Should Rokslide Sign This?

[BuzzH]

Then let the varsity player call you out.

You can quote FLPMA all you want, but we BLM is not amending or revising any plans currently -- unless I have missed some notice in the Federal Register that you can enlighten me on.

So, all of the provisions you cite in FLPMA have literally no bearing on this conversation -- whether Rokslide should sign onto the letter drafted by TRCP.

What they do have some bearing on, is whether and to what extent BLM complied with these requirements from 2008 till 2015. And, without disclosing too much information, BLM gave the USFWS the reigns to what was in BLM plans -- something that FLPMA does not allow.

This debate is not about public lands and I find the posts above twisting the narrative to be about public lands disingenuous and racketeering. Requesting review of the sage-grouse planning documents is not an attack on hunters' being able to access and use big game habitat for hunting. Reviewing the sage-grouse plans is to determine what restrictions on multiple uses and what restrictions are not.

So, again, if Rokslide wants to jump on a non-hunting letter, regarding a non-hunting land use review, fine. But Rokslide needs to be clearly informed that the issue is sage-grouse. Not public lands.

If you want to go 15 rounds on this issue and what FLPMA says, I'm good with that. I know my way around policy pretty well.

However, keep in mind that WVmountaineer asked a specific question, regarding where in FLPMA does it say that organizations are allowed to provide input to FP's and RP's...I provided the answer.

I'll also go 15 rounds over whether or not sage grouse management is a hunting issue or not. I happen to think it is, but respect your opinion that its not. IMO, hunters, in particular sage grouse hunters have a vested interest to keep management of sage grouse at the State level, rather than have them listed where State management is, at best, highly problematic.

I also contend that and agree with many that say, "What's good for the bird, is good for the herd". Sagebrush steppe is vital habitat to a lot more than sage grouse. I will make the argument all day long that anything that impacts the Sagebrush steppe, either positively or negatively, is a hunting issue. Last time I checked, habitat is pretty crucial for the well-being of many species and to that end, ultimately a hunting and conservation issue. YMMV, and I wont begrudge you your right to disagree. However, its not going to sway my opinion on why the issue of sage grouse and their conservation absolutely is a hunting issue.

I will also contend, that if sage grouse are listed, there will be some significant changes made that will impact hunters a lot...as well as a lot of other interests.

Historic Conservation Campaign Protects Greater Sage-Grouse | NRCS Wyoming
What's been done, and is being done is working, I see no reason to muck up the process at this time.

 

[BuzzH]

I'll take this one too.

"Vast support" does not include counties in Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, Nevada, and California. It also doesn't include conservation districts statutorily dedicated to working with soils, vegetation, and watershed health. Vast support also doesn't include energy and ranching. Sorry, the complaints filed in DC, Colorado, Wyoming, Nevada, Utah, California, and Oregon blatantly contradict your broad assertion. The "process" you keep flouting left local players out of the process. A review would undue some of the mistakes Washington handed down without any influence from the people on the ground.

"Stakeholders" is not a term in FLPMA. Has no weight in court. Keep that word in your policy discussions in Washington.

The process that kept the sage-grouse off the ESA by definition had to occur before the BLM plans were even approved. That doesn't strike you as odd?

Again, reviewing the sage-grouse plans returns input on public lands to a local scale. Why would we want Washington to make those decisions?

That's not true at all...at least not in regard to the collaboration in MT and WY. Energy interests, ranching interests, individual rancher/landowners, Governors office, hunting and angling organizations, etc. etc. etc. have all been involved in the collaborative efforts in those states. One Wyoming Landowner even constructed a building, on his private property, to hold sage grouse meetings.

We currently have local control of Sage grouse...list them and you'll see that local control vanish. Fact.

 

[Gr8bawana]

Exactly ! And the Sage Grouse is simply the newest greenie power grab. The TRCP is just a front for the Sierra Club as far as I can tell. These guys are pushing an agenda that will result in you , the hunter , being locked out. They talk a reasonable game but the actual agenda is bad news.

How are the sage grouse hunting opportunities in Florida?

 

[mtwarden]

How are the sage grouse hunting opportunities in Florida?

or WV for that matter

 

[Shrek]

or WV for that matter

How are the sage grouse hunting opportunities in Florida?

About as good as the gator hunting opportunities in Nevada and Montana. This is about as effective as "oh look ! Squirrel !".

 

[Gr8bawana]

About as good as the gator hunting opportunities in Nevada and Montana. This is about as effective as "oh look ! Squirrel !".

Exactly! That's why I would never try to tell you how game should be managed in you part of the country.

 

[Shrek]

Exactly! That's why I would never try to tell you how game should be managed in you part of the country.

If you want to hunt gators on public waters you should take an interest. If they were using gators to shut down access to lakes and rivers to fishing I would hope you could see through the scam and stand with us to keep access.