National monument hunt banned

But wait I thought that Monuments are supposed to be good!

Sorry but how anyone can support the movement to lock up thousands of acres with a single pen stroke by a single person, is beyond me.

Simply put we will slowly see all national monuments lead to more restrictive and less public use.
 
first step on that slippery slope, Now maybe those say it can't happen will now realize now that it can happen and more then likely it will happen.

"I have found if you go the extra mile it's Never crowded".
>[Font][Font color = "green"]Life member of
>the MM green signature club.[font/]
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-17-17 AT 10:00AM (MST)[p]Don't worry, the boys will be along shortly to tell you how different this situation is. Just walk all the way into the room, it'll be ok.
 
>first step on that slippery slope,
>Now maybe those say it
>can't happen will now realize
>now that it can happen
>and more then likely it
>will happen.
>
>"I have found if you go
>the extra mile it's Never
>crowded".
>>[Font][Font color = "green"]Life member of
>>the MM green signature club.[font/]

I did a little look up on Dinosaur National Monument here in CO. It has never allowed hunting, shed hunting, fire wood gathering, etc. 20 years ago the the park rules and regulations were 16 pages. Today the Compendium of Rules has grown to 40+ pages. Major changes have included increased road closures, increased/restrict hiking, etc. All of the new items were about restriction to public. None of the items improved or increased access. Granted some are the result of new technology, but even then they are written to discourage public use.
 
Don't be confused boys. The Feds will take every liberty that we have if they can and the States will sell our public land to pay for pet projects instead of tightening their belts.

We're stuck in the middle and have no place to turn for relief.

Just my observations but the Feds will over-regulate and the States will sell. Neither is a very bright choice for the outdoorsman!

Zeke
 
I agree with Zeke.

We need to have in Federal and State office, people who will protect multiple use, and provide access for hunting and wildlife transplants, predator control, and habitat projects.

I think Trump and Zenke will help us out on the Federal control the next few years.

The liberals and environmental whacko's, who don't know the issues try to block access and provide large areas for predators to take place of hunting. (Let nature work things out) type of thinking.
 
I can't find anything else about this other than this one entity, outdoornewsservice.com. This seems like a big deal, why has nobody else picked this up? Why is there no press release about it?

I am not seeing a single other hunting organization pick this up. What gives?
 
All that article did was post the outdoornewsservice.com article.

I'm still wondering why something of this magnitude is not anywhere else on the web? Again, this would qualify as a big deal in my world.
 
hehehehehehehehe....... The devil yall knew.

I seem to remember telling yall the hand you hold will hold you down.

How many more of my prophecies are yall going to ignore before you start listening.
 
"its because its only a big deal to us that can see the problem." -cantkillathing

I would think that banning hunting on public land would be a big deal to any hunter. No hunting organizations would think this is a big deal? I see nothing out there from Big Game Forever. Nothing from Sportsman for Fish and Wildlife. What about Don Peay himself? Safari Club International, who was mentioned as working on this issue in the article linked, I've found nothing on their website. I could not find anything on the National Parks Service website itself on this.

What does Outdoor News Service know that nobody else in the world seems to know? I hope my gut is right when it tells me this is fake news. It would be a sad day for hunting to be shut down on public land, even if I never had planned to go hunt it myself. But until I start seeing more on this, I'm going to look at the "report" with a healthy measure of skepticism.
 
This is being done in California so it's no big deal. It's not like the National Park Service would try something like that in other States. Nothing to see here. Obama specifically made these monuments because he loves us gun toting hunters. Trust me.

Besides, it's still better to outlaw hunting than to see the land used by a bunch of greedy people in the spirit of multiple use. (sarcasm)
 
Apples to Oranges...

National Park Service management verse BLM management. Not even close to the same thing with entirely different Proclamation mandates.

If Utah politicians weren't so stupid, they could've sat at the table like Nevada did concerning Gold Butte and actually gotten hunting written into the Monument designation.

We've talked about it before, but one can either read one article and yell FIRE in a crowded theater or read Hal Herring's article on hunting in National Monuments to see the big picture and not a hand-picked fear-mongering of an unrelated management plan.

Grizzly
 
Vanilla,

Unfortunately, this is not fake news. The author (Jim Matthews) is a well respected pro-hunting journalist.
 
And to all the KNOW-IT-ALL PRICKS that Didn't Agree with What I've Been Saying Can KISS IT!

Maybe dude & NeMont Can CHIME in and Tell us again just How GAWD-DAMNED Great of a President this Obama is!

I've Told You about Government Over-Reach & You Pay No F'N Attention!

JFP!!!









[font color="blue"]It Was them Damn Lake Trout that took them Elk
out!:D[/font]
 
NVB Loses one of His Sheep Hunting Units!









[font color="blue"]It Was them Damn Lake Trout that took them Elk
out!:D[/font]
 
It would seem some people didn't read the legislation any better than people here read the article.

NPS policy is no hunting unless it is specified . it was not specified. this could have been avoided easily if someone with interest in hunting had read it and protested.

It doesn't take an Einstein to figure out what went wrong here and how to prevent it from happening again.

















Stay Thirsty My Friends
 
Cry cry cry, quit breeding like rabbits as that is by far the biggest contributer to the loss of hunting lands, but just wait, I see the house has fast tracked legislation to transfer and it sell the Westside public land. Thanks guys for voting the radical right to power
 
Do you have any idea how little area the world's population would occupy standing shoulder to shoulder? We're a long way from "overpopulation".
 
>Do you have any idea how
>little area the world's population
>would occupy standing shoulder to
>shoulder? We're a long way
>from "overpopulation".

You're Wrong DW!

We are more than over populated by a Certain Type!

Even a Few of them Types here at MM!











[font color="blue"]It Was them Damn Lake Trout that took them Elk
out!:D[/font]
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-17-17 AT 08:41PM (MST)[p]It's known that NPS policy is no hunting. it's ignorant to assume hunting would be considered wildlife management. hunting is recreation on 99.9% of public lands we just like to say it's management because it sounds better. are the sheep or chuckar causing problems? attacking hikers? over grazing? killing trees? or are hunters using them as a recreational resource?


You know what they say when you assume. so be damn sure you're covered.














Stay Thirsty My Friends
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-17-17 AT 09:04PM (MST)[p]Cheese and rice is that the flimsy argument all you clowns are gonna put, up parks vs blm? Really? REALLY? Fer f's sakes!
 
Dw, your remark about over population is remarkable. It's estamated that 60%,of the worlds wildlife will be gone by 2020.,,,, it's has little to do with standing shoulder to shoulder.
Look what has happened to the ocean fisheries. Look around, have you grown up with blinders on?



I can tell you from personal experience about all the negative changes I have seen in just the last 45,years or so. That's just where I have lived.

Are people really so blind as not to see that?

And now the pressure from the ultra wealthy to our political wonders about changing land ownership. And the sad thing is they may do it, because we have a political system in which the minority can do what the majority doesn't want, and there is nothing we can do about it.
All I can say is thank god I have enjoyed the freedom of public land in the past, as it may well be gone soon.
 
Weren't we all supposed to freeze to death by now? Weren't we supposed to cook to death by now? Wasn't Hillary supposed to win 98% to 1%? You keep believing these clowns if you'd like Piper I choose to use my own melon!
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-17-17 AT 09:47PM (MST)[p]Dispute the facts, ignore the silly predictions from the left. If you haven't learned, they're never right!
 
There are no predictions. It is what it is, Western wildlife populations have seen dramatically changes as has hunting itself. Most all of it has to do with the impact of humans.

Period. No ifs ands or buts, there are. no silly predictions. Just reality
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-18-17 AT 01:13AM (MST)[p]I could kill as many elk as I'd like every fall. We have multiple seasons and 9 million acres of public land. You could waste alot of time in places you couldn't kill an elk. Is it like the 50' and 60's when it comes to deer? Hell no! But it's the policies of the fools that lead us here! Burn some ground, kill some predators, plant some productive feed. Hell even you and I can agree on that?! It ain't rocket science! We don't have to reinvent the wheel!
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-18-17 AT 01:20PM (MST)[p]The more I try to read about this, the less worried I am for current national monuments, including the new one in Utah. I'd be surprised if people aren't hunting the Castle Mountain monument in question in the 2017 hunting season. Proceed with caution in buying off on this one hook, line, and sinker.

Nobody should read this as my approval for designating national monuments. I've already clearly stated I'm opposed to the action in principle and don't like that presidents have the power do unilaterally do so. And particularly with the Bears Ears I think the power (which I oppose) was misused.
 
I'm in favor of anything that enhances protection of public lands . hunting can be safegaurded by getting someone with 8th grade reading comprehension to review the proposal.


If a monument someday becomes a national park so be it. better a national park than a trailer park in my opinion.















Stay Thirsty My Friends
 
SCI is the entity claimed to be working on this according to the article that was posted here. I've searched their website (multiple times), there is nothing about this on there that I can find. There i still nothing from any other organizations, groups, or news agencies about the ban either. I've searched again on the Castle Mountains Monument page through the National Parks Service. Still nothing there in regards to rule amendments or press releases.

I'm sticking with my gut feeling on this one until more information comes forward.
 
I emailed Castle mountains to get some info straight form the horses mouth and asked them about hunting. Here is their reply:

Thank you for your interest in Castle Mountains National Monument and your question about the status of hunting in Castle Mountains National Monument.

Hunted is prohibited in the monument and was at the time the Presidential Proclamation was signed creating Castle Mountains NM. It was not a local decision to ban hunting, it is a federal regulation.

Castle Mountains National Monument was established under the Antiquities Act of 1906, by Presidential Proclamation. Under this proclamation, land that was managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) was transferred to National Park Service (NPS) management as the new national monument and to be managed under NPS rules and regulations, specifically the NPS Organic Act and Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations (36 CFR).

Specific to your question about hunting within National Monuments managed by the National Park Service, 36 CFR 2.2 Wildlife Protection applies. This section prohibits hunting in any NPS National Monument unless mandated by federal law (legislation).

In order to establish hunting in Castle Mountains, legislation would need to be passed which allows hunting within the monument.

I hope this answers your question, if not please respond back so that we may try to better answer you.

Sincerely,

Todd J. Suess
Superintendent
Castle Mountains National Monument.


txhunter58

venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)
 
Sounds like:

1) Hunting was already not allowed when Castle Mountains was designated a monument, and

2) Hunting will not be allowed in the new Bears Ears monument unless legislation is passed allowing it.

txhunter58

venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)
 
>Sounds like:
>
>1) Hunting was already not allowed
>when Castle Mountains was designated
>a monument, and
>
>2) Hunting will not be allowed
>in the new Bears Ears
>monument unless legislation is passed
>allowing it.
>
>txhunter58
>
>venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore
>I am)

You are incorrect. Your post references Monuments under NPS management, not BLM management (such as Gold Butte and Bears Ears).

Bears Ears is managed by BLM, not NPS, and wildlife is specifically managed by UDWR. Hunting is also listed as a historically important part of Bears Ears and thus maintaining hunting is listed as crucial under Monument Proclamation.

Please read the following report...

https://headwaterseconomics.org/wphw/wp-content/uploads/NatlMon_Permitted_Uses.pdf



Grizzly
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-21-17 AT 07:26AM (MST)[p]Thanks for the clarification Grizzly. As usual, anything managed by the government is so convoluted, it is hard to know what the scoop is.

But unless I am misreading him, hunting was banned in the Crystal mountains area even before the proclamation making it a monument

txhunter58

venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)
 
DW, there is a reason different Monuments are managed by different agencies as each agency has different mandates.

The NPS mandate is to avoid human influence to a point where humans are merely observers (see restrictions in National Parks). The BLM mandate is multiple-use and existing-use.

To compare them is inappropriate. It is best to use most comparable information, hence my link to National Monuments in western states under BLM management. If you'd rather ignore the best-available information and focus on an unrelated topic that supports your fears, that's fine too.

Grizzly
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-21-17 AT 10:32AM (MST)[p]Living next to a National Park for all my life I can tell you park policies change at the whim of whoever is the Superintendent of that park at the time. Years ago it seemed most were level headed working folk in favor of allowing the park to be used by the public. In recent years though it seems they are all power hungry empire builders who want to seal everything off and present their vision of the park to the public via little paths and metal railings that tell you where to walk, what to do, and what to look at.

None of the newer generation around here have been supportive of hunting/fishing, and it just gets worse with each new appointment....Good luck.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-21-17 AT 12:57PM (MST)[p]From the bears ears proclamation:


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


"For purposes of protecting and restoring the objects identified above, the Secretaries shall jointly prepare a management plan for the monument and shall promulgate such regulations for its management as they deem appropriate. The Secretaries, through the USFS and the BLM, shall consult with other Federal land management agencies in the local area, including the National Park Service, in developing the management plan."



Look familiar grizz?
 
Truth is neither you nor I know what the future holds for bears ears. But if we're honest, making it a monument makes it that much easier to ban hunting in the monument.
 
>Making it a
>monument makes it that much
>easier to ban hunting in
>the monument.

I appreciate the discussion, but this where we disagree. The Feds could ban hunting via any number of avenues (Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, any tool in the EPA tool shed, etc...), but what this definitely does do that no other tool can is guarantee it won't be extracted/mined/logged/grazed beyond recognition by new permits (currently issued permits are still honored) and makes it less likely to be involved in a future state-land-grab if one should happen.

You feel the Monument is more dangerous to access and hunting, I feel leaving it alone to the future whims of the Republican Party is a bigger threat. We just disagree and hopefully neither of us is proven right.

Grizzly
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-21-17 AT 08:36PM (MST)[p]We just disagree
>and hopefully neither of us
>is proven right.
>
>Grizzly


On this we can agree. Even though I'm not opposed to clean extraction and I believe it is possible to reclaim correctly after extraction. And if you believe they could ban it any number of ways why give them one more avenue?
 
Grizzly, you said "what this definitely does do that no other tool can is guarantee it won't be extracted/mined"

Please explain to me and anyone else reading this how every drop of oil on this planet is NOT going to be drilled up and used by me and you,,and our prodigy.

And before you answer look around where you are setting right now and understand that ALMOST every thing that you see, touch,hear,smell, and taste can not happen with out oil.

So unless you are going to live in a cave like a real Grizzly
you just need to except this simple fact.

Please don't feel bad, there are plenty of other people in this world that can not see that fact either.
 
So I have been thinking about this and have just one question for Grizzly! Just because hunting is written in, does not mean that it will be as it has always been! What would prevent the Feds from limiting hunting?

After all if they allowed a one day dove hunt they would still have hunting!
 
According to Fortune magazine (by all accounts, a conservative venue) there are now more jobs in the solar industry in the USA than coal, gas, and oil industries combined.

Just a few decades ago, the idea of fracking was still science-fiction from an economics standpoint. It took grants from the Federal government to allow private industry to develop a way to make it economically viable. (These were from Bush, but basically the same idea as Obama's green energy money).

Now Tesla is building a battery plant in Reno that is estimated to bring $100 Billion into the Nevada economy in the next 20 years. This technology didn't even exist a decade ago.

A century ago, we were burning coal to power trains and heat homes. Now, most kids have never seen a pile of coal in their whole lives

The belief that we've peaked in technology is so short-sighted that it barely deserves a response. Not to mention the pessimistic attitude that 'what we have today is as good as it gets' would make great world visionaries roll over in their graves.

Only 55 years ago, JFK challenged is to go to the moon and now we're planning a trip to Mars in the next decade.

From a conservation standpoint, Teddy Roosevelt knew that certain areas are worth protecting, and though he was maybe our country's most famous hunter, he knew some areas could be protected even if it meant a loss of hunting. And I'm thankful for his prescient viewpoint towards conservation every day.

I don't believe every drop of oil on earth will be used. And you better hope it isn't, because if your theory holds true then the day after we drill our last drop we will all have to move into those caves you speak of.

A few years ago we got our pictures developed at the pharmacy and we didn't even have the Internet; now you can't even buy film at the pharmacy, we order everything on Amazon and groceries will be delivered within an hour by a drone in the near future.

Some men and women will lead us into the future with ideas the rest of us can't even imagine yet. Most of us will just enjoy the ride... and the rest of us will declare the future holds nothing we don't have today.

I'm quite comfortable with my position and the knowledge our world will look much different three decades from now.

Thankfully, the Bears Ears won't.

Grizzly
 
elks96, nobody can guarantee that hunting will always be allowed anywhere.

-In most of our lifetimes, California, Massachusetts, and New York all voted for a Republican in the Presidential Election.

-Utah had Democrats for Governor from 1965-1985.

Both of those seem laughable now.

We just elected Donald Trump for President. Things change and we have no idea what our country will look like in thirty years. Utah could actually be overrun by liberals from the coasts that take over the Wildlife Board or something crazy. Things happen.

What if SITLA became anti-hunting? We'd be darn glad for all the Federal land we have, as hunting could be outlawed on State land (as camping already is on some surrounding states).

But if my choice is the loss of the area altogether to privatization or over-extraction (see 100 miles to the southeast in New Mexico) or the threat that the area will be protected but without hunting (think National Parks) then I'll take my chances with the latter.

I'd rather hike, but not hunt, than be locked out altogether.

Hunting rules can be changed in the future, but that goes both ways (ie. it could be banned and then reopened).

Privatization cannot ever be undone and the same politicians that fought Bears Ears are the ones that want to privatize all public land. They are the single biggest threat to hunting in Utah, not the environmentalists.

Grizzly
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-24-17 AT 07:50AM (MST)[p]
Are you being honest in this statement grizz?

"According to Fortune magazine (by all accounts, a conservative venue) there are now more jobs in the solar industry in the USA than coal, gas, and oil industries combined."

You may want to read the whole article.

http://fortune.com/2016/01/12/solar-jobs-boom/

Pay particular attention to this paragraph:

"However there are still many more workers employed in the oil and gas sectors in the U.S. than in the solar sector. Employment numbers for the oil industry are notoriously tricky to calculate because of the variety of direct and indirect jobs in the field. But by conservative numbers there are still millions of oil and gas jobs, many of them performing support activities for oil and natural gas operations, like exploration, excavation, well surveying and construction."



Let me know when they develope a battery that can drag 50k lbs across the country. Or a solar panel that enables a 747 to piggy back the shuttle across the country. We'll need oil and coal for a long time. Did you hear they're finding some oil deposits are regenerating themselves?

And remember the federal funding into fracking r&d proved a sound investment. How bout all that federal funding for green nrg r&d? Solyndra is the first example that comes to mind.
 
DW, it's called selective alternative facts. LOL thanks for shedding the truth DW.
 
Grizzly, no doubt we are living in a time of huge technical advances,, but none of those advances you mention above work with out oil.

Also no doubt humanity will have to dial our population and style of living way back when the oil age comes to and end.

Do you know who Haber Fritz was?
 
DW, that's good to see. It seemed like an unbelievable stat to me.

I could easily argue that the Tesla battery plant is an example of green energy R&D proving a concept there as well. Certainly there are the Solyndra's, which were more corruption than business investment, but the advancements in alternative energy are taking us places that seemed impossible only a decade ago.

For all any of us know, we could have small nuclear motors powering trucks and planes in the future. Hydrogen might make a comeback or solar technology combined with new batteries might make internal combustion motors seem like antiquated technology or reserved for air travel.

But, if ones argument is that technology will cease to improve the energy sector... I've got a bridge to sell you. Heck, even the oil companies spend billions on alternative energy research. They have to or ExxonMobil could go the way of Barnes & Noble and Blackberry.

Here's the macro-picture that is really concerning to me. Shouldn't every hunter want a clean earth? I bet every one of us would admit to hating those who litter in our forests. But for some reason, if it's one large piece of garbage, it's bad; but if it's billions of small air particles, it's okay. Every outdoorsman should be fighting for clean air and water, but it seems we're afraid of looking like an environmentalist or something so we say pollution is okay but litter is not. It's saddening to me.

PS. Thanks for the correction on green jobs. But let me say this, experts predict there will be 24 million green jobs by 2030. Let's revisit this discussion in a decade and see who employs more people, green or oil.

Grizzly
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-24-17 AT 06:42PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Jan-24-17 AT 06:39?PM (MST)

LAST EDITED ON Jan-24-17 AT 06:34?PM (MST)

>DW, that's good to see. It
>seemed like an unbelievable stat
>to me.
>
>I could easily argue that the
>Tesla battery plant is an
>example of green energy R&D
>proving a concept there as
>well. Certainly there are the
>Solyndra's, which were more corruption
>than business investment, but the
>advancements in alternative energy are
>taking us places that seemed
>impossible only a decade ago.
>
>
>For all any of us know,
>we could have small nuclear
>motors powering trucks and planes
>in the future. Hydrogen might
>make a comeback or solar
>technology combined with new batteries
>might make internal combustion motors
>seem like antiquated technology or
>reserved for air travel.
>
>But, if ones argument is that
>technology will cease to improve
>the energy sector... I've got
>a bridge to sell you.
>Heck, even the oil companies
>spend billions on alternative energy
>research. They have to or
>ExxonMobil could go the way
>of Barnes & Noble and
>Blackberry.
>
>Here's the macro-picture that is really
>concerning to me. Shouldn't every
>hunter want a clean earth?
>I bet every one of
>us would admit to hating
>those who litter in our
>forests. But for some reason,
>if it's one large piece
>of garbage, it's bad; but
>if it's billions of small
>air particles, it's okay. Every
>outdoorsman should be fighting for
>clean air and water, but
>it seems we're afraid of
>looking like an environmentalist or
>something so we say pollution
>is okay but litter is
>not. It's saddening to me.
>
>
>PS. Thanks for the correction on
>green jobs. But let me
>say this, experts predict there
>will be 24 million green
>jobs by 2030. Let's revisit
>this discussion in a decade
>and see who employs more
>people, green or oil.
>
>Grizzly

Yeah, let's see:

http://ranken-energy.com/Products Petroleum.htm.
(Sorry, but I can't get it to link. Google it!)

Note: Battery casings are made from petroleum. :)
 
Grizz it's good that we can share an intelligent discussion together, and maybe agree to disagree in the end. There's worse things in this life.
 
DW, agreed. It's always good to have intelligent point/counterpoint discussions that remain respectful.

Too many threads get ruined by a few bad apples that probably should have been thrown out years ago.

Have a good one.

Grizzly
 

Similar threads

JPickett
Guide refunds/discounts?
Replies
80
Views
2k
Joe2Kool
Joe2Kool
MADD hunts
Mexico DIY - Tags
Replies
0
Views
836
MADD hunts
MADD hunts
M
Hunt Alaska for Moose, Brown & Black Bear, Wolf and Wolverine
Replies
0
Views
415
mmakremote
M

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

2E6B7D07-9FD1-4D95-942C-8429F6C30C6E.jpeg
2017-10-04 17.28.26.png
7D768D65-1C6A-42AA-B4E0-0899903B978C.jpeg
IMG-4857.jpg
Fantastic Valles Caldera Bull
IMG_0084.jpg
san juan elk side view.jpg
IMG_0031.jpeg
6EBF436D-472A-40D3-A118-ACD37BFCBCD8.jpeg
95AC0DCD-B911-4ECF-BBD9-B846C8D91BE7.jpeg
95E40933-44DD-44EF-B277-1CC74756022A.jpeg
D527D482-9694-46CF-9809-449B0603EDBF.jpeg
Back
Top Bottom