BLM proposes new regulations

outdoorsdude

outdoorsdude

Active Member
Messages
366
Is anyone on top of the "New Proposal" being pushed by the current Director of the BLM?
A Proposed Rule by the Land Management Bureau
Our Land Office Commissioner, Stephanie Garcia Richard, just testified before Congressional Sub-committee on the "health of public lands ".

Are we hunters about to be thrown off BLM, along with the Ranchers?

(the link also gives the LIMITED comment period)
 
mossback50cal said:
I’m all for them limiting ranchers on blm.
Click to expand...

Well, its unfortunate some hunters feel this way. They run water all over arid country that would not have water on it otherwise. Nobody knows better than I that there are ranchers that anti hunter, and that is unfortunate as well.
Old proverb, your enemies enemy is your friend.

I hear what ranchers say about hunters and I hear what hunters say about ranchers. I have been hunting public land for a long time now. I have seen bad actors on both sides, but, no where near as many as some people would have you believe.
 
outdoorsdude said:
Is anyone on top of the "New Proposal" being pushed by the current Director of the BLM?
A Proposed Rule by the Land Management Bureau
Our Land Office Commissioner, Stephanie Garcia Richard, just testified before Congressional Sub-committee on the "health of public lands ".

Are we hunters about to be thrown off BLM, along with the Ranchers?

(the link also gives the LIMITED comment period)
Click to expand...

Garcia Richard is a fool and doesn't carry any clout when it comes to BLM in WY, MT, and UT. The rule would have to apply to all BLM, not just NM.
 
sagebrush said:
I made a comment and asked them to address the wild horse issue. If a few thousand would comment on horses, they might have to at least acknowledge there is a problem.
Click to expand...
I’m ok with a rancher running cattle on BLM to raise beef. I’ve hunted BLM and Forest for a long time and never have had any trouble with a rancher. I agree about the horses.
 
yotebuster17 said:
If they’d just start charging actual realistic rent rates for grazing leases and then using that money to help improve the land that would be a good system. The current system of govt welfare in the name of grazing leases for next to nothing is broken.
Click to expand...
THIS! THIS RIGHT HERE. I know there are some great ranchers out there. But there are even more who destroy the land, and act like they own it. Have been chased off of blm a lot of times by ranchers. Have called sheriffs and game and fish, all to be told “just to avoid any issues, is there anywhere else you can go hunting?” THAT’S my issue with all of it. Instead of regulating it like they should, they bend over backwards for the ranchers. How many times have you seen blm that used to be abundant with quail, deer and other game animals grazed bare by cattle? I know I’ve seen it a lot. Some do great things for the land, and those ones I appreciate. But, there are even more who are there that don’t care one bit about it, only about the profit they get from it. Maybe it’s just around my area, but that’s hose it send to me.
 
Would rather see control or elimination of feral horses on public lands. Like stated above,I have met some good ranchers helping wildlife with water sources and predator control. And some real A-Holes. Like is a balance.
 
Maybe I'm way off base but is there anything stopping them from leasing the hunting rights on a piece of BLM?
 
DaveD said:
Maybe I'm way off base but is there anything stopping them from leasing the hunting rights on a piece of BLM?
Click to expand...
I could see this happening as they ( fed govt ) come up with more ways to raise money, those hunters want to burn gas driving around all the "free" BLM land, access/use permits required. $100/200 a year per vehicle, free if it is electric. This along with paid signing up for daily " use time " could be possible down the road, like an online Calander for a big block of BLM.
 
Well Dave,
"The proposed rule would also create a new conservation leasing program administered through FLPMA. Under the proposed rule, BLM could authorize conservation leases in order to restore, enhance, or mitigate degradation of public lands. Such leases could be issued to individuals, businesses, non-governmental organizations, or Tribal governments. Conservation leases issued for the purposes of restoration or protection of public lands would be issued for a maximum term of ten years, while leases issued for mitigation would be issued “for a term commensurate with the impact it is mitigating” and would be reviewed every five years. Once a lease is issued, BLM would not be able to authorize any other uses of leased lands unless those uses are consistent with the authorized conservation use. BLM has clarified that a conservation lease would not override any other valid existing rights, such as a grazing permit. However, any uses authorized after a conservation lease is already in place will need to be compatible with the conservation use."

Non-Governmental Organization -- Anti-hunting ?
 
The American Bar Association, distills the proposal down to these four points:
" The proposed rule includes four major changes to the existing regulatory scheme utilized by the BLM. The first is the placement of “conservation” on equal footing with the other multiple uses that BLM land is managed for by clarifying that conservation is a “use” under FLPMA. Conservation in the context of the proposed rule encompasses management of renewable resources designed to achieve desired future conditions through protection, restoration, and any other types of planning, permitting, and program decision-making. The second is authorizing the use of conservation leases to allow other individuals to dedicate BLM lands to conservation. The third alteration is a revision of the existing regulations that provided a framework for establishing Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC): the new rule prioritizes the creation and management of these areas. The fourth change expands the framework for making land health assessments to allow for informed management decisions on BLM lands: the existing regulation limits land health assessments to grazing lands only. " (bold is my emphasis)
 
yotebuster17 said:
If they’d just start charging actual realistic rent rates for grazing leases and then using that money to help improve the land that would be a good system. The current system of govt welfare in the name of grazing leases for next to nothing is broken.
Click to expand...

What do you suppose they would charge for hunting?
 
NMPaul said:
Well, its unfortunate some hunters feel this way. They run water all over arid country that would not have water on it otherwise. Nobody knows better than I that there are ranchers that anti hunter, and that is unfortunate as well.
Old proverb, your enemies enemy is your friend.

I hear what ranchers say about hunters and I hear what hunters say about ranchers. I have been hunting public land for a long time now. I have seen bad actors on both sides, but, no where near as many as some people would have you believe.
Click to expand...
Actually the ranchers where I hunt bring their cows in drain the natural tanks and turn off the water system when they leave. There's literally not a drop left for the wildlife. How does that help?
 
JACOB2006 said:
Actually the ranchers where I hunt bring their cows in drain the natural tanks and turn off the water system when they leave. There's literally not a drop left for the wildlife. How does that help?
Click to expand...
I have seen where hunters have cut fences, left gates open, shot holes in tanks, cut water lines. It doesn't happen very often and the vast majority of hunters dont do that. This applies to ranchers as well. We can always find a bad actor and spend all our time talking about them.
I am not talking about either you or moss back here, but, what I have seen is the hunters that have spent the least amount of time in the field spewing the most anti rancher rhetoric. Why? I think we know why.
 
Ranchers use water and gates to move livestock naturally. I have gone behind them once cattle have moved on opening water vales on public ground to fill tanks for wildlife. Not once have I ever been badgered by a rancher for doing so as long as the water is public and the tank is too without interfering with there operations. The majority of ranchers do more for public land than any federal agency.
 
DaveD said:
Maybe I'm way off base but is there anything stopping them from leasing the hunting rights on a piece of BLM?
Click to expand...
They already “lease” the hunting rights to outfitters, in Colorado anyway. 1.5% of their gross receipts to hunt it, gives them vehicle access where the general public can’t.
 
Reading the proposal, it sounds all-so-reasonable of course. Who would be against conservation of public lands?

But like anything the federal government does, it isn't the broad policy or framework that is the problem. It's the implementation that will affect you. When you elevate one concern ("conservation")- it MUST impact other concerns, or it has no impact. It is a zero-sum game, like it or not.

They even realize this to the point they are concerned about calling it "conservation leases". They may call it something else to reduce anxiety over the new focus.

When the government uses language bordering on crisis- watch out. COVID comes to mind. For this policy, they invoke all the crisis buzzwords; degradation, fragmentation, increased disturbances, drought, fires, sustainability- and of course, the coup de grâce, Climate Change. With all those crisis challenges, one might worry that "conservation" will mean less access, less use, and ultimately less hunting.

Or I could just be worrying over nothing :)
 
HikeHunt61 said:
Reading the proposal, it sounds all-so-reasonable of course. Who would be against conservation of public lands?

But like anything the federal government does, it isn't the broad policy or framework that is the problem. It's the implementation that will affect you. When you elevate one concern ("conservation")- it MUST impact other concerns, or it has no impact. It is a zero-sum game, like it or not.

They even realize this to the point they are concerned about calling it "conservation leases". They may call it something else to reduce anxiety over the new focus.

When the government uses language bordering on crisis- watch out. COVID comes to mind. For this policy, they invoke all the crisis buzzwords; degradation, fragmentation, increased disturbances, drought, fires, sustainability- and of course, the coup de grâce, Climate Change. With all those crisis challenges, one might worry that "conservation" will mean less access, less use, and ultimately less hunting.

Or I could just be worrying over nothing :)
Click to expand...

Gov't excels at making up fairy-tale realities.
 
NMPaul said:
I have seen where hunters have cut fences, left gates open, shot holes in tanks, cut water lines. It doesn't happen very often and the vast majority of hunters dont do that. This applies to ranchers as well. We can always find a bad actor and spend all our time talking about them.
I am not talking about either you or moss back here, but, what I have seen is the hunters that have spent the least amount of time in the field spewing the most anti rancher rhetoric. Why? I think we know why.
Click to expand...
It may have something to do with where we are located. And where we hunt. I’ve had some very bad experiences with ranchers. You are right there are some bad apples in the hunting community also.
 
Sako76 said:
They already “lease” the hunting rights to outfitters, in Colorado anyway. 1.5% of their gross receipts to hunt it, gives them vehicle access where the general public can’t.
Click to expand...
Interesting. I’m not familiar with that around here. How is the 1.5% assessed? Is it a condition of the outfitters license?

I’m not aware of any accessible* BLM that I can’t hunt. State trust Lands ( “school sections”) are a different matter.

* If it’s landlocked and there is no public access point, I’m unaware of any statute requiring private landowners to allow access thru their land to “outfitters” on BLM land.

Please clarify.
 
Bluehair said:
Interesting. I’m not familiar with that around here. How is the 1.5% assessed? Is it a condition of the outfitters license?

I’m not aware of any accessible* BLM that I can’t hunt. State trust Lands ( “school sections”) are a different matter.

* If it’s landlocked and there is no public access point, I’m unaware of any statute requiring private landowners to allow access thru their land to “outfitters” on BLM land.

Please clarify.
Click to expand...
1.5 or 3% or gross receipts from hunts. Allows outfitters to drive on and hunt BLM. You can hunt the BLM, you may or may not be able to drive on it.
 
Sako76 said:
1.5 or 3% or gross receipts from hunts. Allows outfitters to drive on and hunt BLM. You can hunt the BLM, you may or may not be able to drive on it.
Click to expand...
So, you’re saying that outfitters are allowed vehicle access to BLM land that I am not? Really?
 
Sako76 said:
1.5 or 3% or gross receipts from hunts. Allows outfitters to drive on and hunt BLM. You can hunt the BLM, you may or may not be able to drive on it.
Click to expand...
so....1.5 or 3?....that is a decent spread. I've never heard of such a deal....Outfitters in Cali are at quite a disadvantage than the Joe Blow hunter on access and camping.
 
I want responsible management but will never support loosing multiple use on the BLM or Forest Service. One the most insightful programs in the system.
 
Homer said:
so....1.5 or 3?....that is a decent spread. I've never heard of such a deal....Outfitters in Cali are at quite a disadvantage than the Joe Blow hunter on access and camping.
Click to expand...
Yeah…I want all the Colorado outfitters on this board to chime in about this special fee they pay to get the keys to the kingdom.
 
nmbighorn said:
Forest Service has taken the motto "land of many uses" off already...
Click to expand...
It may have but has Congress changed its “charter” for existence? When Congress folds up the bureaucracy…….. and its concept, then I’ll worry.

The bureau can fly any flag it wants to but it’s still bound by multiple use.
 
Sako76 said:
Yep! I believe it is 3%. FOIA BLM if you don’t believe it.
Click to expand...
Yeah, as I thought. So yes, for the record I’m calling BS on this sliding scale gross receipts tax payable to God knows who. A permit fee, sure.

BTW, I’m smack in the middle of a bunch of federal lands consisting of primarily BLM and National Monuments (administered by the BLM). Hell, my only local cop is a BLM LEO. Hardly a day goes by that I’m not kicking around on federal lands.

I still think you are talking about State Trust Lands.
 
Bluehair said:
Yeah, as I thought. So yes, for the record I’m calling BS on this sliding scale gross receipts tax payable to God knows who. A permit fee, sure.

BTW, I’m smack in the middle of a bunch of federal lands consisting of primarily BLM and National Monuments (administered by the BLM). Hell, my only local cop is a BLM LEO. Hardly a day goes by that I’m not kicking around on federal lands.

I still think you are talking about State Trust Lands.
Click to expand...

No on State Trust lands. It’s 3%, I made a mistake on the 1.5%, no sliding scale. This is for outfitters making money and wanting to hunt Federal Land.

It is my understanding (from the outfitter) that outfitters can not hunt State Trust Land in Colorado! When we drive through it we can not stop to glass or get out and load our rifles.
 
Sako76 said:
No on State Trust lands. It’s 3%, I made a mistake on the 1.5%, no sliding scale. This is for outfitters making money and wanting to hunt Federal Land.

It is my understanding (from the outfitter) that outfitters can not hunt State Trust Land in Colorado! When we drive through it we can not stop to glass or get out and load our rifles.
Click to expand...
The leaseholder of the State Trust Lands “owns” the hunting rights on his leaseholding. They can allow who they choose to hunt it.

State Trust Lands really piss me off. Sorry about the off topic posts. Public lands are one of my triggers. :)
 
I think Bluehair may be mincing terms and conditions.
For National Forest and BLM, to conduct Outfitting/Guiding on those public lands there is a application and fee, usually ~$115. Then depending how much income the Outfitter/Guide makes under that permit they pay 3% of the total, less the original fee. But that permit doesn't give them the right to drive on NF or BLM any differently than the general public can. If they are crossing private to get to said NF or BLM they'd need to either use public access such as a County Road, or they'd need to negotiate trespass fee with the landowner.
So I suppose there may be be instances where an Outfitter/Guide pays a landowner to drive thru private, then drives on NF/BLM to hunt and a general hunter who doesn't have driving access thru the private but only has hiking access wouldn't be able to drive and hunt on the NF/BLM, but it has nothing to do with the permit.
 
smarba said:
I think Bluehair may be mincing terms and conditions.
For National Forest and BLM, to conduct Outfitting/Guiding on those public lands there is a application and fee, usually ~$115. Then depending how much income the Outfitter/Guide makes under that permit they pay 3% of the total, less the original fee. But that permit doesn't give them the right to drive on NF or BLM any differently than the general public can. If they are crossing private to get to said NF or BLM they'd need to either use public access such as a County Road, or they'd need to negotiate trespass fee with the landowner.
So I suppose there may be be instances where an Outfitter/Guide pays a landowner to drive thru private, then drives on NF/BLM to hunt and a general hunter who doesn't have driving access thru the private but only has hiking access wouldn't be able to drive and hunt on the NF/BLM, but it has nothing to do with the permit.
Click to expand...
It appears to me that you meant to say Sako76....not bluehair...
 
smarba said:
So I suppose there may be be instances where an Outfitter/Guide pays a landowner to drive thru private, then drives on NF/BLM to hunt and a general hunter who doesn't have driving access thru the private but only has hiking access wouldn't be able to drive and hunt on the NF/BLM, but it has nothing to do with the permit.
Click to expand...

Which is illegal for the outfitter/guide to do.
 
I find it concerning that the feds have a vested interest in making “outfitted” hunts more expensive. Who’s going to get the permits, the cheap guy or the expensive guy?

I don’t trust the goobermints discretion.
 
If the BLM adds "conservation" as an equal footing mandate and then enters public-private leasing... the income from any 'outfitter' is going to be pennies to the dollar.
According to Forbes, The Nature Conservancy had a "Total Revenue: $1.8B" last year.
According to Zippia, Defenders of Wildlife peak revenue was $39.1M in 2022.

One ESA filed for Wolf and Grizzly "Corridors" (that our Congressional Senators and Representatives in NM support) with the money and marketing these NGO's have to throw around and how will hunting change forever?
 
Smarba is saying what I have said to a certain extent! My outfitter either owns or leases the private land that connects to the BLM so he drives on the BLM from land he owns or leases, I don’t know if that is legal but he is a stickler for the rules.

The State School land isn’t leased by the outfitter and it is open to the public for hunting, he told me he can not outfit on it.

Are there still any doubters on 3% of outfitters gross receipts to outfit on BLM or Forest Service land? Outfitters are making money hunting on Federal land, they should pay a small fee just like ranchers do to graze cattle.
 
Sako76 said:
Smarba is saying what I have said to a certain extent! My outfitter either owns or leases the private land that connects to the BLM so he drives on the BLM from land he owns or leases, I don’t know if that is legal but he is a stickler for the rules.

The State School land isn’t leased by the outfitter and it is open to the public for hunting, he told me he can not outfit on it.

Are there still any doubters on 3% of outfitters gross receipts to outfit on BLM or Forest Service land? Outfitters are making money hunting on Federal land, they should pay a small fee just like ranchers do to graze cattle.
Click to expand...

If roads are closed to public access, they are closed to private access as well.

Admin use is different, as in a grazing lease or mineral development/production. Outfitting is neither.
 
My apologies: I mixed up Bluehair and Sako's comments. But I stand by that a BLM permit to an Outfitter/Guide allows them to conduct business (hunt) there. BLM rules allow driving on established roads (i.e. 2-track). So if the O/G has arranged access thru (or in Sako's case, sounds like he owns the private), then that O/G could legally drive on the BLM whereas Joe-public hunter who doesn't have legal access to drive thru private would be limited to hiking any public access to the BLM and hunting the BLM on foot.
And yes, to conduct business (G/O) on NF or BLM, the G/O must pay 3%. Which depending on how much he's charging his clients may or may not be very much $.
My concern with pending new BLM rules is what happens when libs-for-wolves decides to lease the land to protect their furry friends? The income BLM makes from grazing and/or hunting may not be all that much. So if libs-for-wolves coughs up a little more $, they would be able to eliminate hunting on that land? So now the ability to control hunting on public BLM goes to the highest bidder? Or similarly, what if an O/G is willing to pony up $ for exclusive use of the land? Now it's only the rich that can hunt public BLM?
 
smarba said:
My apologies: I mixed up Bluehair and Sako's comments. But I stand by that a BLM permit to an Outfitter/Guide allows them to conduct business (hunt) there. BLM rules allow driving on established roads (i.e. 2-track). So if the O/G has arranged access thru (or in Sako's case, sounds like he owns the private), then that O/G could legally drive on the BLM whereas Joe-public hunter who doesn't have legal access to drive thru private would be limited to hiking any public access to the BLM and hunting the BLM on foot.
And yes, to conduct business (G/O) on NF or BLM, the G/O must pay 3%. Which depending on how much he's charging his clients may or may not be very much $.
My concern with pending new BLM rules is what happens when libs-for-wolves decides to lease the land to protect their furry friends? The income BLM makes from grazing and/or hunting may not be all that much. So if libs-for-wolves coughs up a little more $, they would be able to eliminate hunting on that land? So now the ability to control hunting on public BLM goes to the highest bidder? Or similarly, what if an O/G is willing to pony up $ for exclusive use of the land? Now it's only the rich that can hunt public BLM?
Click to expand...
They don’t make very much for grazing. In my opinion they don’t charge nearly enough for that. I agree with everything you said. There needs to be laws set that don’t involve money. We pay for that land in our taxes and our license fees. We deserve access and the right to make decisions too.
 
Sako76 said:
Well roadrunner the outfitter has been driving on the BLM for 40 years (and paying to outfit on it)!
Click to expand...

Well Sako76, if the roads are closed to public, it ain't legal.

A kid never caught cheating on a test don't mean it's a legit action...
 
Sako76 said:
Smarba is saying what I have said to a certain extent! My outfitter either owns or leases the private land that connects to the BLM so he drives on the BLM from land he owns or leases, I don’t know if that is legal but he is a stickler for the rules.

The State School land isn’t leased by the outfitter and it is open to the public for hunting, he told me he can not outfit on it.

Are there still any doubters on 3% of outfitters gross receipts to outfit on BLM or Forest Service land? Outfitters are making money hunting on Federal land, they should pay a small fee just like ranchers do to graze cattle.
Click to expand...
The public is not allowed to hunt state trust land unless the leaseholder grants permission. They can lock it up with an outfitter if they wish, keep it for themselves or whatever, but it’s not open to public access. I stare at a school section well within creedmore range from my mountain place, and I know the leaseholder fairly well.
 
Last edited:
smarba said:
My apologies: I mixed up Bluehair and Sako's comments. But I stand by that a BLM permit to an Outfitter/Guide allows them to conduct business (hunt) there. BLM rules allow driving on established roads (i.e. 2-track). So if the O/G has arranged access thru (or in Sako's case, sounds like he owns the private), then that O/G could legally drive on the BLM whereas Joe-public hunter who doesn't have legal access to drive thru private would be limited to hiking any public access to the BLM and hunting the BLM on foot.
And yes, to conduct business (G/O) on NF or BLM, the G/O must pay 3%. Which depending on how much he's charging his clients may or may not be very much $.
My concern with pending new BLM rules is what happens when libs-for-wolves decides to lease the land to protect their furry friends? The income BLM makes from grazing and/or hunting may not be all that much. So if libs-for-wolves coughs up a little more $, they would be able to eliminate hunting on that land? So now the ability to control hunting on public BLM goes to the highest bidder? Or similarly, what if an O/G is willing to pony up $ for exclusive use of the land? Now it's only the rich that can hunt public BLM?
Click to expand...
My problem with these federal leases are they are “legacy properties” that get passed down thru the generations. I looked into bidding on my nearby school section. No dice.

My selfish opinion is they should be re-bid more frequently.

Of course there should be some kind of subjective awarding criteria that values food security over wolves (for example).
 
Bluehair said:
My selfish opinion is they should be re-bid more frequently.
Click to expand...
I have the same thoughts but then I understand way they can’t…….. if they ever expect responsible husbandry by the leaser. Seems like there’s never a perfect process that satisfies all the interested parties.
 
Again, smarba and me have it right, roadrunner still doesn’t get it. I see 20+ hunters hunting the State School land every year and being checked by CO’s and no tickets written. Some of the hunters camp on the school land.
 
Sako76 said:
Again, smarba and me have it right, roadrunner still doesn’t get it. I see 20+ hunters hunting the State School land every year and being checked by CO’s and no tickets written. Some of the hunters camp on the school land.
Click to expand...

Nowhere ever did I say an outfitter couldn't drive on a road open but closed off by private. I did say if the road was closed to public - which means it's not part of the total road density both the BLM and USFS goes by - then the outfitter cannot drive on it regardless if it connects to private. Being deemed closed isn't by the landowner. It's deemed closed by the managing agency.

If a landowner closes off public access across their private, and the public road on public ground is part of the total in use road density, the managing agency can and most times will reroute the road to keep it open. If there is an easement in place, the landowner cannot close off the road.

Service roads used for admin use are not used as part of the road density assessment for public use.

It would do you well, Sako, to better understand how land management agencies do things and state school sections are not federal and have their own management models. State Game agencies work deals and lease state lands for hunting purposes, that's why CO's don't ticket.

But what the HELL yeah F'N right do I know, I just don't get...
 
roadrunner, I’m pretty sure you don’t get it! You are the one that said the outfitter couldn’t drive on BLM. BH said you can’t hunt School land unless the lessee granted permission, I was pointing out that not all school land is leased and is open for public hunting. I know several different people who hunt the school land and it is not leased! The outfitter told me he couldn’t outfit on the school land open to public hunting and that was the end of it.

As for knowing how agencies work, I worked for a Federal Agency for 37 years interpreting regulations, how about you?

Another poster confirmed what I said and you still don’t believe it! I guess you’re F’N right!
 
Last edited:
Colorado; New Mexico may be different.

Public access on trust land | State Land Board

The State Land Board owns 2.8 million acres of land in Colorado. (That’s four percent of our state’s 66.5 million acres.) This land -- called trust land -- is not open to the public. The public can access trust land only when the property is leased for public recreation.
slb.colorado.gov slb.colorado.gov
 
Sako76 said:
roadrunner, I’m pretty sure you don’t get it! You are the one that said the outfitter couldn’t drive on BLM. BH said you can’t hunt School land unless the lessee granted permission, I was pointing out that not all school land is leased and is open for public hunting. I know several different people who hunt the school land and it is not leased! The outfitter told me he couldn’t outfit on the school land open to public hunting and that was the end of it.

As for knowing how agencies work, I worked for a Federal Agency for 37 years interpreting regulations, how about you?

Another poster confirmed what I said and you still don’t believe it! I guess you’re F’N right!
Click to expand...
He has never been wrong. Even when he might have been, he convinced himself he was wrong about being wrong.
 
Sako76 said:
roadrunner, I’m pretty sure you don’t get it! You are the one that said the outfitter couldn’t drive on BLM. BH said you can’t hunt School land unless the lessee granted permission, I was pointing out that not all school land is leased and is open for public hunting. I know several different people who hunt the school land and it is not leased! The outfitter told me he couldn’t outfit on the school land open to public hunting and that was the end of it.

As for knowing how agencies work, I worked for a Federal Agency for 37 years interpreting regulations, how about you?

Another poster confirmed what I said and you still don’t believe it! I guess you’re F’N right!
Click to expand...

I said an outfitter can't drive on a road that's closed, which is true. A landowner can't close a road. A landowner can close off access to the portion across their land, but they cannot close a road. If an outfitter pays for access and then continues to drive, then that road isn't closed now is it. If the BLM closed the road and they continue to drive, then that's a problem, isn it.

This really isn't that difficult to understand and it sounds like you're confused on what a closed road really is.

I full well get it, and it shows you worked gov't for 37 years. Regulations aren't that difficult to interpret. Nice resume though...
 
Since this is a NM forum, I assume we are discussing rules in NM. I have read permits issued to Outfitters to operate on BLM in NM. Nowhere does it state "Outfitter is only allowed to use roads on BLM that are accessible by the general public" or any such. There is no language about roads what so ever. Therefore, standard BLM rules apply. BLM has rules about where one can drive (basically 2-tracks OK, but cross-country/off-road is not). So if an Outfitter has a permit to operate on BLM and has driving access thru private, then they could drive on BLM. It is what it is.
 
This is all one needs to know, straight from the article: "Fortunately for us, President Biden appointed New Mexico’s own Deb Haaland to run the Interior Department..."

We are so, so screwed...
 
BUGLEnmIN said:
She’s the best in the nation HANDS DOWN!
Click to expand...
She seems to have the common sense of a farmer/rancher, but can she herd the artificial intelligence, the medical, the space and the military scientists, etc . Food production drives the world and food access has and always will be the end all for power and control. Bill Gates has come to recognize that……. he’s making his play to control it. But I’m not sure the other would be power brokers do and she’ll have to beat them at the game to become more than another one who tried. Would that the magic of Margaret Thatcher lands on her.
 
Much as I love you guys, elections are pure theatrics.
Bill gates is a piece to a much bigger puzzle. That’s the reason he’s buying up all the land.
 

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

Bookcliffs 1978
20160129_125411.jpg
Big Buck for 12pointer!
D137ED25-28BB-404A-A973-42397A6A186E.jpeg
Screenshot_20230719_103003_Gallery.jpg
C7046360-C547-4744-B3C3-928978E10249.jpeg
20220916_080431.jpg
51E26DF3-4437-463B-8C16-674C60276E2B.jpeg
FBE82ED3-732C-476A-BAA9-DEE729EED0FA.jpeg
982287C6-2442-4286-AEA8-8A308A958B45.jpeg
20220319_114816.jpg
20190716_160058_Original.jpeg

New Mexico Guides & Outfitters

H & A Outfitters

Private and public land hunts since 1992 for elk, mule deer, sheep, pronghorn, black Bear & lion hunts.

505 Outfitters

Public and private land big game hunts. Rifle, muzzleloader and archery hunts available. Free Draw Application Service!

Sierra Blanca Outfitters

Offering a wide array of hunt opportunities and putting clients in prime position to bag a trophy.

Urge 2 Hunt

Hunts in New Mexico on private ranches and remote public land in the top units. Elk vouchers available.

Mangas Outfitters

Landowner tags available! Hunt big bulls and bucks. Any season and multiple hunt units to choose from.

Back
Top Bottom