Bill to protect additional CO lands
General Topic
OK with additional protection as long as those protections do not restrict hunting on those lands.
My assumption is that the areas designated to be national park will not be open to hunting. I could be wrong but if this is the case I’ll have a hard time supporting the bill.
Know of any National Parks you can hunt? Most National Monuments are off limits too. Will need to see more about what they are proposing for sure.
Three of the four areas are national forest. That should answer that question
And the forth is part of the national park system as a unit that does allow hunting. See the link below.
How would changing designation to Wilderness stop a slob from riding though a meadow on an ATV? They ride through meadows, in beaver ponds, on foot traffic only trails and up stream beds where ATV are prohibited now. Do you think slobs will change their habits because of a changed designation.
It was my understanding Grand Teton National Park has/had an elk hunt to manage the population?
Yes, Obnoxious E bikers as well....
Honestly, on the surface this sounds great, but when I see some of the advocates of this and NONE of them actually put a dime back into habitat (like hunters licenses do) it scares me. I like the thought, but do not trust all of their motives.
I might support it but my spidy sense is tingling. I will have to read it.
Yeah, I didn't look into it too deep but after just coming off the wolf thread my first instinct was they are acquiring more land to turn wolves loose on and stop hunting. Just a thought.
This being motivated and pushed by groups that are riding the wave given them by the fictitious study that was put out by a politically motivated DOI in the former administration that wanted to show that nonconsumptive uses “wildlife watching” was more beneficial than the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation.
Their study indicated that “wildlife watching” brought in over $2.3 billion to Colorado while hunting only brought in $900 thousand. Fishing brought in a little more but the two activities combined were less than “wildlife watching”.
What is extremely strange to me is that I spend a lot of time watching animals but it is to hunt. I see very few people making trips or spending money with the express purpose to watch animals. Not only that, they contribute absolutely nothing to the conservation of wildlife. The vast majority of people are spending money doing something totally unrelated and many times quite detrimental to wildlife (skiing, mountain biking, hiking with dogs, driving, etc) and seeing wildlife is down the list in priotity as the reason for their travel or expenditures.
Put in front of politicians, this is extremely dangerous. Major policy decisions are and will be made to appease the “wildlife watchers” that are “doing more for the economy than those nasty old hunters.”
What do you think the noisiest “wildlife watcher” groups are clamoring for? Wolves, and ending all predator hunting.
Wayne and Tavis for the win. Government designation of National Forest lands is a net loss. Regardless of who pushes for it. Because it no longer is mandated by federal law to require public input for management. No and, if’s, or but’s about it. That’s just the way it is. And, if hunters don’t soon learn that these designated areas are subject only to the political outlook of the Congress we have in office, we will lose more then we can ever hope to win with any designation. Because they can change a hunting area to a nonhubting area with one vote. And, you’d better believe the Sierra Clubs, the humane society’s, and any other “eco group” is about guaranteed to have the deep pockets and lobbying power to make it happen.
Take a big look at most NM’s for proof of that. Once designated, we’ve lost it for the future no matter how many that try to assure you it won’t happen. In time it will if Congress is deemed the only mandated manager iog our once Public lands.
Yep boys. We're getting fukked for sure, without even the courtesy of lube. They are finding more and more ways to take hunting rights and land away without calling it that. And if they reintroduce wolves to Colorado it would me disastrous. We are way over populated with humans for that to end well.
Reading some of these posts I can’t help but think we are our own worst enemies... a lot of assumptions and limited viewpoints in my opinion.
CORE may or may not be good for hunting but anything that expands/protects public lands isn’t a bad thing in my opinion, regardless of who uses it.
A number of the proposed wilderness area expansions are in my hunting areas. One reason I hunt there is to avoid the crowds and early rifle hunters in the wilderness areas. This will probably change with these designations.
Hunting was allowed at Currecanti. Will be shocked if it stays that way.
National Parks and Monuments should be open for hunting. Had high hopes for Zinke, but it didn’t happen.
I have fought this land grab in Northern New England. We are slated to ultimately be a national park. Right now they are grabbing land under the guise of a refuge with almost 8 million acres planned, and people being relocated.
When they protect public lands it seem that hunters always get the short end of the stick. scott
The gas and oil lobbists and companys hate this, as they will not be able to explore and drill. This is good.
I do not see this hurting hunters at all. my best, Paul
Oil and gas? Paul none of those areas are oil and gas exploration areas. Not the right geology.
Will be shocked if hunting continues to be allowed around Currecanti with the new “protected” status.
This only proposed legislation, and highly unlikely that it will pass in the Senate (if it passes at all) without significant changes, especially in regards to the ban on drilling.
