Should Rokslide Sign This?

[Tod osier]

This is patently incorrect and shows a complete lack of information.

For example, the State of Wyoming began its Core Population Area Strategy in earnest in 2008, which evolved to a lengthy Executive Order in 2011, supplemented in 2013, and currently under 2015-04. The USFWS repeatedly stated that if every state used such a strategy, it would preclude a listing decision. That doesn't count as "impactful?"

Local governments in Wyoming also began working with ranches and energy in 2007 on habitat exchanges while conservation districts and counties worked with industry and agriculture to improve habitat. Weed and pest districts mobilized on cheat grass and raven management. That isn't "impactful" either?

How about voluntary efforts taken by energy to mitigate disturbance, disruptive activities, etc? Not impactful?

Moreover, you forget that prior to the BLM and USFS plans, the USFWS found that the sage-grouse was not warranted -- precisely because of the States in place. Your argument unraveled before it even began.

Demonstration of impact from my perspective would be associated with meaningful percent increases in population.

 

[HellsCanyon]

There's so much history tied into the "why" the sage grouse populations decline. A few factors include the restrictions on 1088 poison for predators back in the day. An increase in predator species as well as scavengers has drastically reduced successful sage grouse nesting sites. Recent studies have shown that the vast majority of sage grouse nesting sites suffer predation from birds, coyotes and badgers among other species (something like 75-80% nest mortality was due to predation). Another factor is the fire suppression tactics over the last 100 years have increased juniper encroachment which brought with it high avian raptor populations which prey on sage grouse. As well as aging sage brush populations.

From my time spent in the natural gas fields doing vegetation and sage grouse monitoring in south central WY I can tell you the best forage for the birds was on the well pads. And the energy companies were shelling out big money to help reclaim any disturbed habitat for all wildlife.

Mike


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Trial153]

Can't see the poll as I am on Tapatalk....put me down for a yes vote.

 

[WyoBowhunter21]

I am just going to put one last comment. I really didn't expect to see this much push back from this forum. I would say 98% of the individuals on her want to save our public lands. As mentioned above if you don't vote, don't complain. I do appreciate all the discussion though. I look forward to seeing the end result.

 

[JWP58]

Couple comments.

First, those that are saying hunting groups, organization, and individuals should stay out of the "politics" of these type of sportsmen's related issues are not thinking clearly. News flash, public lands, wildlife, etc. are POLITICAL in nature, just the way it is. Sitting on the side-lines because someone from afar doesn't think you, or your sportsmen's groups, should stay out of it, are just wrong. I also find it lame that people threaten those groups to "not join", or to "not visit this site" when a position is taken. I say good, leave, and don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out...I have bigger things to worry about than a couple ill informed numbskulls trying to strong arm my involvement in issues that impact MY wildlife, MY hunting, and MY public lands. What good is an organization that never takes a position on anything because that position may hurt some feelers?

As a friend said one time regarding all these type of issues, " if you aren't at the table, you're on the menu".

I choose to be at the table, and I expect the groups and organizations that I'm a part of to be there as well.

As to this specific letter, its a good letter that I would sign on to in a heartbeat (matter of fact the group I chair DID sign on). There has been a lot of collaboration done on the sage grouse issue, probably the classic example of what good collaboration looks like. The Governors, public, industry, etc. etc. have been doing great things to ensure that sage grouse stay off the ESL. What's not to like?

The only thing Zinke should be "reviewing", are his notes he should be taking on what has, and is, happening on the sage grouse issue and how well all the parties involved have worked together to reach a desired goal. A perfect example of how the collaborative process can, and should, work.

His review of the sage grouse issue is looking for a solution to his problem...that he cant accept that things can be solved without his meddling.

I had to vote no. I'm a one issue voter. Anything buzzard thinks is good, must be bad.

 

[robby denning]

For those on Tapatalk who can't see the poll, it's 90% Yes votes

 

[WV Mountaineer]

I am just going to put one last comment. I really didn't expect to see this much push back from this forum. I would say 98% of the individuals on her want to save our public lands. As mentioned above if you don't vote, don't complain. I do appreciate all the discussion though. I look forward to seeing the end result.

I'd say 100% of the people on this forum want to protect public land. It's just that some of us don't think this is an example of that. Nor do we think the groups that proclaim that, act in the best interest of doing so.

 

[mtwarden]

do you know something about the TRCD that we don't? it appears that they are a fishing/hunting conservation outfit- is this false? are these environmental extremists simply dressing up as hunters and anglers? are they simply stealing photos off the internet and posting them on their site and they are actually gathered in a small apartment in Greenwich Village?

inquiring minds want to know

also what organization is not a pig with lipstick that we can actually trust as hunters and anglers?

 

[dotman]

do you know something about the TRCD that we don't? it appears that they are a fishing/hunting conservation outfit- is this false? are these environmental extremists simply dressing up as hunters and anglers? are they simply stealing photos off the internet and posting them on their site and they are actually gathered in a small apartment in Greenwich Village?

inquiring minds want to know

also what organization is not a pig with lipstick that we can actually trust as hunters and anglers?

For some the answer will be the orgs that are pro resource extraction, drill baby drill, sad to say. Some only care about the $$$$ factor the resources offer.

 

[Trial153]

do you know something about the TRCD that we don't? it appears that they are a fishing/hunting conservation outfit- is this false? are these environmental extremists simply dressing up as hunters and anglers? are they simply stealing photos off the internet and posting them on their site and they are actually gathered in a small apartment in Greenwich Village?

inquiring minds want to know

also what organization is not a pig with lipstick that we can actually trust as hunters and anglers?

He spews the same over on bowsite. Try's to line BHA as being anti hunting via their grants/ endowments they received. You will have better luck spitting in the wind then finding commonality with that one.

 

[WV Mountaineer]

For some the answer will be the orgs that are pro resource extraction, drill baby drill, sad to say. Some only care about the $$$$ factor the resources offer.

It makes it easy to come to a dramatic conclusion on these topics when you assume things about the other side that isn't true. In truth, many know the detriment of a mono-culture created by preservation. Many know that diversity created by responsible resource stewardship is a huge benefit for all wildlife habitat. And, last but not least, many are not weak minded enough to believe the new and modern definition of "conservation" being used by these groups.

mtnwarden, I don't claim to know much about the trcp. What I do know about them is they like to designate management on public lands. And, that in itself is all that needs to be known as far as I am concerned. As far as the groups that DO a good job of protecting hunting rights, its the NRA and The Safari Club





God Bless men

 

[WV Mountaineer]

Trail, you are as lost here as you are over there. I have never tried to align the BHA with anti hunting groups. I simply questioned some of their members on their tax returns and funding comes from the same groups as the anti's. It was the BHA members that have aligned me with that position. You also get miffed because I won't crawl on the National Monument bandwagon with so many of the BHA and TRCP guys. Aside from that, I think we have the same agenda of protecting public land. We just disagree on how to do that.

 

[BuzzH]

mtnwarden, I don't claim to know much about the trcp. What I do know about them is they like to designate management on public lands.

That's not what their letter states. What it says is to leave the process alone that is already in place. The process that has buy in from industry, agriculture, landowners, conservation groups, the general public, the Agencies etc. etc. etc.

You make it sound like TRCP is asking to throw that all away for their hidden agenda of "designating management" you think they have. They're simply asking the DOI Secretary, to keep the process going that has the support of a vast majority of the stakeholders and that has, and will, keep sage grouse off the ESL. Its that simple. There is no push from them to "designate management"...none.

You're reading things that aren't there...

 

[Trial153]

Trail, you are as lost here as you are over there. I have never tried to align the BHA with anti hunting groups. I simply questioned some of their members on their tax returns and funding comes from the same groups as the anti's. It was the BHA members that have aligned me with that position. You also get miffed because I won't crawl on the National Monument bandwagon with so many of the BHA and TRCP guys. Aside from that, I think we have the same agenda of protecting public land. We just disagree on how to do that.

What I don't get a God Bless Men after all that back peddling ? Did I hit a nerve? Your like a broken record. If we all aligned with your spew in 30'years our children will cutting a check yearly to secure access from an energy company.

 

[realunlucky]

Trail, you are as lost here as you are over there. I have never tried to align the BHA with anti hunting groups. I simply questioned some of their members on their tax returns and funding comes from the same groups as the anti's. It was the BHA members that have aligned me with that position. You also get miffed because I won't crawl on the National Monument bandwagon with so many of the BHA and TRCP guys. Aside from that, I think we have the same agenda of protecting public land. We just disagree on how to do that.

How are you actually working to preserve public lands since your not in part of any groups?
I do agree with you to follow the money and you'll see who pulls the strings in any group.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

[BuzzH]

I'm right because I don't let feel good words blind me from the history of special interest dictating MULTIPLE USE doctrine. You and the rude fanboys should take a day and read the FLMPA. What you suggest being good about this letter, is in direct contradiction of its intent.

If anyone should read "FLMPA" its you. You like to wield the Act like a sword, but you don't know which end the handle is on.

There is nothing in that letter that contradicts anything in FLPMA.

In fact, if you had ever read it you would know that public input, like that being provided by TRCP and many other organization on the issue is specified under Sec. 212 (43 USC 869) (a) the public input process. You would also realize that in 1976, when FLPMA was passed, the act also specifies under Sec. 309 (43 USC 1739) (a) that the Secretaries of the DOI and USDA WILL assign advisory boards for all Land Use/Forest Plans. They realized in 1976 that without public input on those processes, and without the buy-in from the public and other interested parties, their Forest Plans and Land Use plans would get nowhere and would get very little support. That was true then, and its still true today. All the other Land Management Acts also specify the public input process in them as well, NFMA, RPA, MUSYA, ESA, etc. etc. etc. There has to be buy-in for these Acts to work, and why they all demand a public input process.

Another section you must have glossed over is Sec. 102 (43 USC 1701)(a)(8) the part about land protection being part of the management plans for both the USDA and DOI. There is references to with-drawl of roadless areas over 5k acres for designation of wilderness or wilderness qualities in FLPMA as well.

You like to cherry pick the "multiple use" part as though every last acre of public lands should have a well pad, a motorcycle track, grazing, mining, diverse wildlife habitat, etc. etc. That's not what FLPMA says at all....read it.

I'm not one to ride the pine on these issues. The various acts demand that the public be involved, and by God I will be.

 

[BuzzH]

As far as the groups that DO a good job of protecting hunting rights, its the NRA

I want a list of the "good job" the NRA has done for wildlife, public lands, habitat, and hunting...

They wont even take a position on public lands at all...which is odd, considering having a place to hunt is a pretty big hunting "right"...

 

[WV Mountaineer]

realunlucky, I think you need to go hack and read a little bit about where I put my money. Stick aroundfor a few more sentences and you will soon read where I put in my time.


BuzzH, I wasn't suggesting that about the TRCP in this instance. What I was suggesting is they do participate in that process.


Trail, you know me. I don't take things personal and, I don't let individuals that can't win on the facts, use tactics that take away from the discussion at hand. I withdrew or backed off nothing. And, just because we do not agree on your version of wildlife and wild lands management, doesn't mean I can't offer/wish you the best. FWIW, in 30 years, if these designations go astray the way so many have in the past, the only reason our kids will be righting checks to hunt industry ground, is because we handed over management of our public lands to Congress. You see, we want the same things. But, I know the current FLMPA Management scheme is the better alternative for multiple use public land.


Believe it or not, the west is not the only place in this country that has public land. And, you can take this to the bank, when there is over 1 million acres of it just a couple hours from DC, you get all assaults on multiple use, public owned land. We fight this every single year here in some capacity. We are literally in the fight of our recreation life with the current National Monument push. So, yes, I am on the front lines and get to see these good ideas go astray.


Wild ecosystems need diversity. They need uneven aged habitats. They need to be open for proactive management in order to meet the criteria for multiple use management. Conservation has become the new word for preservation minded management in a lot of instances. Being a wildlife guy and a forest guy, I put the radar on when these terms aren't used to describe what is truly being sold. What the TRCP is truly about at this point is beyond me. But, I refuse to just throw caution to the wind because someone paints a pretty picture. And, I assume as a group, if you proclaim to want these things, you'd have zero problems proving that by being subject to uncertainty's your actions cause. So, I'm not knocking the group. But, I'm not a groupie that glazes over either. So, if you continue to insinuate all is for the good, be absolutely certain if your actions leaves questions about the "goodness" of your management, you are going to get them.

God Bless men

 

[WV Mountaineer]

BUZZ, where does it say in the FLMPA that special interest groups gets management consideration on pubic land?




The NRA protects hunting. Hunting interest protects public land. And, the NRA has yet to pubically take a position on public lands.

 

[Gr8bawana]

I want a list of the "good job" the NRA has done for wildlife, public lands, habitat, and hunting...

They wont even take a position on public lands at all...which is odd, considering having a place to hunt is a pretty big hunting "right"...

The NRA will never take a stand against PLT because that is an issue being pushed by the republicans and the nra only endorses republicans who so strongly support the nra. They would be cutting their own throats by taking a stand against PLT.