Contributors to this thread:
Our Government At Work
National Park Service wants to scrape the water guzzlers in the Mohave National Preserve. SoCal has sucked the water table so low that natural springs dried up years ago. Sportsman started putting in guzzlers and the sheep population as well as other wildlife grew because of it. Now these morons want to stop this. There’s a looney group that had been pushing to stop all unnatural water sources for wildlife. Just when you think people could not get any dumber up pops these people. People need to get fired.
I sent my comments on this a couple of weeks ago and would encourage you all to comment now (deadline June 19th, link to provide is in green on the page accessible through the link above).
All you really need to read to understand the slanted direction of this is "None of the alternatives proposes construction of new guzzlers in wilderness or maintenance of small game guzzlers in wilderness." So, the most favorable alternative will result in a net reduction in water availability in the wilderness over time, and the other 3 are even more adverse for wildlife (incl. the removal of water sources).
The anti hunters would rather see animals perish of thirst rather than be taken by a hunter, yet they approve wholeheartedly of abortion. The only conclusion that makes sense is that the bastards are just mean, evil people.
I think someone should try to reach out to the trump administration about this, im pretty certain he would help because he does have some common sense and I know Trump Jr is a bowhunter.. fact is animals cant survive without water!!
I am not seeing the anti hunting or abortion references....just me.
Anyway. Option 1 is status quo, and subject to changes via state regulations Option 2 is load of crap..... Option three looks like a long term net increases water sorces, however it’s not clear why that is better that we have currently. Option 4 also net increase in water sorces with susepet locations.
Option three is the preferred alternative And seems the best chose with the limited outline provided. However it doesn’t make the case that it’s better then t(e status quo and doesn’t Sufficiently exfoliate the short term changes that will come about.
CO Oak's Link
Maybe the same should be applied for unnatural water sources for [some certain] humans as well...
Wild Sheep Foundation sent a 30-page letter to the NPS on this issue, co-signed by 25 of their chapters and affiliates. You can read more about their stance at the link above, and the letter is linked at the bottom of that page.
So according to WSF option 1 the status quo is the only acceptable current option. I think sportmem commenting on this plan would be wise to defer to their expertise. I am submitting a comment to that effect.
well where I am at, they want to spend 2 million dollars to bring wolves back to Isle Royale to balance out the moose, but no hunting,,,,, letters sent to Zinke,,,,, crickets on that, I think that guy has been sleeping, or if it is not an issue west of the river, he could give a rats ass,,,,,,
nothing surprises me anymore
There may be a looney group that hates water guzzlers but this statement from the NPS is clearly heading forward with the status-quo. The status-quo position is backed by the WSF and is our best option.
I am not seeing where the Preferred Alternative is reducing guzzlers, but rather increasing them by a minimum of 1, an d possibly increasing them by up to 4 over time. I also read where the Park Service is working with several groups to adapt new regulations with 'hunter groups' being listed first. did anyone actually read any of the proposals, or are you getting your collective hunter-biased panties in a wad over pure misunderstanding of the facts just because you all hate left wingnut politics? I myself loathe left wing politics, but what I see here is just NEPA policy being presented and studies being conducted to hash out the best alternative for both wildlife (particularly sheep) , and other use. The net goal, from what I read was to INCREASE the number of sheep, not eliminate artificial water sources because SoCal 'dried up the water table'. Get educated before you go spouting off nonsense based on wolf-hating and other lefty horse apple policy. Read and understand the proposals. All this is open to public comment, and they base their decisions on the comments received. Maybe send in some useful comments instead of going off on some tirade. 'Better to remain silent than to open mouth and 'remove all doubt' (of ignorance)', eh?.
"The Preferred Alternative would potentially increase bighorn sheep habitat during the hot summer months with a total of seven bighorn sheep guzzlers. During a transition period lasting several years there could be as many as ten bighorn sheep guzzlers supporting herds throughout the Preserve. There are currently six bighorn sheep guzzlers in the Preserve." Quote taken from the Plan.
As I noted when I submitted my comments on this to the NPS, the company that wrote the proposal was paid several hundred thousand dollars to do so, yet HAS NEVER ACTUALLY VISITED the MNP!
Think about that for a minute!
We faced the exact same thing in 2002 and we (CA WSF) got Washington involved. Once they realized how grossly imbalanced the MNP's position was, the MNP was told to leave the water alone.
Yet here we go again!
WSF and CA WSF have been all over this and we've gone to Sec. Zinke, who is really PO'd at the very idea of removing this critical water. Men and women have spent thousands of hours in volunteer labor in building these drinkers and hundreds of thousands of dollars OUT-OF-POCKET to buy equipment for these wildlife water systems over the past fifty years to RESTORE the natural water which existed before man took the water away.
I am highly confident the Secretary will tell the MNP to go pound sand and leave the drinkers in place. But one must ask why we need to keep fighting this battle?
The locations of the additional drinkers the NPS claims they would add have either not yet been identified, and for those which have been identified, there is a great amount of doubt wild sheep would ever find them or use them. In other words, that 'promise' is nothing more than a shell game until more and better information becomes available.
Kyle have you seen the two old oil derricks in the Cadys that were used to pump water years ago? BLM was asked if they could be started up to pump water for use at the guzzlers and they refused permission to do so.
Someone should call the Trump administration????? Really?? Who do you think "the government" is?? They are selling public land to their rich cronies, thousands of acres are at risk. Whatever keep drinking the Koolaid.
Warchild , who is falsely registered and who no one has ever seen on Bowsite before, is not only a troll, but he's also proof, "You can't fix stupid."
Where are the Thread Owner Tools when we need them?
Give me some instances where they are selling public land? Trump is pro multiple use, pro second amendment and pro hunting..... people vote based on their interests and their pocketbook. Its clear warchild is voting based on his pocketbook as he probably works for the for one of these litigating enviro groups!!
A sharp one at that....the thread is over a year old.
^^^ I was waiting for some one to point this out...LMAO!
yes a year old....so, status of guzzler threat?