BLM Leasing it's own land
Contributors to this thread:Elk
From: kentuckbowhnter
31-Mar-23
Proposed to lease it's own land for conservation, what do you guys think?
From: Glunt@work
31-Mar-23
A link would help. Here in CO the state leases land from the state to allow public access.
From: kentuckbowhnter
31-Mar-23
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/03/31/biden-interior-proposes-leasing-public-lands-for-conservation.html
here is the link
From: wytex
31-Mar-23
Perhaps paying grazing leases but not grazing them with livestock? Sounds good to me if so.
From: bluedog
31-Mar-23
JMO.... grazing rights at $1.35 per head is the biggest welfare scam going. Arizona game and fish guy told me once the choice was 3 elk or 2 cattle for any given piece of land.
Others will have a different opinion.
From: Grey Ghost
31-Mar-23
Grey Ghost's Link
I got thru about half of the actual proposal (see link), and it became clear this is just another tool to push the climate change narrative. It would define "conservation" as a land use that is on par with other public land uses, like recreation. That means, it gives the BLM another way to limit recreational uses, if they deem an area is in need of "conservation".
This is NOT a outdoorsman friendly proposal in my view. Read it for yourself and see what you think.
Matt
From: Brotsky
31-Mar-23
Greater Sage grouse habitat is endangered all throughout WY, until further notice all BLM lands in the greater sage grouse range will be closed to hunting and recreation until the greater sage grouse is restored.......That's how I imagine this being used.
From: Grey Ghost
31-Mar-23
Exactly, Brotsky.
From: WYelkhunter
31-Mar-23
It is not good and should not be backed by sportsman or recreationists. As GreyGhost said It would give them to many capabilities to shut land off to any use.
From: DanaC
31-Mar-23
"until further notice all BLM lands in the greater sage grouse range will be closed to hunting and recreation until the greater sage grouse is restored"
BUT, will they be closed to cattle grazing? Or is that considered non-destructive to sage grouse habitat?
"capabilities to shut land off to any use. " Well, if they're charged with managing it, that is exactly the power they need. The real question is, do they manage it by results, or manage it by political pressure?
From: PushCoArcher
31-Mar-23
DanaC I don't trust the federal government to properly manage anything. A guy hunting antelope, elk or deer on a piece of BLM aren't hurting the sage grouse. This could allow the federal government to block American hunter's and taxpayers access to millions of acres. I agree that dirt cheap grazing leases and overgrazing of federal lands needs to stop but this isn't the way to do that.
From: MA-PAdeerslayer
01-Apr-23
Federal government can’t do anything right. Might as well let a bunch of chimpanzees run the country
From: Ben
03-Apr-23
It's more wokeness. By shutting off the grazing land they are effectively keeping the numbers of farting animals down, pushing the climate change agenda.
