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

[robby denning]

Hey Roksliders,
actually pretty impressed with the debates on here as of late about public lands, monuments, etc. Impressed in the fact that with a lot of diverse opinions--some educated, some not, some very emotional, some stone-cold-- that we've still been able to have debates without all the drama. Haven't even had to ban anyone, so that's progress. Thanks to all who can disagree civilly, as that is one of our core values on Rokslide.

Anyway, Ryan and I have long wanted to support some conservation orgs but with our heads in the keyboards all the time, can't really say we know a lot about the issues and who to support. I have learned over the years that we'll never find the perfect org that agrees on all points, but we'd like to support one that is aligned with the Rokslide crowd as much as possible.

I asked Roksliders about the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership (TRCP) about a week ago and got some positive feedback (learn more here: Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership - Guaranteeing You a Place to Hunt and Fish).

I know the local representative, Rob Thornberry, who reached out to me a few weeks ago about partnering with Rokslide on some issues. He's done his best to educate me on their stance on issues, but I really want to include you all in these discussions before we decide to officially support them (or any org.)

With Trumps new effort to examine National Monuments made by previous administrations, I figured this was a good chance. I had Rob draft a question pertaining to the matter to see where you all stand on this.

Remember, this is just one question on one issue and it doesn't define TRCP's stance definitively, but at least gives us a chance to show them who we really are and how we feel about issues. So if you participate, please don't form a complete opinion on this one issue. We'll likely have more chances in the future for more discussion and questions. I'll have the poll up in a minute, please vote and feel free to comment.

 

[William Hanson (live2hunt)]

I think this is a double edged sword but I absolutely do support it. I think national monuments need to be limited so the antis can't start using it as a means to decrease hunting by any truly substantial means but to protect something based solely on one's own uses is short sighted.

 

[COlineman78]

I support all conservation, but there are problems with creating large hunting-free areas. Since we have eliminated so many predators, there is nothing to keep prey populations in check and without hunting overpopulation can lead to disease and poor genetic selection. Darwinian theory makes the assumption that predation is present in an ecosystem to ensure that only the fittest survive. Without it eventually the same effect will be had through disease, but in a far more dramatic and harsh manner.

 

[Jason Snyder]

Robby,

Thanks for giving this issue a place for discussion. We all have a choice to be as politically involved as we want to be, but I feel we all have an obligation to educate ourselves and give some of these issues some critical thinking vs. knee jerk reactions.

I voted "Not Sure" on this issue. I am a supporter of the Antiquities Act, and I think it is largely used in a productive manner. I realize hunting may not be appropriate for every National Monument, and I have no problem with NMs being created that don't allow it. The caveat here is that it is a justifiable reason (size, public use patterns, safety concerns, etc). I also have no problems with large scale NMs provided there is a justifiable reason.

Hopefully we've learned from the Grand Staircase NM debacle. While Bear's Ear is a current poster child for "federal land grabs", the reality is the area has been a topic of discussion for federal protections for many years. Inaction will eventually lead to action you may not like.

Unfortunately, and I'd like Rob Thornberry to chime in on this, Congress recently repealed the BLM Planning 2.0 Rule. Based on my layman's understanding of the consequences of this, public input into Resource Management Plans will be reduced. This may be a big deal down the road when a NM is created and handed to the BLM. Once that management plan is adopted by Congress, it's law. How much public voice will we have in the creation of those plans in the future?

 

[robby denning]

Robby,

Thanks for giving this issue a place for discussion. We all have a choice to be as politically involved as we want to be, but I feel we all have an obligation to educate ourselves and give some of these issues some critical thinking vs. knee jerk reactions.

I voted "Not Sure" on this issue.

You bet Jason, and I voted as you did. Rob's in DC right now but hoping he'll chime in on this thread. I'll let him know your question. Thanks!

 

[dotman]

Robby,

Thanks for giving this issue a place for discussion. We all have a choice to be as politically involved as we want to be, but I feel we all have an obligation to educate ourselves and give some of these issues some critical thinking vs. knee jerk reactions.

I voted "Not Sure" on this issue. I am a supporter of the Antiquities Act, and I think it is largely used in a productive manner. I realize hunting may not be appropriate for every National Monument, and I have no problem with NMs being created that don't allow it. The caveat here is that it is a justifiable reason (size, public use patterns, safety concerns, etc). I also have no problems with large scale NMs provided there is a justifiable reason.

Hopefully we've learned from the Grand Staircase NM debacle. While Bear's Ear is a current poster child for "federal land grabs", the reality is the area has been a topic of discussion for federal protections for many years. Inaction will eventually lead to action you may not like.

Unfortunately, and I'd like Rob Thornberry to chime in on this, Congress recently repealed the BLM Planning 2.0 Rule. Based on my layman's understanding of the consequences of this, public input into Resource Management Plans will be reduced. This may be a big deal down the road when a NM is created and handed to the BLM. Once that management plan is adopted by Congress, it's law. How much public voice will we have in the creation of those plans in the future?

I voted Yes but it was based on assumptions similar to why you voted not sure. I think the question is almost too vague and could use a little more of a descriptive on why. I'm not closed minded and like to think most of us would rather conserve and preserve but you are correct in that there are still many unanswered questions even within this simple question.

 

[dotman]

Robby, thanks for including us in the decision process. I almost think you should talk with BHA leaders as well. Both of these organizations I support and while I may not agree with everything overall both have very similar views to issues as I do. I have also noticed that most of the guys with the ability to be in the front line of public land defense support both organizations as well.

 

[robby denning]

I voted Yes but it was based on assumptions similar to why you voted not sure. I think the question is almost too vague and could use a little more of a descriptive on why.

Robby, thanks for including us in the decision process. I almost think you should talk with BHA leaders as well.

Sure Tim, I thought the same but when I talked to Rob (who wrote the question) I found it was was carefully designed to be simple for the poll, and that the question isn't designed to totally reflect TCRP's view. Just a feeler gauge for where you guys are coming from. As I said, we can ask more questions in the future.

Also, we've talked with BHA and are considering them, too.

Thanks

 

[WyoBowhunter21]

There has to be a balance of conservation and preservation. In my mind these two ideals are separated. I believe what has been going on is less of the public vote in the areas surrounding such monuments. In my home state of Wyoming we have devils tower, a state monument. I cannot hunt there but the boundaries are not in excess so all types of people can enjoy the area. I can hunt fairly close to the monument and tourists can enjoy a preserved portion of that area to solely be used as that. The conservation came from not going crazy and locking up tens of thousands of acres, which could have happened. I am partial to the whole topic as we need to preserve some areas but for conservation we cannot preserve all areas.
My question is, what draws the line for enough preserved area for a monument?

 

[Bubblehide]

I am not opposed to Monuments, nor protections wen necessary. However, here in Ca, we now have a few new national Monuments. One in particular that I am aware of was national forest. The reasoning behind making it a National Monument was due to fiscal short-comings. Frankly, IMNSHO, fiscal reasons is no reason to re-designate NF to NM. Granted, I have some bias; for instance, hunting is still permitted. But, many previous open roads have been closed, resulting in restricted access. The issue originated from the Forest Service being unable to manage the area (District), due to limited resources (fiscal resources). The NM designation was supposed to result in additional funding.

As such, in this case, I am against re-designation. Furthermore, there was no noted need for new/further protections for the area (now a NM). But to cut to the chase, and answer the question of supporting protections or not, sure I can support protections, if they are actually needed. But the issue I have is that we hunters and fishermen are footing the bill for habitat and wildlife (including fish...) management. Other than parking and camping fees, day use fees, we pay for most all of it. The enviros, along with many other user groups, have been reaping the benefits, on our shoulders. They, want a say in management of habitat and wildlife, without providing monetary support. That simply should change. The easy way to change that is expanding the Pittman Robertson and Dingell Johnson act to include all outdoor sporting gear.

In Particular I have been referring to is the San Gabriel Mountains National Monument, which is reported to comprise more than 70 percent of Los Angeles County’s open space. The issue there for decades, has been the volume of people utilizing the limited access available. The reason I say limited access, is due to the fact that the National Forest Service simply locked many of the road systems, because they were unable to patrol (manage) the vast area. That, and the fact that it is directly adjacent to a major population area, the area experienced excessive use withing limited portions, due to that management practices condensing uses within small area. If you've been there, you already recognize the uphill battle the Forest Service had in managing the area. What I mean is you could go there any weekend and see trash and used diapers lining the parking lots, roads, and streams. The trash was left behind, faster than it could be cleaned up. So in short, something needed to be done, and the Forest Service did not have the manpower to confront the abusers, so they took a hands off approach, allowing people to trash the now National Monument. So in short, the political system was misused in this particular case, and frankly, I don't trust our government to implement protections appropriately. So while I support the idea of protections when actually needed, at this point, I am unwilling to say I support protections of/within National Monuments.

Furthermore, IMNSHO, some National Monuments are simply unnecessary, as the designation of National Forest or State Forest would be more than Adequate.

 

[elkduds]

Many Monuments allow hunting, so I'm not sure what pie this poll is slicing? My vote Yes had much to do w habitat preservation. Quality habitat is what creates and sustains game species.

 

[robby denning]

Many Monuments allow hunting, so I'm not sure what pie this poll is slicing? My vote Yes had much to do w habitat preservation. Quality habitat is what creates and sustains game species.

Yes, but some don't and in the future, the question posed could be the central issue.

 

[bigdesert10]

Maybe I don't fully understand the question, particularly what specifically is meant by "habitat protections" but I'm leaning towards no. Ultimately, I think that the wildlife within a state's boundaries ought to be managed by that state's Fish and Game departments based on science rather than being at the mercy of the political whims of politicians who may craft the rules for these monuments. F&G agencies have a lot of tools at their disposal to manage animal populations and hunting is a powerful one. It ought to be up to the state agencies how much, if any hunting is done in these areas. The federal government's job in these areas ought to be only to protect the land against development, privatization, and mechanized travel. Just my opinion. I'm certainly open to considering different perspectives, though. Enlighten me.

 

[MTtrout]

I voted yes with similar feeling described above. I would rather preserve these unique areas for future generations to enjoy than to see large scale mining/ drilling and politics, like Utah, managing the fate of these lands. Not only would it depreciate my interest in hunting these areas, the general publics support for these areas would depreciate as well (both provide and will continue to provide a HUGE amount of income to the local communities). My wife and I have spent time camping and hiking the backcountry in both of Utah's NM's in question. Between the ancient ruins of bears ears and the slot canyons of the grand staircase along with the unique geology of both, there is no doubt they are worth every bit. Now do I think hunting should continue to be allowed, absolutely, but I'm not willing to tell my grandkids that I didn't support these areas solely because I couldn't hunt them. I know it's not feasible for everyone, but I wish people could spend time in these NM's before deciding they are a bad thing.

Robby, I'm glad to see rokslide is looking to support organizations like BHA and TRCP as I do! Thanks for the site.

 

[topher89]

We need space for everything. If I want to be able to hunt in an area without oil drilling, there needs to be a place for oil drilling. I don't want to hunt deer in the same place a bunch of hippies are taking pictures of them from a wildlife viewing station.

We need all types of different land for all different purposes. A National Monument does not affect my ability to hunt.

Redesignation is a slippery slope to other federal land lost. I could forsee the loss of NM's to the selling off or transfer of other federal land, the shrinking of National Parks and other affronts to OUR Public Land

 

[elkduds]

Yes, but some don't and in the future, the question posed could be the central issue.

Thank you for your answer, and for the poll on this ripe topic. Also, thanks to all admins for Rokslide! This poll is good because all can weigh in w 1 click. Since Bears Ears and UT gov't opposition to same are central to the politics of this moment. that would make a compelling poll.

 

[tipsntails7]

Yes, but some don't and in the future, the question posed could be the central issue.

There is an enormous amount of national monuments. Are there ones that had hunting on them previously that the national monument designation took away?

Some NA's have no business allowing hunting on them, and it wouldn't make sense to judge an NA for not having hunting when that use was never allowed. The Statue of Liberty NA comes to mind.

My larger fear would be national monuments being designated as national parks, as that designation removes a lot of uses, although I don't believe that has happened much in the last 50 years.

I also think this is a slippery question as I'd wager most don't understand what an NA designation entails(and allows) and this makes it sound like it limits hunting access.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[tipsntails7]

Maybe I don't fully understand the question, particularly what specifically is meant by "habitat protections" but I'm leaning towards no. Ultimately, I think that the wildlife within a state's boundaries ought to be managed by that state's Fish and Game departments based on science rather than being at the mercy of the political whims of politicians who may craft the rules for these monuments. F&G agencies have a lot of tools at their disposal to manage animal populations and hunting is a powerful one. It ought to be up to the state agencies how much, if any hunting is done in these areas. The federal government's job in these areas ought to be only to protect the land against development, privatization, and mechanized travel. Just my opinion. I'm certainly open to considering different perspectives, though. Enlighten me.

The state doesn't get to tell the Feds what people can do on their land. The state manages the game within its state, but cannot dictate to private land owners they must allow hunting access, basically the same thing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Broomd]

Appreciate the poll and discourse, but the poll question is oddly worded and really misses the essence of why many of us have a problem with President's creating monuments to begin with. It isn't even really about hunting at all to me.

 

[robby denning]

Sounds like some of you guys needed me to write a paragraph question to encompass this issue. That would've defeated the purpose of the poll. It's simple, if TRCP supports creating a national monument that you can't hunt, would you still support the organization?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk