BLM SEEKS PUBLIC INPUT ON UPPER SNAKE EAST TRAVEL MANAGEMENT PLAN. Comment period ends May 5th

[packgoatguy]

For anyone interested in commenting, read and comment before May 5th.

Several of the travel plan options on the table could significantly decrease access to BLM lands in the Upper Snake area.

BLM seeks public input on Upper Snake East Travel Management Plan | Bureau of Land Management

www.blm.gov

ArcGIS Web Application

blm-egis.maps.arcgis.com

EplanningUi

eplanning.blm.gov

 

[9.1]

I've got no skin in the game, but this is about closing trails and roads, right? If I'm interpreting this right, it seems like this would allow for less pressure on the wildlife and make the area better for hunting for anyone willing to hike in a ways off-trail. I don't own an ATV, so if I lived in the area I think I'd write in comments supporting reduced access.

EDIT: My understanding and opinion has flipped after reading additional info below.

 

[packgoatguy]

I've got no skin in the game, but this is about closing trails and roads, right? If I'm interpreting this right, it seems like this would allow for less pressure on the wildlife and make the area better for hunting for anyone willing to hike in a ways off-trail. I don't own an ATV, so if I lived in the area I think I'd write in comments supporting reduced access.

Your perspective is valuable and should be heard.

However, there are a number of issues at stake here, its not just ATV or SXS trail access that is in question. I will mention a few:

1. Much of this area (that which is most sensitive for wildlife) is already seasonally closed to human entry to protect wintering wildlife (mostly from shed hunters in the spring).

2. The majority of the acreage in question is used predominantly for grazing, hundreds of thousands of cattle and sheep. Due to the political pressure protecting grazing "rights" it is likely that ranchers will be exempt from any restrictions to access, and the livestock will continue to do far more ecological damage to the habitat of sage grouse and other species than the comparatively few roads that presently allow access.

3. BLM currently has a very limited, if not non-existent enforcement presence. Rules and restrictions currently in place are not actively enforced, and the only persons obeying present travel plan restrictions are those who choose to obey the rules for the sake of it. Unfortunately, decreasing the number of access roads only means that the law-abiding are provided with fewer options to access this country, while the less law abiding will continue to use the existing network of roads and trails. It is not dissimilar to the issues that IDFG have dealt with in enforcing the "Motorized Hunting Rule" which is rife with legal loopholes that make it extremely difficult for the relatively few conservation officers in the area to actually enforce... and basically means that law abiding hunters are left at a disadvantage when they are walking the extra several miles up an atv trail, only to be passed by other hunters on ATVs or dirt bikes who either ignorantly or willfully choose to skirt the law.

4. Much of the 100s of thousands of acres of national forest lands are behind the BLM lands. One needs to often traverse 10-30 miles of BLM just to reach the forest lands (and corresponding forest travel plan roads). Closure of BLM roads could limit access to forest roads and other public lands.

5. Where the relatively small portion of the area that is presently utilized for recreational access (atv riders, dirtbike rides, trucks driving in to hunt small game like rabbits, coyotes, birders driving in to access the non-private sides of a number of WMAs or National Wildlife refuges (which already have motorized access restrictions), and target shooters, it would mean a drastic change for the families who have used the space for decades and have come to rely on for wholesome recreational opportunities.

6. Public lands should be managed for the public. There are a variety of often conflicting uses and users that should be managed fairly. It would not be equitable that only a few particular end user groups are allowed to use the public holdings, while others are excluded. There should be opportunities for mountain bikers, hikers, atvs, sxs, birders, hunters, rock hounders, spelunkers, and everyone in between. Not all in the same space at the same time mind you... of course there should be areas only accessed on foot to protect those interests, but likewise it would not be equitable to not leave some access to wheeled users in other areas. While there are specific areas within the upper Snake Region I personally believe could be afforded more protection from wheeled access, there is a relative balance presently in place amongst the various end users that would be upset dramatically if the BLM closed the roads proposed in several of their proposals.

 

[9.1]

Your perspective is valuable and should be heard.

My perspective on this issue is obviously incredibly limited and likely does not have much value. I appreciate you taking the time to expand on the issues at stake so that anyone reading your post has a better understanding of the implications of this travel management plan. I hope your post here encourages others to send in comments.

 

[Idaho_Potato]

Your perspective is valuable and should be heard.

However, there are a number of issues at stake here, its not just ATV or SXS trail access that is in question. I will mention a few:

1. Much of this area (that which is most sensitive for wildlife) is already seasonally closed to human entry to protect wintering wildlife (mostly from shed hunters in the spring).

2. The majority of the acreage in question is used predominantly for grazing, hundreds of thousands of cattle and sheep. Due to the political pressure protecting grazing "rights" it is likely that ranchers will be exempt from any restrictions to access, and the livestock will continue to do far more ecological damage to the habitat of sage grouse and other species than the comparatively few roads that presently allow access.

3. BLM currently has a very limited, if not non-existent enforcement presence. Rules and restrictions currently in place are not actively enforced, and the only persons obeying present travel plan restrictions are those who choose to obey the rules for the sake of it. Unfortunately, decreasing the number of access roads only means that the law-abiding are provided with fewer options to access this country, while the less law abiding will continue to use the existing network of roads and trails. It is not dissimilar to the issues that IDFG have dealt with in enforcing the "Motorized Hunting Rule" which is rife with legal loopholes that make it extremely difficult for the relatively few conservation officers in the area to actually enforce... and basically means that law abiding hunters are left at a disadvantage when they are walking the extra several miles up an atv trail, only to be passed by other hunters on ATVs or dirt bikes who either ignorantly or willfully choose to skirt the law.

4. Much of the 100s of thousands of acres of national forest lands are behind the BLM lands. One needs to often traverse 10-30 miles of BLM just to reach the forest lands (and corresponding forest travel plan roads). Closure of BLM roads could limit access to forest roads and other public lands.

5. Where the relatively small portion of the area that is presently utilized for recreational access (atv riders, dirtbike rides, trucks driving in to hunt small game like rabbits, coyotes, birders driving in to access the non-private sides of a number of WMAs or National Wildlife refuges (which already have motorized access restrictions), and target shooters, it would mean a drastic change for the families who have used the space for decades and have come to rely on for wholesome recreational opportunities.

6. Public lands should be managed for the public. There are a variety of often conflicting uses and users that should be managed fairly. It would not be equitable that only a few particular end user groups are allowed to use the public holdings, while others are excluded. There should be opportunities for mountain bikers, hikers, atvs, sxs, birders, hunters, rock hounders, spelunkers, and everyone in between. Not all in the same space at the same time mind you... of course there should be areas only accessed on foot to protect those interests, but likewise it would not be equitable to not leave some access to wheeled users in other areas. While there are specific areas within the upper Snake Region I personally believe could be afforded more protection from wheeled access, there is a relative balance presently in place amongst the various end users that would be upset dramatically if the BLM closed the roads proposed in several of their proposals.

A couple of counter points.

- the BLM seems to be in a position of “something needs to give” in this area. I personally feel that human recreation is at the top of the list of things to limit first when wildlife and habitat are at stake. Go play elsewhere.

- you seem to have a one-sided view on livestock grazing. It is an essential part of the livelihood of many families and economy and I would argue the right to graze cattle comes before your right to hike or ride a mountain bike. Go play elsewhere.

 

[packgoatguy]

A couple of counter points.

- the BLM seems to be in a position of “something needs to give” in this area. I personally feel that human recreation is at the top of the list of things to limit first when wildlife and habitat are at stake. Go play elsewhere.

- you seem to have a one-sided view on livestock grazing. It is an essential part of the livelihood of many families and economy and I would argue the right to graze cattle comes before your right to hike or ride a mountain bike. Go play elsewhere.

If you were to ask any seasoned wildlife biologist which does more damage to wildlife habitat overall, the answer would be unequivocally public land grazing, not human recreation. Whether it is the damage to riparian zones, trampled sage grouse habitat, or Big Horn Sheep getting diseases from domestic sheep herds roaming the mountains... all have their roots and solutions in dealing with public land grazing.

Certainly in a "land of many uses" there could be room for a well managed grazing program. But it would not be given away for pennies on the dollar so that a few individuals, families, or corporations can make a few bucks at the tax-payer's expense (look into the matter, you will find that the revenue generated by the grazing allotments does not even come close to covering the cost to run/manage the program, let alone the cost of mitigating the habitat loss incurred by the livestock. Likewise, the rates paid by public land grazers per animal are a mere pittance of what they would pay to rent/buy privately owned pasture. It's a government handout on a massive scale.)

 

[Fatcamp]

I value membership too much to get baited into this nonsense.

 

[Idaho_Potato]

I value membership too much to get baited into this nonsense.

I’m with you. A balanced discussion of public land use on a hunting forum will devolve into name calling within a few posts…let’s go back to discussing the merits of grip and grins on tik tok.

 

[packgoatguy]

FYI, the comment period has been extended to July 10