Hunting And Fishing Groups Are Starting To Turn On Trump’s Interior Secretary

Ben Lamb said:

There currently are not roads in this area that are open to the public, and if there are two-tracks or ranch roads, they would be closed. The public has no access now, and the landowner is being generous in his donation. The Landowner is the one stipulating the condition of wilderness, not the gov't.

In Wlderness, there are no roads. There are buildings, etc in current wilderness areas as well as provisions within the wilderness act that give local forest rangers the ability to use motorized vehicles, chainsaws, etc if necessary. Several wilderness areas have guzzlers, stock tanks and other infrastructure installed and the act allows for the maintenence thereof.

Most rangers will not allow that use as it will reduce the wilderness values. Most folks I know who do trail work in the wilderness laugh when you ask if they bring in a chainsaw. The basic take is that it's too heavy to pack in over a cross cut or handsaw.

Zinke is ignoring the will of the landowner, who is asking that this be protected as wilderness. How would you feel if you were making a donation, but I told you only foot traffic would be allowed, even though you want ATV's to use it? Zinke is ingoring the will of the people who have worked to put this deal together. He is sitting on his perch in D.C. trying to play king, while ignoring the locals who put this together. I'm not being partisan, I'm favoring local control over DC heavy-handedness and willful ignorance.

Click to expand...

How would you feel if the Wilkes were making the same demands for lands they donate which don't meet the usual standard for wilderness areas?

A wild guess is you'd be up in arms even more so than in this situation.

Has the land owner in this situation explained the reasons for requiring it be wilderness or nothing? Perhaps trcp and bha could purchase the property outright and donate it?

Even if it doesn't currently meet the standard for wilderness this is a prime candidate for re-wilding. Either way, you graciously accept the donation and laud the public access.

neffa3 said:

Even if it doesn't currently meet the standard for wilderness this is a prime candidate for re-wilding. Either way, you graciously accept the donation and laud the public access.

Click to expand...

Or could it just be "re-wilded" prior to being accepted into wilderness, so as not to set a precedent of "anything will do if it's gifted" approach? Or is there nothing to worry about...

JWP58 said:

Non partisan discussion is impossible..

Click to expand...

For you and many of the posts you seem attracted to, that statement seems to be the case. Yes, things can get partisan, which is annoying, but this project is hardly partisan.

Nobody has made this a partisan discussion. Nobody cares what party is on which side. All people care about is getting the deal done and steering the Administration away from the idea that the Utah delegation has the answers to all problems in the Mountain West. A lot of Republicans are telling the Administration to drop these stupid Utah-led doctrines, such as no Wilderness under any circumstance, and accept the land in whatever manner the landowners wants to donate it.

Additionally, a lot of Republicans are also telling the administration that letting the Utah delegation guide their policy on sage grouse is a train wreck headed down the path of hypocrisy. Supposedly, according to current Administration mouthpieces, sage grouse planning was done without any local input, even though the policy is based on state conservation strategies. It just so happens that Utah doesn't like it because Big Game Forever was making a nice profit selling the BS line that state-based sage grouse plans would be the end of big game hunting. So, the current state plans get put on hold "for further local input" while the Utah crowd gets to direct the strategy of pen-raising sage grouse, like chickens, and releasing domestic sage grouse on the landscape to be devoured immediately by predation.

That has drawn the ire of Wyoming Governor, Matt Mead, the leading advocate for state-based sage grouse plans, who happens to be a Republican. Many other Republicans are equally frustrated with the Administration turning over so many policy decisions to Utah.

If you want to call all of those events "partisan," go tell that to Matt Mead, Steve Daines, Cory Gardner, Mike Simpson, and other Republicans whose ideas/projects are being hijacked by the Utah delegation. They would probably have a different term to use than "partisan," probably something politely critical, like stupid, short-sighted, ignorant, placating. I, being of less concern about pissing off the entire Utah delegation, would use the term ass kissing.

The current administration views the inter-mountain west as though we are colonies of the State of Utah. No matter how much local planning goes into something, no matter what the folks of New Mexico (in this case) want, if it doesn't meet some litmus test of the Utah delegation, this Administration will junk it. I, and many others working behind the scenes on these large landscape projects have tired of it. Time for people to understand who the Administration has delegated our western issues to; Utah. That should piss off most folks on this site. And hopefully gets the attention of all concerned about public land management, regardless of party.

I am hopeful that enough Republicans have gotten through to the Administration that this deal gets solved this week. It seems like progress could be made. And hopefully those same Republicans can work to stop the Utah ass-kissing this Administration feels is the path forward.

No doubt, things tend to drift to a "partisan" discussion in many instances, but this deal, and many of the other projects currently being derailed by the Administration, is/are not partisan.

I see. Did the Utah delegation set forth the definitions of "wilderness" per the 1964 wilderness act? With those in mind, I think it's kind of obvious why this particular property isn't 100% gtg as a wilderness area..which I believe Zinke mentioned in the video on page 3 (I think). Even the flier linked to states steps will have to be taken to "re-wild" the property.

Isn't that the main issue? Not that sportsmen are turning on "trump's interior secretary"?

I get it, this a great opportunity to open access up to a large piece of public land, which I'm all for. However if in doing so we decide certain aspects of "wilderness" aren't that important and let's just "get it done"....are we going about it the correct way?

There is no denying Heinrich showed Zinke for the tool he is in that video. That was a man who is clearly more concerned about a personal agenda than his official duties
I like to think I can call a spade a spade but you can shovel shit faster with a flat blade.

JWP58 said:

I see. Did the Utah delegation set forth the definitions of "wilderness" per the 1964 wilderness act? With those in mind, I think it's kind of obvious why this particular property isn't 100% gtg as a wilderness area..which I believe Zinke mentioned in the video on page 3 (I think). Even the flier linked to states steps will have to be taken to "re-wild" the property.

Isn't that the main issue? Not that sportsmen are turning on "trump's interior secretary"?

I get it, this a great opportunity to open access up to a large piece of public land, which I'm all for. However if in doing so we decide certain aspects of "wilderness" aren't that important and let's just "get it done"....are we going about it the correct way?

Click to expand...

Ok what wilderness areas were 100% good to go as Wilderness before inception?

1. I can show you numerous wilderness areas with pre-existing roads within the boundaries Some in use, some reclaimed. Others they simply draw the boundaries along both sides of the road.

2. I can show you a Wilderness Area that still has cattle grazing.

3. In the same Wilderness Area the ranchers are still allowed mechanized travel trucks, atv's, motorcycles) within it's boundaries.

I agree with you in principal of what a Wilderness should be. But in reality a precedent has already been set many times. It's obvious to everyone that they are just using this technicality as the tool to stop the process.

You can use motor boats in some, land planes in some, they still allow active mining in the Frank. These were concessions made into order to get the deal done. It's not like they're proposing anything new with then designation.

JWP58 said:

How would you feel if the Wilkes were making the same demands for lands they donate which don't meet the usual standard for wilderness areas?

A wild guess is you'd be up in arms even more so than in this situation.

Has the land owner in this situation explained the reasons for requiring it be wilderness or nothing? Perhaps trcp and bha could purchase the property outright and donate it?

Click to expand...

If the Wilks brothers were to offer their land up as a donation to the people of the United States, I'd work with them to get it done. If they wanted certain restrictions on use, such as a designated wilderness area to help ensure the health of the land, I'd work with them to get it done.

The key is working with people before you bring something forward for apporval from the Fed. Get your ducks in a row, present a viable proposal, and have your support as tight as possible. This isn't rocket surgery. The Sabinoso folks who have spent years working on this deal deserve more than the heavy hand of the Sec of Interior being the "decider" now that he has a little bit of power to lord over people.

elkmagnet said:

Ok what wilderness areas were 100% good to go as Wilderness before inception?

1. I can show you numerous wilderness areas with pre-existing roads within the boundaries Some in use, some reclaimed. Others they simply draw the boundaries along both sides of the road.

2. I can show you a Wilderness Area that still has cattle grazing.

3. In the same Wilderness Area the ranchers are still allowed mechanized travel trucks, atv's, motorcycles) within it's boundaries.

I agree with you in principal of what a Wilderness should be. But in reality a precedent has already been set many times. It's obvious to everyone that they are just using this technicality as the tool to stop the process.

Click to expand...

Well I just wasn't aware of a cattle ranch that went from "ranch" to "wilderness" from one day to another. Apparently I am incorrect, and completely out of bounds in thinking this is a unique situation where a land owner is demanding a designation that might not fit the property in its current layout. Please accept my greatest apologies for such reckless rhetoric. I just felt is was a tad bit disingenuous for it to be made out that Zinke is anti public land, when he specifically stated that he was not opposed to making this property public, he just wasn't sure it met the "wilderness" designation. That was wrong of me to point out, I apologize.

According to the RMEF release I just read, it looks like the evil Zinke Utah delegation puppet is about to sign off on this deal. So I guess we're all wrong. The ranch apparently is wilderness, and he'll sign off on it.


How interesting that we now apparently have private land owners deciding what the DOI will and wont do. Just a couple of months ago that would have been heresy.

see below from a DOI news release. Sorry for the long post.

Secretary Zinke Supports Acceptance of 3,595 Acres of Wilderness for Sportsmen's Access to Sabinoso Wilderness Area in New Mexico
TV Use: B-roll of the Secretary at Sabinoso can be downloaded here.

WASHINGTON – Following a trip to New Mexico, Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke today announced he and the Department - through the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) - intend to finalize the process to consider whether to accept the donation of 3,595 acres (formerly known as the Rimrock Rose Ranch) that are adjacent to Sabinoso Wilderness to be included as part of the wilderness.
If approved, the donated land will provide public access to the 16,000-acre Sabinoso Wilderness, which is wholly surrounded by non-federal land. By adding the donated land, the Sabinoso will connect with neighboring BLM land and make the Sabinoso accessible to the public for the first time ever.

"I'm happy to announce today the Department intends to finalize the process to consider whether to accept 3,595 acres to make the Sabinoso Wilderness area accessible to hunters and all members of the public for the first time ever," said Secretary Zinke. "Expanding access to hunting, fishing, and recreation on federal lands is one of my top priorities as Secretary. I originally had concerns about adding more wilderness-designated area, however after hiking and riding the land it was clear that access would only be improved if the Department accepted the land and maintained the existing roadways. Thanks to the donation of a private organization, we continue to move toward delivering this nonpartisan win for sportsmen and the community."
The Sabinoso Wilderness is some of the most pristine elk habitat in the country. Sportsmen from all over the world have expressed interest in gaining access to the area.
"The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation congratulates Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, New Mexico Senators Heinrich and Udall, the Wilderness Land Trust and the many sportsmen and women who helped make this incredibly important access project happen," said David Allen, President and CEO of the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. "The Interior Department’s acceptance of the 3,600 acre Rimrock Rose Ranch will provide public access to the 16,000 acre Sabinoso Wilderness and its premier habitat for elk, mule deer and other wildlife—and just in time for hunting season!"

“On behalf the NRA’s five-million members, I want to thank Secretary Zinke for his leadership in opening access to the Sabinoso Wilderness Area for hunters and sportsmen,” said Chris W. Cox, Executive Director of the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action. “Secretary Zinke continues to champion the rights of America's hunters and sportsmen by increasing access to our nation’s public lands.”

Secretary Zinke and New Mexico Senators Tom Udall and Martin Heinrich toured the Sabinoso by horseback and hike on Saturday, July 29. Photos are available here.
"Sabinoso is the only American wilderness without public access, so I am heartened that Secretary Zinke is moving to finalize an agreement with the Wilderness Land Trust that will allow hikers, sportsmen and others to enjoy this pristine New Mexico landscape. This collaboration is a testament to how beautiful this land is and the tremendous opportunity it holds for sportsmen and outdoor enthusiasts and our state's growing recreation economy," said U.S. Senator Tom Udall. "Enabling access to this wilderness is something that many New Mexicans have worked toward for years, and while there are some details to work out to ensure the property is managed in accordance with the Wilderness Act, I want to thank Secretary Zinke for coming to New Mexico to see this stunning land for himself and for moving quickly to accept the donation of the Rimrock Rose Ranch property."

“The Sabinoso is the only legally inaccessible wilderness area in the entire nation. Surrounded by private land and without a legal road or trail to get there, the public has effectively been locked out of this stunning landscape that we all own. By accepting this land donation as part of the wilderness, the Department of Interior will finally unlock the Sabinoso to the public,” said U.S. Senator Martin Heinrich. “This is a major gain for New Mexico and would not be possible without the generosity of the Wilderness Land Trust and the dedication of the local community and sportsmen who have championed this effort for many years. I am grateful that Secretary Zinke visited our state and recognizes just how special the Sabinoso truly is. Traditions like hunting, hiking, and fishing are among the pillars of Western culture and a thriving outdoor recreation economy. Through this collaborative effort to create public access to the Sabinoso we will ensure that outdoor enthusiasts from near and far can finally experience all that this special landscape has to offer and that it will be protected for our children and all future generations.”

The area offers exceptional opportunities for hiking, horseback riding, backcountry camping, and hunting. Public interest in accessing the wilderness for hunting and fishing has been significant. The donated lands include a large portion of Cañon Largo, a scenic canyon that would also become legally accessible to the public for the first time through donation.
The BLM will now continue its decision-making process and prepare a number of realty actions that are expected to take three-to-four months to complete.

Genuine thanks to RMEF for their push to get this over the finish line.

Huge thanks to the New Mexico Wildlife Federation, NM Bowhunters Assn, BHA, First Lite, Conservation Lands Foundation and the many locals who worked to put this deal together and put aside their differences to find common ground.

Since this thread found life again, I disagree, Randy... The extremes on both sides make this a partisan issue, much to the frustration of the majority.

JWP58 said:

Well I just wasn't aware of a cattle ranch that went from "ranch" to "wilderness" from one day to another. Apparently I am incorrect, and completely out of bounds in thinking this is a unique situation where a land owner is demanding a designation that might not fit the property in its current layout. Please accept my greatest apologies for such reckless rhetoric. I just felt is was a tad bit disingenuous for it to be made out that Zinke is anti public land, when he specifically stated that he was not opposed to making this property public, he just wasn't sure it met the "wilderness" designation. That was wrong of me to point out, I apologize.

According to the RMEF release I just read, it looks like the evil Zinke Utah delegation puppet is about to sign off on this deal. So I guess we're all wrong. The ranch apparently is wilderness, and he'll sign off on it.


How interesting that we now apparently have private land owners deciding what the DOI will and wont do. Just a couple of months ago that would have been heresy.

Click to expand...

Your sarcasm didn't go unnoticed
Heresy?
How do you think we ended up with Dewy and Stibnite in the Frank Church? Jet boating? Air fields? The Seafoam bubble?

How about cattle grazing in the Owyhee Wilderness? Ranchers on motos? natural gas pipeline?
Those are just the two examples closest to me.

When Sen Frank Church sponsored the Wilderness act of 1964 did he want these things inside of Wilderness areas?
I doubt it. So who "dictated" it? Do I like it? Not really. But compromise is reality and has been happening whether you are aware of it or not.

JWP58 said:

Well I just wasn't aware of a cattle ranch that went from "ranch" to "wilderness" from one day to another. Apparently I am incorrect, and completely out of bounds in thinking this is a unique situation where a land owner is demanding a designation that might not fit the property in its current layout. Please accept my greatest apologies for such reckless rhetoric. I just felt is was a tad bit disingenuous for it to be made out that Zinke is anti public land, when he specifically stated that he was not opposed to making this property public, he just wasn't sure it met the "wilderness" designation. That was wrong of me to point out, I apologize.

According to the RMEF release I just read, it looks like the evil Zinke Utah delegation puppet is about to sign off on this deal. So I guess we're all wrong. The ranch apparently is wilderness, and he'll sign off on it.


How interesting that we now apparently have private land owners deciding what the DOI will and wont do. Just a couple of months ago that would have been heresy.

Click to expand...

I'm glad to see this pushed across the finish line but I still have to comment on your post. Do you honestly believe after seeing the video and reading this post that Zinke' s hesitancy was based on wether or not this donation was pristine enough to be called wilderness? It seems abundantly clear to me that the hesitation is based on the protection wilderness is provided vs some other designation. Looking at the sage grouse restructuring plan among other things it's pretty hard to deny that the doi is pushing for anything other than looser protections for public land.

Chad E said:

I'm glad to see this pushed across the finish line but I still have to comment on your post. Do you honestly believe after seeing the video and reading this post that Zinke' s hesitancy was based on wether or not this donation was pristine enough to be called wilderness? It seems abundantly clear to me that the hesitation is based on the protection wilderness is provided vs some other designation. Looking at the sage grouse restructuring plan among other things it's pretty hard to deny that the doi is pushing for anything other than looser protections for public land.

Click to expand...

Yes that's what I honestly believe, I know I should be ashamed of my naive veiws. I realize some believe it's a giant conspiracy, I do not. Apparently the conspiracy is failing.

And my apology wasn't sarcasm. I truly am sorry I viewed this situation differently.