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

[tipsntails7]

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

What type of land is it NF, BLM, Private? Is hunting currently available on the land? If yes why is it now being removed as an acceptable use?

It's not a simple answer which is why it's difficult to sum up in a simple question.

But not agreeing with everything an organization does doesn't mean I wouldn't support them, I may not support that particular cause though.

I support Patagonia, but don't support everything they choose to do.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[robby denning]

That's why there's a "Not Sure" option. If I laid out all the rabbit trails where the question could lead, there'd be more confusion. Just stick to the question asked, nothing more.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Huntindog45]

Absolutely. The animals do not know the boundaries . If there is a good spot to help develop healthy herds it only helps us. All you have to do is look at the bucks killed around dinosaur national monument to figure our how helpful those areas can be.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[maninthemaze]

I would be in support of the TRCP as long as there aren't any unintended consequences, like giving more power to the already overreaching EPA. I get questionaires from the NPS every year because of my annual park pass. In every one of those questionaires are statements about excess pollution in the Joshua Tress NP. And about limiting buildings if they affect the scenery around NP. I'm not saying I want a skyscraper next to Joshua Tree, but they speak as if they don't even want it on the horizon.

Being a coal fired power plant worker, and seeing exactly what it costs to produce and transmit electricity, I don't want to see any legislation that completely eliminates coal without a cheaper alternative. Everyone want to get rid of coal, but then they are the same ones who cry about their utility bill being so high. You can't have it both ways.

Putting food on the table and a roof over my family's head far outweigh my desire to hunt.

So I guess my final vote would be a "Not Sure"

Thank you Rokslide for being so involved in politics as well as hunting

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

 

[BroodBuster]

I was going to vote not sure.

Reason being is I'm not a big fan of blanket yes and no. For example, scientifically, it makes perfectly good sense to restrict access to the Mt St Halens blast zone. While in another NM it may make perfectly good sense to allow hunting.

I ended up voting yes though as Mttrout changed my mind.

 

[elkduds]

Having TRCP in the question strengthens my Yes vote. I belong to and support TRCP, as one of the lead orgs in opposing PLT, advocating for habitat and fair chase.

 

[JeremiahH]

I think it's a size issue. "That's what she said".

But in all seriousness, I would say not sure.
Some examples are Tonto national monument. I think it's awesome, it encompasses some really awesome cave dwellings that warrant protection. Also it's size is negligible. I think many areas could be deemed national recreation areas instead of say national parks. Not all but many national park designations ban hunting. However you can rip lips all day.
Denali is a good example of overkill in my opinion, but I may be speaking out of turn since I've never been there. Someone from Alaska might chime in on how 2 million acres is inaccessible for hunters. Seems areas are quick to be voted as needing protection and national park or national monument is the first knee reaction when they could still achieve protection with national preserve or national recreation area.
Like you, many things I still am not totally educated on and there are many perspectives to every use practice.

So, appreciate the question but I'm just not sure. Haha

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

 

[Billinsd]

I voted I'm not sure. It depends on the protections, the area, etc. It doesn't matter a whole if you can hunt or not.

 

[tttoadman]

I voted not sure, but I was leaning toward a yes. Robby's clarification on the question helps me underatsnd it better. Yes I do support TCRP, and I would trust that if a restriction on hunting was appropriate, Then I would likely be in support of it. I, like a few others, thought that a NM designation simply brought a ban on any future development or new impacts from logging, mining, etc. If restrictions or entitlements can be tagged along in the coat tails, I am afraid this could just become another way for special interest(good and bad) to turn NM into the same shit show as everything else.

 

[tipsntails7]

I voted not sure, but I was leaning toward a yes. Robby's clarification on the question helps me underatsnd it better. Yes I do support TCRP, and I would trust that if a restriction on hunting was appropriate, Then I would likely be in support of it. I, like a few others, thought that a NM designation simply brought a ban on any future development or new impacts from logging, mining, etc. If restrictions or entitlements can be tagged along in the coat tails, I am afraid this could just become another way for special interest(good and bad) to turn NM into the same shit show as everything else.

This would be a great question for TRCP.
I believe if designated by the president using the antiquities act, those special interests can not be added in to the coat tails, but if congress uses legislation they very well may be able to be put in, but again I would be very interested in getting an actual answer on that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bigdesert10]

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

You're not wrong, but you'll notice there's a lot of "ought to"s in my statement. I'm not ignorant of the way things work, I just think it makes more sense to let the agencies with the most data and resources relating to game management manage the game.

All that being said, I do support the TRCP, but don't like the idea of supporting any plan where the option of hunting is removed from the equation altogether. I think the people creating these designations ought to feel some pressure to include hunting access if they want our support and our resources. We can't just be doormats and let them think they don't owe us any consideration in return. I don't think there is any logical rationalization for eliminating hunting on any of these public lands. Hunting is conservation. History has shown that hunting is the best means of generating funds and sentiment for the support of healthy animal populations.

If we truly believe that hunting is conservation, then how can we support any movement or plan that eliminates science-based game management from the array of tools?

 

[jquarnberg]

I guess I don't understand the questions and should have selected not sure. What I am not apposed to is reviewing the designations, and hopefully reducing the size and span of some of these monuments. The one I live in is over 1.8 million acres which is probably a million acres to many. I am not saying it shouldn't be protected, but if you seen some of the over 1.8 million acres you would wonder why in the hell its protected. It has not been a good thing for ranchers and sportsman, and I believe those groups go hand in hand. This isn't really a fed vs state land issue I know, but one thing I notice is that the scare tactics for state owned land always include information about what states have done with land in the past, well the several national parks around me started out as national monuments and I always have a fear that a national park designation could follow the monument designation. And the thought of 1.8 million acre national park that covers one of the best mule deer units in the country is a sad thought for hunters.

 

[Rob T]

Jason,

Very sorry for slow reply. I was rafting in the Grand Canyon for three weeks.

Congress recently repealed Planning 2.0, which is a step back for hunters and anglers who want to comment on public land issues on BLM ground. The good news is that are still ways for sportsmen to be heard in public land planning.

Here in eastern and central Idaho, the BLM and the Forest Service are in the first stages of writing new management plans for 7.4 million acres that stretch from the Sand Creek winter range to the Middle Fork of the Salmon River. TRCP will be commenting on the plans and is organizing hunters and anglers to comment individually.

We -- sportsmen -- have a powerful voice when we work together. An example of this power was the public lands rally in Boise in March. More than 3,000 participated.

I am new to rokslide, but I am very eager to join in the fray. And thank you to Robby for the chance to work with you all.

Rob

 

[elkyinzer]

Yes, but with a very strong caveat. Has to be used in a limited capacity as a weapon against the assault on public lands. The moment that designation becomes a weapon against hunting on existing public lands, no effing way.

 

[robby denning]

Jason,

Very sorry for slow reply. I was rafting in the Grand Canyon for three weeks.

Congress recently repealed Planning 2.0, which is a step back for hunters and anglers who want to comment on public land issues on BLM ground. The good news is that are still ways for sportsmen to be heard in public land planning.

Here in eastern and central Idaho, the BLM and the Forest Service are in the first stages of writing new management plans for 7.4 million acres that stretch from the Sand Creek winter range to the Middle Fork of the Salmon River. TRCP will be commenting on the plans and is organizing hunters and anglers to comment individually.

We -- sportsmen -- have a powerful voice when we work together. An example of this power was the public lands rally in Boise in March. More than 3,000 participated.

I am new to rokslide, but I am very eager to join in the fray. And thank you to Robby for the chance to work with you all.

Rob

Welcome to the forum Rob T. Good to have you.

 

[WV Mountaineer]

I have to include resource development due to it's link to habitat preservation. If the monuments were kept small, I'd be for it. As currently, I'm against it on a large percentage of the larger ones. Because they become stagnant anchors to the rural economies that no longer have the easy ability to utilize those resources for a living. Since I cannot see the terms habitat protection, as being defined in this instance, as being acceptable to those proposing it, in any terms except the elimination of an opportunity to capitalize on the natural resources within that monument area, I think this becomes a real issue with larger monuments. Due to the effects on local wildlife when such a large area of habitat is preserved. Preservation is not meant to coincide with ecosystem health when it encompasses huge areas



Moving onto the direct question about habitat protection, I'm really unsure of how to vote. All animals need diversity in their ecosystem to thrive. And, protection is a term usually associated with a lack of diversity due to even aged habitats. If Monuments were kept small as they were intended, this wouldn't even be an issue. And, I'd vote yes. I'm not trying to redirect the thread by saying that ether. I'm simply trying to point out the importance of understanding the Monuments original intent. Because, the reason why they were initially defined as being as small as possible to protect the interest of the monument, was to prevent this issue from occurring. Since the intent of these monuments have run afoul by encompassing millions of ares in some instances, I'm against it in these cases. So, I'll say not sure for now as my vote.



I so much want for an organization that gets all this to come to the forefront. Someone we can all get behind. No politics. No BS agendas. Just a good group to support to keep these lands in the public's control. There is a whole lot of misinformation floating around concerning these monuments. And, as hunters we need to know the facts so not to be led astray by hidden agenda's. While NM law is statutory, it CANNOT stop resource owners from mining, cutting, or developing the resource they own on monument designated land. That includes the federal government too. That's federal law. So, I'm really unsure of how to answer the question for all monuments.


God Bless men

 

[Brendan]

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

Not sure. What I'd probably do is put my effort towards supporting another organization that was supportive of monuments that allowed hunting and stood behind something that was important to me. Basically it comes down to limited time/effort/brainpower on my side - and I'm going to support the organizations I'm fully behind, not partially behind. There's a good chance in this case you'd find me sitting on the sidelines.

 

[WV Mountaineer]

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.

 

[TXCO]

I voted not sure because I support the concept but I am concerned about it being used as a weapon to seal off areas to hunting. If its the last way to have wild places, then so be it, but Id be concerned about expansion.

 

[tim tarras]

I voted not sure due to the "size issue". If we are talking 10 acres... not a problem. If we are talking about 1,000's of acres....problem