Simpson's new Idaho wildernesses

[6speed]

http://simpson.house.gov/issues/issue/?IssueID=121113

I like the looks of this much better than a presidential national monument but why would they name a wilderness after a fat mentally unstable alcoholic when there are plenty of other deserving Idahoans who contributed to the state and area far moor.

 

[1_pointer]

I like the idea of a Wilderness designation for this country rather a than National Monument one. Much of it is being managed as such due to it's WSA designation so not a huge change, just more defined. I don't like some of the baggage that comes with NM designation. Seems like in some cases NMs almost save themselves to death...

I would imagine the Hemmingway name was trotted out there for pop culture appeal and to get the support (ie money) from all the transplants to that country.

 

[Gr8bawana]

Wilderness designation is much better. I don't think hunting is allowed in a National monument.

 

[jryoung]

Wilderness designation is much better. I don't think hunting is allowed in a National monument.

Incorrect, there are a select few where there is no hunting. Mostly for the obvious reason as they are cultural or historical sites. In general areas that are available to wilderness designation or national conservation area or similar still allow hunting.

That said, I much prefer a legislative action. I don't know why it is so hard for some in congress to set aside these great treasures for future generations.

 

[RobG]

From Rocky Barker: http://www.idahostatesman.com/2015/01/25/3609487_simpson-unveils-updated-ciedra.html?rh=1

It is not an issue that I've been following, but the wilderness folks don't seem happy with this concession to Risch.

 

[6speed]

From what they have been putting out lately the ICL seems more than happy to sell out hunters as long as they can stop the motorized users and keep the mountain bikers and Ketchum businesses happy.

 

[mtmiller]

Incorrect, there are a select few where there is no hunting. Mostly for the obvious reason as they are cultural or historical sites. In general areas that are available to wilderness designation or national conservation area or similar still allow hunting.

Thank you.

 

[Pinecricker]

From Rocky Barker: http://www.idahostatesman.com/2015/01/25/3609487_simpson-unveils-updated-ciedra.html?rh=1

It is not an issue that I've been following, but the wilderness folks don't seem happy with this concession to Risch.

As usual Rocky Barker needs to do a little more fact checking.

I haven't heard of any legitimate hunting or fishing advocacy groups that would prefer a National Monument over Wilderness. The only group I've heard of that seems to strongly favor National Monument status is mountain bikers (because they are not allowed in Wilderness).

In the end, a solution that local stakeholders support will be better. Those on the fringes can try to ramrod this through as a monument, but doing so will ultimately cause more harm than good.

We have a pretty good track record in Idaho of using collaboration based approaches to conversation (Owyhee / Bruneau for example). Circumventing the local process is only going to make future conservation work more difficult.

Unfortunately, some of the more radical and litigious enviro / animal rights groups just can't see this. When you look at their actions, its hard not to question motives. I think many such groups are more concerned with milking the Equal Access to Justice money than they are with accomplishing anything productive.

 

[RobG]

As usual Rocky Barker needs to do a little more fact checking.

I haven't heard of any legitimate hunting or fishing advocacy groups that would prefer a National Monument over Wilderness. The only group I've heard of that seems to strongly favor National Monument status is mountain bikers (because they are not allowed in Wilderness).

In the end, a solution that local stakeholders support will be better. Those on the fringes can try to ramrod this through as a monument, but doing so will ultimately cause more harm than good.

We have a pretty good track record in Idaho of using collaboration based approaches to conversation (Owyhee / Bruneau for example). Circumventing the local process is only going to make future conservation work more difficult.

Unfortunately, some of the more radical and litigious enviro / animal rights groups just can't see this. When you look at their actions, its hard not to question motives. I think many such groups are more concerned with milking the Equal Access to Justice money than they are with accomplishing anything productive.

As I mentioned, I haven't been following this closely, but the issue seems to be with this particular revision of Simpson's bill to accommodate Risch. I don't see any "legitimate hunting or fishing groups" supporting it. I know several wilderness-type groups are preferring a monument over this bill, but I'm sure they would prefer a "good" wilderness bill over a monument.

6speed, I don't follow Idaho politics much anymore so I don't know what ICL is up to. What has ICL been "putting out" that makes you think they are selling out hunters?

 

[6speed]

ICL met with the usual radical groups, mountain bike rental shops and guides in the area and claimed to have buy in from local outdoor users. Nothing has been provided to prove a new monument wouldn't have the same no hunting signs as the ones a few miles down the road at the Craters if the Moon NM.

 

[jryoung]

ICL met with the usual radical groups, mountain bike rental shops and guides in the area and claimed to have buy in from local outdoor users. Nothing has been provided to prove a new monument wouldn't have the same no hunting signs as the ones a few miles down the road at the Craters if the Moon NM.

How Would the Land Be Managed Under a National Monument Designation?
The USFS and BLM would retain management of the lands now under their jurisdiction. However, a national monument would offer the benefit of having a single management plan for the Boulder-White Clouds area, rather than the multiple USFS and BLM management plans that currently provide a piecemeal guide. A single plan would provide better coordination, certainty, and efficiency among the managing agencies.

Would the National Park Service Eventually Take Over a National Monument?
There is no proposal to manage the Boulder-White Clouds area as a National Park or under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service, and monument advocates support continued management by the USFS and BLM.

Will I Still Be Allowed to Hunt and Fish in the Boulder-White Clouds?
Absolutely. A national monument proclamation does not change the management of the region’s fish and wildlife. The State of Idaho would retain management authority over the region’s fish and game, as well as the fishing and hunting regulations in the area. Idaho Fish and Game is the only entity that would be able to change that area’s hunting and fishing regulations.

http://boulderwhiteclouds.org/idaho-made-solution/frequently-asked-questions/

 

[mtmiller]

ICL met with the usual radical groups, mountain bike rental shops and guides in the area and claimed to have buy in from local outdoor users. Nothing has been provided to prove a new monument wouldn't have the same no hunting signs as the ones a few miles down the road at the Craters if the Moon NM.

Look further.

 

[Elkmagnet]

I still don't like it there is 2.3 million acres of wilderness just across the road that nobody sees because they can't drive through it. The process of buying off invested parties with cash and prizes really cranks me!

 

[Pinecricker]

How Would the Land Be Managed Under a National Monument Designation?
The USFS and BLM would retain management of the lands now under their jurisdiction. However, a national monument would offer the benefit of having a single management plan for the Boulder-White Clouds area, rather than the multiple USFS and BLM management plans that currently provide a piecemeal guide. A single plan would provide better coordination, certainty, and efficiency among the managing agencies.

Would the National Park Service Eventually Take Over a National Monument?
There is no proposal to manage the Boulder-White Clouds area as a National Park or under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service, and monument advocates support continued management by the USFS and BLM.

Will I Still Be Allowed to Hunt and Fish in the Boulder-White Clouds?
Absolutely. A national monument proclamation does not change the management of the region’s fish and wildlife. The State of Idaho would retain management authority over the region’s fish and game, as well as the fishing and hunting regulations in the area. Idaho Fish and Game is the only entity that would be able to change that area’s hunting and fishing regulations.

http://boulderwhiteclouds.org/idaho-made-solution/frequently-asked-questions/

LOL! Kind of funny reading through the "broad support" section on that website. Nice AstroTurf job - its the usual bunch of turds from Blaine County, except they forgot to include Susan Stone. If those people are in favor of a National Monument, then I am opposed to it just on general principal.

 

[RobG]

There is a slight bit of history to the no-hunting comments. When the Craters of the Moon National Monument was expanded in 2000 it was initially no hunting and no grazing. I think Simpson fixed that with legislation changing the designation to National Preserve - probably for the grazing as hunting isn't categorically excluded from a NM. Last time I drove through the area helpful signs along the road reminded drivers that no hunting is allowed because it is a monument.

 

[RobG]

I also asked one of the major Idaho wilderness advocates why his group is pushing for NM instead of wilderness. They would prefer wilderness, but the compromises required to satisfy Risch are too much. The wilderness push has been going on for some time and is getting nowhere. Letting Obama declare it a NM is the only feasible alternative as long as Risch wants to gut the wilderness package being worked on...

 

[6speed]

LOL! Kind of funny reading through the "broad support" section on that website. Nice AstroTurf job - its the usual bunch of turds from Blaine County, except they forgot to include Susan Stone. If those people are in favor of a National Monument, then I am opposed to it just on general principal.

The little Q & A above could say it would be a new breeding ground for purple elephants but in all actuality that group has no way of proving hunting and fishing would be allowed as the end result is up to the guy with the pen.

If you "Look further" you realize the main change the NM crowd is pushing for is the elimination of motorized and some grazing BUT it will be on lands that are already under some other type of protection (WSA, NRA) that controls those uses now and they are more than willing to gamble our hunting and fishing to push their agenda claiming a threat of mining development. They must be overlooking the ghost town Challis is becoming with the impending closing of Thompson Creek and the fact that the mines in the area are closing not opening back up.

The wilderness designation would be better for offering long term protections to the area, would have far more actual buy in from locals (even the Custer County commissioners will support it), would be governed by a tried and tested management plan and would allow hunting and fishing without special inclusion wording. A wilderness designation would not make the mountain bikers happy and it would be partially named after a politician with an (R) designation that sadly enough is a part of what's causing the lack of support from the groups who garner the largest part of their funding from those in the (D) category.

 

[6speed]

I also asked one of the major Idaho wilderness advocates why his group is pushing for NM instead of wilderness. They would prefer wilderness, but the compromises required to satisfy Risch are too much. The wilderness push has been going on for some time and is getting nowhere. Letting Obama declare it a NM is the only feasible alternative as long as Risch wants to gut the wilderness package being worked on...

How has Risch gutted the current wilderness designation proposal? I see a lot more (R) vs. (D) B.S. going on than any actual worry about land protection. One look at the maps is a good indicator of how good the wilderness proposal is. A big hang up from the NM groups is the land swaps involved. I've been to every parcel proposed for transfer. They amount to 2 chunks surrounding former city dumps full of a hundred plus years of junk spread throughout the brush, a bus turn around at the end of a road dotted with multi million dollar homes, a cemetery, tiny city park, water tower, 2 rural fire stations and a shooting range. The other hang up is the amount off grazing. I admit when I see a certain FA running up East Fork on his ATV getting winded climbing off to open a hinged gate and not caring where his cows are it bugs me but booting him off a grazing allotment a few years before he retires it's definitely not worth the gamble that comes with an NM designation.

 

[RobG]

How has Risch gutted the current wilderness designation proposal?

According to the article the new bill removes 37,000 acres from designation. Gutted may be a little strong, but it is a fact that the wilderness people prefer the NM over the current wilderness bill because of Risch's requirements.

I see that Risch and the Drunk Mormon recently proposed to limit the President's power to declare NM through legislation. This seems extremely stupid as it will never get by Obama but it will force his hand to declare a NM or risk a future administration passing this legislation. I thought Crapo had more sense. Oh well, when a NM is declared Risch and the DM will scream about federal interference in state matters and that is probably more politically valuable to them than preventing this from becoming a NM.

 

[RobG]

I see a lot more (R) vs. (D) B.S. going on than any actual worry about land protection.

You know Simpson has an (R) after his name don't you? FWS needs a program to reintroduce democrats into Idaho's lawmaking bodies as they are rarer than grizzly bears.