Why can't there be a public/private partnership to create and manage really high quality habitat on certain public lands? The obvious answer is little money and staff resources, but REMF and other right-minded individuals and groups would be happy to put in food plots. It's one thing to have most of the riparian valley bottomlands private. Why can't there be a real effort to upgrade habitat in certain areas, maybe even irrigate to get the feed quality comparable to everyone's private? I bet some farmers and ranchers would be happy if the elk weren't always robbing their haystacks.
That means that hunting (and fishing) are minor and peripheral uses of the land.
Wildlife Management areas and designated game lands are more intensely managed for game species.
You might want to see if any local organizations, like RMEF, etc. have any targeted goal areas or plans, for having portions of public lands designated as Elk (or other) management units.
To your question: Could public land use better management? My answer would be yes as long as it is at no further burden to the taxpayer.
Could the current money allocated to federal land management be put to better use? I'm certain, but this is the federal government we are talking about. As Fuzzy mentions, hunting is only the slightest blip on the radar in the grand scheme of things.
Why was the public land in way rougher shape? Over-grazed? Just because it was (normally) at a higher elevation? Not irrigated?
Down south were I live on the panguitch unit is worse. there are large areas of beetle killed forest and what isn't beetle killed is so thick you can't walk through it. If it ever catches fire it is going to be a raging inferno. The sad thing is, the forest service will not let you cut down the beetle killed trees. Its like the management policy is to not do anything.
smokey's Link
Also, USFS cannot go asking for money from private groups but they can accept it if offered.
Check out the link and contact Congress.
Agree with the post that we're the boil on the butt of a beetle in the greater scheme of things, but some small focused efforts wouldn't take a ton of money and could produce all sorts of wildlife benefits. if there is really high quality feed it will bring animals in. Guzzlers go without saying, but that's more a desert thing.
Maybe focus on private land that allows hunters. Pay them to grow crops tailored for wild game.
When management plans come up for revision on National Forests, they have to be published and approved by the public before they are enacted. Many times habitat management is opposed by the liberal public during this comment section. which leads to arbitration, which leads to the opposition being defeated because of the multiple use doctrine that encompasses all public land. However, when the time for the actual habitat manipulation comes up, these same groups will then sue the USFS and retard that management. With federal budgets being non existent for these agencies, fighting lawsuits are out of the question. So, wildlife habitat management isn't even prescribed in the revised plans now.
It is very important for every hunter in this country to understand this is a concerted and deliberate attempt by several groups. Many of whom we call our friends. They take the same money from the same people that PETA and HSUS, in the forms of different grants. BHA, TU, Sierra Club, Wilderness coalition, etc.... So, they work hard at designating public land into some form of federal designation like a monument or wilderness. Which by simple design and law, removes the public approval designation mandated under National Forests designation.
This is when we hunters loose. Stagnant forest and ecosystems leads to poor participation by hunters. Which leaves the land under even more threat at that point. With no desire to hunt these places, there is no instant need to recognize these dangers. But, if you look, these groups have succeeded in converting many of OUR equally owned areas to these designations already. These groups dispute these claims by saying we WILL use public input during plan revisions but, the law is the law. By that law, congress is the new manager of the designated land. And, there is no longer any law that grants the public the ability to dispute it. And, they are using mindless hunters to accomplish the task by forming "hunting" groups that claim they are there to protect the environment for our future use.
Men, wake up and get involved. This is real. We lost almost 250,000 acres here in 1997 when stabbed in the back by the wilderness coalition and the Sierra Club. Off the books for sensible habitat management for deer, grouse, bear, turkey, scores of small game, etc.. As a National Forest, Federal law gives we the people veto power when left as a National Forest. That is the only land designation that guarantees it. Believe no one that says designation of any sort is a good thing. Get proactive and research the groups you join and support. Minus the NRA and the SCI, you'll find most all take the same funds as the same people funding those that oppose hunting, regardless of what they claim. Act accordingly. It is that important. God Bless
Apply those factors to your situation. I think you will find the hangup on number three. Who is going to pay?
In the SW most USFS grazing allotments are rotational pasture grazing. You will find the elk either one pasture ahead of the cattle or one pasture behind. The elk like the fresh regrowth and proper public lands grazing actually benefits elk to a huge degree.
On many private ranches taken over by the RMEF where they have taken the cattle off, you will find them on the neighboring ranches where there is grazing.
The Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge in southern AZ took cattle off years ago and you can not hardly find a deer, muley or Coues, on there now. They are out on the ranches that still have livestock grazing.
williamtell,
You are right on as the Federal Agencies are not properly managing much of the public land as their hands are either tied by environmental lawsuits or now many in power within the Agencies are greenies whom want to remove all consumptive uses and make it a big aesthetic playground for the bird watchers and backpackers. Hunting is is the crosshairs of these radicals and we need to be ever vigilant.
There is a big argument especially in Utah where the state is trying to take over management of the public land. In many states such as AZ and NM where I live we see the Federal Agencies as big wasteful behemoths that are reducing multiple uses of the public land on an ongoing basis and trying to make de facto wilderness out of all of it. Many hunters back this notion but they forget these antis don't want hunters out there either.
Public lands grazing allotments and the numbers of livestock allowed to run on them have been greatly reduced especially on Forest Service lands and for instance in the Gila National Forest in NM, whereas in the 70's there were 260,000 AUM's of grazing and now it about half of that.
This is happening all over the USFS manged landscape. Forest fires are able to get started and burn more than ever as livestock grazing is reduced. Look and 2011 and 2012 when the 1/2 million acre Wallow fire absolutely decimated much of the Apache Sitgreaves National Forest and the Whitewater Baldy fire took out 300,000 acres of the Gila Wilderness and National Forest with much of it an absolute mess and getting worse by the minute. The thick aspen regrowth and the Locust bush growth, plus all of the downed trees is making it very hard to hunt and is only getting worse. We think we only have about two more years of decent hunting left in much of the hot burn area. Not only that but when the wind blows you are in grave danger of getting hit by falling burned trees and snags. A person definitely is literally taking his life in his own hands when he ventures into this hot burn area, especially when the wind blows. I hunt both areas and it is a huge worry for not only my safety but that of my clients.
