Public Land/Conservation Bill Passes!
General Topic
So the image you posted cites 5 new National Monuments, and expansion of 5 National Parks. I can see how this would be a big win for Protectionists. Just trying to understand how those designations are a big win for hunting? Can we hunt in those places now?
By all accounts the president is going to sign it. Multiple groups have been helping push this through both the house and senate. Nice to see people working together. TU, RMEF, BHA, TRPF, BC and several others. Great to see it happen.
Hunting isn't permitted on all National Monuments, but it is great to see such a strong bipartisan effort to make this important legislation happen.
Can’t wait to see folks in here nitpick BHAs involvement. Just give me a few minutes to let my popcorn cool off.
Great news all around !!!!
Like this part alot, " LWCF uses funds to purchase lands to allow access to public lands currently landlocked by private land, purchase more public land"...... Also read a month or so back about a state that is making a push (if u want to call it that) to allow corner hopping.. Anyone remember which state this is??? Ed
Ed, Montana has tried to pass a couple different laws allowing corner hopping but they didn't get enough votes. If I recall, there was a concern about the plethora of lawsuits that would follow passage, but also sure there were plenty of wealthy landowner/donors pushing against it.
The only way corner hopping will ever be declared truly "legal" is for someone to get cited and take it to the Supreme Court for a ruling. Seriously, if BHA would back something like this, it would be one of the most valuable achievements they could accomplish. I'm sure there are plenty of BHA members who would be willing to be cited if they knew BHA had their back with funding and legal support.
That didn’t take long yooper, bet the butter was still warm
I'm not dissing BHA. Not at all. Just making a suggestion because somebody will have to fund the appeals, and it seems like this is right in BHAs wheelhouse. Am I wrong? If they would pursue something like this, I'd join in a heartbeat.
Yes I would rejoin also,,, But I still don't think JaQuomo would Join.. ;)..... I was a member for I think only 1 or 2 years.. Love everything they were doing,,, till !!! The Colorado Chapter went on record asking the state to cut back on non-resident hunters. So they asked the state to cut back on their nonresident members.. That's not what I thought they were about.. I questioned that and am still waiting for the answer 3 or 4 years later..
Sorry to bring this up in this great thread. But that's something very sore to me. I think that BHA is going good and will do good.. But I was just shocked by what they said. Respectfully ED
"Significant Expansion of Existing National Parks", sorry I don't consider that a good thing. Also, withdrawal of lands from US Mining Laws is an end-around National Park expansion. Its either IN the National Park or OUT of the National Park; of course this means "Subject to pre-existing Valid Existing Rights". I look askance at BHA.
Steve H, over all this bill is going to be good for hunting.. Also this bill was supported by more than just BHA.. I do believe that if this bill went through and BHA didn't support it that ppl opposed to BHA would say negative stuff about them for not supporting the bill and now that they did support it. I sure I will see ppl saying how bad this bill will be because they did support it.
This was an important bill supported by every hunting, fishing, and conservation organization. In all, it is great for everyone who enjoys public lands, now and in the future. Stix just mentioned BHA in his original post but they were simply one of dozens that signed-on. He could have said "RMEF" or any of the others.
"Significant Expansion of Existing National Parks"
You have to take the good with the bad in some Bills. I don't like this either, especially in CA where there's already plenty of desert set aside in Southern CA already when you include Death Valley, Joshua Tree, Borego Springs, Mohave, etc. I'm not sure, but I bet this expansion ate up more sheep habitat that will not be huntable now. CA has as many sheep as neighboring states, but has 1/10th the tags due mostly to the fact that so many of the sheep are locked up in State/National parks, military ranges, and state game refuges where no hunting is allowed.
EDIT: Unable to find maps so far of the new JSNP and DVNP expansions.
Idyll, CA's low sheep tag number are highly influenced by very conservative harvest allowances. Land status is only part of the picture
For sure, but if you look at the map of sheep range in CA, a significant amount of it falls in the parks I listed and some of them fall in the ridiculous 1908 game reserves. And one entire range of mountains is a bombing range. Still more sub-sub species, so they cant be hunted...
I wouldn't support shooting as many sheep in a herd as NV does, but even if we had ram tag numbers like AZ did, we still wouldn't have 1/3 the tags they do based on so many of our sheep being locked up in areas off-limits to hunting and we have similar numbers of actual sheep.
Don’t know anything about the bill or organization .
But usually talking land out of USFS is not good as USFS is always managed For Multiple use.
Changing its Designation makes it easier to control when a group or political party has a Agenda.
Just something I have seen living in Wyoming
Still trying to figure out which National Monuments allow hunting. The ones in Colorado are off limits.
And if some do, why not all of them?
