This is good to see, my only hesitation would be that the agency may be more likely to approve controversial projects because they know they have this codified mechanism to offset the impacts. I hope they abide by their rules to ensure that any mitigation effort is done in the same quality habitat that is disrupted. This proposed rule, in conjunction with the Solar PEIS and the new proposed Renewable Energy Rule reinforce the fact that the administration is looking to speed up renewable development on public lands. I think it is critical for hunting/angling folks to do our best to get engaged and make sure these projects stay out of critical wildlife habitat.
BLM proposing conservation leasing
- Thread starter BoulderBulls
- Start date
Irrelevant
Well-known member
I did mention in my comment that one of my concerns is that someone (e.g. PETA) could purchase a conservation easement and prevent hunting or fishing as part of the "conservation" restrictions. I saw no statutory mechanisms to prevent this.
D
Deleted member 18333
Guest
Similar to the USDA program of wetlands banking. I have used this program in the past for wetlands disturbance. Worked rather well for what I needed.
kwyeewyk
Well-known member
I'd have to review the language but there was something about not precluding existing uses and rights unless necessary to achieve conservation goals, so maybe in a very specific circumstance there would be a legitimate reason to not allow hunting in an area, but I can think of no real world examples where hunting would truly be necessary to restrict to meet conservation goals. ESA and BLM policies already mandate listed/proposed species be protected, land health standards benefit hunters by at least having some standard to hold the agency and resource users to, but that already is happening and don't see how it would restrict hunting.
Really I think most of what is proposed is already happening, this is just a new mechanism to do it, and I'm still not sure how much use it will really be and how much just another government feel good effort that doesn't amount to much. Worse case scenario in my mind is as @nrpate05 alluded to, making it easier to permit consumptive use leases that are actually more likely to restrict public access and have real impacts on conservation at multiple scales, and conservation leases maybe not a true compensation of what is lost.
Irrelevant
Well-known member
If the conservation "goal" is dictated by CBD then they could purchase a "conservation" buffer around the parks (Yellowstone/Glacier) for wolves or griz, right? I mean they feel that hunting is anti-conservation.
Heck look at salmon. Could they ban fishing on BLM lands where there are threatened salmon? It's a highly regulated existing use, but stopping it could almost certainly be viewed as a legitimate reason to protect the species. I mean, seems like a way the tribes to end rec fishing to better meet their treaty quantities.
antlerradar
Well-known member
I spent two days at BLM RAC meeting last week going over the proposal. This was asked about more than once. Can not say I ever heard the hard no I was looking for.
kwyeewyk
Well-known member
No BLM much around those parks, but playing the hypothetical, wolves are currently legal to hunt there, and recovered, so would be removing an existing right, and no recovery goal to justify restricting hunting wolves or their prey. Grizzly bears are already protected by ESA, so no hunting already, pretty big stretch to say it's necessary to restrict hunting of other species to protect them when if anything hunting benefits them with carcasses to scavenge. What actual actions would be proposed to conserve these species? Just saying we're going to help the species by stopping other hunting is just removing existing rights, which my read is not the intent. Maybe there is not good language to really uphold this so probably worth commenting on though.
With salmon same situation, WDFW/tribes or ODFW or whoever already regulate harvest of salmon through USFWS permits, what conservation action would legitimately require restrictions on harvest beyond the complicated season setting process that already exists? Would just be removing existing rights with no real necessity.
Last edited:
FF to about 9 minute mark. Lots of this stuff is already discussed in the proposal, but for those who would rather have some audio.
Ep. 218: New Hunting Opportunities, New Tackle Restrictions, and an Exclusive Interview with Tracy Stone Manning, Director of the BLM | MeatEater Podcasts
This week Cal talks about getting the lead out, BLM, and Conservation easements with special guests Tracy Stone Manning and Jordan Sillars. Connect with Cal and MeatEater Cal on Instagram and Twitter MeatEater on Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, and Youtube Shop Cal's Week in Review Merch
Similar threads
