Sportsmen in Idaho Want YOUR Help to Establish New National Monument!

[bigtex]

Yes you read that right. Numerous sportsmen and conversation groups in Idaho want you to pledge your support (sign the online petition) for the proposed Boulder-White Clouds National Monument in SE Idaho.

So why would sportsmen want a new federal designation for lands already managed by the federal govt? Many believe these federal lands are at risk for mineral development and ATV damage. Their proposed way to essentially halt this development would be establishing the Monument. By establishing the monument all the activities that are allowed today would be continued to be allowed, however new activities would not be allowed.

The proposed monument consists of 591,905 acres of mainly US Forest Service land and some BLM lands. The non-federal lands in the monument will continued to be owned and managed as their owner see's it. Map: https://www.dropbox.com/s/smiesi9lfewq82i/Proposed%20Monument%2036%20x%2048%20April%202014.pdf

From the "Sportsmen for Boulder-White Clouds" website:

"The Boulder-White Clouds are a sportsmen’s paradise.

We aim to keep it that way.

Idaho sportsmen have waited nearly a decade for Congress to preserve our hunting and fishing opportunities in Idaho’s Boulder-White Clouds. But after years of broken stalemate politics in Washington, D.C., enough is enough. It’s time to resolve Congress’s shortcomings before some of the best backcountry hunting and fishing in the country can be spoiled by new developments, new mines or irresponsible motorized use.  The clearest path to protect the Boulder White Clouds is via a National Monument proclamation. This is the best opportunity available to set existing management in stone to ensure this remarkable landscape remains the way it is today for future generations of sportsmen and women."

There are two ways to establish a monument; 1- Congress passing a bill 2- The president declaring the area a national monument, which is how nearly all monuments since 1906 have been established. As you can see, Congress has basically not passed a bill to establish the monument. This group, and others are now calling on the Secretary of Agriculture and Secretary of the Interior to urge the President to establish the monument.

Some of the proponents of the monument are former Idaho Governor Cecil Andrus, the Idaho Chukar Foundation, Ada County Fish and Game League, Idaho Wildlife Federation, and the National Wildlife Federation.

The Monument would be jointly managed by the USFS and BLM.

To read more about the monument, and to pledge your support, check out this website: http://www.sportsmenforbwc.org/

[JLS]

Good article about the proposed monument...

http://www.idahostatesman.com/2013/12/15/2928481/monument-idea-makes-custer-county.html

[bigtex]

Good article about the proposed monument...

http://www.idahostatesman.com/2013/12/15/2928481/monument-idea-makes-custer-county.html

The monument would be in two counties; Custer and Blaine. Blaine has passed an ordinance in favor of the monument. Custer has passed one in opposition.

As you read in the article the sticking point for Custer is $.

If we went simply by what our county officials tell us then the Metro vote last week would've passed in King County 

I personally would rather side with the numerous hunting groups that are in favor of this since the reason for creating the monument is protecting the land and it's resources. 

[Elkaholic daWg]

Sorry, but I can't support ANYthing Obama might change  with the stroke of a pen.

[bigtex]

Sorry, but I can't support ANYthing Obama might change  with the stroke of a pen.

The authority comes from the Antiquities Act which was enacted in 1906. Basically the law said that presidents can establish National Monuments without consent from Congress. To date, only 4 presidents since 1906 haven't established monuments. President's can't establish parks, preserves, recreation areas, etc but they can only do monuments. My point is this isn't something that is so rare that only Obama has done in comparison to some of his other executive orders 

[snowpack]

So there are tracts of private property within the boundaries of the current USFS/BLM lands that would still be private but within the boundaries of the proposed Monument.  If designated monument, then those properties could only be used for the purposes that they were prior to designation.  Is that how the monument status would work?

[bigtex]

So there are tracts of private property within the boundaries of the current USFS/BLM lands that would still be private but within the boundaries of the proposed Monument.  If designated monument, then those properties could only be used for the purposes that they were prior to designation.  Is that how the monument status would work?

No

Like I said, non-federal properties get to be used/managed as their owners see it. So if I owned a 100 acres in the monument I could create a mini-strip mine or build mansions on it if I want it. The monument designation only affects the federal lands.

[snowpack]

Ahh...okay.  So from the link, they are seeking monument status and then wanting to eventually pursue wilderness designation.  But they are only wanting help to get the monument part right now with this petition.  The next part would have to go through Congress.

[bigtex]

Ahh...okay.  So from the link, they are seeking monument status and then wanting to eventually pursue wilderness designation.  But they are only wanting help to get the monument part right now with this petition.  The next part would have to go through Congress.

Correct. Basically the only thing that the President can do on his own is establish the monument under the Antiquities Act, and that is what the petition is about. Any other designations would need to come from Congress.

However, they are not seeking wilderness designation, and it's because with the wilderness designation comes more restrictions. There would be no restrictions under the monument that aren't already in place. Essentially the monument would freeze the activities on the lands; those already in place get to stay and no new ones allowed.

Per the website: "A national monument designation would provide more flexibility in future management than official “wilderness.” Besides the core hunting and fishing values in the area, a monument would preserve the historic character of old mines and settlements in places like Boulder City and Livingston."

[SnakeEyes]

I am skeptical of this plan. I am no expert but read through the links posted. I have hunted Idaho some and mining is a big part of the economy for many small towns. I hate to lose hunting grounds to mining which I have but I understand these communities depend on these jobs to survive. I think we are being overrun by super greenie environmental groups and it is easy to convince the average person to follow along with these feel good issues. But then what happens to the jobs? It is a tough balancing act.

[bigtex]

I am skeptical of this plan. I am no expert but read through the links posted. I have hunted Idaho some and mining is a big part of the economy for many small towns. I hate to lose hunting grounds to mining which I have but I understand these communities depend on these jobs to survive. I think we are being overrun by super greenie environmental groups and it is easy to convince the average person to follow along with these feel good issues. But then what happens to the jobs? It is a tough balancing act.

I don't think the Idaho Chukar Foundation, Ada County Fish and Game League, and Idaho Wildlife Federation are "super greenie environmental groups" and they are the major supporters of this...

And remember, this wouldn't force out something that's already there. So it's not like if a mine was there it would be closed, it would simply prevent a mine from opening.

I personally see it as a way to protect the land and the activities occurring on those lands essentially forever, I've been in this area and it's a great part of the state.

[snowpack]

******

And remember, this wouldn't force out something that's already there. So it's not like if a mine was there it would be closed, it would simply prevent a mine from opening.

****

But this only applies to the federal lands portion.  The sport group wants to prevent mines and 'trophy houses' and developments and off-road recreation.  I don't know of developments or trophy homes that get built on federal property.  They say they want to prevent 'trophy homes that they feel are incompatible with the surrounding areas.  So, under monument status a private land owner can still build a trophy home...can't think how it would be built on fed property.  So what would monument status actually do, then?  Seems it would be a big win for the private landowners--adjacent fed minerals are off limits, so a mine would have to set up on the private property.  Or a developer could build homes and lodges on the private areas and the surrounding fed land would be no develop, so it would be like a big backyard for the private owners.  What's my disconnect?  Do they want the feds to acquire the private?

[bearpaw]

Good article about the proposed monument...

http://www.idahostatesman.com/2013/12/15/2928481/monument-idea-makes-custer-county.html

The monument would be in two counties; Custer and Blaine. Blaine has passed an ordinance in favor of the monument. Custer has passed one in opposition.

As you read in the article the sticking point for Custer is $.

If we went simply by what our county officials tell us then the Metro vote last week would've passed in King County 

I personally would rather side with the numerous hunting groups that are in favor of this since the reason for creating the monument is protecting the land and it's resources. 

In the statesman article it sounds like residents, hunters, and outfitters are concerned and not necessarily in favor. I question if these "claimed" hunting groups are legitimate hunting groups and not groups sponsored by environmental organizations. I did not see RMEF, Mule Deer Foundation, SCI, or Idaho for Wildlife on that list? In fact I've never heard of these groups. Is it possible people are being scammed? 

[Elkaholic daWg]

Good article about the proposed monument...

http://www.idahostatesman.com/2013/12/15/2928481/monument-idea-makes-custer-county.html

The monument would be in two counties; Custer and Blaine. Blaine has passed an ordinance in favor of the monument. Custer has passed one in opposition.

As you read in the article the sticking point for Custer is $.

If we went simply by what our county officials tell us then the Metro vote last week would've passed in King County 

I personally would rather side with the numerous hunting groups that are in favor of this since the reason for creating the monument is protecting the land and it's resources. 

In the statesman article it sounds like residents, hunters, and outfitters are concerned and not necessarily in favor. I question if these "claimed" hunting groups are legitimate hunting groups and not groups sponsored by environmental organizations. I did not see RMEF, Mule Deer Foundation, SCI, or Idaho for Wildlife on that list? In fact I've never heard of these groups. Is it possible people are being scammed? 

Jump into the pan froggie! And as I have said before I will support Nothing by this prez's executive order on either side of the fence, since that would make me a what? And just what is it that so few want to CONTROL so much?

And good for those 4 presidents who's number one priority wasn't "legacy building"

[fireweed]

Would they allow logging or thinning in the monument? What about fire prevention forestry?