Sportsmen See Bad Precedent in Reopening Compromise to Protect Western Range Bird

Ben Lamb · Oct 11, 2017

The states of Wyoming, Montana, Colorado, Nevada, Oregon and Washington, comprising roughly 80% of occupied sage grouse habitat, asked the department of interior not do the thing they just did - reopen 98 management plans that were drafted over 10 years with multiple stakeholders who reached a pretty good compromise on how to manage 64 million acres of public land for all uses, and for the first time - put wildlife habitat on the same playing field as industry and grazing.

The Secretary of the Interior has ignored those Governors, and the Western Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies, and moved forward with a plan supported by Rob Bishop, Big Game Forever, The Heritage Foundation and The Western Energy Association. This move is a slap in the face to the governors, our state wildlife managers and the thousands of people who spent the last 10-12 years working on plans that would have truly benefited public land management.

Also done by Interior is the lapse of a 10 million acre mineral withdrawal of land with low energy development potential in prime sage grouse habitat, further weakening the plans that had been lauded as keeping sage grouse off of the endangered species list two years ago.

The move by Interior sets of a 45 day comment period. The DOI is asking people to send their comments to an email address rather than through he federalregister.gov website. That email is: [email protected]

If folks are interested in submitting comments, I'll happily post up some suggested points to bring up, and some background information, or shoot me a PM if you'd rather go that route.

12 years, hundreds of collaborative meetings, plans that make our public lands actually vibrant and well managed gone. Covfefe!

https://www.dtnpf.com/agriculture/w...7/10/09/sportsmen-see-bad-precedent-protect-2

"We're roughly two years into having sage-grouse not listed under the Endangered Species Act. This is a good thing for the bird and energy development," Mead said. "As BLM looks to make changes to its federal plans, I would encourage the agency to find ways to better align with Wyoming's state plan.

"Folks representing energy, agriculture, recreation and conservation all came together to help frame the state's plan to ensure a strong habitat for sage grouse in Wyoming. There are positive changes that can be made to the federal plans, but we should be careful and thoughtful about how we do that. Wyoming will be engaged in this process and will continue to work with the BLM," said Mead.

onpoint · Oct 11, 2017

These liddle political (read - sportsman's) issues don't make people happy.
Post up a pic of a something dead so we can smile and go about our day....

Ben Lamb · Oct 11, 2017

onpoint said:
These liddle political (read - sportsman's) issues don't make people happy.
Post up a pic of a something dead so we can smile and go about our day....

As soon as I kill something, I will.

Until then, it's a good thing to talk politely and thoughtfully about public land mgt and how this administration is going back on their pledge to be good stewards of our land.

tjones · Oct 11, 2017

onpoint said:
These liddle political (read - sportsman's) issues don't make people happy.
Post up a pic of a something dead so we can smile and go about our day....

Or what's the best hunting socks,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

elkduds · Oct 11, 2017

Because I never believed an effective compromise could be reached, I had hoped for ESA listing of sage grouse. That would sharply limit consumptive and occupying uses on sagelands throughout the west. The current compromise plan took me by surprise, w its high level of collaboration among stakeholders. It is a good example of how federal law can motivate cooperation. Now tiny-hands and fights-like-a-girl are putting this all on the chopping block, which will mean another chance to see sage grouse on the ESA when the next administration drains the current White House swamp. It would be better economically and politically to keep the plan we have now. I encourage HuntTalkers to express yourselves to your legislators about this issue.

Ben Lamb · Oct 11, 2017

The decision not to list was based on the work that stakeholders had done. If that work had been deficit, I think we would have seen a listing to be sure, even though congress has tried to block a listing through riders on must-pass legislation.

The decision not to list, like all decisions, was based on the science we have on hand and the liklihood of success that the management plans had in terms of restoring habitat. Now that we have to go back and revisit all of this, that means less noxious weed spraying post-fire, fewer seasonal employees out planting native forbs & grasses to help get a start on restoration, fewer AUMs for grazing in the short term - but Bishop & the energy guys/land transfer crowd get their win.

DOI gave us 45 days to comment on a plan that would open up 98 different management plans. They did this during hunting season, and they did it despite massive outpouring of trepidation from Governors who have to live with these very poorly made decisions.

Over 340 species of plant and animal rely on sagebrush habitats across 11 western states. Elk, pronghorn, mule deer as well as sage sparrows, pygmy rabbits and other nongame species would have benefited by actually managing habitat on a landscape level.

u1299 · Oct 11, 2017

Ben Lamb said:
As soon as I kill something, I will.

Until then, it's a good thing to talk politely and thoughtfully about public land mgt and how this administration is going back on their pledge to be good stewards of our land.

You say there was a pledge to be good stewards of our land? Did anyone actually believe them, seriously?

JWP58 · Oct 11, 2017

elkduds said:
Because I never believed an effective compromise could be reached, I had hoped for ESA listing of sage grouse. That would sharply limit consumptive and occupying uses on sagelands throughout the west. The current compromise plan took me by surprise, w its high level of collaboration among stakeholders. It is a good example of how federal law can motivate cooperation. Now tiny-hands and fights-like-a-girl are putting this all on the chopping block, which will mean another chance to see sage grouse on the ESA when the next administration drains the current White House swamp. It would be better economically and politically to keep the plan we have now. I encourage HuntTalkers to express yourselves to your legislators about this issue.

"Tiny hands" and "fights like a girl", very informative and constructive information. Yes comrades...i means hunttalkers, express yourselves...

onpoint · Oct 11, 2017

jwp58, you must watch for bait like a tilapia hanging around a hippo's ass waiting for it's meal.

rammac · Oct 11, 2017

"SOME Sportsmen See Bad Precedent in Reopening Compromise to Protect Western Range Bird"

There, I fixed it for you, now it's more truthful and realistic.

Ben Lamb · Oct 11, 2017

rammac said:
"SOME Sportsmen See Bad Precedent in Reopening Compromise to Protect Western Range Bird"

There, I fixed it for you, now it's more truthful and realistic.

I suppose that is correct. Many sportsmen probably do support eliminating habitat management protocols meant to increase forage capacity, security cover and help rebound populations of mule deer as well grouse, improve habitat for myriad of other species while responsibly managing our public lands for all uses such as grazing, mining, etc, as defined under the multiple use mandate we operate under.

Many sportsmen probably do wish that we could drive all over the sagebrush, without any kind of travel management or worry about noxious weed infestations and I reckon many sportsmen couldn't care less if our fire fighting strategy doesn't focus on maintaining critical habitats, using fire to manage land while still protecting private property.

I just don't know many of them. So, I'm listening. Tell me why eliminating the plans is a good idea, especially since they were supported by the majority of western governors, their state game agencies and a wide array of interests from Ag to hunting to even oil and gas companies.

Please be specific in your concerns.

jryoung · Oct 11, 2017

Typical DC, overruling the work of locals.

elkduds · Oct 11, 2017

JWP58 said:
"Tiny hands" and "fights like a girl", very informative and constructive information. Yes comrades...i means hunttalkers, express yourselves...

I wanted derogatory references to Trump and Zinke that any simpleton would understand. Success! You are cordially invited to offer a disagreement of some substance on the topic. Which is their proposal to negate the current comprehensive agreement to maintain sage grouse habitat, in case that escaped you.

one ate E grain · Oct 11, 2017

Thanks Ben, I hadn't been able to put all the pieces together but it's starting to fit now.

I knew why enviros wanted to list and that was throwing me off. They want to list because they want to do anything to cause a headache for westerners, especially ranchers and other assorted enemies, oil, developers, USFWS, all the people they normally war with.

Oil didn't want it listed so they could drill and do their thing. Governors didn't want listing because oil is money for the state and jobs.

I couldn't figure out hunters. Of course some hunters are reactionary enviros, and anything the Sierra Club likes is ok for them, but across the board most hunting orgs and state divisions of wildlife were in on it too.

Now I get it. It's not the dang birds that not many hunt, it's the habitat for other species, like species that end up being a couple hundred pounds of meat, or nice muley racks. I saw an area that had been severely worked over and I was able to imagine what sweet habitat it will be in 5 years when things grow in. They'd cut all the pinyon/juniper and mulched it. Probably a lot of big companies paying lots of money to improve habitat, which means better habitat for everything. All kinds of grant money floating around no doubt, some money makes jobs too.

So thanks for the write up. I think I get it now.

onpoint · Oct 11, 2017

one ate E grain said:
Thanks Ben, I hadn't been able to put all the pieces together but it's starting to fit now.

I knew why enviros wanted to list and that was throwing me off. They want to list because they want to do anything to cause a headache for westerners, especially ranchers and other assorted enemies, oil, developers, USFWS, all the people they normally war with.

Oil didn't want it listed so they could drill and do their thing. Governors didn't want listing because oil is money for the state and jobs.

I couldn't figure out hunters. Of course some hunters are reactionary enviros, and anything the Sierra Club likes is ok for them, but across the board most hunting orgs and state divisions of wildlife were in on it too.

Now I get it. It's not the dang birds that not many hunt, it's the habitat for other species, like species that end up being a couple hundred pounds of meat, or nice muley racks. I saw an area that had been severely worked over and I was able to imagine what sweet habitat it will be in 5 years when things grow in. They'd cut all the pinyon/juniper and mulched it. Probably a lot of big companies paying lots of money to improve habitat, which means better habitat for everything. All kinds of grant money floating around no doubt, some money makes jobs too.

So thanks for the write up. I think I get it now.

I find this an interesting perception.
I have hunted for just over forty years. I have known and still know a large number of hunters.
I have known hard core NRA 2'nd amendment hunters who consider the hunt to be all about the gun. I have known hunters who would happily shoot the last sage grouse on earth. I have known casual as well as passionate hunters who pay absolutely no attention to the political issues as they pertain to hunting. I have known very thoughtful and insightful hunters who look at the multitude of viewpoints of these issues and formulate their own opinions. I have known hunters who are tireless workhorses when it come to protecting the things many if not most hunters hold dear. I have known hunters with seemingly no regard nor respect for anything.
But I cannot think of a hunter I have known whom I would call a "reactionary enviro"
Just speaking for the hunters I have known and currently do know.

Ben Lamb · Oct 11, 2017

one ate E grain said:
Now I get it. It's not the dang birds that not many hunt, it's the habitat for other species, like species that end up being a couple hundred pounds of meat, or nice muley racks. I saw an area that had been severely worked over and I was able to imagine what sweet habitat it will be in 5 years when things grow in. They'd cut all the pinyon/juniper and mulched it. Probably a lot of big companies paying lots of money to improve habitat, which means better habitat for everything. All kinds of grant money floating around no doubt, some money makes jobs too.

So thanks for the write up. I think I get it now.

That's it: The Mule Deer Foundation, another supporter of the plans before they were hijacked, coined the phrase "What's good for the bird is good for the herd."

There are 350 species of wildlife and native plants that rely on this ecosystem. That includes the major western species we hunt like mule deer, pronghorn, elk & sheep and the feed they need in order to thrive. The plans took a large-scale look at management, due to the need of sage grouse to have large, unbroken tracts of ground out of which they use pockets at different times. The 98 plans were tailored largely to the specific area based on input from ranchers, hunters, state agencies, and federal land managers. The Secretary's review and the subsequent Notice of Intent to throw open all 98 plans brings massive uncertainty to folks who were working on implementing the 2015 plans. For ranchers, they now will have to rework their grazing plans (BTW - US Cattlemen's Assn and Nat'l Farmer's Union are in the article expressing concern in the OP).

The plans weren't perfect, but most who wanted changes, and many who didn't, asked that the Dept. of Interior take a scalpel to them rather than a sledgehammer. Those voices were ignored. Now, we're walking in to a 45 day comment period on one of the most complex and large-scale conservation projects the nation has undertaken.

rammac · Oct 11, 2017

Ben Lamb said:
I suppose that is correct. Many sportsmen probably do support eliminating habitat management protocols meant to increase forage capacity, security cover and help rebound populations of mule deer as well grouse, improve habitat for myriad of other species while responsibly managing our public lands for all uses such as grazing, mining, etc, as defined under the multiple use mandate we operate under.

Many sportsmen probably do wish that we could drive all over the sagebrush, without any kind of travel management or worry about noxious weed infestations and I reckon many sportsmen couldn't care less if our fire fighting strategy doesn't focus on maintaining critical habitats, using fire to manage land while still protecting private property.

I just don't know many of them. So, I'm listening. Tell me why eliminating the plans is a good idea, especially since they were supported by the majority of western governors, their state game agencies and a wide array of interests from Ag to hunting to even oil and gas companies.

Please be specific in your concerns.

Yup, nothing like silly rambling personal attacks to make your case. I was just pointing out how propagandistic the title is but your response proves why most people get bored with issues nowadays. Charge ahead and enjoy your battle Don Quixote

Deleted member 20812 · Oct 11, 2017

rammac said:
Yup, nothing like silly rambling personal attacks to make your case. I was just pointing out how propagandistic the title is but your response proves why most people get bored with issues nowadays. Charge ahead and enjoy your battle Don Quixote

So, you don’t have an answer to his question?

Ben Lamb · Oct 11, 2017

rammac said:
Yup, nothing like silly rambling personal attacks to make your case. I was just pointing out how propagandistic the title is but your response proves why most people get bored with issues nowadays. Charge ahead and enjoy your battle Don Quixote

The title was the headline from the article. I didn't make it up. Did you read the article?

And apologies if you felt that was a personal attack. It wasn't.

But again, what exactly in the plans didn't you like? Why do you believe that we should throw out that kind of collaboration and go back to the drawing board?

onpoint · Oct 11, 2017

Good luck with the thoughtful and polite discourse-regarding-politics experiment.
Better hurry up and shoot something......

Sportsmen See Bad Precedent in Reopening Compromise to Protect Western Range Bird

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

New member

Banned

Well-known member

Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Member

Deleted member 20812

Guest

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads

Forum statistics

Share this page