our ability to hunt and fish on public lands that belong to all of us. Like a lot of politicians out there who merit significant donations from energy industry PACs, Lamborn is a bought-and-paid-for mouthpiece that simply wants to keep his job, not do the job the people of Colorado's 5th District elected him to do.

But let's remember... this is the same congressman who stepped on his pecker when he said working with President Obama on debt-ceiling issues was like working with a tar baby. Not the sharpest pencil in the drawer, is he?

Sadly, as long industry is allowed to give unlimited amounts of money through PACs to hired stooges like Lamborn (you know, "corporations are people," right?), bills like Lamborn's creatively named Pioneer's Act will continue to surface and get attention (because there are a lot of industry stooges in Congress).

The solution for sportsmen who give a shit about public lands and what becomes of them? Fight back with your vote. Don't be a stooge. Vote for the candidate who can think on his own without an energy industry check to guide him.

Absence makes the heart grow fonder ...

2012-02-01T15:23:00.000-08:00

Has it really been four months? Time flies when you're working for The Man, huh?

Well, the good news, if you're even a frequent follower (I hear all the time the phrase, "I'm a closet follower of the Political Sportsman"), is that I haven't completely disappeared. The bad news is that, if you hunt or fish in the United States, you're likely not seeing much love from the bought-and-paid-for politicians in Washington (or from the clowns running for president on the GOP ticket, for that matter).

And, worse, there are "advocacy" groups out there that only seem to advocate for the Great White (monied) Hunter who doesn't care if the bull he shoots is corn-fed and raised behind a fence or one that might require a bit of shoe rubber to reach well off the beaten path. To hell with the rest of us who want to see our public lands protected, if for no other reason than they provide the conduit to our sporting heritage and the lifeline for the future of hunting and fishing in America.

Let's start with the most egregious offenders, shall we?

Add caption

Melissa Simpson: A former soldier in the Bush Administration's Resource And Public-lands Extraction Machine (she worked for both Interior and the USDA in natural resources jobs), Simpson is now schlepping for Safari Club International, a reputable, if misguided, organization. "Misguided" certainly describes SCI's decision to bring Simpson on board a while back--she's no friend of the hunter (although she's a great friend of, say, the rich white guys who own oil companies and hunt while on safari half a world away). During her time with RAPE, more gas drilling permits were rubber stamped than is conceivable, and the constant fight against the 2001 Roadless Rule continued unabated on behalf of industry.

Simpson appears to be the leading SCI antagonist these days, advocating for such asinine initiatives as the Wilderness and Roadless Area Release Act of 2011, or as I like to call it, the Fish and Game Subversives Act (FAGS). This toxic bill, introduced by two energy industry stooges on The Hill--Rep. Kevin McCarthy of California and Sen. John Barasso of Wyoming--would remove the tenuous protections enjoyed by backcountry lands administered by the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management. Conceivably, if the bill passes (and it's looking less and less likely because folks like you have made a stink about it--good work, by the way), it could open the up high-quality public lands belonging to every American citizen to industrial-grade development like oil and gas drilling and mining, motorized vehicle use and other onerous uses. Keeping in mind that the backcountry is the last pristine fish and game habitat left in the United States, and you, as a sportsman, can smell what this bill is really made of, right?

Simpson, in her testimony before Congress, claimed to represent "mainstream sportsmen," and then tried to be fashionable and channel Theodore Roosevelt: "President Roosevelt described conservation as meaning 'sound development as much as it means protection' and that 'natural resources
must be used for the benefit of all people.'"

As they say on ESPN, let's break it down:

Mainstream? Well, at first, it seemed accurate, especially when the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation jumped on board to support the bill. A few months later, though, after the "mainstream" members of RMEF threatened to leave the organization for supporting a bill that would actually diminish the quality of and quantity of elk habitat, the RMEF pulled its support and slunk off into the hills to lick its wounds.
Teddy? Sure, he said that. He also said, "There can be no greater issue than that of conservation in this country," as well as, "Defenders of the short-sighted men who in their greed and selfishness will, if permitted, rob our country of half its charm by their reckless extermination of all useful and beautiful wild things sometimes seek to champion them by saying the 'the game belongs to the people.' So it does; and not merely to the people now alive, but to the unborn people. The 'greatest good for the greatest number' applies to the number within the womb of time, compared to which those now alive form but an insignificant fraction. Our duty to the whole, including the unborn generations, bids us restrain an unprincipled present-day minority from wasting the heritage of these unborn generations. The movement for the conservation of wild life and the larger movement for the conservation of all our natural resources are essentially democratic in spirit, purpose, and method."

With that in mind, I wonder if TR would wander through the gas fields of Pennsylvania or the gas patch of western Wyoming today and think "development" is such a good thing, after all.

In short, Melissa Simpson is toxic. That SCI keeps her on the payroll is foolish and counter to the group's stated mission, "First for Hunters."

U.S. Rep. Andy Harris, Republican from Maryland: Harris was serving as the chairman of the House Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment today when the documentary filmmaker who made the acclaimed film "Gasland" was ordered arrested and removed from a public committee meeting for attempting to film the gathering for a future documentary.

The hearing, focusing on the controversial practice of "fracking," was recorded on C-SPAN, but documentarian Josh Fox wanted some higher-quality footage for use in his next film. Now, for clarity, there are rules governing media access to congressional meetings, but they're usually only strictly enforced when there's the threat of a throng of media descending on a hearing. There was no throng in this case. Fox simply wanted to record members of Congress during the committee meeting, some of whom would likely go on record supporting the practice of hydrofracturing (fracking), which is accomplished by injecting an unknown (trade secret of the industry ... seriously) chemical cocktail into the ground the force shale gas up from the depths of the earth.

We're seeing the impacts of fracking in drinking water in Wyoming and its practice requires the use of surface water, which is literally drying up trout streams in Pennsylvania and potentially polluting creeks and streams as it's brought back up to the surface.

Harris and his fellow Republicans ordered Fox arrested because he continued to invoke his First Amendment rights and refused to leave the hearing, camera in tow. Wow. I can't wait to see the next documentary.

I'm sure there are more bad actors out there, who claim to represent hunters and anglers but truly represent something much more subversive and sinister. But I've dallied long enough for today. I'll keep at it. If you'd like to suggest a few other bad actors that need a good bitch-slapping, feel free to secretly share them. I'll do my best to be a bit more timely and post a bit more frequently. This day job is kicking my ass...

U.S. Chamber of Horrors

2011-10-05T17:18:00.000-07:00

R. Bruce talks with the "fair and balanced" folks. What a knob.

It seems that big industry in this country is relentlessly continuing its attack on the public lands that belong to every single American. This time, it's the U.S. Chamber of Commerce that's going on the record and supporting the Fish and Game Subversives Act, which would open up millions of acres of high-quality fish and wildlife habitat to development.

And that, of course, is exactly what this right-wing outfit wants. Contrary to its very name, the USCC is not so much a friend to commerce as it is to big industry. Thousands of mom-and-pop businesses out there that are members of this organization are being duped into thinking this overarching outfit is out to help the flow of cash through their communities when, in reality, this slave to Big Business is simply doing the bidding of the industry that desperately wants to develop public lands for their subsurface minerals.

In a letter to U.S. Rep. Kevin McCarthy, the evil mastermind behind the FAGS act that would open up unprotected public lands to eventual development and unchecked use by the reckless off-road vehicle community, USCC Executive Vice President for Government Affairs wrote: "This legislation would direct that these lands be managed for multiple uses, which would include increased recreational opportunities, responsible resource development and better access to enhance firefighting and insect control capabilities. The bill would allow local land managers and surrounding communities to determine through the local land management planning process how these lands should be used."

Ah, yes... R and W. Rich and White and out to rape
America's public lands.

It's proof that R. Bruce Josten (what kind of blue-blood uses an initial for his first name, anyway?) knows virtually nothing about the millions of acres of land in question and is simply parroting the message clearly delivered to him by the moneyed extraction industry that, more than anything, wants to build inventory and enslave the nation to decades more of fossil fuel dependence. If he had an orginal thought, R. would have considered the impact that trashing prime fish and game habitat would have on the long-term economy in rural America that depends on the billions of renewable dollars that flow into these communities each year thanks to hunters, anglers and others who have no trouble "accessing" these apparently inaccessible lands. He'd know that these lands are already subject to multiple use, even the kind he's so blindly supporting. In short, R. is a tool ... of the extraction industry.

And he's a dick, too.

It's one thing to have sell-out organizations like the Safari Club and the NRA (themselves political mouthpieces of the rich white guys who run outfits like Exxon-Mobil and Shell) throwing themselves into this arena and declaring the lands that are supposedly unfit for wilderness are now only of value if they're turned under in favor of oil and gas extraction. But to have the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the assumed parent organization (even though that's not true) of all chambers of commerce across the nation, ignoring the healthy, steady income that keeps much of the rural West afloat in favor of short-term gain for the richest of its members is unconscionable.

Are these lands unfit for wilderness? That's debatable. Are they only worth something if they're opened up to the rape-and-ruin plans put forth by the USCC and the right-wing extraction industry? Uh, no. There are millions of acres of roaded front-country land that every American with a desire can access, and then there are roadless lands that provide vital refuge for big game herds, irreplaceable habitat for wild fish and, oh yeah, unfettered access to every American with the will to take a step up a trail without the help of a fucking machine. And then there's wilderness, industry's favorite four-letter word. Why is there an assumption that, if land isn't appropriate for wilderness distinction (and wilderness, too, is accessible to every single American with the nerve to walk) then it must only be good for industrial and motorized destruction?

That's the USCC for you... a slave to industry, not the servant of America's small businesses.

And that's not my original thought. Take the Newton-Needham Chamber of Commerce in Massachusetts, which recently cancelled its membership in the USCC, citing the organizations bias toward industry and its lack of assistance to simple business.

Harry Robinson of the Brookline, Mass., Chamber of Commerce, said his organization made an effort to further distance itself from the USCC because, "I think they are viewed in some circles as more in favor of large corporations as opposed to small businesses..."

Hmm. Imagine that. And that's from some far-flung chamber in Massachusetts, where roadless lands are but a rumor.

So, while big business and industry continue their assault on the best of what's left of our public lands, it falls to hunters and anglers to get off their collective ass and start communicating with the bought-and-paid for douchebags in Congress, who will do the bidding of industry because, frankly, it was industry that paid to get them elected.

Remind Congress, particularly those right-wingers in the West, that we've seen the impact industry and unchecked motorized access have on fish and game habitat and our ability to hunt and fish on public lands. Tell them that the money we spend in these rural communities we visit as we fish and hunt is real money, and that we spend it every single year in restaurants, convenience stores, motels and retail stores. It pays the bills for rural America, and will for generations to come if they'll just leave well enough alone.

Industry has its inventory already. Much of the West is leased and awaiting development. Drill there. Leave the good stuff alone. The real Americans who hunt, fish, hike and camp will thank you for it.

RMEF ... Mistake Corrected

2011-08-24T20:38:00.000-07:00

Good job, RMEF. Now get on board
and hate FAGS with the rest of us.

Holy crap, did you see this?

It would seem that sportsmen who understand the connection between roadless habitat and elk survival and proliferation got through to the thick-headed brass at the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and got that esteemed old organization to actually back away from its support of the Fish and Game Subversives Act (also known as the Wilderness and Roadless Area Release Act, but I'm a "call-'em-like-I-see-'em" kind of person).

This is fantastic news, and if you take the time to read the comments under this Field and Stream blog, you'll realize quickly where the real hunters in America are coming from. I couldn't be prouder of my brothers and sisters out there who actually took the reins away from the leadership at RMEF and guided the organization in the direction it should have been facing all along. Just think how much grief RMEF could have avoided if it actually listened to its members rather than its buddies in Congress who could give a shit about the future of hunting and fishing in this country.

Now that RMEF is not supporting the FAGS Act, there'll be those who take a few cheap shots at the group for flip-flopping on this issue, but take heart. The Safari Club and the NRA are still firmly supporting this legislation because ... well, I'm not really sure. Perhaps it's because they're doing a favor for the rich white guys within the extraction industry who want more public lands they can pillage. Just a guess, really.

I'm pleased the RMEF saw the light, but I refuse to withdraw my attack against the organization until it actually climbs on board with the hunters and conservationists who make up its ranks and actively opposes this incredibly harmful legislation. What say you, RMEF? You've shown you have some balls. Now show us how big they are.

Is RMEF on the Take?

2011-07-28T18:52:00.000-07:00

You'll recall that I scolded the Safari Club for joining an effort that's actually counter to productive hunting and fishing when it signed on to support the "Wilderness and Roadless Release Act of 2011," a payback bill from U.S. Rep. Kevin McCarthy of California and U.S. Sen. John Barrasso of Wyoming to their industry cronies who paid to get them elected.

Open up the backcountry to motorheads
and industry? No way, bizatch!

SCI deserves a good bitch-slapping.

But the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation? One of the most reputable sportsmen's advocacy organizations on the planet? The group that raises more money than God, and then translates that money into action on the ground by protecting elk and big-game habitat? That Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation is supporting the "Fish and Game Subversives Act of 2011?"

Yep. According to letter dated July 11, 2011, RMEF joined SCI and the likes of Whitetails Unlimited, the Campfire Club of America and, of course, the ultimate foam-at-the-mouth outfit, the NRA.

Memo to the brass at the RMEF: You've shown your stripes. You're not who we thought you were. It would appear that you, like the two on-the-take legislators who are sponsoring this bill, are bought and paid for. The sportsmen who visit your annual "Elk Camp" and spend thousands of dollars on raffle tickets and auction items must now consider themselves betrayed. You sold out to bigger money, deeper pockets ... industrial interests. You betrayed us.

RMEF ... supporter of FAGS, and probably fags
themselves.

Why? I wish I knew.

Because you, RMEF, above all others, understand that the best elk habitat left on the planet is contained within the roadless and wilderness study lands that make up such a small percentage of our public lands. You, above all others, understand that hunting opportunity and success is greater in areas that are intact and healthy. You, above all others, understand that the average hunter can't afford to step behind a high fence or a "Posted" sign to go hunting (and most of us wouldn't if we could, dipshits). But you put your name on this bill, and you're behind the FAGS Act all the way.

We're all a bit disappointed, to say the least. I know I've attended my last Elk Camp (I'm going to Reno next year, but I'm blowing my cash on 'hos and blow instead). I'll be sure to wander by the convention and let you know how I really feel about your sell-out organization, though.

Thanks for nothing, douchebags.

Roadless vs. Brainless?

2011-06-29T12:04:00.000-07:00

So, I mentioned in my last post that a host of bought-and-paid-for politicians are giving into special interests and are out to reduce the last, best chunks of American public real estate to front-country playgrounds for the motorhead douchebags that can't seem to live with the idea that they're not the only people in the country who use public lands.

But, I was surprised to see one well-known–and much respected–outfit on board with the plan to release all of America's roadless land and all of its wilderness study areas from their present state of protection.

First for hunters? Uh...not so much.

The Safari Club, the group of well-heeled sportsmen that has done more for wildlife conservation in this country and around the world than just about any environmental group out there, mysteriously appears on the bill's list of supporters, next to the likes of the Blue Ribbon Coalition, The Colorado Oil and Gas Association and the United Four-wheel Drive Associations. The last three make sense. Our country's roadless lands stand in the way of free-for-all eight-cylinder activity that has proven absolutely tragic to fish and game habitat.

But the Safari Club? WTF?

Who missed the memo here? It's no secret that America's roadless lands are home to our healthiest game herds and the last of our native fish. Keeping them intact is a no-brainer.

So... who else is on that list? Check it out for yourself. You'll see the usual suspects–you know, the eighth-grade educated advocacy groups whose members spend more time tearing up the landscape in big trucks or on ATVs than they do actually appreciating the backcountry for what it is (my theory is that they're compensating for little, tiny peckers, but what do I know?). Oh, and don't forget the NRA, the outfit that claims to represent hunters, but really and truly wants to safeguard your God-given right to own a bazooka. They're on the list favoring those who support the destruction of our country's hunting and fishing heritage.

And make no mistake about it. Removing the meager protections afforded to what's left of America's backcountry habitat is a shot to the heart of the ethical hunter or angler who understands that these wild places do more for our hunting and fishing opportunity than the NRA or the Safari Club will do in thousand lifetimes.

To say I'm disappointed in the Safari Club is an understatement. This is an organization that has staunchly represented sportsmen the world over, carrying water for a little-understood philosophy that sportsmen, by necessity, are among the world's leading conservationists. This hard right turn makes no sense to me, and leads me to believe this decision is based on something other than the organization's traditional position on habitat protection.

If you're a Safari Club member, you might want to reconsider that investment. As of now, it's going to support the desires of the motorized and extractive-use industry that is completely unforgiving of fish and wildlife habitat. And that, of course, means the Safari Club is supporting the degradation of our hunting and fishing. Again... it makes no sense.

I suppose the argument could be made that the Safari Club is supporting access for folks who might not be able to wander into the backcountry without the help of a machine. To that, my answer is simple. There are more roads and motorized trails on public lands than we can possibly hope to navigate in a lifetime. Opening up the best of what's left to the notoriously irresponsible motorized community is a dire mistake we'll all regret.

Get with the program, Safari Club. You're better than this.

The Usual Suspects

2011-05-27T14:35:00.000-07:00

Ahem... first, an apology. I kind of dropped off the face of the earth there for a bit. The "day job" has been particularly demanding lately, and I just haven't had the energy to respond to every brain-dead moron who wants to trash America's public lands and ruin the hunting and angling legacy these great places provide.

Until now...

It seems The Usual Suspects are back at it. Since they haven't had any luck kicking Medicare to the curb, and since they've spent the first six months of the new Congress tackling symbolic legislation in order to make the other party look like a bunch of pansies (which, let's face it, ain't too tough), the Republicans bolstered by the Tea Baggers are now out to repay their cronies in the industry. The idea, they say, is to open all this wasted public land here in the West to "multiple use."

And, of course, we know what that means, right? Oil and gas. And off-road vehicles, of course. Because there's nothing easier than pleasing a bunch of high-school graduates who like to rip and snort through perfectly good country just for the hell of it.

The Blue-Ribbon Coalition is just giddy at this latest effort, called the Wilderness and Roadless Area Release Act, to hamstring the protective status of the West's best fish and game habitat. This bill would remove the protections from 43 million acres of Bureau of Land Management wilderness study areas and U.S. Forest Service roadless areas and open them up to "access" for the little guy.

Well... that's a little deceptive. All of us elitists who want to lock up the land from "Joe Six Pack" can get into the backcountry with a good pair of $60 hiking boots. The "regular guy" this bill would benefit owns a $7,500 Polaris four-wheeler with knobby tires and some impressive horsepower. Who's the elitist, I wonder?

U.S. Sen. John Barrasso

And, yes, it's the usual suspects who are pushing for this bill, and, as usual, it's a bill that's really aimed at making it easier to turn the West into a industrial pincushion, with a bonus for the thrill-seeking ORV rider who drinks the Kool-Aide, no questions asked. I mean, these guys are Republicans, right? They can't do anything wrong, can they?

Usual suspect No. 1: Wyoming's own John Barrasso, a bought-and-paid-for oil and gas advocate who's in debt to the tune of $179,000 to the oil and gas industry (his No. 3 campaign financeer, behind the health professionals industry and the GOP leadership PAC). It's no surprise that this dude wants to release 12 million acres of BLM wilderness study areas and remove millions of acres in U.S. Forest Service system from the roadless inventory–he's got to make good on his promise to perform legislative felatio on his energy industry benefactors.

Rep. Steve Pearce, New Mexico

Barrasso's bill is the mirror image of a bill put forth in April in the House. This "twin brother" bill was introduced by Usual Suspect No. 2, U.S. Rob Bishop of Utah, who owes the energy industry almost $20,000 worth of favors (No. 2 on his donation list behind ... sigh ... lobbyists). Also involved in this piece of legislation, which would gut the protective status on some of the best hunting and fishing ground in the country, are Usual Suspects Nos. 3 and 4, Reps. Steve Pearce of New Mexico ($319,000!) and Kevin McCarthy of California ($68,000).

It seems the notion of public lands that belong to every single American rubs these guys the wrong way. God forbid we protect a small portion of the untracked backcountry to ensure the next generation of hunters and anglers the opportunity to stalk game and cast for wild trout in landscape that looks just like it's supposed to look.

But, hey, we know our problem. We can't muster the resources to cough up thousands of dollars in campaign contributions to get these guys to bat an eye. We don't have the cash, baby. We barely matter.

And, until that changes ... until we can muster the support from within our educated ranks and throw these bought-and-paid-for "lawmakers" out on their ear, we're going to have to beat back every single effort they undertake to take away our birthright. It's really our fault. It's our own apathy (and the propensity of many of us to mistakenly vote for the wrong set of douchebags) that keeps us from having the appropriate amount of influence on The Usual Suspects.

Thankfully, these bills are a lot like the others the GOP has pushed out like cheesy turds this session--symbolic. They don't have the votes in both houses, but they're doing their best to prove to their financial and ideologic benefactors that they're willing to get dirty to accomplish a little bit of evil.

Meanwhile, we're in "react" mode. The solution? Sadly, we have a couple of Novembers to go before we can do much about it. But, if you're interested in letting these stooges know we're onto them, get in touch with them and say something.

Couldn't hurt, right?

'Won't Take Yes for an Answer'

2011-04-12T05:42:00.000-07:00

In an increasingly common display of partisan douchebaggery, U.S. Rep. Rob Bishop of Utah is actually opposing the diversification of our domestic energy production on public lands. Apparently, the rotund, bought-and-paid congressman is a live-in-the-now kind of cat–to hell with the future of hunting and fishing (and why not throw in breathing clean air and drinking clean water while we're at it). He's not going to live long enough to deal with his own self-centered mistakes.

He's an oil and gas stooge. A one-trick pony. No matter how much sense it makes to invest in research and development of clean, renewable energy resources, this guy simply won't bend, instead insisting that, before we consider new long-term sources of energy in this country that might allow us to keep our public lands healthy and intact for future generations, we bleed every acre of public land dry of fossil fuels. Oh, and did I mention that he's the chairman of a public lands subcommittee in Congress? Friggin' awesome.

You try and figure it out. I'm stumped.

This is a dude who simply works for industry, and he's doing it on our nickel. Here's proof, as mentioned in a recent Salt Lake Tribune editorial:

Presently, the United States has more producing oil wells than at any time since 2002. We are producing about a fourth of our own oil consumption (about 5 million barrels of day of our 18 million barrels-a-day habit). Keep in mind this is after the Deepwater Horizon disaster last summer that is, if you believe Bishop and his GOP cronies, hampering domestic production.
We've reduced dependence on foreign oil by 25 percent by ramping up domestic production, but, no matter how many holes we'll drill, we'll never be able to match our present oil consumption. The reason? Uh, we just don't have the oil.
We've leased almost 40 million acres of public lands for oil and gas development. We've drilled less that half of it.
President Obama, in the midst of a budget crisis, devoted significant attention to this issue last week when he talked of the need to diversify our domestic energy production while still using oil, gas and "clean" coal to bridge the gap to the next generation of fuels.

He won't support drilling for oil because ... he supports
more drilling for oil.

All this, and Bishop still isn't satisfied. We must sell more oil and gas leases, he says (or, if you're like me, you see the truth: "We must build inventory, so my asshole buddies in the industry will have something do when we finally dump this Muslim, foreign-born, Kenyan spy the silly Democrats elected in 2008"). We must drill our way out of this problem (Sarah Palin must be whispering in his ear–amazing how much influence the MILF factor has, isn't it?). We must continue to enable the industry to record billions in annual profits, by God.

What a tool. I would wager that, had George W. Bush delivered the message that expanding domestic energy production to include solar, wind, geothermal and nuclear energy, Bishop would have noted the wisdom of using fossil fuels as a bridge to the future (and the continued stream of industry money into his campaigns) and wholeheartedly supported it.

But, since the plan comes from the other side of the aisle, he's busy getting all red-faced and indignant. As the Trib said, Bishop won't take 'yes' for an answer.

And here's the irony. He's opposing a bill that would create jobs at no cost to the taxpayer and without borrowing money from foreign governments simply because it requires some environmental accountability from the industry as it seeks to drill–yes, Rob, drill!–for oil and gas, both onshore and off. We've seen what can happen without proper oversight, and not just last summer. We've seen it right here in the West, where hydraulic fracturing chemicals are turning up in domestic water wells; where drilling mud spills and then spends the winter frozen in a waterfall; where surface water is tainted; where air quality in western Wyoming is worse than it is in downtown Los Angeles; where mule deer herds simply vanish for lack of winter range. Nah. We don't need oversight. We don't need accountability. Benzene is like sea salt–it's great on steak.

Oh, and here's some more irony. By opposing the bill, as the Trib points out, Bishop is trying to micromanage the Department of Interior. He's inserting more government into the equation, not less. He's demanding that Congress have some management authority on land managed by a executive branch secretary. If that doesn't raise the hackles of every sportsman who understands that quality fishing and hunting depends on having places to fish and hunt left intact, what will?

Wake up, Utah. This creep is mortgaging our future to subsidize his cushy job on The Hill. Need proof? His top campaign contributors? Lobbyists. No. 2? Oil and gas.

Sportsmen for Lies and Propaganda

2011-03-25T16:44:00.000-07:00

You know when your right-wing, politically motivated propaganda is disavowed by the uber-conservative National Rifle Association, you're treading new ground in the conservation arena.

Pardon me. That should read, "conservation" arena.

I give you Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, which turned heads a couple weeks back when someone on the staff sent out a news release claiming the NRA, Safari Club International and the Congressional Sportsmen Caucus, among other right-leaning groups with a dog in the hunting rights right, all opposed the effort to delist wolves from under the Endangered Species Act and return their management to the states where the top-tier predators live. Wisely, the NRA, SCI and CSC all support the delisting efforts and the plan for state management. It's likely the only way in the near future that hunters will have a (legal) shot at wolves in the West.

And, when the SFW release hit the media world, all three organizations above immediately cried foul. And rightly so. They cautioned the media and members of Congress to "thoroughly investigate and independently confirm" any claims made by Utah-based SFW. Good advice.

Apparently, simply delisting the wolves and having them managed in a common-sense manner by states that would treat the critters as game animals, just isn't enough for the foam-at-the-mouthers at SFW. The idea, evidently, is that delisting them and having them managed as anything other than vermin is unacceptable. Welcome to the All or Nothing Club, SFW. I'd like you to meet your fellow members, starting with the douchebags at Eart First! and ending with the booger-eaters at Lobo Watch. Don't worry... you'll fit right in.

But I'm deluding myself, and you, if you're paying attention. SFW has always been in this club. This is a group that claims on its website to represent sportsmen by protecting habitat and seeking ways to increase wildlife populations across the West, but wouldn't get involved in the effort to protect over a million acres of prime wildlife habitat in the Wyoming Range from future oil and gas extraction. They also rarely, if ever, get involved in efforts to restore native fish populations in the West, assuming instead that, so long as there are hatcheries, we'll have fish. So much for that "habitat" argument.

But the real kicker is that this group, again, according to its website, has 15,000 members. That's just plain scary. Here we have an organization that's willing to play fast and loose with the reputations of other sportsmen-oriented organizations, all while it claims to represent sportsmen on its own. Imagine the damage this group is doing by "representing" sportsmen before Congress on issues like wolf management, habitat protection and natural resources discussions that will impact our sporting success well into the future.

More importantly, the black eye SFW just received when the NRA, SCI and CSC called them out for their unethical and underhanded activities is shared among all hunters and anglers.

Be careful which group you join, folks. SFW isn't worth your charity dollars, not if you want to keep your integrity when you claim the donation on your tax return. You especially shouldn't join a group that's now officially an Adversary of the Sporting State.

Toothless Motorheads Find a New Hero!

2011-02-23T14:42:00.000-08:00

So, we all know these days that Congress is out to cut our federal deficit and trim away wasteful government spending. Nobody, not even the most liberal, left-wing, bordering-on-Marxist zealot, can dispute the need to bring some fiscal common sense to Washington.

But, as is typical of the smarmy cretins that seem penetrate our government with agendas that are more political than they are representative, even this process, which should involve sacrifice from all corners, is now laced with vitriol and the seedy agendas of those who would scuttle progress in favor of pleasing a few special interests.

And sportsmen are going to take another shot to the pooper if we're not careful.

Congressman Wally Herger standing up for... himself.

The culprit? U.S. Rep. Wally Herger, a Republican from California. He's introduced an amendment to a House resolution that's actually rife with amendments that are, at best, harmful to our natural resources and to the sporting public. But Herger's amendment, which would nix the U.S. Forest Service's six-year effort to manage travel on land it manages, might be the most egregious, and it would certainly have an impact on hunters and fishermen who value hunting and fishing on public lands without some obese, toothless goober motoring up the trail behind him and asking, "Seen any elk?" before he charges through an adjacent trout stream on his way uphill.

Several years back, Forest Service Chief Dale Bosworth identified off-road vehicle travel on Forest Service lands as that agency's greatest challenge. He noted that efforts must be made to manage ORV use on public lands to ensure that other users in the national forests weren't overrun (and I think he meant literally) by folks who dared not walk into the woods. Bosworth and the administration at the U.S. Department of Agriculture initiated the Forest Service's travel management review policy, and began, in earnest, seeking public comment and input into forest-specific travel management planning. Certainly, it was an exercise in bureaucracy, but the outcome of each plan, as the process moved forward, was the result of public participation–a cornerstone of our republic.

Many plans are done. Many are happily in use by folks who participated in their creation. But many are in the process. Herger's amendment would scuttle all of them by removing funding from the travel management process, making the whole ordeal a wasted exercise, kind of like Dorothy's dream of Oz. Only minus the technicolor and the Lollypop Guild. I can hear the engines revving at the trailheads now... "Snot-slurpers, start your engines!"

And this saves money ... how? From my perspective, it seems that it simply amplifies our fiscal problem, and actually makes the good money the government has already spent to put this process in place now officially bad money. Wasted money.

And these jerk-offs want to invest my Social Security? To hell with that.

It's simple, really. Herger is using our country's financial crisis for political gain. He's one of a host of Western statists who just can't stand the government's land-management agencies because they operate under a mission to protect public lands for everyone who makes up the actual public (that's you and me, my fellow hunters and anglers). And, occasionally, those agencies actually have the balls to follow through on that mission.

Then someone like Herger bows to special interests and decides that wasting good money invested in a process that's meant to eek out some compromise between disparate users of public land suddenly equals "fiscal responsibility." Ah, to view life through those lenses, eh?

Sadly, Herger's not alone. You remember my good buddy Rob Bishop, the esteemed Congressman from that ever-progressive state of Utah? He, too, has introduced an amendment that amounts to a kick in the crotch to sportsmen (I know... he really IS out to get us). He wants to deny funding to the Bureau of Land Management to keep it from managing the National Landscape Conservation System, which might be one of the best public lands networks, particularly for hunters, our nation possesses.

What it boils down to, really, is the desire on the part of the bought-and-paid-for uber-Conservatives in the West to do their best to use the country's fiscal crisis to whittle away at laws, processes and rules that actually serve to protect the folks who live in the West and their ability to access and use public lands. And it doesn't just hurt hunters and anglers, it takes a swipe at just about everybody who enjoys the landscapes that belong to all of us.

So, for his ass-backwards attempt to assist our great nation through our financial obstacle course, I hereby award Rep. Wally Herger this week's Adversary of the Sporting State award. Congratulations, sir.

Adversary of the Sporting State: Montana Rep. Jeff Welborn

2011-02-12T16:31:00.000-08:00

It's simple, really. Follow the money.

Now, in this case, it's not a hell of a lot of money, but after reading a post in Yellowstone Country Fly Fishing about a Montana state representative who's trying to undo much of the good that was done a couple years back, when the state Legislature finally cleared up exactly what "public access" was in Montana, even a little bit of money can make some folks undertake foolish errands.

So, here's what's happening (the short version). Rep. Jeff Welborn, a Republican rancher from Dillon, Montana, is trying to hamstring the state's incredibly foresighted public access law that allows anglers to follow navigable waterways on foot, so long as they stay within the high-water mark of those streams and access them from public rights of way (like a highway bridge, for instance). The big argument a couple years back was really over what constituted waterways, and what were deemed private "ditches" and off limits to the wandering fishers.

After years of legal wrangling that involved folks like pop-rocker Huey Lewis and his claim that Mitchell Slough on the Bitterroot River that runs through his property is actually a private impoundment (it ain't, Huey... you may believe in the Power of Love, but you apparently couldn't give a rat's ass about public access), the Legislature and then-state Rep. Kendall Van Dyk, a Democrat from Billings, made it clear what constituted public access and what didn't.

It was, for lack of a better term (and one that's generally foreign in Montana, anyway), progressive. It strengthened Montana's solid access laws, which only added to the Montana mystique among anglers. Great fishing. And, uh, you can actually get to it.

Montana Representative (and Hairclub for Men
member) Jeff Welborn.

Well, rancher Welborn and his $17,000 political war chest (I said it wasn't a fortune, remember) went to work when the Legislature convened this year. It seems Mr. Welborn has an axe to grind–he doesn't want folks walking below the high-water mark on private land (his private land, perhaps?) chasing Montan's fabled trout. And he was paid over $3,000 by the livestock and the agricultural services and products industries to go to Helena and fight back against the obvious socialist agenda put forth by fishermen everywhere. And he's contributed nearly as much to his own cause–it's apparently THAT important to him. With help from similar mental midgets in the Montana House, Welborn has passed a bill that essentially throws Montana back into the uncertainty that led to the mess we were in just a couple years back.

This is, at best, blatant legislating on behalf of himself and a handful private landowners in southwest Montana who have their own interests at heart, and not so much on behalf of the people he claims to represent. In the grand scheme of things, how many ranchers in and around Dillon are negatively impacted by that reckless band of fly fishers who climb over highway guardrails and spend hours casting to feeding trout below the high-water mark on private land? Is it really so egregious? So high-impact?

Now, let's say Welborn's bill, now headed to the state Senate, where, coincidentally, Van Dyk now sets up shop (we can talk about the money HE spent to get that gig another time, but, honestly, folks, as far as I'm concerned, it was worth every penny) gains a second dose of insane approval. And then, let's say Gov. Brian Schweitzer signs this bill.

What's it worth in lost business to the folks in Welborn's district who stand to gain from progressive access to navigable waterways across otherwise private land? What's it worth in high-end whiskey at the Longhorn Saloon? How about the new hotels out there on I-15? What about the gas stations and smarmy little casinos? Restaurants? How about the poor soul at the fly shop who makes his sole living telling folks where to get in and get out on the Beaverhead or the Ruby? These are the folks Welborn represents, but I'm guessing they didn't pony up too much for his campaign. So, if you think about it, they're getting their money's worth.

This, if you think about it, is Montana's answer to the national debate over health care. The GOP in Congress is so damned determined to gut "Obamacare" that its members are ignoring some really important issues where progress is actually possible. In Montana, Welborn and his lot are so busy looking backwards that they're likely failing their constituents when it comes to issues that actually carry some importance (and it pains me, folks, to admit that me being able to get onto the Ruby River below the dam isn't really vital).

This is Welborn's fool's errand. He's wasted a month of taxpayer's time in a state where the Legislature only gathers every two years to do any substantive work. And he's taking a shot at sportsmen who come to Montana every year to experience "the Last, Best Place." If he's successful, Montana's new motto might just be "No Trespassing. Go Spend Your Money in Idaho."

And for that, Mr. Welborn is this week's Adversary of the Sporting State.

Lobo Watch: This Week's Adversary of the Sporting State

2011-02-03T15:46:00.000-08:00

You know how I feel about extremists, and how extremism–in any fashion, from any political perspective–quells sensible debate and brings emotion, vitriol and unproductive rhetoric to any discussion. This week's Adversary of the Sporting State would have you believe he's a sportsman, himself. Truth be told, he's just another foam-at-the-mouther with an axe to grind.

Toby Bridges runs the website Lobo Watch, I'm assuming out of his mom's basement in Missoula, Montana. He's an affirmed hater of the gray wolf (honestly, this isn't just another post about wolves), but his hatred, of late, is being shotgunned around the conservation world, and he's challenging some organizations that have built their reputations on protecting wildlife habitat and hunter and angler opportunity in this country.

One of Toby's latest manifestos is aimed at the National Wildlife Federation and its state affiliates, specifically the Montana Wildlife Federation. If you believe the rhetoric coming from Lobo Watch, you likely think the NWF and the MWF are front organizations for Earth First! and are a hindrance, not a help, to the sporting public. Truth be told, there might not be a more effective, more moderate conservation organization in the country, but don't tell that to Toby. He's convinced this national conservation organization and its Montana state affiliate are out to shut hunters down.

If you're a regular reader of this blog, you know that in 2009, wolves were taken off the Endangered Species List and hunters in Montana and Idaho collectively harvested about 250 of the predators during legal hunting seasons that year. This was the product of a collaborative process that did two things: First, it guaranteed the long-term presence of gray wolves in the Northern Rockies ecosystem; and second, it also guaranteed that hunters would be able to help keep population numbers in check. This provided the needed relief some big game herds required to remain viable for human harvest (and it provided a bit of help to ranchers near the wildlands interface that were, and still are, dealing with wolf-livestock conflicts), and it provided another sporting opportunity in those two states (Wyoming would have been have been the third state, but its political leaders were too busy falling on their sword and insisting wolves be managed as vermin to be part of a reasonable solution to this politically charged issue).

You also know that the extreme right and the extreme left, whether they knew it or not, worked together to ensure wolves were once again protected under the Endangered Species Act (way to go, Toby). The left-wing zealots immediately retreated to the courts, and the right-wing whackjobs, specifically those in Wyoming, refused to budge an inch and allow wolves in that state to be managed as game animals and harvested according to a science-based quota. So, enough review.

Toby is convinced that NWF and MWF are out to bring down the American big-game hunter, simply because the groups openly support wolf management in the Northern Rockies. To be clear, both the NWF and its Montana affiliate support wolf management that includes hunting and harvesting based on sound science, and not on the rabid, slobber-on-the-microphone ramblings of slob hunters who are convinced wolves are but one step above the devil himself.

Here's a little exerpt from Toby's latest missive: "In the past, NWF has worked hand in hand with some of hunting's worst enemies to file some pretty frivolous lawsuits, and has pushed for a nationwide ban against lead shot. As long as the National Wildlife Federation continues to forsake the health of America's big game herds to openly support growing wolf numbers, the sportsmen of this country would be well advised to send their donations to and become members of efforts which clearly see the need for tight control of major predators - namely, the wolf."

Let's take a closer look. First, there's not a hunter out there with a conscience who hasn't considered swapping out his lead for other ammunition that doesn't have the trickle-down impact on non-game wildlife, specifically scavengers like California condors or eagles or any other critter that depends on carrion for all or part of its diet. Not all of us have made the change, but the vast majority have taken the time to investigate alternatives and, in time, many of us will switch to something that will kill only the animals we harvest and not unintended targets. Anglers, too, are starting to come around. Hardly an extreme position.

Second, the NWF and the MWF support wolf management, which is what the moderates essentially achieved in 2009, before the far left took the issue to court and got the wolf hunts in Montana and Idaho stopped, and the wolf relisted under the ESA in those two states. It's important to note that neither the NWF or the MWF were part of that lawsuit. Here's proof (and more proof that, if you're willing to do your own homework instead of just falling back on rhetoric popular with the extremists, you can actually find the truth). You'd think groups that "openly support growing wolf numbers" would fall all over themselves to be a plaintiff in that historic lawsuit, right?

In the same manifesto, Toby makes a few more exaggerated claims about the Montana Wildlife Federation, specifically the conservation organization's support of the proposed expansion to the Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument. And here's where it gets interesting.

From Toby's "press release" in early January: "According to the folks at Montana Wildlife Federation, the expansion would provide visitors, "...open spaces, quiet areas, wilderness experiences and sustainable biological values." Unfortunately, it would shut hunters out as well, even though it has been their dollars which have been spent to build the wildlife resources there, and everywhere else in this country."

For clarity, hunting is perfectly legal on the Upper Missouri Breaks National Monument. From the Bureau of Land Management's UMRBNM website: "Within the monument you can float the river, fish, hike, hunt, drive for pleasure, find a little solitude, enjoy a sense of exploration or simply marvel at the variety of resources around you."

An expansion of the national monument would only add to our country's hunting resources (although I propose an amendment to this expansion that would only prohibit Toby from hunting in the Missouri Breaks). Again, proof that if you take your information gathering into your own hands, you can actually learn a few things. But, hey, it's easier to have some radical spoon-feed you false information because you don't have to click your way through a Google search to find the truth. That's just too much to ask, huh, Toby?

Sadly, Toby's rabid website is chock full of misinformation, and not just about NWF, MWF or other moderate and reasonable organizations that understand the connection between an intact, functioning ecosystem and hunting and fishing opportunity. For instance, Toby claims we have 10,000 wolves in the Lower 48. Counting every wolf from the Great Lakes region west to the northern Rockies, and including all 42 known Mexican gray wolves in Arizona and New Mexico, we might have 6,000. Again, this information is but a click away (I can hear Toby now ... "That's a government website. We don't trust the government. That's why I have all these guns and knives, ya know." Is that the sound of a whetstone I hear in the background?)

So, for his wanton disregard for truth, justice and the American way–and for being a willing purveyor of propaganda, misinformation and the construction of poorly written prose–I hereby award Toby Bridges with this week's Adversary of the Sporting State designation. Congratulations, bud. You've earned it.

And tell your mom I said hello.

-RC

(P.S. I'm taking nominations for next week's A.S.S. Comment with ideas.)

Far Left and Far Right ... More in Common that You Might Think

2011-01-29T21:23:00.000-08:00

When it comes to natural resource policy in the West, the moderate, middle-of-the-road citizen lacks a voice. That's because the extremists on the far left and the far right get so worked up that they monopolize public meetings, spit vitriol into microphones and spend a good portion of their time holed up in their rickety cabins hammering away at their manifestos.

Unfortunately, the sad reality is that the extremists have more numerous and more effective avenues from which to preach their message, and, quite frankly, they're sensational behavior is more sexy to the press. But what those of us who gather closer to the center of the political spectrum are beginning to realize is that the far left and the far right have more in common than they do with the people who listen quietly, ponder important issues and then work to actually get things done. Our voices might not be loud, but we tend to get the heavy lifting done, even if it takes a while.

It's amazing how the far left and the far right can approach the same issue and, from their own perverted sense of altruism, work together (although likely not consciously) to oppose it. In other words, they're so far to the left or the right that they're circling around behind the rest of us and meeting up. That's when the moderate crowd needs to clench up and prepare to get screwed.

Take wolves, for instance. Christ. The wolves.

This is perhaps the signature issue in the West these days, largely because the press has devoted so much attention to the extremists. Thanks to that, the moderates, left and right, have been left to do the bulk of the actual work, and when we had a solution in place, the foam-at-the-mouthers swooped in and peed all over our parade.

In 2009, wolves in Idaho and Montana were taken off the Endangered Species List and their oversight was transferred to the respective states' game management departments, where wolves were then handled as big game. Tags were sold, and the wolves were to be harvested according to a quota system that would allow hunters to take a wolf while still guaranteeing the animals' persistence in the ecosystem. Wyoming decided not to play ball–so it's wolves were left on the protected list, and Wyoming hunters were not allowed the opportunity to chase these apex predators.

Well, the very idea that wolves would end up in the crosshairs of hunters caused the far left enviro crowd to light their own hair on fire. At the same time, the far right was busy doing the same thing. Wolves were vermin, not game animals, and they should be shot on sight (that was the Wyoming stance, by the way). Or so the logic goes.

Lawsuits were filed, more microphones were slobbered on, more manifestos were drafted that included rhetoric about the genetics of Canadian wolves vs. the wolves that were extirpated in the mid-1900s, and more romantic notions about wolves were spewed over high-speed internet connections. The result? Hunters in Montana and Idaho got one crack the wolves in 2009. The court ruled that the government violated the law when it took the wolves off the list in Idaho and Montana.

So here you have the far left, enlisting a cadre of Earth Justice lawyers, and the far right busy making kitschy videos about wolves killing elk for pleasure. The rest of us were just disappointed that this issue persisted. We had a solution, one the far right and the far left despised, but one reasonable folks could live with. I remember the hard-core right-wingers expressing their doubts that hunters would be interested in chasing wolves if they were managed as game (about 250 wolves were killed). I remember the uber-left bleating about how hunters would abuse the hunting season, and the game managers would turn a blind eye to misbehavior. Didn't happen.

Now we're back to where we were, with lots of emotional tripe in the press, and dipshits riding around with "Shoot, Shovel and Shut Up" bumper stickers on their jacked up pickups. The unwashed left is promising more court action if the wolf is delisted, because we can't live without the romance of the wild wolf in the northern Rockies.

And most of us in the middle are fed up. Truthfully, ethical and appreciative sportsmen would rather hunt in an intact ecosystem, and wolves are part of that equation. But we also understand that we are limiting factors to the natural order of things, and that if it takes science-based management to meet wolf population goals, and if that management involves hunting, we get that, too. And we understand that there are other uses of the land that don't necessarily go hand-in-hand with a ballooning population of wolves (ranching, for instance).

Maybe our problem is that we don't foam at the mouth enough... we don't spit into microphones and point fingers or ride around with the slogans that define our political views pasted to our trucks (you know, so we don't have to think for ourselves... wouldn't that be nice?).

But there's logic behind our moderation. We're educated. We're informed. We're involved. We understand that compromise is a wonderful tool to achieving a workable solution, to bringing disparate views closer to the middle. For a lot of us, it works. We reach out for information rather than let some crackpot spoon feed it to us.

Eventually, this wolf situation will work out, and I'm betting it works out pretty much like it did before, with wolves managed as game animals, and harvested according to science-based quotas. Because the biggest threats to wolf recovery and their long-term presence in the northern Rockies are the extremists on both sides who want it their way, or no way at all. They'd rather fight it out in court and in the media than reach any sort of conclusion that involves one or the other giving an inch.

Frankly, it's easier being an extremist. It's easier to let someone else do your thinking for you. It's easier to buy into the rhetoric that seems to match your mindset, without bothering to educate yourself. It's easier to put a bumper sticker on your rig and wear your politics on your sleeve, and act like a zealot whenever a microphone or videocamera appears.

But you're not getting a damn thing done.

Adversary of the Sporting State

2011-01-27T13:43:00.000-08:00

I thought I'd start a new feature at the Political Sportsman, largely because ethical hunters and anglers all over the country are faced with real threats from some of the folks who purport to defend our rights to fish and hunt, all the while working with special interests to erode our opportunities, often right under our noses.

And, rather than stoop to Tea Bagger rhetoric or place a "surveyor's symbol" over the district of the politician who, through his or her actions, is harming our hunting and fishing way of life, I just decided to go with something respectful, yet blatantly clear to both the hunting public these people impact, and to the politicians and agency officials themselves, who by word or deed, diminish the uniquely American pastimes of hunting and fishing on land belonging to every citizen of the state. Hence, the title Adversary of the Sporting State.

I thought about "enemy" rather than "adversary," but in the spirit of a kinder, gentler political discourse, "adversary" seemed more respectful.

And our first Adversary of the Sporting State?

Idaho state Sen. Tim Corder. The P.S.'s very first A.S.S.

Congratulations to Idaho Sen. Tim Corder, a Republican (in Idaho? Shut the front door!) from Mountain Home. Sen. Corder, clearly caving to the neanderthals in Idaho's rabid off-road vehicle community, introduced a bill this session amending existing state laws that allow the state Fish and Game Department to regulate ORVs on public lands during hunting season.

See, for all the backward, right-wing, out of nowhere politics in Idaho, its Fish and Game Department is ahead of the curve. Sadly, although it's funded solely by sportsmen, its oversight is given to a governor-appointed commission (which isn't so bad right now, because Gov. Butch Otter, while a little backward himself, isn't a complete right-wing sell-out), and the state Legislature has the ability to interfere frequently. Which it does.

Let's start with the good things about hunting in Idaho. Here's the most obvious–it has oodles of quality habitat. That's due to the fact that Idaho can boast over 9 million acres of roadless lands within the U.S. Forest Service system alone. And, as well all know, (and feel free to say it with me) habitat makes for opportunity. Because the state has such good game habitat, many of its hunting units are available to over-the-counter hunters, and some seasons stretch five weeks or longer, giving sportsmen a lot of flexibility.

Idaho also has relatively healthy big game herds–there are some issues with elk numbers in the northern third of the state, and the foam-at-the-mouthers blame those issues on wolves. Truth be told, much of Idaho's north country is the unfortunate beneficiary of timber harvest management–a good fire is about half a century overdue, and a good fire would open up the canopy in key areas and provide the needed habitat to improve game populations. Wolves will be wolves, of course, but blaming wolves for the decline of elk is like blaming sea lions for the decline of salmon as they bump their noses on the dams that stop them from moving upstream (which, like Sen. Corder, is also an Idaho problem).

Idaho's home to the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness, the new Owyhee Wilderness and some of the West's best backcountry landscapes, especially when it comes to hunting and fishing.

But it's also home to the Blue Ribbon Coalition, a motorhead advocacy group that couldn't care less about your or my right to hunt unmolested by some moron on a four-wheeler. Their mantra is pretty simple. They want more. More access, more acres, more ... opportunity. For the rest of us, that simply translates into ... less. And having to put up with dillweeds in the backcountry.

Well, Sen. Corder has taken up the torch for the BRC, whose members believe the Idaho Department of Fish and Game shouldn't be allowed to govern the use of ORVs on public lands during hunting season. In other words, in hunting units identified by educated and experienced game managers as sensitive and subject to diminished return if impacted too heavily, hunters on ORVs should be given free rein.

And you know how I feel about ORVs. "Hunters" on these damn machines don't do the rest of us, who like to see game when we venture into the hills, any favors. But I digress.

The point is, here's a state lawmaker who thinks he and his ORV-riding cronies know best when it comes to game management in Idaho. That's pretty bold, huh?

I got word yesterday, though, that the Idaho Sportsmen's Caucus Advisory Council opposes Sen. Corder's bill. That's the good news, and probably unwelcome news to Sen. Corder, who might like to think that hunters and anglers are his kind of people (he's a bold supporter of Second Amendment rights, you know... says so on his website). You know, politically conservative and environmentally ill-informed.

I'm telling you, hunters and anglers in this country are making progress–slow, painful progress. We're starting to see the writing on the wall. Just as some left-wing PETA freak might oppose hunting because of the necessity to actually kill an animal in the process, an equally egregious offender exists on the right–like the kind of politician who'd be brash enough to usurp control from biologists and game wardens in favor of awarding it to rip-snorters on their four-wheelers.

You can read Sen. Corder's bill hereORVs almost always impact big game herds negatively–that's a fact. Stripping the power from game managers to regulate these machines during hunting season doesn't do real hunters any favors.

In fact, just the opposite. And that's why Tim Corder is The Political Sportsman's inaugural Adversary of the Sporting State.

– RC

There's Hope Yet...

2011-01-21T18:43:00.000-08:00

If you're reading this, chances are, you've arleady ventured by Hal Herring's Field and Stream blog, "The Conservationist." And if you've been paying attention over the last week or so, you're probably encouraged.

And rightly so.

Herring, like me, was a disappointed in the responses from a number of members of Congress to an overdue policy change announced by U.S. Secretary of Interior Ken Salazar before the holidays. Essentially, Salazar reinstated the Bureau of Land Management's ability to identify high-quality lands and propose them for protection. This power was stripped from the BLM by former Secretary of Interior Gale Norton. Predictably, the far-right, perhaps overreaching a bit in the wake the Teabagger Revival, came out with shrill criticism of Salazar for the having the stones to restore balance to a federal agency in charge of managing federal land. Imagine that.

In this blog, I singled out U.S. Rep. Rob Bishop of Utah, who made a half-baked remark about the "brazen" actions of the administration–that Salazar had the nerve to propose something so outlandish offended him to his right-wing core. Well, Hal Herring, who has more street cred with hunters and anglers than Bishop will ever have, took the debate to the next level, calling out Rep. Dean Heller, a Republican from Nevada.

Congressman Dean Heller, R-Nevada. He doesn't like
wilderness or, apparently, poorly dressed children.

Heller spouted off similar tripe to the Wall Street Journal that Bishop spewed to the New York Times shortly after Salazar made the announcement that the BLM was back in the land management business after nearly a decade away from it.

Heller's quote: "The message of the [midterm] election is we want less regulation, less government intrusion. We want to keep these lands open."

Herring jumped all over that one, and rightly so. There's nothing "closed" about any BLM land, anywhere. Sure, there are limitations to how you can access certain swaths of land. The really good stuff (wilderness or wilderness study areas) can only be visited foot or on horseback. The marginal stuff ... well, I'm of the opinion that that's where the snot-slurping, braindead goofballs on ATVs belong, mostly because they've already screwed it all up for anyone else but themselves.

Herring put together a cogent piece in response the to foam-at-the-mouth (there's my favorite phrase again) members of Congress, noting that protecting important landscapes does for more sportsmen and women in the long run than just about anything else. Keeping habitat intact protects hunting and fishing opportunity (where have I heard that before?).

Well, Heller responded. Or at least someone on Heller's staff responded. And Herring, to his credit, gave him free rein to make an ass of himself. Predictably, he did.

By falling back on the age-old, manipulative bullshit, Heller tried to tell Herring (who's probably forgotten more about public lands management laws than Heller will ever know) that increasing the amount of federal real estate protected as wilderness (even though Salazar's return to the status quo does not create a single acre of new wilderness) locks out the average sportsman. He also made some half-cocked comment that hunting elk is virtually impossible if you don't have an ATV or a horse (how's that for an endorsement for the morbidly obese slob who desperately wants to go outside but isn't about to earn the privilege by putting some wear and tear on a pair of hiking boots?)

And then, Heller really stepped on his Johnson: "Outfitters and trappers may no longer have access because restrictions may not allow horses."

Huh? Keep in mind, this a dude who claims to be a "lifelong sportsman" himself. He serves on the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, and is the policy chair for the Congressional Western Caucus. And he thinks Salazar's policy shift that enables the BLM to identify high-quality fish and game habitat as "wild lands" amounts to a ban on horses?

Take a moment to spit the vomit out of your mouth. I'll do the same.

In a very polite and courteous response, Herring, who clearly has more class than I do, explained to Heller the real reason honest-to-God sportsmen applauded Salazar's move is because it was simply the right thing to do under the law that requires the federal agency to manage its lands for their assets. In doing so, the BLM will now get back to the business of identifying the best of what it has left within its vast inventory and nominating that land (read: HABITAT) for protection. Of course, you have to understand something that Heller has conveniently forgotten. Only Congress can designate land as wilderness. And that's odd, seeing as how Heller is in, um, Congress.

But I digress. I did say there was some good news. And that's in the slew of comments that appear after all three posts (the first from Herring, Heller's response, and Herring's response to the response). Most of the thoughtful hunters and anglers applauded Herring's fair approach to the discussion, and sided on the side of habitat. One sportsman actually pulled one of my favorite tricks–he followed the money, and reported that Heller's last campaign finance report noted donations exceeding $80,000 from the "energy and natural resources" sector. Nevada, you should know, is a mining state. It's pretty clear who Heller is really out to protect, and it's not Nevada's hunters and anglers. No wonder he's pissed at Herring.

My favorite response was from a sportsman who, after reading Heller's response from on high, said: "Hmmm, he (or rather, a junior member of his staff) took eight paragraphs to say absolutely nothing, address absolutely nothing and effectively refute absolutely nothing. Hell, I could have done the same thing by saying "blah, blah, blah" for eight paragraphs, and it would have made about as much sense..."

Alas, a little bit of my faith has been restored in the sporting community, thanks to Hal Herring and those who read his blog. God bless the informed sportsman, for he wields more than a gun and a rod. He wields truth, and Hal Herring put that weapon to the best of uses recently. Good on him for doing that. We're all better off as a result.

–RC

The Big Bad Wolf ... Not the One You're Thinking Of

2011-01-09T18:04:00.000-08:00

Why it took U.S. Secretary of Interior Ken Salazar two years to restore administrative authority to the Bureau of Land Management when it comes to protecting some of the best hunting and fishing country in the West is beyond me. But predictably, it took extremists like U.S. Rep. Rob Bishop about five minutes to start whining about the return to the way things used to–and ought to–be.

Back when Gale Norton occupied Salazar's office in D.C., she conspired with the likes of Bishop to effectively hamstring the BLM and prohibit the federal land management agency from, well, managing land. Specifically, Bishop and his bought-and-paid-for buddies in Congres didn't want any more wilderness or wilderness study areas on public land, particularly in Utah. See, wilderness locks out industrial development while protecting fish and wildlife habitat. In other words, Bishop's campaign financiers (read, the extractive industry lobby) would be unable to drill, mine, rape and pillage on land belonging to every single American if that land–worthy as might be–were to be designated as wilderness or a wilderness study area.

God forbid. The BLM has active drilling leases on a collective Western land mass the size of Ohio. "Locking up" land from industry would be bad for business. And that would be bad for Bishop, a Utah Republican. He's so protective of his funding sources that, in a recent article in the New York Times, he's quoted as saying Salazar's return to the way things used to be represent "a blatant attempt to usurp Congress' role over public land management," and "I don't know anywhere else where an administration has been brazen enough to think they can establish policy without the legislative authority to do so."

Congressman Rob Bishop ... being pretty brazen himself.

Uh ... well. Let's just go back a few short years when the Bush administration ordered the BLM to fast-track nearly every oil and gas drilling application on public lands and give exemptions from bedrock environmental laws (you know, like the National Environmental Policy Act) to industry as if it was handing out candy to kids on Halloween. That was pretty "brazen," don't you think Congressman BoughtAndPaidFor? It got so ridiculous in the mid-2000s, that the BLM couldn't keep up with the application workload and was forced to bring in help–from the industry–to rubber stamp drilling permits. That was, uh, pretty "brazen," don't you think? I wonder if the folks who died on the Deepwater Horizon last summer, or the communities along the Gulf Coast who are still dealing with the impacts of the terrible industrial disaster would call the NEPA exemption BP received for its drilling permit "brazen." I'm guessing they just might.

Don't believe the "bought-and-paid-for" claim? Bishop's top campaign donors in the 2009-2010 funding cycle? Oil and gas. Nothing wrong with that, I suppose, unless you happen to be a hunter or an angler who can appreciate the need for wide open, wild country for hunting and fishing success. Since 2002, Bishop has collected more than $60,000 from the oil and gas industry, which, truth be told, hasn't done much for hunting and fishing success on public lands in the West.

And here's the really sad part. I would wager that a lot of the folks who support Bishop also hunt and fish. Representing sportsmen in Congress while criticizing an effort to protect fish and game habitat... that's brazen.

As for the hunters and anglers who have allowed that to happen? That's just plain ignorant, and they have nobody to blame but themselves. They've been duped–willingly–by a guy who's just out to protect his job and the money he needs to run a campaign to keep that job.

You want to see brazen? Next time Bishop's name is on a ballot, vote for the other guy.

–RC

Foaming at the Mouth

2011-01-05T12:58:00.000-08:00

I learned a new term this week to describe the rabid extremists out there. Thanks to the blog, Eat More Brook Trout, I now have a phrase to describe the over-the-top folks who want things their way, or no way at all. Foam-at-the-Mouthers.

I love it, and I'm shameless commandeering it from that blog (my apologies). And it applies to both extremes of the political spectrum, especially in the sporting and environmental communities. I'd lump in the nuts at PETA with the equally egregious anti-wolf whack jobs who are intent on trying to convince the huddled masses that the wolves reintroduced into the Northern Rockies are a subspecies new to the American side of the border (because, you know, with tightened security at the check station, they weren't able to cross over into the United States for lack of valid passports).

Extremism is a bad idea in any form, but to legitimate hunters and anglers who understand that habitat is the great equalizer, not whether we have too many–or two few–predators on the ground, the extreme right-winger can be just as harmful as the hard-core green weenie. These extremists are the guys who have identified a scapegoat (wolves, for instance) and have zeroed in on it so closely that they've lost touch with the big picture.

As most good hunters and anglers know, habitat is the key to a healthy ecosystem. The things that really matter are water quality, availability of cover and forage, access from winter range to calving and feeding grounds and back... you know, HABITAT. If you have good habitat, you'll have good game herds, no matter what country the wolves in the neighborhood have stamped on their passports.

But to the "foam-at-the-mouthers," like this dude over at Lobo Watch, it's much more convenient to play the blame game. He's been spouting off about the evils of environmentalists and the "non-native" wolf subspecies that now occupies parts of Idaho, Montana and Wyoming as significant obstacles to hunting success.

Let's be clear. Wolves do have an impact on big-game herds, particularly elk. That's a simple fact that shouldn't be ignored. But to blame wolves for all the environmental ills in the region (and that seems to be the preferred route for the "foam-at-the-mouthers") is disingenuous. Why not consider some of the other environmental factors that might play into the overall success or failure of the big-game population in an effected area?

For instance, when's the last time a forested drainage had a significant fire? Fire, destructive force that it can be, actually helps create habitat. In the Northern Rockies, particularly in parts of Idaho and Montana, fire has been suppressed for generations, allowing for a closed canopy and a general lack of forage. That's not ideal game habitat–every hunter worth his salt knows that. Throw wolves into an unhealthy situation to begin with, and you've compounded a habitat problem, not a predator-prey problem which, in time, will balance itself out.

How about outside stimuli? Is an area overrun with motorized vehicle trails? Is an area under development for oil and gas? Big, industrial-grade projects will drive deer and elk away (look at western Wyoming, where half the mule deer herd is gone thanks to virtually unchecked natural gas drilling). Wolves on top of that mess will only complicate matters.

The point is, much like the nut-jobs who are out to kill sea lions as they gather at the base of Bonneville Dam on the Snake River because they eat too many salmon, demonizing the predator when the habitat is the problem simply amounts to addressing a symptom, not the root cause. Is there any doubt that Idaho would once again see hundreds of thousands of salmon and steelhead charging up the Clearwater, Snake and Salmon rivers if we were to remove four largely unnecessary dams on the lower river that hinder passage to and from the ocean?

Only a "foam-at-the-mouther" would answer "yes" to that question. Open your eyes, folks. Look at the big picture. The real villain in the battle to protect our hunting and fishing doesn't have four legs, but two. He doesn't come from Canada, he comes from the board rooms of the consumptive industry that simply will not check its greed in order to protect a unique part of our Western heritage.

Am I advocating for a halt to industrial development in our nation? Certainly not. But before you start "foaming at the mouth" over some perceived threat, consider the big picture, and start demanding some accountability, especially when it comes to how our public lands are used. Remember, these are places that belong to every American, not just the ones who have please investors on Wall Street.

–RC

Hope? It takes more than invoking TR...

2010-11-04T04:40:00.000-07:00

I love the idea of a sportsmen's advocacy group with cojones. Non-profit status works for groups who want to finesse their way around issues and "compromise" with industry and their on-the-dole politicians (you get 90, we'll take 10 and declare victory). It's the groups that have lobbying power that make the most difference--hell, if you can't beat them, become them. Lobbyists, that is.

Unfortunately, the groups out there that claim to represent hunters and anglers almost always let us down. Take the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, for instance. Here's a group that should have the best interest of game and fish habitat at heart, and they ought to speak for sportsmen who depend on intact habitat for opportunity. Yet they run and hide when industry raises up on its haunches and decries the "radical environmentalists" who are getting in the way of progress. You know, those environmentalists that have the stones to actually want to protect habitat, like roadless lands across the West. You'd think RMEF would be all over that--it's a proven fact that the most successful hunting for big bulls takes place in areas that haven't been scarred by roads or ORV trails.

Nope. They turn a blind eye. Or worse--they enable the erosion of habitat, largely, it would seem, to protect their funding sources, which would be mighty pissed off if sportsmen--who are supposed to be all about energy independence, patriotism, apple pie and Karl Rove--got in the way of the next big energy lease.

Hell, the Safari Club, populated by monied, old white guys does more for conservation in this country than RMEF--and I would wager its political make-up is something Mr. Rove would be proud of.

Anyhoo... there's a new group out there that is making a big deal about having those cojones I mentioned earlier. The newly formed Bull Moose Sportsmen's Alliance is registered as a conservation organization with a lobbying arm--a voice for sportsmen in DC that can back up their efforts to convince politicians to do the right thing, and back it up with endorsements, something non-profits are forbidden to do. That ought to ge their attention, right?

Not so fast. Invoking the ghost of good, ol' Teddy Roosevelt has proven only so effective. Now, I firmly believe Roosevelt--a hell of a sportsman in his own right--helped launch the conservation movement in this country. But everything from his memory to his writings have been conveniently repressed (the DC monument with his name on it is tucked away conveniently on an island--out of sight, out of mind) by those who'd rather not feel the icy stare of the man who said things like "Leave it as it is. The ages have been at work on it and man can only mar it."

Another conservation organization, The Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, has been largely ineffective, but not because its heart isn't in the right place. It's, sadly, a small non-profit that likes to talk a good game, but its accomplishments have been outweighed by the 90-10 example above. TR's good name hasn't helped much.

Bull Moose? Jury's out. Of course, in my mind, one of its core goals is just lip service to bring the paranoid sector into the fold--why is it that sportsmen's groups can't walk across the street without stating the obvious? Of course the BMSA wants to protect the Second Amendment for sportsmen. Goes without saying. As I've noted before in this embryonic forum, nobody will ever have the political power to take our guns away. Instead, groups like Bull Moose ought to focus on protecting the places we need to put our Second Amendment rights to good use and quit wasting bandwidth trying to be so damned politically correct.

So far, seems like politics as usual. We'll see if this movement, which is largely confined to Colorado right now, can gather enough political power to counter the lobbyists from Big Oil and others who would rather see our public lands used to pad the pockets of industry than to serve as a reminder that this country has a heritage and a culture that is teetering on the edge.

Let's see if the BMSA has the fortitude to tell Washington to, "Leave it as it is. The ages have been at work on it and man can only mar it." And then, of course, we'll see if they can back it up. I wish them luck.

--RC

First ... a Righteous Rant

2010-11-03T20:21:00.000-07:00

It's appropriate, this being the first post on this blog, that it be something of a rant. A guy's got to let off a little steam, you know? Vent ... spew. Perhaps, after I get this out of my system, we can resort to more civil discourse, more agreeable discussion. More respect.

But respect, at least among those of us who hunt and fish, is an earned commodity. We take care to hone our skills, to learn our crafts. We take pride in becoming the best we can be at the quick, humane kill or the decision, should it be the right one, not to kill. And we take care to pass these endeavors down to our children and our children's children so they, too, might come to respect the wild places we visit today in search of fish and game. We have a deep, intimate relationship with the lands we use to harvest our game and to catch--and sometimes kill--our fish. We understand the impact we have on the environment, and work to minimize it or, if at all possible, leave things better than we found them. We're sportsmen and women--not camo-clad dilettantes who take our sporting heritage lightly.

Certainly, there are many of those around. But, because they lack the respect for the land and for the fish and the game they pursue, they're slowly migrating to the high-fence game farms and the stocked ponds where they can prop their asses in a lawn chair and never move farther than an arm's reach from the cooler. I'd like to think they'll eventually wink out, like the passenger pigeon, but we're enabling this lazy sect of our fraternity by providing go-anywhere off-road vehicles that can get into the backcountry and back to the heated Winnebago in time for dinner.

But make no mistake. Once one of these obscene, lazy cretins punctures the wild with a gas-powered, knobby-tired ORV, the backcountry ceases to exist. And I suppose that's the first sore spot that led to the decision to create this blog and share these views that might seem a bit over the top, but upon reflection, represent the only path to protecting our real sporting heritage.

ORVs. I hate 'em. With a passion. Unless they're working a farm or trashing land that belongs to the fat ass on top of the machine, they have no place on land belonging to you, me and every other American. Nothing galls me more than working my tail off to get to my fishing spot, or my ridgetop only to find that somebody has managed to take the motorized shortcut--often illegally--to my destination.

So who enables these "sportsmen" who would rather be quick and comfortable than stealthy and successful? Let's take a quick look at the political landscape and determine who's to blame for the eroding fish and game habitat on public lands in this country.

As a gun-toting sportsman, I'm supposed to kiss the foot of every conservative politician who puts "defending the Second Amendment" on his or her campaign brochure, right? Get real people. Nobody in this country will ever be able to successfully take our guns. Not Barack Obama. Not Hillary Clinton. Nobody. Go ahead. Get all worked up. Talk about the crazy blogger who's not afraid of the big, bad liberal wolf out to take our guns and make us submit to some socialist agenda. I'm the rational one, not the dillweed who flashes his NRA card like some badge of earned honor. Here's why:

If we don't first protect the places we go to fish and hunt from some of the same politicians who prop up their platforms on the Second Amendment, no amount of guns are going to do us any good, unless we plan to you use them against the people who took not our weapons, but the places we go to use them. Chances are, the same politician who tells you you can have his gun when you pry it from his cold, dead fingers is also supporting all kinds of activities that are trashing your opportunity to hunt and fish. They're supporting Big Oil as they drill for fossil fuels on land (or under water) better left alone. They're taking campaign contributions from industry and from God knows who else (No, thank YOU, Chief Justice Roberts), and in return they're turning over access to our land, to our water. And when it's tarnished, penetrated, polluted and ruined, they're not holding anyone accountable.

They take campaign donations from Yamaha, Honda, Exxon-Mobil, Encana, Shell... millions of dollars every year to ensure they are bought and paid for and our opportunities are diminished as they allow the places near and dear to us to be turned over to simply allow for more natural gas to hit the already-glutted market, or for Bubba and his band of sadly obese kids he had to pry away from the PS3 to ride across public lands until the wheels fall off their damn ATVs.

Sportsmen need to wake up. I can't count how many "Sportsmen for So-and-So" campaign stickers I saw this last election season, and most of the time, those "sportsmen" were supporting conservatives who have little or no interest in protecting what's really near and dear to hunters and anglers. In many cases, by voting for conservatives (and notice I've taken care not to label all conservatives Republicans, because that's not entirely accurate), sportsmen are voting against themselves and their own best interests. They've been coopted. Willingly.

And, just in case you think this is some kind of partisan smear effort, let's talk about the party that just got it's ass handed to it, shall we? The administration and Congress did next to nothing over the last two years to help protect habitat and opportunity (you'll hear that a lot from me--the two are linked together like Siamese twins). They voted to support an omnibus public lands protection bill in early 2009, but not until after it was loaded down with so much bacon that it could still be serving breakfast in the House cafeteria nearly two years later. And, let's not forget the bill got its genesis in 2008, under George W. Bush, perhaps the worst president ever when it comes to handing the keys to our public lands over to industry.

You bet. We got anemic health care reform, and the suddenly fiscally responsible Republicans decried the stimulus package. Seems Obama and the Dems in Congress thought it wise to go right to the top of the apple tree and find the hardest fruit to pluck rather than accomplish anything of substance on the natural resources front.

And make no mistake about it, my fellow hunters and anglers--you're on the front lines in the battle to protect our natural resources. You may not have to be as shrill as the green weenie enviro groups out there, but you better be every bit as devoted to protecting public lands as the crunchiest of the crunchy are, because, whether you know it or not, you're fighting the same fight. And you're on the same side.

Yeah, I know this week's election was a referendum on the economy and immigration and health care and all sorts of pet social project the Democrats rushed to put in place once they got their guy in the White House. But that's our fault. We sat back. We hid under the radar, not as the administration worked to safeguard the places we love and the pastimes we cherish--because they didn't. In fact, these last two years could well be "the lost opportunity," simply because, when Sara Palin jumped up and energized an electorate that would rather be spoon-fed its politics than to actually do its own research, we suddenly had a Congressional majority that was more interested in saving their jobs than actually doing their jobs.

That worked out well for them, didn't it?

OK... rant over. Time for discourse... if you happen to stumble on this and have something to add, please do. No need to be polite--as you can see, I certainly wasn't. Maybe, by the time the next election cycle rolls around, we can actually accomplish something.

-RC