Are There Any Politicians Who Really Understand Sportsmen's Concerns?

January 03, 2011

by Hal Herring

First, a bit of a rant, and then I’ll end with a question that I hope others will help me to answer. Late last week, the Wall Street Journal ran a story entitled “Wilderness Policy Sparks Western Ire,” subhead “Obama Directive to Expand Limits on Unspoiled Lands Draws Opposition from Companies, Ranchers and Sportsmen” (Please note that no sportsmen are quoted in the article)

The WSJ story concerns the new policy that the Obama Department of Interior, headed by former Colorado Senator Ken Salazar, has adopted to evaluate the wilderness qualities of hundreds of thousands of acres of public land managed by the US Bureau of Land Management. The new policy could reverse the extremist (my opinion) “no new wilderness” policy on BLM lands that was imposed in 2003.

In a press release on December 23rd, Salazar said:

"First: the protection of wild lands is important to the American people and should therefore be a high priority in BLM's management policies. Second: the public should have a say in designating certain public lands as 'Wild Lands' and expanding those areas or modifying their management over time. And third: we should know more about which American lands remain wild, so we can make wise choices, informed by science, for our children, grandchildren and future generations."

The announcement is a very welcome change, if not yet in direction, at least in thinking, for the BLM, an agency that is of critical importance to sportsmen- it manages 245 million acres of US public land (which includes a lot of my antelope, mule deer and birdhunting, by the way) . Some of that land certainly merits protection as wilderness, isolated, rugged, intact places where you can ride horseback or hike and hunt and fish without worrying that next year the seismic trucks will come roaring in, the drillers assembling, the wind farms towering, the endless development schemes and plans that have poured like a Biblical flood over so many of the places we’ve known and loved and hoped to share with our children.

But even this mild shift in direction for the BLM was greeted with scorn and fury by some of our elected officials and their – let’s face it - masters in the energy industry.

Here’s a few of the statements from those who, apparently, have decided for all of us that every single acre of our public lands managed by BLM will be open to development, regardless of the record of lost wildlife and hunting opportunities on BLM lands already, no matter that more and more of us are facing a world without the very kind of wilderness hunting and fishing that are still found on the isolated parcels of public land at issue. No matter, even, that these last parcels of land have never been shown to possess the assets- oil, coal, gas, minerals, that these people seem to crave as the only measure of value for any place on earth. Let’s hear what our elected representatives had to say, about this mild shift in federal policy:

"The Obama Administration just left a giant Christmas present under the tree of the radical environmentalists who got him elected, and Western states like Montana are going to get stuck paying for it," U.S. Rep. Denny Rehberg, R-Mont., quoted in my local paper, the Great Falls Tribune.

From the WSJ story: "This harms economic growth," said Rep. Rob Bishop, a Utah Republican who takes over next month as chair of the House subcommittee on public lands. "The West is being abused."

And, also from WSJ: "The message of the [midterm] election is we want less regulation, less government intrusion. We want to keep these lands open," said Rep. Dean Heller, a Nevada Republican.

End Quotes.

The lack of any substantial meaning in these quotes is not what is most disturbing about them. What is disturbing is that we seem to have lost any conservative political leaders who understand sportsmen’s concerns, or, in the same vein, who recognize that there can be value in undisturbed land, or waters, or that intact ecosystems, with their healthy game and fish populations, also hold economic value in producing clean water, clean air, grazing, wildlife, flood or invasive weed control, all those elements that may not always add to the bottom line of corporate profit, but are the actual bottom line of life on this planet. I have no idea if these political leaders are willfully ignorant- the facts are out there, remember- or just refuse to consider information that does not jibe with what they prefer to believe. Or if they simply say these things hoping to garner votes and financial support. I don’t know. I just know that they sound angry, reactive, and ill-equipped to lead.

And this leads me to my question: Why is it that we as a people remember the great conservation leaders, the Theodore Roosevelts, the John Muirs, the Aldo Leopolds, Rachel Carsons, George Bird Grinnells, and we have, almost without exception, forgotten the naysayers, the men who railed against the creation of say, Grand Teton National Park, or the Cape Hatteras National Seashore, the Sipsey Wilderness in Alabama?

There have been men and women from all parts of the US, for over a century, who have expressed deep contempt for anyone who proposed protecting landscapes, wildlife, fisheries. These same folks prophesied economic doom for towns like Jackson Hole, Wyoming, or Hatteras, North Carolina, if the surrounding lands were protected by law. Even now, as anyone can view the expanding human populations, the ever larger footprint of human endeavors, pushing back the hunting country, overwhelming the creeks, encircling the wildlife, they express contempt for anyone who would thwart what Bob Marshall once called “the tyrannical ambition of civilization to conquer every niche on the whole Earth.” And no one remembers their names. Why not?

Comments (23)

Top Rated

All Comments

from Mr. Creosote wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

Great post.

To answer the headline, no, there aren't, simply because there are damn few sportsmen out there any more who understand what truly should concern them. Why? Because most of them are too busy being spoonfed the type of bogus bull$!*t stories you reference in your post.

To answer your question, I'd argue that fewer and fewer people really know who those people are and what they did. And even if they do happen to know, wingnuts like Glenn Beck are trying their damndest to portray any progressive historic figure as a conspirator in the worldwide socialist plot to destroy freedom.

Could you imagine how Rachel Carson would be demonized, mocked and attacked on say, Fox News?

+7 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from vtbluegrass wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

How would a rich politician have any understanding of wild lands? If they even come from a sporting background it was probably a rich mans sporting background that did not include wild public lands but instead paid for results on game ranches or private stocked streams. Those who can afford these types of outtings tend to be oblivious to the availability or quality of free public lands.

+2 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from DanP wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

For us, it is a loss of access -- whether seeing lands made inaccessible to an aging hunting population, or seeing the land itself "developed." There is little talk of wise use, management of resources in ways that consider human interactions. Instead the fight is between enviros who seem to consider any use by man a defilement - something to be excluded altogether, and commercial interests who also do not consider the value of mixed old-growth, and managed forest with a diversity of edge and succession.

+2 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from rock rat wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

Well Ken Salazar whom you quoted in your article is a politician.

"we should know more about which American lands remain wild, so we can make wise choices, informed by science, for our children, grandchildren and future generations."

and he grew up hunting and fishing on public lands, his background is ranching and he's not anti energy but believes in a balance. Great pick for Sec of Interior. Obama has no background in hunting and fishing but he's been pretty good on lots of my issues. Now for the wolves ;-)

+4 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from kansasjeff wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

In his book "A Walk in the Woods" (great book go read it!!!) Bill Bryson said it best: people either treat wilderness as something to be conquered and driven into submission or they set it apart as something holy not to be touched, neither is good (paraphrasing)

Personally I hate how sportsmen get lumped into the industrial "rape the earth" group and conservationists get lumped into the environmentalist "tree-hugger, holy mother Gaia, PETA" group by the media. I'm a sportsman and a conservationist and I'm betting most of you here are also.

+10 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from Clay Cooper wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

In 1906, President Theodore Roosevelt established the Grand Canyon National Game Preserve on the Kaibab Plateau. Despite good intentions, this turned out to be one of the biggest mistakes an Government has ever done!

Read these links about the Kaibab and it will change the way you think and give you factual knowledge in conservation.

Part 1: http://depts.alverno.edu/nsmt/youngcc/research/kaibab/kaibab.html

Part 2: http://depts.alverno.edu/nsmt/youngcc/research/kaibab/story1.html

Part 3: http://depts.alverno.edu/nsmt/youngcc/research/kaibab/story2.html

part 4: http://depts.alverno.edu/nsmt/youngcc/research/kaibab/story3.html

+1 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from Bernie wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

The vast majority of politicians, particuarly on the national scene, are totally out-of-touch with the average sportsman. Many Democrats regard gun-toting hunters with suspicion, and Republicans continue to have a lack of environmental ethic. I find the situation very discouraging.

+7 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from Mike Diehl wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

Politicians that understand the relationship between hunters and open space/ecological preservation are few and far between. We do not fit neatly into one of the canned "core groups." We're not Chimpy's "haves and have-mores" nor are we the anti-gun vegan feral-horse-hugging core of the left wing.

In AZ, Gabrielle Giffords has done a good job IMO understanding sportsmens' issues. Too bad I'm not in her Congressional district. I'm stuck with the Representative for Sonora.

+2 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from Roderick K. Purcell wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

Near as I can tell the last politician to understand hunters and habitat was Theodore Roosevelt. Now we have knee-jerk partisans and folks more interested in chasing dollars than following voters. TR said it right: "Preserve the wilderness for the hunter, whether he is or is not a man of means." Now, the politicos are racing to give that birthright to big business.

+2 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from wgiles wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

Any more, it's all about money and which groups have the most high powered lawyers. The people, in general, don't understand the issues, the politicians don't understand the issues and the people who actually have a stake in the issues are often silent. We need to be careful about where we allow development, but not ban development outright.

+2 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from jbird wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

Here's an interesting fact, all 3 Representatives you quoted are proudly endorsed by the NRA. So they and many many others pander to the masses about gun rights, yet cater to big corporations with no regard what so ever for the land. Hmm... Somebody, or I should say a whole LOT of somebodies are getting played.

+3 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from Wisemanwolf wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

America is running out of wildlife habitat quickly. The BLM has been working hard to allow the large corporations to destroy the remnants of OUR resources.

Conservation ethic is rapidly being replace with people that know little about wilderness and wild life needs. Only look at Sarah Palin blazing away with a rifle that she had never shot before.... at a live caribou cow.

Real conservation is just that conservation. There are BLM lands that should remain wilderness, for wildlife and the future of hunting in America.

+3 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from whitefish wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

As a sportsman, logically i think we must add as much land as possible into Wilderness areas. Having areas where game can grow with outside influence is the best case scenario. Once an area gets roads or oil and gas rigs it will never be the same again. I personally dont understand why sportsman align themselves with the environmentally unaware right wing.

+2 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from Pacific Hunter wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

Wilderness is a desigantion in which no management takes place, fires are allowed to burn, no wheeled vehicles in many cases (including wheelchairs)are allowed. No salvage of diseased or burned timber. For those of you that were not familiar with the original process by which these "wilderness" areas were defined and designated. They included all lands that were not directly accessed by roads, current or historic (plus many other factors). What is up for designation now is areas that were deemed impacted in the original census. This means many of these areas were historically logged and the human influenced, even aged, mono-culture stands are not healthy nor wildlife sustaining. The fires that result in these areas and are left to burn take place with intensity and scope that are far graeter than the natural fires that are indeed good for the areas. No hunter wants to see wildlife habitat destroyed, but wilderness designation is not the best means of obtaining our end goal. You mention Grinnell and Roosevelt. I suggest you look to their land ethic before throwing around their names in defense of expanded preservation, which is what this designation is. In actuality they promoted conservation or wise USE of the land. If you were to obtain a large block of land and intended to hunt it, are their not things you would do to promote wildlife on it? Read any publication on private land and wildlife, it does not include just walk away and give it 200+ years to get to a point of a somewhat functioning ecosystem.

-1 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from Reg Darling wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

The programmatic destruction of wilderness and wild lands is not merely a matter of the carelessness of corporate greed (although it is indeed that)—it is an instrument of oppression. It is no coincidence that a nation which ostensibly values personal freedom above all other social and political concerns came into being amidst a great wilderness. The wild hunter-gatherer life that is humanity’s most ancient heritage is the origin of the living possibility of personal freedom. When the last of our wild land is either gone or its wildness is so irremediably compromised as to be nonfunctional, we will have lost the hunter-gatherer option of our primal nature. If that dark day comes, our society, no matter how affluent it may be, will become a prison. Our dwellings will cease to be places of comforting shelter and become cages. Our food will cease to be a vehicle of celebration and exist as mere fuel. Our leaders, who speak with righteous fervor about spreading freedom abroad, are digging up freedom’s foundation here at home and selling it to multinational corporations at bargain basement prices. They will not set aside a reasonable portion of our nation’s wildness for our spiritual and psychological sustenance for the very simple reason that they do not want to. It is not in their best interest to nurture wildness in the hearts of their constituents. They would rather rule a nation of sheep than a nation of coyotes—it’s easier and much more profitable.

+2 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from shane wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

Reg Darling - Bravo.

0 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from TenkaraGuide wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

Hal, Great post and intriguing question.
Here is a link to my response to your question:
http://middleriverdispatch.com/2011/01/politicians-sportsmen/
Cutting to the chase, here is my list of favorites off the top of my head. How i got to this list is explained in my post linked above.
Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) Unquestionably the dean of sportsmen legislators in the US Congress.
Rep. Mike Thompson (D-CA)
Rep. Rob Wittman (R-VA)
Sen. John Tester (D-MT)
Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT)
Sen. Jim Risch (R-ID)
Sen. Mike Crapo (R-ID)
Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)
Sen Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)
President Obama (He has surrounded himself with some excellent Cabinet members – Salazar and Vilsack being notable – appointed officials and staff.)

How and why I got to this list and my thoughts on the BLM's wilderness guidance is explained in my post linked above.

0 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from Bella wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

I needn't say a word, but I'm with Hal...

0 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from Sarge01 wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

I won't get deep into the inner workings because I am not up on the subject but I would like to point out a few numbers that I feel that run the inner feelings of our people in Washington. These people run on numbers alone and not their inner beliefs. The last numbers that I received from the US Fish & Wildlife Service revealed a disturbing trend. Only 8% of the entire US population are hunters. Our politicians really don't care how 8% of the population feel or what happens to them. They feel that 8% of the vote is not going to hurt them very bad. I know this may sound simple but I feel that this is one problem that we as hunters are dealing with.

0 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from jamesti wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

i didn't see anything in the article about hunting and fishing being banned from these lands. on the other hand, we have to face the prospect of energy companies destroying these lands. did i miss something?

+3 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from Sarge01 wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

The destruction of our wilderness lands usually lends itself to losing lands to hunt on. It is a vicious circle . We can't keep losing wilderness lands because one day that is the only place we may have to hunt. Our private property is becoming a thing of the past to hunt on so we may have to look at these lands for our recreation. We can't just let it be wilderness alone, it needs to be managed for hunting. You just leave a forest alone it will grow away from certain game species. It is going to be a monumental task to manage these lands but this is something that is going to have to be done for the future. It is going to take a vision of some Congressmen to get behind this to make it happen. Small people like me are not going to get things done as much as I would like to.

+2 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from Dan heinz wrote 1 year 18 weeks ago

At 74 I am close to qualifying as an aging hunter. My generation had an abundance of wild, unroaded country to hunt, fish, and hike in. I find it outrageously selfish for older hunters to start expecting machine access now that they find it more difficult to get into unroaded country.

Machine access degrades hunting opportunity for everyone besides degrading the experience for the many non hunting users of back country.

As a retired manager of public lands "Multiple", and "Wise" use concepts are part of my blood stream

"Wise Use" of public lands must include preserving wild opportunity for all willing to put forth the effort to enjoy such country.

We need to be setting aside our precious wild country as fast as possible.

+4 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from Erik Jensen wrote 1 year 15 weeks ago

The answer: yes, there are politicians that understand our concerns, they are few in number, but they exist in the upper Midwest where I live : they are liberals who have a connection to us or are hunters/anglers themselves. Conservative politicians celebrate hunting as an activity, but have anti-hunting politics in many ways, mostly because they are anti-conservation. They also don't concern themselves with overscheduling of families, which is leading to a decline in hunting, angling and other outdoor activities. They oppose government doing much, so they oppose using governement to promote hunting and angling. Many or the majority of liberal politicians are from urban areas where the number of hunters and anglers is low. They are strong on conservation but often don't undestand the importance of hunters and anglers as a support base for conservation, and view hunting as a value-neutral activity or even as a negative activity. All I can say I'm happy to live in Minnesota, a liberal state with high hunting participation, where I don't have to choose between voting for conservation and voting for who supports hunting. Here we have a good number who are both. I can say Obama has been good for our interests, but he has no personal connection to what is very important to us in our lives as hunters and anglers.

0 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

Enthusiast	Kiteboarding \| QUAD \| SKI \| Skiing \| Scuba Diving \| Sport Diver \| TransWorld Ride BMX \| TransWorld Business \| TransWorld Motocross \| TransWorld SKATEboarding, \| TransWorld SNOWboarding \| TransWorld SURF \| WakeBoarding \| WaterSki \| Warren Miller Entertainment \| WindSurfing
Travel	Caribbean Travel & Life \| Destination Weddings & Honeymoon \| Islands \| Meeting Traveler \| Resorts & Great Hotels
Lifestyle & Shelter	Florida Travel & Life \| Garden Design \| Home Ft. Lauderdale \| Home Miami
Luxury	SNOW \| Spa
Marine	Boating Life \| Cruising World \| Fly Fishing in Salt Waters \| Power Cruising \| Marlin \| Motor Boating \| Sailing World \| Salt Water Sportsman \| Sport Fishing \| Yachting \| NewBoats.com \| UsedBoats.com \| YachtBroker.com
Outdoor	Field & Stream \| Outdoor Life \| SHOT Business
Parenting	Babytalk \| Parenting
Science	Popular Science \| Science Illustrated
Saveur	Saveur
Working Mother Media	Working Mother
Entertainment / Events	World Entertainment Services \| World Sports & Marketing

Search