Contributors to this thread:
Movement to change Monuments to N. Parks
It was only a matter of time. For those who don't know, changing a Monument designation where hunting is permitted to a National Park means...
Was a given.
Gotta wonder why some organizations were so all fired up in favor of National Monuments...
It was done to the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, now the Dunes National Park .. gone is the chance of deer hunting it .. some Nat. Lakeshores are hunted as part of the "use" of the park ... the Dunes didnt have hunting as a Use when formed in the '60's, but deer wasnt a problem then ... they use sharpshooters there now and will continue to do so with the new designation ..
If this isn't an access issue in the making, there never has been one. Monkey see, monkey do.
Wonder what the "Public Land Owners'" position is on this?
Hopefully the land stays as National Monuments rather than become National Parks. However, still better than becoming private. Once it becomes private, you aren't doing anything on it, never mind hunt.
Interesting that certain organizations that claim to be for public access push for the designation of public lands to Monuments.
Most Monuments I am familiar with do not allow hunting and have very restricted access for any public land usage.
Parks are far, far more inaccessible than private land.
Multiple use public land remains accessible to all.
These same organizations issue very misleading alarms to their membership about massive “land sales” that are actually short term leases for timber, oil and gas, mining etc. Extraction of those resources is allowed only with very stringent rules on how they will develop the resources and how they will protect the land during and after they do their business.
Makes a guy wonder what their real agenda is...
“Wonder what the "Public Land Owners'" position is on this?”
Face down and ass up, just like the other 99% of their lives. I’m all for promoting and preserving our public lands but this monument issue was a blinding neon red flag IMO.
Hunting is allowed in some national parks. Buffalo National River for instance allows hunting as long as you stay back from the gravel bars. No bowfishing or trapping though. ;(
Is that a Park or a Monument?
Its managed by the NPS but its not a designated National Park. There is some hunting allowed on some properties managed by NPS.
A bigger problem is that every POTUS feels the need to put his stamp on history by designating a few National Parks, which usually means upgrading National Monuments because the amazing places of this country are all pretty much documented and we're not making any new amazing places.
Take a look at Kobuk National Park. Amazing place, but no different than 1/2 of Alaska. Least visited National Park in the country because it's so remote. Did it need to be a park to preserve it? No. But each POTUS needs his legacy.
It's not a sustainable situation.
Fortunately Alaska Natives preserved hunting in the park which allows those of us who live in unit 23 to continue to hunt it, which is sorta ridiculous, but it's better than nothing.
Until it's no longer a "normal thing" for a POTUS to designate a few NPs as part of his legacy, the loss of hunting rights on public land will continue.
A lot of great comments here. This monument thing was a monumental mistake. The park service couldn’t manage a wet dream without messing it up. How many of our parks utilize sharpshooters or paid assassins to do the job hunters would gladly pay to do? The new thing is “let’s bring in wolves” to help manage mismanaged game populations. This is an issue all of the hunting and conservation non-profits should be opposing vehemently.
Taxpayers pay sharpshooters to kill elk at night in Rocky Mountain National Park. Wouldn't want Mr. and Mrs. Earth Muffin and their granola kids to witness a natural act in daylight. And we wonder why the general public is becoming more detached from the natural world.
Snowflakes melt in daylight.....
"Interesting that certain organizations that claim to be for public access push for the designation of public lands to Monuments."
Interesting that some orgs that claim to be hunting orgs push for designation of public lands to Monuments.
It wasn’t to long ago some hunters were complaining about a certain president shrinking certain monuments.
As WV pointed out - crickets.
I remember those discussions very clearly.
TTT to present an opportunity to allow a BHA member to please inform us of what national's stance is on this. Be nice to hear what is or isn't being peddled down through the membership. Not wanting to argue. But, this is the something that has been hashed out over and over on this forum. Where is the BHA on this? Because the potential long term lose is something that should garner first hand attention.
Theyre waiting for the Sierra Club:)
Who would've thought, designating already public and heritage lands into a new category only to once again categorize it as something else with even more control avenues.
And people say the democratic party fights for public lands for all its uses and all the republicans want to do is "drill, baby drill". There are a lot of "conservationist-hunter-outdoorsmen" out there who think they understand the public lands debate but are way off base...
From the website of one of the prominent "hunter and angler" land preservation organizations: "Protecting large tracts of undeveloped public lands as national monuments is essential to America's hunting and fishing traditions. ..."
The Antiquities Act which governs National Monuments states: "Areas of the monuments are to be confined to the smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of the objects to be protected."
Hunters were getting screwed by NM designations like Castle Mountains, Sonoran Desert, Kaibab until the dreaded Ryan Zinke, the guy that same prominent hunter and angler group hated with passion, signed an order that directs bureaus within the agency to amend National Monument Management Plans to include or expand hunting, recreational shooting, and fishing opportunities to the extent practicable under the law. But there is nothing in the Act to prevent a future Interior Secretary from reversing that order, or outright banning hunting on ALL NMs.
So are more National Monuments (which were previously multiple use BLM or National Forest) in the best interests of hunters? Especially in light of the movement toward redesignation to National Parks?
Until hunting is re-institutionalized as the preferred method of wildlife management on all national monuments and parks, I will not be in favor of the expansion of either of those designations on our public lands.
WV Mountaineer, I am a WyBHA board member. To your question, all I can tell you is my stance, as we have not discussed the issue of changing National Monument status to National Park status as a board. My position is to oppose any Federal land designation that would result in the loss of public land access for hunting, fishing and recreation. To your point, if a proposal was put forth to change a National Monument that currently allows access to hunting and fishing to a National Park that would not allow access for hunting and fishing, I would be in opposition to that.
Once again I cannot speak for the other board members directly since we have not had this exact discussion but my assumption given my dealings with the other WyBHA board members is that they would oppose that as well. But that is an assumption and nothing more. Additionally, I don't know National BHA's stance on this issue directly as I have not discussed it with them and they have not sent down a position statement on the exact issue. However, for the same reason stated prior, my assumption would be that they would oppose such designation change if it resulted in loss of access for hunting and fishing. Your question is a fair one and I will dig deeper with national and see if they have a formal position on the issue. In regards to WyBHA , we for the most part, limit our positions to Wyoming issues. Since no formal proposal, that I am aware of, has been made to modify a Wyoming National Monument to a National Park we have not discussed.
I hope this helps clarify the stance of one WyBHA member.
Mulecreek, thanks for the explanation. I'd be curious to learn how BHA's position on expanding National Monuments squares with the intent of the Antiquities Act as I posted above. Seems like BHA is in favor of changing the Antiquities Act to reflect "largest possible" as opposed to "smallest possible".
Also, per Treeline's post, "some hunting permitted, for now" is much different than "hunting preferred".
Jaquomo, In regards to your thoughts on BHA's position on the AA I think rather than it being a change from smallest possible to largest possible, it is more a difference of what is trying to be protected. Is it the individual artifact? The canyon its in? The mountain the canyon is in? The region the mnts in? What is special and needs to be protected, the artifact or the area? I think that is where the disagreement comes into play. All indivudals, groups, orgs and agencies will have different thoughts on what the right answer is. I can tell you that even individuals within an org will have different thoughts. It shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that BHA would want to protect, from development, as much public land as possible for hunting and fishing access. There are times where NM designation is a good tool to do that, just as there will be times where NM designation is not.
I agree that "some hunting permitted" is very different than "hunting preferred". Where I disagree with Treelines post is the "all" part. For me, absolutes like all "NM's are good/bad, all NP's are good/bad, all drilling is good/bad or all mining is good/bad" usually end up in F'ed up decisions. There are too many variables in the equation for me to make blanket statements. That being said I don't expect everyone to agree with me or think like me so I respect Treelines statement while not completely agreeing with it.
Treeline - Officially, Buffalo National River is classified as a National River. Same thing as a National Park when it comes right down to it. Different than a monument.
"Wonder what the "Public Land Owners'" position is on this?"
Jaquomo I was curious as well and posted your article on their facebook page and didnt comment on it myself to get a truer response from their members. Its recieved 2 comments since the 15th.
Best idea ever! Norman Parks aka Loprofile aka N. Parks
You are from Wyoming so you certainly should understand.
"All" is necessary for effective, controlled management of the wildlife within those public land boundaries.
Otherwise, you get wolves...
I do understand and once again, and wolves are a perfect example of why I wouldn't use the word all. In some locations I think they make perfect sense, like Yellowstone. In other places I think they don't fit, like CO, UT, etc.
I guess I'll ask Newberg, Rinnela, Posewitz, Herring and and a few other members about how they feel on the subject at the annual convention with a couple thousand young people in attendance.
Sliding in a post to denigrate BHA on a non related issue from their purpose is backyard bad cooking.
To me this issue is their wheelhouse. The problem I have is they advocate for monuments cause it eliminates multiple use and this indicates what happens down the road to monuments. Really their whole scheme will lead to hunters getting the boot in the end when their partners get their way after they accomplish their mutual goal. The whole damn thing is misguided JMO.
"The whole damn thing is PURPOSELY misguided...."
Forgot a word there DD:)
So, access group number 1 by its own admission, has yet to release an official statement on this huge access issue in the making. And, it’s bad back yard cooking pointing that out?
I personally believe That to be one of the dumbest Statements I’ve ever read concerning access issues. Why is it that the lack of effort put forth by all groups, including the BHA, not being drug our by members? Do you believe this has no impact on hunting’s future? Surely you don’t. Or, at least you shouldn’t.
Mule creek, thanks for your reply. The only other question I have is why do you think the premiere hunting and fishing rights group has stayed silent on this point? That’s a sincere question.
I’m just so confused by the members lack of knowledge on nationals position. It isn’t their fault. Yet, why is it being allowed? This is a huge issue potentially and, one that needs addressed. So why is it that no one has an answer on where the BHA stands on this?
We’ve gotten no shortages of political partnership from the organization. No shortages on opinions concerning appointments to office. No shortages on select topics that reek of political influence. Yet, not one statement issued about the threat this poses. Not one. Are any members willing to address this?
I’m just the guy that people assume is on a witch hunt. I’m not at all. I’m just tired of hearing dedicated member responses on these hot subjects, that speak of no understanding which direction nationals stance is.
Member upon member will you what’s important to them. The good they assume is being done by their membership. Yet, no one, not one member has ever produced a non partisan stance on their groups proclaimed purpose. Not one. Just the same old, “ I’m a member and this is how I feel.”. Just seems odd the way they pick and choose to get involved. And even more odd that membership sets idly by allowing it.
No offense meant. Just telling you like it is.
I have brought this very subject up in the past on this forum. Hunters said it would not happen and I was a conspirator. Watch the APR at work in Montana. I promise I will get the last "laugh" on this one. Hunters deserve what they are getting, they are so short sighted. This will be unfortunate for the longterm preservation of hunting on public lands.
Game managers, FWP workers and officials, park rangers, DNR, etc etc are largely educated far left wingers today. That did not use to be the case, their future influence is inevitable.
Monuments and parks are a direct result of people's fear of extraction and timber industries. Why [some] hunters are terrified of oil and gas, mining, and logging is beyond me. Hunters are supposed to be the level-headed ones out there, not part of the sky is falling crowd.
I have read posts on other forums that support my "claim". They feel monument designation is the only thing to protect the landscape from the damning comforts of life we all enjoy. What they do not realize is that the NEPA process already protects the environment and cultural resources that are present. Utah's legislative stance has not helped either. Utah's legislative stance is what has sparked this hot debate and the war cry "keep public lands public".
The reality I fear is that the federal government transfer or "give" federal (aka public) lands over to the tribes scattered throughout the country...
Keeping lands public does not mean keeping lands open to hunting and trapping. That is where hunters fail to comprehend. Hunters believe they have a right to hunt, that thinking is totally dumb. There is no future right to an open non native hunting season on any animal.
Exactly. Public land is ALREADY federally mandated to be multiple use managed under the FLMPA. We don’t need these designations as it’s the ONLY thing that no longer ensures the public has a voice in the management of these lands. We loose that to statutory mandate, that gives congress full unaltered control when we designate land into these “special” places.
It’s absurd to suggest that whenever we the people give up our rights to the government, that we come out better. Things have been clicking along real well for a long time. And, these movements are funded by and for the purpose of taking these rights from us. It’s hard to build solar fields, create special interest influences, and steal something that doesn’t belong to you, until federally mandated law preventing it is over written by a statutory designation.
And, as HDE pointed out, this all comes from a misplaced fear, spread on lies and assertions meant to create hype where none exists.
Liberal voting hunters are part of the problem.