Contributors to this thread:
Looks like Pres Trump is rolling back Obama regs on the Bears Ears, lots of land being given back.
I am shocked this post has not had any interest at all.
Nexus
Nexus
Lots of court challenges yet to come no doubt.
Good. I’ll be hunting elk down there next year
Me too - I plan on having a San Juan LE Bull tag in my pocket, Sept '18 :^)
Prob not getting much attention because of the title. I almost skipped it:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-rolls-back-federal-protections-on-utah-lands/ar-BBGda7l?OCID=ansmsnnews11
Antiquities Act. That law requires presidents to limit the monument designation to "the smallest area compatible with proper care and management of the objects to be protected."
I think there is a lot of ammo to think that Obama overstepped his mission from the above statement.. That said, there was hunting last year and their would have been hunting this year in spite of the monument status
Kodiak - Lol. Great picture, actually looks a lot like me as a kid. txhunter58 - Agreed with your excerpt regarding the Antiquities Act objectives, but keep in mind the two Utah NMs reduced today included a Clinton NM that has been around for years.
I asked on another forum, so if anyone knows here I am interested in how our access and hunting privileges are protected on this land now? Before, it would have taken an act of Congress to change management objectives. Who decides now?
Thanks
txhunter58, you're right about the title of the thread. I was wondering when I'd see a thread on this and skipped over this one too the first time.
nexus, this was my thought as well. I don't see it as a net gain or loss for hunters as far as access, if my understanding is right, but it may be opened up to commercial interests that didn't exist before. I don't have enough info to have an opinion yet.
Interesting that so many sportsmen support National Monuments.
At least from my experience, hunting on National Monuments is not allowed.
Even in some that are huge and have no vehicle access to vast acreage.
It does make for some very nice critters living in those areas as they are dying of old age. But there should at least be some access for hunting to those areas. I would certainly like to see hunting be allowed on National Monuments.
I am not in favor of expansion of nor new designation of National Monuments. If the existing National Monuments are going to continue to restrict hunting and fishing, I would love to see them reduced in size.
There is mineral/fuel resource extraction potential in Grand Staircase, not so much in Bears Ears. There are dry hole markers in BE's, which means it was prospected, but turned up dry.
NM's are a false narrative for hunters and preserving that activity. It is an added expense to manage for everyone else. If you're worried about keeping mining and drilling out, designate it as wilderness and let it run.
Both were politically driven. Nothing more.
I am aware of two NMs that were designated under the Obama Administration, Bears Ears and San Gabriel Mountain Range. Both of these NMs did not restrict hunting or access. I have personally hunted one of them. I understand that any subsequent changes to access and usage (including hunting privileges) of a NM would require an act of Congress. Given the volatility and uncertainty associated with many state budgetary needs, I would much rather have Congress deciding any proposed changes than a State Legislature. I just believe it is much too easy for a state to try and do quick fixes for budgetary shortfalls using my public land.
I am not sure how much State Trust Land was included in those National Monument designations. Pretty sure the majority of those designations were already federal lands managed by the BLM and USFS.
I am concerned that the majority of the National Monuments cost additional money to maintain and significantly curtail access for anyone for any reason. For a very few of them, hunting is allowed. It would be easier for the Federal Government to close hunting on those few than to open it on the remainder.
Right. A few special interest groups could put the kibosh to hunting very quickly...
As for year around usage, well, BE's can get some good snow in winter. Without paved roads, it would be tough to keep it opened and maintained.
It was told to me that historically if a NM is managed by the National Parks service, then hunting is not allowed. But if managed by BLM, it is. I think Bears Ears is managed by BLM?
Cubdrvr, that did not include any of the National Monuments in Colorado that do not allow any hunting or fishing. Don't believe any them here do.
The language that MAY allow for hunting and fishing in this report is particularly interesting as hunting, fishing or recreation is not "Expressly Authorized" on any of these - it is "IMPLIED". Any potential hunting, fishing or other use IMPLIED can be easily Prohibited.
Yep, not dis-agreeing. Just put that up for info and I thought the same about that implied business. I’m next to the Charles M Russell refuge and only a short distance from the American Prairie Preserve. Don’t trust any of them. They all have similar ultimate goals, and they aren’t hunting friendly goals.
