Bowsite.com

Gotta wonder why some organizations were so all fired up in favor of National 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...

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.

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.

"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.

I remember those discussions very clearly.

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...

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?

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.

Also, per Treeline's post, "some hunting permitted, for now" is much different than "hunting preferred".

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.

https://www.nps.gov/buff/learn/index.htm

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...

Sliding in a post to denigrate BHA on a non related issue from their purpose is backyard bad cooking.

Forgot a word there DD:)

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 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...

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.