|   NRA weighs in on restricted water projects/wilderness | Thomastank
Sep 30, 2003 4:49 PM | | MyNRA-ILA
Sign Up for Email
Write Your Reps
Write Your Editor
Volunteer Sign-up
Register to Vote
Event Calendar
Join the NRA
Contribute
Updates and Alerts
--------------------------------------------------------------
Water For Wildlife
In recent years NRA has weighed into battles to save water developments from being closed by federal land managers who believe that, when federal land is designated as wilderness or national monuments or park preserves, these man-made structures are not allowed. And even if certain water developments are allowed to remain, motorized access for operation and maintenance has been blocked. Water developments are critical to the survival in the arid western regions of this country for many species of wildlife, including popular big game animals like bighorn sheep and mule deer. Efforts of the Park Service, the Fish & Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of Land Management to return certain lands to a pristine state have come at a great cost to wildlife that eventually perish from a lack of water sources. Nineteen hunting and conservation organizations joined the NRA in signing a letter sent to the Secretary of Interior requesting a departmental policy supporting water developments. The NRA strongly believes that the stewardship of federal public lands should not be separate from, and take precedence over, the wildlife that live on that land, and will pursue this issue to successful resolution.
Posted: 9/28/2003 12:35:08 AM
Printer Friendly Version
Copyright 2003, National Rifle Association of America,
Institute for Legislative Action
This may be reproduced. It may not be reproduced for commercial purposes.
Security & Privacy Policy |
| re: NRA weighs in on restricted water projects/wilderness | sasquatch
Oct 1, 2003 9:11 AM | | It's pretty ridiculous for them to claim they are concerned about the loss of these "water developments". "Water developments are critical to the survival in the arid western regions of this country for many species of wildlife, including popular big game animals like bighorn sheep and mule deer ". Wildlife live in environments that they can survive in. many have adaptations for water conservation, and know how to find water in dry environments. And let's not forget these NRA freaks just want to shoot these animals, so they really dont care about the welfasre of the animals, just the success of the hunts. If they did care about the wildlife, they would support a ban on motorized access into these areas. The only reason they want these water developments is so that they can attract game to them, allowing for easier hunting. Why go out and find the animals if you can just sit next to a water fountain, and wait for them to come take a drink. What happened to the hunters of old, where they would hike and camp out to stalk game for days, waiting for the perfect opportunity to get their shot in. Now, people want it to be like fast food. Drive thru and shoot em up at the waterin hole. Then go home, and watch more hunting and fishing shows on OLN. What fun!! Wilderness is not designed to be your friggin grocery store. So, take your guns and your motors and stay the hell out!!! |
| What about you Preacher, what do you think? | ThomasTnk
Oct 2, 2003 5:03 PM | | Preacher,
From the history of this list it seems you are close to IMBA. What do you think about IMBA aligning themselves with hunters and fishing organizations that are against anti-access policies or legislation?
It is my belief that IMBA is politically isolated, they would love to be accepted by the political spectrum that supports the environmental organizations but that spectrum is beholden to the environmental organizations and will sell IMBA down the river.
They will not form any alliance with any organization that has the support of the other side of the political spectrum and would rather fall on the sword of alliegience to the green cause and lose access.
I'm trying to prove a point to some influencial people involved in these issues who have asked this question as to IMBA's political leanings. It is my contention that IMBA is not a significant factor in protecting access and would sell these other groups down the river.
Would you care to comment? Would IMBA under any circumstances support or align themselves with hunting and fishing organziations - or the NRA. This question was posed by someone with close contacts in Washington and the money to support IMBA.
I advised them that the leadership of IMBA would find any alliance distastful because they are basically a green organization and that money spent on IMBA is a waste.
The previous poster proved my point, but I don't know how close he is to IMBA. Would you care to comment? |
| What about you Preacher, what do you think? | sasquatch
Oct 2, 2003 10:01 PM | | Thomas, While I am a member of IMBA, I do not have any real connection with them beyond trail work and epic rides. My feelings (I dont know what IMBA's stance is) are that various recreation groups need to work together to keep access open. Where I live, most of our trail are open to hunting, and most lakes open to boats for fishing. This is cool with me as long as the hunters are careful and dont shoot at bikers(having lived in NJ for a while, I've seen some pretty pathetic excuses for hunters. Lotsa guys out with rifles and a flask of whiskey shoot the first moving thing they see so they can get home and watch more tv)My statements above are only mocking the plea to "help save the wildlife". If the issue is propping up an artificial supply of game so that hunters can go kill them, say so. . If the area is deserving of wilderness protection, Im willing to stay out with my bike, and I expec hunters to do the same.
So is Preacher an IMBA rep or something? Id be curious to hear their view, but I do think people knock IMBA too much as cowtowing to the greens. They do support bike access above all else, but they encourage partnerships in general, and I know they support multi use trail, including sharing with motos when appropriate. |
| What about you Preacher, what do you think? | ThomasTank
Oct 3, 2003 10:02 AM | | Sasquatch,
I appreciate your reply. It is the feeling of many invovled in public lands access policy that IMBA cannot be counted on.
While other constituencies invloved in access issues align and work together (hunting organizations, fishing organziations, OHV organizations, organizations that build guzzers for wildlife, IMBA and mountain bikers have a political reputation as being between a rock and a hard place.
They have a reputation of not wanting to work with other groups for fear of upsetting environmental organizations, who they want to be accepted by. Many of these other organzations feel that IMBA would sell them down the river if mountain bikes were allowed in wilderness - in addition to embracing the rest of the environmental agenda - and will oppose this change because of it.
It is felt that IMBA cannot be trusted to look out for anyone but themselves and are in fact more an environmental organization than an access organization. This belief has been passed on to those on congressional committees who work with those organziations that are fighting to protect their access and have been effected by the near fanatical policies of environmental organizations.
IMBA has done nothing to refute this assessment of their political strategy or their support of the agenda of environmental organizations, which many on the opposite side of the political spectrum consider to be a threat to more than access.
Many organizations find it curious that IMBA seeks to align themselves with the very environmental organizations that hate your sport and is doing everything possible to ban you from public lands.
This political strategy seems suicidal and only creates isolation from other more powerful and effective organziations fighting to protect their access.
Thank you for responding. |
| mystery organizations... | Chubbyhubby
Oct 6, 2003 1:41 PM | | I love every time you IMBA-bash you name these mystery "many organizations" that don't trust IMBA. What is it, some secret? Is IMBA the mafia and they're afraid they'll be "taken out" if they upset the boss? ;-) Come on? Name names man. Who? All you have is alligations and inference. Educate us. Name the sell-out. Show the back-down. The only group I've seen IMBA not align with is the Blue Ribbon Coalition moterheads. Thank god. And all their other "partnerships" are based on specific goals and locals expect those partnerships with ever major federal land agenacy in the US. And i don't consider the USFS, BLM, USACE, and NPS "Green groups". They align with bikers for bikers.
And also you state "IMBA has done nothing to refute this assessment of their political strategy or their support of the agenda of environmental organizations." Who is making this assessment? Right now it seems to just be you and I doubt they are going to take the time to come to the web to refute web ramblings about "mystery" groups who don't trust them.
Better yet, read it straight for IMBA:
http://www.dirtragmag.com/articles/article.php?ID=473&category=departments
IMBA's National Policy Director, Gary Sprung
DR: So, what's IMBA's take on the formation of a new national advocacy organization?
Gary Sprung: Diversity in politics, or in any endeavor, brings strength, so perhaps they will be helpful. Diversity is a fundamental principle of nature and diversity is a fundamental principle of economic strength. A political movement is stronger if it has more diverse types of people, so perhaps this group will be helpful.
DR: MTBAccess hopes to work with the ORV groups in certain instances. What's IMBA's take on this?
GS: We have always steered away from making formal alliances and close relationships with motorized organizations because one of the fundamental problems that mountain bicycling faces is the misperception that bicycling is like motorcycles without an engine. We say that we are much more like hikers with wheels, and that misperception in politics is a fundamental source of our problem. I think it remains a mistake to be closely allied. On the other hand, we have always maintained a relationship, exchanged thoughts and talked with the ORV groupswe are not alienated from these groups in the way that the environmental groups are. We don't hate motorized vehicles the way the environmental groups do, but we aren't allied with them. A position of neutrality is really the appropriate thing for all mountain bike advocates, in my opinion.
DR: MTBAccess wishes to be more confrontational and aggressive in protecting mountain bike access.
GS: I don't think that aggression and confrontation gets you very far in politics. One needs to have a clear understanding of their position in the world, and the fact is that the mountain bike advocacy world is much smaller than our opponents within the environmental community.
DR: In part, MTBAccess is developing as a group because of Wilderness issues and the frustrations some feel about how this is playing out, especially in California.
GS: No one is more frustrated than me. I've been working on this issue since 1983. I think the environmental movement made a fundamental mistake when they alienated bicycling from the Wilderness community. If MTBAccess wants to criticize us about Wilderness, then I think that they really don't understand IMBA because it's one of our most important and highest priority issues. It's a very difficult situation.
DR: Some of the leadership for MTBAccess come from the ranks of IMBA's leaders. People like Steve Anderson, Carl Birkelbach (IMBA's ex-treasurer) and Ric Balfour (a past IMBA Trail Care Crew leader). What's your take on this?
GS: Carl's part of MTBAccess? Well, I challenge them to find the resources to do more. To say or imply that IMBA is wasteful or not doing much is wrong. It takes money, people and time to do things. If they can find more of that, then more power to them.
DR: MTBAccess says that they can foresee partnering with IMBA on certain projects. Can you see this happen?
GS: I don't know about a partnership when their fundamental principles are aggression and confrontation.
DR: I think they mean a more aggressive reaction to denials of access. They'll be less tolerant to closures.
GS: To say that IMBA is tolerant to that at all is mistaken. I mean, we don't want every single trail open to bicycling, but to say that we are less tolerant is to say that we are tolerant, which is insulting. IMBA is not tolerant of trail closures. I want to say this in a forceful way because it's one thing to offer diversity and strength; it's another to criticize your compatriots who share the same goal.
DR: How do you think things are going to pan out between MTBAccess and IMBA.
GS: Oh, I wouldn't be able to predict the future. Part of Mark Flint's disaffection with IMBA is that we are pro-conservation and he wants us to be neutral on this. That's simply not who we are. We care about protecting nature and the ecology. We need and want to prove to the world that bicyclists care and have environmentalist values. If you don't show that to the world, you look selfish and boorish. We are just as connected with nature as most hikers, and that's the fundamental thing to me. The environmental movement needs to embrace us as a new source of strength, not reject us as another type of opponent.
IMBA continues to endorse the Roadless Initiative and protect all the roadless areas from development. Mark wants us to not address that issue. But I ask all the mountain bikers out there, would you rather ride your bike in a clear cut, a strip mine, a housing development, or would you rather ride your bike on a singletrack trail in a pristine meadow, far away from automobiles? If it's the latter and you want to maintain places like that, then support the Roadless Initiative.
DR: So you think that mountain bike advocacy without a strong environmental component is untenable?
GS: Yes, I do. |
| mystery organizations... | Thomas Tank
Oct 8, 2003 7:05 PM | | Chubbyhubby,
As far as what organziations I am affilated with I assure you it is not OHV'ers, but an organzation that was approached by one of IMBA's sponsors to discuss working with us. Due to the political nature of our negotiations I cannot tell you more than that.
From your response it seems the that our politicl assessment of IMBA is not that far off the mark and in line with what we have been told by other lobbyists from other organizations not affilated with us.
Thank you for your reply. |
| mystery organizations... | Thomas Tank
Oct 8, 2003 9:02 PM | | Chubbyhubby,
There is a reason why this question was posed on this message board and I suggest you refresh yourself on the initial posting that started this thread.
I am not associated with OHV's or the Blue Ribbon Coalition. Your political viewpoints regarding these organizations are very apparent and are shared by others in the environmental movement. I appreciate this information.
While direct negotiations result in the kind of responses given by the IMBA representative, utilizing the demographics this message board provides serves two purposes; to gauge the grassroots opinions of IMBA's supporters (based on the present and past postings on this board) and to send a message.
I'm sure this will be passed along to the leadership of IMBA in one way or another. Political alliances hold either great promises or great liabilities.
In the future IMBA should consider what direction they will take. As far as the truth to my assessment and the statements I've made it will be clear to IMBA in future political developments.
Your posting has been very helpful.
|
| Whoa, talk about LATE.... here I am! | The Preacher
Oct 6, 2003 11:12 AM | | Sorry for the late response, I guess I was so preoccupied with the CORBA Bday Bash that I did not even see your call. Anyway...
I definitely cannot speak for IMBA. I've been a long time member, and I know some of the founders, but I will not try to put words into their mouth.
My personal view on MTB access is as it has always been: I think most mountain bikers are closer to being "greens" than they are to being OHVers. The places we want access to are some (not all) of the same places that people use for non-motorized activities. The experiences that we (MTBers) derive from access into these places is closer to hiking and backpacking than it is to throttle twisting.
It would not be hard to partner with OHV groups to fight for access. In fact, they are constantly trying to recruit MTBers from this and other MTB web sites. But I think such a partnership would only distance MTBers further from ever getting access into non-motorized areas. Greens and throttle twisters will never see eye-to-eye. Since I would much rather mountain bike in non-motorized areas, I would be more willing to partner with the greens. I have ridden my MTB on many OHV trails, and many are thrashed beyond bicycle ride-ability.
I know that this discussion is primarly about the prospect of partnering with hunting organizations, but right now, I have absolutely no knowledge or experince in that area. I can think of only one place -- Lake County, CA -- where I have ridden where the area was shared by hunters.
Finally, I again have to question those that worry about IMBA selling out. I have certainly not seen it happen, but I certainly do believe that if it did happen, that they would lose their membership, and their corporate sponsors, and soon there would be no more IMBA. Do you really think they want that to happen?? |
| Whoa, talk about LATE.... here I am! | Thomas Tank
Oct 8, 2003 7:07 PM | | Preacher,
Thank you for your response. |
| re: NRA weighs in on restricted water projects/wilderness | Sodbuster
Oct 4, 2003 9:59 PM | | I have hunted all my life. I am now "middle aged'. I have never run into hunters like those you describe though I know some exist out there. This just proves they are in the great minority. Also, the wilderness IS our "grocery store"-the original, in fact.
Thanks, Sod |
| re: Conservation and hunting | Walt Dizzy
Oct 6, 2003 6:47 AM | | Thanks for the post. I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I think that the mountain biking community is not uniformly anti-hunting. I'm not sure where my local IMBA representatives stand, and it would be a good idea for me to sound them out.
I think it is foolish for mountain bikers to take a reactionary stand against hunting. We should all recognise that responsible hunting includes a concern for the continued survival of game species and most importantly, the preservation of animal habitat.
In the absence of predator species, the Wisconsin deer herd has expanded to the size that car-deer collisions have become commonplace. My dad has totaled 2 cars, and my wife and I have narrowly avoided collisions more than once. Urban areas are overrun too. No matter how much we love wildlife, the situation has reached the point where hunting is necessary to keep the deer population at an acceptable level.
I don't hunt anymore myself, but I encourage people who enjoy the sport responsibly to do so. I think that it would serve the mountain biking community well to recognise that hunting is a conservation based sport. Your personal feelings about the general acceptability of guns is a different issue.
Walt |
| Don't Shoot Bambi.... | JmZ
Oct 6, 2003 6:46 PM | | It's an emotional issue.
As Walt mentions above, removing preadators has let the deer population explode. It is to the point locally where either some deer get shot and there is food for the rest, or none get shot and even more either get hit or starve to death.
And not to many are keen to reintroduce the wolf, but that's a different issue. (Presonally rather have wolves than coyotes)
I've met many bikers who hunt, and many who don't. There are local areas where hunting is allowed, and some where it isn't. I know hunters don't want to eliminate their game.
It's a personal decision, and I honestly don't mind as long as they use the meat. Eat it, donate it, whatever, but don't waste it.
For mountain bikers as a whole... it will probably depend on a case by case basis. On the whole are our aims more similar than dissimilar, and what does that do to 'our' image. Is there greater benefit, or would just riding someone else's coattails hurt us more?
I'm personally for any alliance that can help us, but I feel it's up to us to try and keep our position positive and strong. We shouldn't shun any hiking group, equestrian group, sierra club chapter, hunting group, or the like from helping out - as long as we are partners and not subserviant and our objectives are guaranteed to be represented. If not...
JmZ |
| |
