WTF B&C? National Monument Review

I'm an old fan of the Boone and Crockett Club, but they've got me scratching my head on this one. They are gushing over Zinke's review of national monuments, even though the results of that review are still secret. They make claims that monuments curtail hunting, without offering any examples (because there are none.) Basically saying that the Antiquities Act shouldn't be used for conserving land, even though B&C founder and icon Theodore Roosevelt did exactly that in order to protect the Grand Canyon. Someone hand them a dictionary and tell them to look up the word "sycophant."

http://campaign.r20.constantcontact...10658&ca=26d4aff1-05d1-4fa9-b293-b7f8b8c19b98

Here is the news release:

Boone and Crockett Club Applauds National Monuments Review
MISSOULA, Mont. (August 28, 2017) - U.S. Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke recently presented a draft report to President Trump, which includes his findings and recommendations on previously designated National Monuments. The review was ordered by President Trump via an Executive Order to ensure public access, hunting and fishing, and traditional land uses and management, among other things, were not overly restricted.

The Boone and Crockett Club, the nation's oldest conservation organization, played a critical role in the initial passage of the Antiquities Act of 1906, as well as the creation of the U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, National Park Service and Bureau of Land Management - the key federal land management agencies beside the Department of Defense. Given this history and the Boone and Crockett Club's continued involvement, the Club applauds this thorough review of recently designated monuments. Timely reviews on all critical designations will ensure accountability, demonstrating that benefit to the public and wildlife is actually being accomplished properly.

"Significant concerns have been raised by hunters and other sportsmen regarding the newly designated National Monuments that justified a thorough review of them," said Paul Phillips (Oregon), co-chairman of the Club's Conservation Policy Committee. "Unfortunately, some have chosen to level direct and personal attacks toward Secretary Zinke and we wonder why. If nothing else, these reviews may identify best practices, which will guide future actions. Such reviews can actually result in better conservation, especially for wildlife, and opportunities for the public to enjoy them. We appreciate Secretary Zinke's review and look forward to learning about the findings."

The Antiquities Act provides a way to place the special distinction of a National Monument status on existing federal lands to protect historical landmarks and lands of scientific interest. Problems arise, however, when the designation limits vital land management practices and how people can use these public lands.

"National Monuments have not always been good for sportsmen and wildlife, and should be reviewed," said James L. Cummins (Mississippi), also a co-chairman of the Club's Policy Committee. "Declaring land as national monuments can appear as a conservation success, but only on paper. What actually makes for a true conservation success is a combination of active management on the land and the appreciation the public gets by visiting the land. This requires professional conservation managers doing the work and people with varied recreational interests given opportunity to appreciate the results. Both need access for conservation to work.If we, as a nation, are to continue to have the greatest system of conservation in the world, we must continue to not only review, adjust and modernize our laws and regulations, but adapt them to the political, economic, social, technological and environmental changes facing our nation."

While well intended, designation of large tracts of public lands as monuments without provision for access can lead to a loss of conservation value. Restricted recreational access and reduced management of wildlife habitats can lead to dwindling wildlife populations and less community involvement on the management of lands in their backyards.

Any changes proposed and enacted by the Trump Administration will not alter federal lands' ownership status or the multitude of laws that govern their management and protection for environmental and public values.



About the Boone and Crockett Club
Founded by Theodore Roosevelt in 1887, the Boone and Crockett Club is the oldest conservation organization in North America and helped to establish the principles of wildlife and habitat conservation, hunter ethics, as well as many of the institutions, experts agencies, science and funding mechanisms for conservation. Member accomplishments include enlarging and protecting Yellowstone and establishing Glacier and Denali national parks, founding the U.S. Forest Service, National Park Service and National Wildlife Refuge System, fostering the Pittman-Robertson and Lacey Acts, creating the Federal Duck Stamp program, and developing the cornerstones of modern game laws. The Boone and Crockett Club is headquartered in Missoula, Montana. For details, visit www.boone-crockett.org.

Here's the comment I left on their facebook page:

Your cover photo is in contradiction to your statement.

The secrecy in which the Secretary acted in his "review," and the lack of public participation in what is arguably the largest attack on Theodore Roosevelt's signature legislation - the Antiquities Act, are what has upset so many of us in the hunting community.

Do we honestly think we'd have as many hunting opportunities if we didn't protect these landscapes? The Breaks, for example: contain the most sought after bighorn sheep tag in the nation. It is a 10 year draw for rifle elk and the region draws thousands of hunters who are lucky enough to get the archery permit or are looking for a mule deer.

SO many others, including the 3-4 monuments that this SOI & POTUS are looking to shrink have more benefit to the nation as monuments than as mines or gas fields.

I understand and appreciate B&C's measured approach to conservation, but it seems like this is more about providing cover for a politician who is actively undermining public land management than anything else. Our Resource Advisory Committees - those groups of locals who help set management objectives on public lands - are shuttered, reducing public input. The BLM 2.0 planning process is rescinded, leaving citizens with far fewer opportunities to help manage public lands through the public processes. The Sage Grouse plans that would have helped restore sagebrush communities while providing regulatory certainty for ranchers, oil & gas men & miners are now in limbo, with the possibility of being tossed because one group doesn't like them.

And then we add the monument review on top of that which would eliminate protections for wildlife habitat. That we now have a major sporting group -
one founded by Theodore Roosevelt himself, supporting this poorly thought out and executed effort is disconcerting to say the least.

Ben, thanks for posting this. I hope to hear more comments and do my own research as well. So far, a head-scratcher.

Interesting news release.

I just find it strange some of the things stated in that article, and more importantly, some of the things they didn't say.

I think they've jumped the gun and should wait until they see the results of the review...its going to be tough sledding for them to walk back their stated support for the review if it turns out the review is in direct conflict with their mission statement.

I understand B&C is largely responsible for Zinke getting the appointment to the DOI, but to defend him before you have facts...that's not good policy or a good position to take IMO. That's no more right than people throwing him under the bus without the same facts.

The Club has painted itself into a corner...

There's two other groups joining B&C in its NM stance.

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-bl...l-monuments-are-not-always-good-for-sportsmen

I agree with Buzz that it might have been more prudent to wait until the report is released and see what it includes.

From an historical standpoint, B&C commenting on this is interesting, given B&C is why we have the Antiquities Act; the legislation most often used by Presidents to create national monuments. If not for B&C and their connections, the Antiquities Act would have never become law in 1906 (?). It was B&C who used their political influence at the time, against some serious pressures to the contrary, to get the Antiquities Act passed. Their efforts to enact many of the bedrock conservation laws we take for granted should not be overlooked.

I think it was easy to see this storm coming, due to how the prior administration operated after the election. Besides Bears Ear and Gold Butte, Interior told Alaska how they would be allowed to manage state-trusteed wildlife on Alaska National Wildlife Refuges and Alaska National Monuments. Whether one agrees with how Alaska manages their wildlife, it is a pretty big step for the Department of Interior to tell states how wildlife will/can be managed over such a huge swath of landscape.

As for conservation being able to continue in some of the NWRs, NMs, or other areas that get new designations, there are examples where those conservation efforts, specifically in the arid southwest, are compromised or altogether prohibited. If you are an advocate for native species, it is hard to sit by and watch climate change alter that landscape against native species, yet see feral species and invasive plant species be allowed to expand without limit in the same areas. Spending a lot of time in NV and AZ, it is surely troublesome to watch. And there are examples where efforts to balance the table toward native species is restricted due to the land designation.

I have written here before, that if the Grand Canyon Watershed National Monument has been passed, I would be a loud advocate for repeal of the Antiquities Act. There are few landscape more impacted by invasive weeds, water-robbing Pinion-Juniper encroachment, and further parching due to climate change (or long-term drought if ideology requires that label), than are the areas around the Grand Canyon. Most every native animal there is dependent completely or seasonally on man-made water sources. And that dependence is getting greater each decade. I have had the good luck of hunting both the north rim for deer and the south rim for elk. These are amazing hunting areas and even if hunting is allowed under such a designation, it does not insure that wildlife will continue to exist at current levels.

The approach to making an areas such as the Grand Canyon Watershed a NM is short-sighted. It ignores the impact human presence is having on the landscape, or at least pretending efforts to mitigate those impacts to the benefit of native wildlife are not needed/useful. Seeing how hard that proposal was pushed and the huge negative consequences it would have had on native species, and therefore hunting opportunity, cause me to wonder if similar conditions existed when other monument designations were made. I don't know it it did exist, but I do know that this push for the Grand Canyon has caused me to be far more cautious about supporting NM as the "cure all."

I do think we, or more appropriately, native wildlife and plant species, could benefit from a different land classification. Using NM designations for wildlife does not make native species the highest priority. I would advocate that we need a designation, something like "Native Species Conservation Areas" that is a statutory designation that gives native plants and wildlife primary management priority. Other activities would be allowed, but those activities would be required to fall within guidelines that conserve native species. Maybe that is a pipe dream.

I have to run, but one other thing that would allow greater support for NMs or other designations is the absolute guarantee of existing uses such as hunting. Often times that language is fuzzy or can be altered by administrative rule.

Gotta run. Should be interesting to see what the report says if it is released on Friday, as scheduled.

brymoore said:

There's two other groups joining B&C in its NM stance.

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-bl...l-monuments-are-not-always-good-for-sportsmen

Click to expand...

Confused.

From the Editorial.....The Río Grande Del Norte National Monument offers excellent hunting opportunities, but these are no longer guaranteed by its proclamation. This 242,455-acre tract in New Mexico is now under pressure to stop hunting through the management plan in development.

From the Proclamation.....Nothing in this proclamation shall be deemed to enlarge or diminish the jurisdiction of the State of New Mexico with respect to fish and wildlife management.

mtmiller said:

Confused.

From the Editorial.....The Río Grande Del Norte National Monument offers excellent hunting opportunities, but these are no longer guaranteed by its proclamation. This 242,455-acre tract in New Mexico is now under pressure to stop hunting through the management plan in development.

From the Proclamation.....Nothing in this proclamation shall be deemed to enlarge or diminish the jurisdiction of the State of New Mexico with respect to fish and wildlife management.

Click to expand...

Same with Sand to Snow:

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.go...ion-establishment-sand-snow-national-monument

Nothing in this proclamation shall be deemed to enlarge or diminish the jurisdiction of the State of California, including its jurisdiction and authority with respect to fish and wildlife management.

it is disingenuous to claim that hunting will be eliminated or curtailed by a Monument Designation especially when the proclamation itself ensures the continued management of wildlife for the states. Access to some areas may be more difficult, but like we often say: Good hunting starts where the road ends.

Castle Mountain NM is 21,000 acres with existing roads & a gold mine in it. I'm having a tough time understanding why such a small area has access issues? The proclamation says that no off-road travel will be allowed due to resource issues, and it contains the same language that the other two listed in the op-ed have regarding the state continuing to be the manager of wildlife. While the Super did shut down hunting in this NM, it is in violation of the law, which is an administration issue rather than a designation issue.


I do agree w/ Randy that it can be very difficult to get some things done in Monuments. It's not the status that causes the problem, it's the administration thereof. If there are no funds to maintain infrastructure inside the Monuments, then the NPS has to prioritize what can be done. Our agencies lose their funding through fire borrowing or they're starved from congress, yet we expect them to do the work they should be doing. The issue of guzzlers in some areas deserves a broader debate since there is competing thought & science about the need for these and what they do in terms of localizing predation and causing undue impacts to habitat due to increased numbers of animals on the landscape. But it is important to note that several Wilderness areas and Monuments have these existing guzzlers, and are allowed to be kept up. Again - administrative issue rather than designation issue.

I also tend to agree w/ Randy on the Grand Canyon push. I don't think that's a well thought out strategy or push. It was drafted from only one side, and no actual engagement was done with the hunting community.

I would like B&C, WSF, and NWTF to acknowledge where the push for the "review" came from.

The evil UT cabal (cue ominous background music)

JWP58 said:

The evil UT cabal (cue ominous background music)

Click to expand...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MK6TXMsvgQg

Interesting that B&C had nothing to say at the beginning of the Monuments review, and never bothered to make a comment on the review. They have never seen the review, unless they have a secret inside copy. Yet they feel compelled to issue this news release now. Which has no news in it. Like I said, they have a right to their opinion, I just don't get it.

If it wasn't important enough for them to comment on it, then this op-ed smacks even more of political ass-covering.

Opinion piece written by Philips, Humphries and Thornton B&C, Wild Turkey and Sheep Foundations.
https://flatheadbeacon.com/2017/08/30/national-monuments-not-always-good-sportsmen-wildlife/

In recent years, proclamations have removed guarantees for recreational access and hunting from management plans.

The 21,000-acre Castle Mountains National Monument in California shows how inadequate “public outreach and coordination with relevant stakeholders” can sacrifice access. Designation of this monument late in the previous administration eliminated hunting access.

The Río Grande Del Norte National Monument offers excellent hunting opportunities, but these are no longer guaranteed by its proclamation. This 242,455-acre tract in New Mexico is now under pressure to stop hunting through the management plan in development.

Another example is California’s Sand-to-Snow National Monument, designated last year. This proclamation acknowledges the 154,000-acre area “provides … hunting, fishing, hiking, camping, mountain biking, and horseback riding,” yet these values are not guaranteed by the order.

Click to expand...

We applaud the review of these and other monuments and urge the Department of Interior to use its results to strengthen the legacy of federal public lands in the United States.

Conservation is people and nature: not always both in the same place, but always together in the big picture. Let’s keep that mind as the Department of Interior conducts their reviews, and let’s seize new conservation opportunities and get lost ones back.

Paul Phillips is co-chair of conservation policy with the Boone and Crockett Club; Rebecca A. Humphries is chief executive officer of the National Wild Turkey Federation; Gray Thornton is chief executive officer of the Wild Sheep Foundation

Click to expand...

A position statement released in June by WSF may provide some insight into their position on this monument review. Only speculation on my part, as WSF chapters and affiliates are not always consulted before WSF issues a position statement. There are definitely many examples of active management of wildlife being hindered by federal land designations.

Oak said:

A position statement released in June by WSF may provide some insight into their position on this monument review. Only speculation on my part, as WSF chapters and affiliates are not always consulted before WSF issues a position statement. There are definitely many examples of active management of wildlife being hindered by federal land designations.

Click to expand...

The position statement reads like a building block for demanding transfer of Fed land to States if the requirements aren't met.

Wonder what the WSF thinks of Wilderness and bighorn sheep management within Wilderness.