They have started this on Ca coast. This means taking some of the prime hunting and fishing areas and make them off limits. They claim these areas will increase wildlife and have a spillover affect in bordering areas. We have refuges here in Ca and I have hunted deer near them to no avail as have others. It does increase the amount of deer eating predators. This also can also mean private property too. The feds have been after wetlands for a number of years and if this goes through they will be after them for sure. They will cherry pick some of your prime hunting and fishing areas and you won’t be able to hunt or fish there again. They did it here on the coast. Large areas that can no longer be used. We don’t need less areas available to us.
There is HUGE difference between a preservationist (e.g. no hunting, no fishing, no hiking, camping-NO ACCESS, NO HUMANS) and Conservation (hunters and anglers, trappers typically paying the bill but protecting the wild and wild places by appropriate management). Humans have been a part of the wilderness as long as humans have been around, not meant to be an observer but a participant. With the bowhunting history going back maybe as much as 180,000 years absolutely no good reason archers shouldn't have access. Besides arrows penetrate those Kevlar vests on the deerz so much easier. Com'n man!!
this is going to be a disaster. Nothing good will come from the BIden administration in this area. They have already proven incompetent on the border, on fuel/energy, on taxes, spending(actually they are very good at spending, but not good for the citizens), China, North Korea, The middle east, etc. The only thing they can call a success is the Vaccine rate, which was already set up by the previous administration and was already rolling.
It really pisses me off that "preservationists" have now co-opted the term "conservationists" because it sounds much softer and more cooperative. And the media talking heads promote the fallacy because they're too stupid to understand the difference. "Preservationist" has disappeared from 21st century vernacular except for people trying to save historic buildings.
I am all for preservation, I do have some concerns about how some of these private organizations get control of large swaths of land, and what happens after they take it over.
Attached is a link for a pretty large area that is owned by a nature conservancy in my state. You can’t even go hiking on a trail there since March of 2020, due to Covid 19!
The last year and a half I have seen tons of outdoor areas closed to access around my state.
From what I have seen here in Oregon, the feds have seemed to limit access the least. State, county, city, and the conservation groups seem a lot more prone to full closures to public access at a whim.
When these conservation groups get involved I also see public access restricted to only certain times of the year, like 4 months out of the whole year, or not at all.
I love the idea of preserving wild places with the public being allowed to access it.
I hate the idea of our government partnering with private entities to buy up land, and shutting us out of it.
Look its 270 acres hardly the end of the world.. They are here in nzd as well as a number of other countries. And as deer/ elk/ bears and all the rest are native American animals they will not be advocating for their destruction and removal... Perhaps you should team up with like minded people and buy land for yourselves...
CHILLKILl, I don’t think I have any right to someone’s private lands. I am all for private land owner rights. I just don’t want our tax dollars used to partner with private organizations to buy land, and then put it under their control.
Read the press release, there is a very strong emphasis on tribal lands. Driving on highway 26 through the warm springs reservation most of the gravel roads have no trespassing signs that lead into the woods off the highway. No public access.
My opinion is if US tax dollars are going to be used to protect or acquire lands, public access should be part of the deal. The access should also be like the access we have on US forest service lands.
Here in Oregon large landowners can get grants for hundreds of thousands of dollars for habitat restoration. It makes that persons land very desirable for wildlife. There is no public access, landowners charge for hunts. I don’t want to subsidize the landowners guided hunt operations.
I don’t want the money taken from me by the government given to who ever has the best lobbyists to get that money.
“The report calls for a decade-long effort to support locally led and voluntary conservation and restoration efforts across public, private, and Tribal lands and waters in order to create jobs and strengthen the economy’s foundation; tackle the climate and nature crises; and address inequitable access to the outdoors.”
...address inequity in access to the outdoors?
I’ve seen this crap before too.
They claim “people of color” don’t have the same access to public lands as white people.
From what I’ve read and discussed about this it will be worked out through USDA specifically NRCS by using CRP and other voluntary conservation programs that oftentimes leverage state and local funding to provide incentives to landowners and producers to adopt and apply conservation practices. In other words look for a HUGE Farm Bill increase in farm Bill program funding. Just my $.02.
Biden has a plan? huh.... somebody maybe, but not President Houseplant.
Lou, the word weasels love this stuff as most folks don't grasp the differences of "conservation" vs "preservation" as these people do the same with "equity" vs "equality". Differences that can be polar opposites in practice but most never even consider there are any differences at all. No accident, the misdirection is intentional as they are dishonest people at heart. But justified in their minds, as it's all for your own good, of course..... here's a cookie, now go sit down..... is that rain I feel running down my back?