Topgun 30-06
Active member
Then your opinion is invalid.
It's really no joking matter because if they pass that and put the Valles Caldera under Parks management there will be a huge loss to the public (us) and MT may be next!!!
Public Lands Package moves forward in Congress
- Thread starter Ben Lamb
- Start date
It's really no joking matter because if they pass that and put the Valles Caldera under Parks management there will be a huge loss to the public (us) and MT may be next!!!
How so?
noharleyyet
Well-known member
Originally Posted by Oak View Post
Then your opinion is invalid.
It wasn't a joke.
Regarding the Valles Caldera (which will be a National Preserve, not a Park) From the bill, page 1273, Section 7 (Lines 20-25)
(7) HUNTING, FISHING, AND TRAPPING.—
21 (A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in
22 subparagraph (B), the Secretary shall permit
23 hunting, fishing, and trapping on land and
24 water within the Preserve in accordance with
25 applicable Federal and State law.
(7) HUNTING, FISHING, AND TRAPPING.—
21 (A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in
22 subparagraph (B), the Secretary shall permit
23 hunting, fishing, and trapping on land and
24 water within the Preserve in accordance with
25 applicable Federal and State law.
I'm not a big fan of it going to NPS either, but I believe, at least under the proposal I read a while back, that the current hunt structure would be maintained under NPS management.
I did find this, interesting read: http://rmefblog.blogspot.com/2013/06/coalition-letter-to-senators-regarding.html
I did find this, interesting read: http://rmefblog.blogspot.com/2013/06/coalition-letter-to-senators-regarding.html
shoots-straight
Well-known member
Looks to me like leaving everything in status quo grid lock would be better. Fight the fight as it shows up.
It's interesting that the letter is signed by groups who didn't work on the proposal. The switch to a preserve is supported by NM sportsmen organizations, some of whom worked on the bill for a long, long time.
RobG
Well-known member
I find it hard to disagree with that letter. Why was it given to the NPS and not the Forest Service?
I think this is why: "The Sierra Club, Caldera Action, National Parks Conservation Association, New Mexico Wildlife Federation, Coalition of NPS Retirees, Audubon and others..."
I usually like to see at least one group I trust in the mix...
Apparently it would transfer to the USFS in 2020 if nothing is done.
http://riograndesierraclub.org/Valles-Caldera-bill
RobG
Well-known member
Ah, I see. NPS would protect it better from grazing, logging, etc. Hunting grandfathered in, but of course that could change.
Sierra Club was one of the groups that opposed the current version of the bill.
No, it couldn't. If it is in the enabling act, and defined as the shall versus may, then it is a condition of the act and must be allowed. Any sporting group could take the NPS to court and easily win if they shut down hunting. Here's the full language related to hunting and angling in the Preserve (remember, it's a preserve, not a park):
(7) HUNTING, FISHING, AND TRAPPING.—
21 (A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in
22 subparagraph (B), the Secretary shall permit
23 hunting, fishing, and trapping on land and
24 water within the Preserve in accordance with
25 applicable Federal and State law.
1 (B) ADMINISTRATIVE EXCEPTIONS.—The
2 Secretary may designate areas in which, and es-
3 tablish limited periods during which, no hunt-
4 ing, fishing, or trapping shall be permitted
5 under subparagraph (A) for reasons of public
6 safety, administration, or compliance with ap-
7 plicable law.
8 (C) AGENCY AGREEMENT.—Except in an
9 emergency, regulations closing areas within the
10 Preserve to hunting, fishing, or trapping under
11 this paragraph shall be made in consultation
12 with the appropriate agency of the State having
13 responsibility for fish and wildlife administra-
14 tion.
15 (D) SAVINGS CLAUSE.—Nothing in this
16 section affects any jurisdiction or responsibility
17 of the State with respect to fish and wildlife in
18 the Preserve.
Last edited:
RobG
Well-known member
Thanks Ben.
Topgun 30-06
Active member
The reason I made that statement is even though it says "SHALL", I'm skeptical that things will stay the same in the long run when they possibly decide there are conflicts of some sort and hunting has to be decreased, changed, or whatever that could be detrimental to us. Maybe it won't happen, but I"ve always believed in the "never say never" theory"!
That's why people always need to keep their eye on what is happening. Hopefully they will do right by the sportsman who are basically the only outside revenue stream that the VC has coming in. I have never been lucky enough to hunt there but just visiting it once was enough to always have me putting in for the lottery.
The only way that VC would eliminate hunting under this bill is if Congress goes back in and amends the enabling act. The way the bill is written, hunting is a mandated activity, to be managed in conjunction with the NMGFD.
Not that I put anything past congress, but I doubt they do this for several reasons, most importantly being that it would cause a major firestorm politically.
katqanna
Well-known member
Interior secretary disappointed at land swap in Defense bill
This is what I feel is missing from the discussion - the process that involves the public and the science. Just as many bills these days are including categorical exclusions, to cut the public out of the process, as well as the science, packages, such as this one, are acting like a categorical exclusion.
Roosevelt-
Using the public and science public land process and Roosevelts moral issue perspective of conservation for this nation as a basic measuring rod, how does trading land to a foreign mining company with a bad record, establishing an open pit copper mine, the copper from which will be sold to another foreign country, follow a public and scientific process that is not wasteful or robbing this generation or those that come after us?
In a discussion with a conservation friend the other day, his statement was that elk were responsible for brucellosis transmissions to cattle. I corrected that there are some documented cases of elk transmission to cattle in WY and ID, but not proven cases in Montana, that it was irresponsible to keep using this statement as a means to try and get bison out of APHIS/DOL's crosshairs. He disagreed, said it was strategic, that once the focus was on elk, removing the bison from the picture, that RMEF would fight against whatever would happen to elk. I pointed out how long this has been going on for bison and how many have been killed on an assumption, that you cant jeopardize elk in a shell game. To me, this is not conservation.
Political shell games with public lands and wildlife are disingenuous, selfish and short sighted.
At yesterdays 7 county commission work group, some of the commissioners were asking the Forest Service district rangers about fires, how many of their employees were dedicated strictly to fire control? And how many get shipped off to another state when they have fires? They replied the numbers, but stated that with the little funding they had for employees, they had to do the best they could with what they have, that meant sharing employees during a fire. That not only did it allow for training experience, but they wanted to share personnel, because if we had a fire, they would surely want those other states employees to come and help Montana out.
If western Montanans burn eastern Montana, simply because it is not in their backyard, or they burn Arizona, Nevada, Oregon or Alaska for their local pet projects, dont expect their help when you need it. Burned people have a tendency to remember. The public and science process is there to benefit and further conservation, without partiality, for future generations. If you throw that process out, you open the door and set a precedent for more of this bs in the future.
This is what I feel is missing from the discussion - the process that involves the public and the science. Just as many bills these days are including categorical exclusions, to cut the public out of the process, as well as the science, packages, such as this one, are acting like a categorical exclusion.
Roosevelt-
Using the public and science public land process and Roosevelts moral issue perspective of conservation for this nation as a basic measuring rod, how does trading land to a foreign mining company with a bad record, establishing an open pit copper mine, the copper from which will be sold to another foreign country, follow a public and scientific process that is not wasteful or robbing this generation or those that come after us?
In a discussion with a conservation friend the other day, his statement was that elk were responsible for brucellosis transmissions to cattle. I corrected that there are some documented cases of elk transmission to cattle in WY and ID, but not proven cases in Montana, that it was irresponsible to keep using this statement as a means to try and get bison out of APHIS/DOL's crosshairs. He disagreed, said it was strategic, that once the focus was on elk, removing the bison from the picture, that RMEF would fight against whatever would happen to elk. I pointed out how long this has been going on for bison and how many have been killed on an assumption, that you cant jeopardize elk in a shell game. To me, this is not conservation.
Political shell games with public lands and wildlife are disingenuous, selfish and short sighted.
At yesterdays 7 county commission work group, some of the commissioners were asking the Forest Service district rangers about fires, how many of their employees were dedicated strictly to fire control? And how many get shipped off to another state when they have fires? They replied the numbers, but stated that with the little funding they had for employees, they had to do the best they could with what they have, that meant sharing employees during a fire. That not only did it allow for training experience, but they wanted to share personnel, because if we had a fire, they would surely want those other states employees to come and help Montana out.
If western Montanans burn eastern Montana, simply because it is not in their backyard, or they burn Arizona, Nevada, Oregon or Alaska for their local pet projects, dont expect their help when you need it. Burned people have a tendency to remember. The public and science process is there to benefit and further conservation, without partiality, for future generations. If you throw that process out, you open the door and set a precedent for more of this bs in the future.
NDAA passed the Senate. It's headed to Obama's desk.
The Rocky Mountain Front, North Fork Protection Act, Valles Caldera National Preserve Act and a bunch of other good and not so good stuff is now law.
While we can all dislike the bad parts of the bill, we should still celebrate the passage of MT's first wilderness in 31 years. Now it's time to get back into the fight and right the wrongs.
The Rocky Mountain Front, North Fork Protection Act, Valles Caldera National Preserve Act and a bunch of other good and not so good stuff is now law.
While we can all dislike the bad parts of the bill, we should still celebrate the passage of MT's first wilderness in 31 years. Now it's time to get back into the fight and right the wrongs.
jryoung
Well-known member
20yr grazing in or out?
How cheap are copper bullets going to be now?
How cheap are copper bullets going to be now?
