Owyhee Initiative for Dummies

[1_pointer]

How can that make Hunting better????

Can't answer the roads question, but will 'answer' this one with a question. What generated the population boom of muley's that has been declining since the 1960s? Improper grazing led to a boom in muley numbers. Mule deer populations are limited by winter browse, of which sagebrush is a large part. Sagebush increased dramatically with improper grazing from the late 1800s though about 1960s. Change grazing practices have led to a reduction of browse in many areas, which have led to a corresponding decrease in mule deer numbers. **This is my understanding of the issue, if I'm wrong let me know.**

Also, if this plan is to be carried out on public lands, an EIS will have to be completed in order to change the resource management plan, which I'm assuming is in place. This would be required through NEPA and would thus open the plan to public comment.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Ten,

Hmmmm... I wasn't the one who was fooled by MD... You were the one that looked like you were duped by the older kids on the School Bus. And the funny thing is, I would guess there wouldn't be that many kids on your Bus, as I assume it is a Short Bus....

But look at the guy who lead the OI. Look at what he intended to do with the process....

As rain sprinkles outside, Fred Grant, the aging attorney who got the Owyhee Initiative started, takes the podium. He is clearly ailing, suffering from a faulty hip and a heart problem. His physical difficulties seem to symbolize the fragility of the Owyhee Initiative. Yet his delivery to the crowd is robust.

Grant tells the ranchers that he’s not surprised at the bitterness that’s evolved over the long and tedious process, and he chides the "deceit and deception" that’s boiled up from the various camps. "My only interest," he says, "has been to protect the Owyhee Cattlemen." [/B]

Now we may know why he refused the Gunner a seat at the table, along with IRU, Hunters, Floaters, and Rafters....

 

[JoseCuervo]

And more from Sandra Mitchell..... Ten, you are funny how you agree with the older kids that are always picking on you. Did MD take your lunch money too???

Maybe you and MD can call Ms. Mitchell, and ask her why she was involved if she is only a Snowmobiler.... And then ask her who is in the "People for the Owyhees", and what she did for improving our Deer Hunting...

Deal is not done

One would think after hearing the news reports that the Owyhee Landscape Conservation Initiative was a done deal — approved unanimously by the Owyhee Initiative work group. Not true.

The vote that was taken on April 12 did nothing more than move the initiative forward for consideration. The members of the work group now have approximately six weeks to meet with their constituents and determine whether or not they will accept the package. On May 20, the Owyhee work group will again meet and vote. Only then will we know if consensus has been reached on the proposal.

During this six weeks, the public will be provided ample opportunities to comment as well. As the recreation representative on the Owyhee Initiative work group, I welcome comments from those who have an interest in this area. I can be reached at 208-424-3870.

Sandra F. Mitchell, Boise

 

[Ten Bears]

EG, have you been out there with the hayfree weed again?

Please do show us where any of my comments had any influence from MD4M.

The comments I have posted here are:

How about reducing the photos so the thing is readable.

LMAO

EG, I'm LMAO @ how big an @rse you can make of yourself, with so few words.

The last one seems to have the most relevance to your recent references to me.

 

[Hangar18]

EG,

What you say about the process - I completely agree, but that comes with a disclaimer. I have a hard time believing John McCarthy & Craig Gehrke would essentially sell-out the environmental community to get virtually nothing. That is what they are being accused of, correct? I know them a little and know a little about them, and respect them, that is why I say this. I only know who Roger Singer is, and though I know two people at TNC, I have no idea about Lou Lunte. I do know for sure there has been a lot of good information passed out to the group from which they make decisions. And I do have a problem that an outfitter supposedly represents hunters. I would argue just the opposite. They are just like x-country skiers in that they want their own private santuaries. That's all I can say.

You are right about the grazing to a point. Before, there was open range not being grazed but open to it nonetheless. That is now gone to wilderness designation, so expansion is not an option. Are cattle allowed to graze in the wilderness area proposed that is not designated "Proposed Ungrazed Wilderness"?

As for roads & cows being the direct culprit to the decline of trophy mule deer, I am not sure. I don't think the roads are much of a contributer. Elk yes, but deer, I don't know. I might be wrong because there has been a large increase in roads since settlement. Now cattle, that is another story. You probably know Junifer canopy chokes out grasses and sage, and kills wildlife. Fire suppression, both by man and cattle grazing the fuels, throughout history in the Owyhees has allowed Juniper to spread from the higher elevations down, and more specifically into washes and natural depressions (hiding places with good grub). So I would directly blame the spread of Juniper (something like 100% increase in the last 100 years) for the decline of trophy muleys. Roads of course promote noxious weeds, but I think the Juniper is the biggest problem. How this is addressed I don't know. I do know the USDA is aware of it.

 

[Nemont]

Western Watersheds Project and Committee for the High Desert have been explicitly prohibited from participating in the Owyhee Initiative.

EG, Why have these groups been shut out of the process? I just keep going back to that question you have some of the highest profile conservation groups saying this is a good deal and yet you say bad deal. What is it that makes these two groups outcasts among conservationist. The other groups don't really love the ranchers or the ATV crowd yet they are sitting down with them to come to a compromise.

I need some more info and couldn't not find any exact info. Total number of acres encompassed by the OI that have not been grazed before. I couldn't find a good map of the roads that you were talking about.

What was the deer herd like prior to the two point rule. I though I read that much of this land has been grazed for over 80 years but the hunting has been bad just in the last 10 to 15 years? If that is true it may not be grazing causing the decline.

I am taking up your motto and saying it is MY PUBLIC LAND!!!
(and I don't want the WWP involved in this process.)

Moosie's DHI group should be involved, the public at large should be involved, hunters, fisherman. Escpecially hunters should not let the outfitters and guides represent them because the average hunter will get screwed. But I still don't want WWP involved in a way shape or form.

Nemont

 

[Ithaca 37]

Nemont, "But I still don't want WWP involved in a way shape or form."

Well, I don't want the Owyhee Cattlemens Association involved in any way, shape or form. They're nothing but a bunch of whiney welfare ranchers.

 

[1_pointer]

Nemont- I'm guessing here, but I'd bet that Mr Marvel has burnt a few bridges in the recent past. He's not known for being cooperative and that could upset the whole thing. The problem I have with WWP is that they too often don't come up with a workable solution. They even attempt to stop things that would allow grazing and make the habitat better for wildlife.

I'm not suprised TNC is involved. They are for biodiversity and actually run a couple of working ranches themselves. Through proper management they've proven that it is possible to graze and improve the biodiversity.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Nemont, Hangar, and 1_Ptr,

We are getting into a lot of speculation here as to motives and politics. None of us know for sure, and that is the problem with the process being done in secret.

I'll speculate a bit about Hangar's questions. I don't know that we know yet why the ICL and Sierra Club agreed to what they did. It seems bad, and they had plenty of comments from other groups who were not at the table when some of the information leaked out last Summer. I hate to think ICL sold-out the Environment, Hunters, and other Tax-paying citizens for the ranchers who pay a $1.35 to feed their cattle on MY PUBLIC LANDS.
Here are three possible reasons, and only my opinions.
</font>

• It is a very successful negotiating tactic to keep somebody engaged for a long time, to the point where they have so much invested, that they feel obligated to make a deal, even a bad deal. All the rhetoric from the Ranchers made it appear that they would compromise on nothing, and walk away at any time. Perhaps the ranchers out negotatied the pro-hunting, pro-wildlife, pro-American way groups representing the environment by dragging this thing out for so many years.</font>
• With Sen. Crapo (R-Idaho) involved, perhaps the ICL and company wanted to make an agreement, even a bad agreement, to show good faith and leverage it to the Boulder-WhiteClouds process.</font>
• Or finally, they thought this was the best they could get, and wanted to protect the 400k acres, while they could get it.</font>

The above are just speculation on my part, but until we get more information from the parties involved, and I get opinions from the attorneys who will work on this, all we can do is speculate.

And Nemont, the biggest reason that WWP and CHiD were denied seats at the table, was that the Ranchers are scared of these guys, and want to find Middle of the Road people.

You know, kinda like me being the extremist, which results in Buzz and Ithica being Middle of the Road. You always need the extreme boundaries identified, before you can adequately identify the middle.

Nemont,
Marvel (WWP) was shut out on day ONe, by the County Commissoners, (ie.. ranchers) who would not come to the table, if WWP was there. They invited others to make it look like they were working with environmental groups, but the result sure doesn't show any influence by anyone but the ranchers.

And I don't think anbody denies Marvel has stepped on a few toes. But, if you want to make an omelette, you gotta break a few eggs.

My favorite theory is that the environmental groups got what they wanted, and Crapo will get it protected. And then Marvel will sue to over turn the parts we didn't like, resulting in more protection in some areas, and back to the drawing board in others.

Again, as badly flawed as the process was, we should ALL be suspect of the result. Only by exposing it to the light of day, can we determine its' worth.

 

[Muledeer4me]

"Ten,
Just what are you laughing at? The fact MD was wrong, and doesn't even know who represents her ATV riding????"

Elkgunner,I do know that Sandra represents me as a ATV owner,what I said is that YOU dont seem to understand that while she represents the ATV riders she herself is involved in the snowmachine club!!!
By labling Sandra as a fat assed ATV rider ,how does that make your position better?


Nemont,you are correct in wondering why Jon Marvels org. wasnt allowed to be involved in this .
Its the same reason Elkgunner & Ithaca shouldnt be involved----Lack of ability with name calling & school kid drama.

I hope this will move forward .
It does after all give wilderness protection to a great area that should have it ,it places restrictions on off road travel, (isnt that what Ithaca & Elkgunner) have been crying about?
Yet now when we can see light at the end of the tunnel you have the same people that were bitching the loudest protesting when something has been done.
Go figure LOL.
They havent got there all out ban and wide spread wilderness protection.

 

[Nemont]

Nemont,
Marvel (WWP) was shut out on day ONe, by the County Commissoners, (ie.. ranchers) who would not come to the table, if WWP was there. They invited others to make it look like they were working with environmental groups, but the result sure doesn't show any influence by anyone but the ranchers.

And I don't think anbody denies Marvel has stepped on a few toes. But, if you want to make an omelette, you gotta break a few eggs

EG,
It goes WAY beyond breaking a few eggs with Marvel and WWP. Why would a rancher even want to sit down with him or anyone with WWP? Look I stated my opinion and the first thing Ithaca does is bring in a crack about "whiney welfare ranchers". That is exactly the reason groups like WWP are not at the table.

I think what is bothering Marvel, and I suspect it's bothering you as well, is that he didn't get it exactly the way he wanted it. So if he doesn't get his way he will go to court. Legislation through litigation is just about the worst form of democracy you can think of. It is also the worst to manage a resource.

I want MY PUBLIC LAND preserved for the future as well but I want it so a guy can continue to raise cattle and graze the public lands. Those are not diametrically opposed goals and both are achieveable if we can come to a compromise where everybody gives up something. Most good compromises end up with upset people and usually those people are the ones who can't see another person's point of view.

Nemont

 

[Ten Bears]

Perhaps the ranchers out negotatied the pro-hunting, pro-wildlife, pro-American way groups representing the environment by dragging this thing out for so many years.

I see MOST ranchers as being "pro-hunting, pro-wildlife, pro-American way".

 

[JoseCuervo]

Originally posted by Muledeer4me:


Elkgunner,I do know that Sandra represents me as a ATV owner,what I said is that YOU dont seem to understand that while she represents the ATV riders she herself is involved in the snowmachine club!!!

Its the same reason Elkgunner & Ithaca shouldnt be involved----Lack of ability with name calling & school kid drama.

Why would I care about her interest in snowmobiling? That doesn't make any sense that I have any interest. For all I know, she may be Left handed and raise petunias in her garden. I don't see how those are relevant.

And yes, I agree with you, I do lack of ability in name calling and school kid drama. Certainly not in your league on those....

 

[BuzzH]

I see most ranchers being pro-hunting only if it doesnt conflict in any way with their pro-livestock agenda...

Ten, go ask a rancher if you can transplant an endangered species on their land...see for yourself how "pro-wildlife" they are.

Also, see the article about the bighorn sheep transplant in MT, you know the ones they're planning on killing because they conflict with a welfare ranchers domestic sheep.

Yep, real champions of wildlife...

 

[JoseCuervo]

Originally posted by Nemont:
EG,


I think what is bothering Marvel, and I suspect it's bothering you as well, is that he didn't get it exactly the way he wanted it. So if he doesn't get his way he will go to court. Legislation through litigation is just about the worst form of democracy you can think of. It is also the worst to manage a resource.

[/QB]

Nemont,
My main concern is the process. You and I will have to disagree, but I think it is far better to reach decisions in a court of law, with judges, juries, the public, and the press in attendence, than to reach decisions in back-room, locked door meetings without public involvement.

Why should only 8-10 people have been involved? I can't tell you what I think of the proposal, other than I think the process has been flawed from the beginning, and as posted above, Fred Grant's only concern was for the Owyhee County ranchers.

If the process is flawed, we should ALL be suspect of the conclusions.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Originally posted by Ten Bears:
[I see MOST ranchers as being "pro-hunting, pro-wildlife, pro-American way".

This ought to be funny to see Ten's explanation. I bet he has to ask some of the 4th graders on the bus to help him with this answer.

C'mon Ten, Please expand on your comment...

 

[Nemont]

EG,
Note in an early post I said there should be more people involved especially hunters, the outfitters and guides association doesn't cut it for me. They don't care about the average hunter only paying clients.

I went so far as to say that MOOSIE, or his DHI group, should be involved. I am not saying the process is perfect. My position is that the WWP should not be included because they have no interest in coming to an agreement or an understanding on ANYTHING. The WWP would rather tie up the process in court than ever come to a compromise that would permanently protect a Wilderness Study Area. Why? Because if Marvel can keep these lands under WSA designation he can continue to sue at the drop of a hat.

Whether or not the courts and juries are the best way to manage land I leave that up each person to decide. Most environmental case brought into a court don't have a jury trial and the cases are ruled upon by a single judge. Why should one person get to decide how to manage MY PUBLIC LANDS.

Nemont

 

[JoseCuervo]

Nemont,

I am not ready to throw out the result, I still need more information, and see how the process works out.

And I am still waiting to see what is the best approach, to support Moosie and DHI or to throw my support behind Jon and Katie. I am willing to do either, just need to see who will be MOST effective at making sure the Hunting in the Owyhees improves and the ranchers get their cattle off of MY PUBLIC LANDS.

Just call me "Undecided"...

 

[Ten Bears]

What's to expand on?

 

[JoseCuervo]

Originally posted by Ten Bears:
What's to expand on?

Just as I thought, with the 4th graders still in class, you wouldn't be able to expand on your ridiculous comment. Quick, run down to the librarian or the resource room, and see if one of them can help you...