Do you support habitat protection on monuments if you can't hunt them?

[Grundy53]

After reading further posts and getting a full understanding of what the question posed, my answer is no. Conservation is not preservation. And, any group that asks to be supported by conservationist, doesn't need to be pushing for preservation. There is enough of those groups already. To say you believe in the conservation of the resources associated with our public lands is a purposefully misleading if you are actively pursuing a preservation practice.

Agreed

Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk

 

[Shrek]

This is virtually a push poll question. I immediately recognized the trap but most won't and vote yes. National Monument designations are being used as power grabs to lock people and businesses out of large swaths of the country. We all want to protect habitat but this is a case of give an inch and lose a mile. As soon as the next Greenie owned President is elected the National Monuments will exponentially expand the area where no hunting is allowed.

 

[WV Mountaineer]

This is virtually a push poll question. I immediately recognized the trap but most won't and vote yes. National Monument designations are being used as power grabs to lock people and businesses out of large swaths of the country. We all want to protect habitat but this is a case of give an inch and lose a mile. As soon as the next Greenie owned President is elected the National Monuments will exponentially expand the area where no hunting is allowed.

Very well said. And spot on too

 

[Jason Snyder]

Monument status does not automatically equate to preservation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[robby denning]

Monument status does not automatically equate to preservation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sure, but as said, it could be abused. Big monument, can hunt parts of it that make sense. New president, no hunting any of it.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jason Snyder]

Sure, but as said, it could be abused. Big monument, can hunt parts of it that make sense. New president, no hunting any of it.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not necessarily. The management plan and administering agency will largely dictate the usage. A new president cannot just make at will changes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[robby denning]

Not necessarily. The management plan and administering agency will largely dictate the usage. A new president cannot just make at will changes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But new presidents greatly affect or replace admin agencies.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jason Snyder]

But new presidents greatly affect or replace admin agencies.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes they do, but monument status does NOT exempt the usage from multiple use policy.

Once an administering agency has been chosen I'm not sure a President can remand to a different agency. I'll defer to Rob on that one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Shrek]

Monument status does not automatically equate to preservation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No , it doesn't automatically mean preservation but it does mean that the land is now managed by a federal bureaucracy who's mission doesn't prioritize multiple uses but does prioritize preservation. Public access and use is not guaranteed or a priority. Bears Ears designation was about locking out fossil fuel development and absolutely nothing to do with preserving actual antiquities or spectacular natural features. Native American rights are another stalking horse for federal power grabs.

 

[Jason Snyder]

No , it doesn't automatically mean preservation but it does mean that the land is now managed by a federal bureaucracy who's mission doesn't prioritize multiple uses but does prioritize preservation. Public access and use is not guaranteed or a priority. Bears Ears designation was about locking out fossil fuel development and absolutely nothing to do with preserving actual antiquities or spectacular natural features. Native American rights are another stalking horse for federal power grabs.

Sorry but there are several mistruths in here.

If the agency is NPS then no, multiple use does not apply. If it's BLM, USFS then it does.

Public access and use most certainly can be a priority. In fact use and access can actually be guaranteed in the proclamation.

You must have an inside line on the motivation behind Bears Ear? Protection has been a concern and issue for over half a century.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Middleofnowhere]

Here in California, our Fish & Game Department (changed to Fish & Wildlife by the PC antis) do everything they can to hinder hunters. Our governor appoints HSUS people onto the F&G Commision . We need the help from the Feds (and the rest of the nation) or the libs running our state would take away our guns and force us to be vegans.

 

[WV Mountaineer]

The president does not have the legal authority to change a management plan on any monument. They can changed the size of them. But, CONGRESS is the only legal voice in deciding the management on monuments. NM law is Statutory. Subject only to the woes of congress. The Constitution says the president cannot over ride laws congress votes to impose. Which is why the president CANNOT change management scheme's with a pen. This is federal law.


It has also been debated in the past about the president doing away with a monument. All congressional committee's that I am aware of have found that the president does not have this authority. The latest was in November 2016. Therefore, not one President has truly tried it. It brings us back to the statutory law that encompasses every monument. Once again, the only governing branch that does have this authority is congress. This HAS been done.


It is so important for people to understand these things. They are statutory for a reason. Mandated that way to take away the granted public input all other public owned and used land in this country is managed by: Under the FLMPA. Without being statutory against the FLMPA, there would be no need for the designation. It would simply be like the other lands covered by the FLMPA. Open to public approval management. It is said to be pre-designation. And often it is during the initial plan. But, ONCE again, Congress is the only branch with creating and revising power of a statutory law. And, once designated we the people no longer have the FLMPA that grants us mandated multiple use management.


Where we stand to lose as hunters on a NM is usually during revision. While the NM's might start ok, we do not know who will be elected to the House in the future. Who they are friends with. And, most importantly, who lobbies them. This is what makes them so dangerous to us hunters. We have no monetary means to compete with our enemies. Their bank accounts and their influence is HUGE in comparison.


Soon enough, a pro monument guy will be along to tell you I'm wrong. I am not. This is FEDERAL law. Court room tested and, just the way it is. There are plenty of real world examples for you to see for yourself who is right. And, if you do not believe me, reach out to your local NWTF chapter. Their biologists are TOP notch and right on top of the laws surrounding these NM movements.


Jason, could you please give an example of a NM plan that has practiced anything but preservation concerning habitat? Would you please site your reference where the FLMPA supersede's a Statutory NM plan.


I apologize if I derailed this thread. But, understanding these things are paramount if we hunters are to make the best decision about them and, who we support financially to protect our interests.


God Bless men

 

[robby denning]

Ok WV. If you're right which you probably are, I revise my earlier comment to say "new Congress" instead of president. Frankly I don't trust most of them, especially Clinton-Obama moves to create big NMs at end of terms with no accountability. Washington has too much power. I want less even if I don't fully understand every nitpicky issue and all its tangents. Sick of waking up to the news that they've made one more move that I don't support with no accountability to sportsmen who've always paid the way for conservation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[WV Mountaineer]

I wholeheartedly agree brother. I'm sick of most everyone of them too. It's time we get groups to represent our core values as hunters to chew on their ears. I thank the Lord every night for people like Randy Newburg and the like. Groups like the RMEF, NWTF, The Safari Club, etc... I try to give what I have evenly to most of them. But, we need a hunting group to lead this fight. Someone the representative's must answer to weekly. It's what our opposition is doing and, how they have won the anti hunting fights we hunters have slowly lost all across this country. Someone to unite us, while forcing Elected officials to consider their actions that inhibit our freedoms and rights. We need the NRA of the hunting world. If hunting is to survive the multifaceted attack it is under right now, this group had better surface and step up to the plate soon.

 

[Jason Snyder]

WV,

I did not say the national monument management plan is superseded by FPLMA. I said that a management plan is still subjected to FPLMA, within the confines outlined in the Presidential proclamation. As with any USFS or BLM management plan, all uses must be considered, but don't necessarily have to be included. This is true whether it is a national monument management plan or not.

If your reference was to me, I am not in any way a carte blanche pro monument guy. I am a pro factual information guy. I evaluate each monument based upon its individual merits.

 

[WV Mountaineer]

Jason, you seem t have back off that assertion a little bit from the last time. However, you can bet my previous post was directed right at you. Here's some facts for a factual guy like you. It is federal law man. Uncontested.


Under managed FLMPA lands, no plans or revisions can be sent to Congress while under arbitration. Arbitration is a granted right every citizen in this country posses to ensure multiple use management on public lands. Governing policies under the FLMPA also ensures that best use practices on any piece of land, get's first consideration during planning and revision. The plan gets republished for comments and, if no one contests the plan, it goes to congress to get voted in. If someone contest the plan, it is drafted again and republished for comments. This is done and if it persists, courts will come into lay. Once arbitration is cleared up, a final draft is sent o congress for voting into law. That's the FLMPA in action and, there is a huge difference between this and designated land.


Once a NM area is designated, There are no laws that grant we the people arbitration if we disagree with the Monument plan. Under designation, we don't have that legal right like we do on non-designated land. The plan that gets sent to congress, post designation is what we got. Congress can change it or leave it alone. But, we have no legal granted arbitration to contest the plan put in front of congress to vote into law. And, while it is common for you to say public input will be considered for every monument plan, it just isn't always true. Multiple, multiple examples of hunting opportunity lost on monuments, millions of acre's of hunting ground lost after monument designation. Even when the BLM and USFS was the managers of those lands. That's not taking public input and, practicing multiple use management. That's the effect of a statutory monument plan, lobbied by special interest, and used to jerk our rights out from under us.



So, you are right. Consideration is all we get on both designated and non-designated land. But, only on non-designated land do we have legal means to ensure we get that consideration, if we have a practical use for the area in the plan. And, legal means to contest any plan. And, legal means to ensure multiple use management practices outlined in the FLMPA are adhered too. But, you did say earlier in this thread Multiple use management was mandatory on USFS and BLM monuments. Which real life results and examples say different.


To everyone else. I'm not trying to be the authority. I'm just trying to ensure you get the full story and the facts here. I'm not a pro monument guy the way they are being used by our enemies and, they way they are being abused to include way to large an area. I'm not against them if they follow the guidelines outlining their original intent. I'm just not going to stand here and let someone blow smoke about them. In many cases, they simply are not worth the risk to push for them.

 

[Jason Snyder]

WV,

Sorry bud, I haven't backed off anything. I merely corrected a misstatement that you attributed to me.

From personal communication with a retired forest service employee who spent 8 years in Washington DC, regarding the public involvement process in a national monument management plan creation....

"....it (the management plan process) is governed by the National Forest Management Act. There might be details in the designation (ie presidential proclamation) that are above public involvement, but beyond that it is business as usual regardless of whether the management plan is for a monument or not. Objections and legal challenges are still part of the process."

There you have some facts from a factual guy like me. Yes, we are talking laws, aren't we? Have I ever debated that?

I have never once stated there isn't some degree of risk in a monument designation. However, I also feel there is some degree or risk without designated protections. It's a balancing act and is not predicated in absolutes on either end of the spectrum.

And yes, multiple use management IS required. What you fail to grasp is that multiple use does not mean EVERY use. Name me a monument administered by the BLM or the USFS that does not allow hunting as a multiple use. I don't track all of them, but I'm not aware of any outside of the NPS administration that prohibit it. Some monuments HAVE been lost to hunting that shouldn't have been when they were given to NPS to administer, and hopefully that will be remedied.

If you want to base your argument on the opinion that the risk does not outweigh the potential reward, go for it. I won't argue for a minute there isn't some merit to it. But for the love of Pete, stop with these false claims about not having public input and not being subject to FPLMA multiple use because it simply isn't true.

Edit: You asked for a national monument that was preservationist in nature, easy, the Upper Missouri Breaks is one. Still allows all traditional uses of grazing, boating, hunting, camping, etc. The monument designation protected the solitude and roadless nature of the monument without the restrictions a wilderness designation would impose.

 

[Jason Snyder]

To everyone else. I'm done with this argument. I'm not blowing smoke, I'm stating fact. I really don't care which side of the argument you stand on, but I very much dislike misinformation. If you question what I have written, feel free to contact anyone within the BLM or USFS and ask them for yourselves.

 

[WV Mountaineer]

Jason, I'm not failing to acknowledge anything. What I'm pointing out is no one knows the future. And, no one knows who will be elected in the future. Saying what you or anyone else thinks is not security against this. The way to secure ourselves against it is to not have these lawfully granted rights stripped by a designation. Opinions equals nothing. Good intents equal squat. Federal law protecting our rights is everything. I'm sticking with federal law.


And, please do talk to those guys. Ask them what are our lawful options with monument management. It really is all in the details. God Bless men

 

[robby denning]

Parts of the Craters of the Moon NM are closed to hunting and I'm always wondering when they'll go ahead and close the entire monument. It has been talked about. I understand the reasoning of not hunting some of it, but with the land-grab attitude in Washington, I'm uneasy about them even having the option.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk