Post by: bigtex on April 29, 2014, 03:49:03 PM
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 (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/ (http://www.sportsmenforbwc.org/)
Post by: JLS on April 29, 2014, 04:00:24 PM
http://www.idahostatesman.com/2013/12/15/2928481/monument-idea-makes-custer-county.html (http://www.idahostatesman.com/2013/12/15/2928481/monument-idea-makes-custer-county.html)
Post by: bigtex on April 29, 2014, 04:07:18 PM
Good article about the proposed monument...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.
http://www.idahostatesman.com/2013/12/15/2928481/monument-idea-makes-custer-county.html (http://www.idahostatesman.com/2013/12/15/2928481/monument-idea-makes-custer-county.html)
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 :chuckle:
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. :twocents:
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on April 30, 2014, 09:42:39 AM
Sorry, but I can't support ANYthing Obama might change with the stroke of a pen.
Post by: bigtex on April 30, 2014, 10:09:08 PM
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 :twocents:
Post by: snowpack on April 30, 2014, 10:23:45 PM
Post by: bigtex on April 30, 2014, 10:30:29 PM
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.
Post by: snowpack on April 30, 2014, 10:35:06 PM
Post by: bigtex on April 30, 2014, 10:42:46 PM
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."
Post by: SnakeEyes on April 30, 2014, 11:13:18 PM
Post by: bigtex on April 30, 2014, 11:33:04 PM
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.
Post by: snowpack on May 01, 2014, 10:14:13 AM
******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? :dunno:
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.
****
Post by: bearpaw on May 01, 2014, 10:42:38 AM
Good article about the proposed monument...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.
http://www.idahostatesman.com/2013/12/15/2928481/monument-idea-makes-custer-county.html (http://www.idahostatesman.com/2013/12/15/2928481/monument-idea-makes-custer-county.html)
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 :chuckle:
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. :twocents:
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? :dunno:
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on May 01, 2014, 10:54:34 AM
:yeah: 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?Good article about the proposed monument...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.
http://www.idahostatesman.com/2013/12/15/2928481/monument-idea-makes-custer-county.html (http://www.idahostatesman.com/2013/12/15/2928481/monument-idea-makes-custer-county.html)
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 :chuckle:
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. :twocents:
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? :dunno:
And good for those 4 presidents who's number one priority wasn't "legacy building"
Post by: fireweed on May 10, 2014, 07:52:09 AM
Post by: bigtex on May 10, 2014, 08:10:19 AM
Would they allow logging or thinning in the monument? What about fire prevention forestry?Like I've said before, anything that happens now will happen after monument status is reached. So whatever the policy is now in the area will remain the same. As a comparison, there are numerous active oil rigs in the Canyons of the Ancients National Monument in SW CO. Monument status, especially under BLM and USFS management isn't a end all, run it like a national park like many people think.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on May 10, 2014, 08:17:45 AM
:bash: :bash: :bash:Obamas pen :bash: :bash: :bash:
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on May 10, 2014, 08:27:35 AM
:yeah: Anymore it is hard to trust anyone !Good article about the proposed monument...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.
http://www.idahostatesman.com/2013/12/15/2928481/monument-idea-makes-custer-county.html (http://www.idahostatesman.com/2013/12/15/2928481/monument-idea-makes-custer-county.html)
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 :chuckle:
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. :twocents:
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? :dunno:
Post by: bigtex on May 10, 2014, 08:33:11 AM
Hunters and fishermen need to realize that National Monument status is one of the best things that can happen to their hunting and fishing grounds.
For well over a decade I’ve been hunting mule deer and elk on the BLM’s Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument, in North Central Montana, and it’s proven to be one of the most productive patches of ground that I’ve ever been lucky enough to traipse across.
Most Western hunters have suffered the heartbreaking experience of losing a favorite location to mismanagement, over-development, or ill-thought land swaps, and I love knowing that my favorite spot has an extra layer of protection through its status as a monument.
If you love to hunt and fish in the Boulder-White Clouds, I recommend that you support the push for monument status. Your chest freezer, and your kids, will thank you for it.
Steve with his Missouri River Breaks Natl Monument buck: (https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sportsmenforbwc.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F05%2FSteve-Rinella-Meat-Eater-1024x691.jpg&hash=7c4cd41eb99da4047841a1cb2f4cdb731dea07ea)
http://www.sportsmenforbwc.org/news/ (http://www.sportsmenforbwc.org/news/)
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on May 10, 2014, 09:34:36 AM
Post by: bearpaw on July 15, 2014, 02:12:35 PM
http://magicvalley.com/fish-and-game-commission-on-national-monument/pdf_2088d2cc-094b-11e4-bf7a-001a4bcf887a.html (http://magicvalley.com/fish-and-game-commission-on-national-monument/pdf_2088d2cc-094b-11e4-bf7a-001a4bcf887a.html)
Fish and Game Commission on National Monument
http://www.ktvb.com/news/Fish-and-Game-Commission-opposes-monument-266941001.html (http://www.ktvb.com/news/Fish-and-Game-Commission-opposes-monument-266941001.html)
Fish and Game Commission opposes national monument
by Associated Press
KTVB.COM
Posted on July 13, 2014 at 2:54 PM
SALMON, Idaho - The Idaho Fish and Game Commission is opposing the proposed Boulder-White Clouds National Monument for fear of losing control of wildlife management in the 592,000-acre area.
The decision this past week during a meeting in Salmon was unanimous.
The Times-News reports that the commission approved a letter opposing the monument to Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter and the Idaho Congressional Delegation.
It was supported by several area hunters but drew immediate criticism from sportsmen's groups who long have promoted the monument as a way to enhance habitat for hunting and fishing opportunities under Fish and Game control.
Commission Chairman Fred Trevey, of Lewiston, said without state sovereignty there won't be any meaningful hunting, fishing and trapping in the proposed monument area.
Post by: bigtex on July 15, 2014, 08:48:14 PM
Commission Chairman Fred Trevey, of Lewiston, said without state sovereignty there won't be any meaningful hunting, fishing and trapping in the proposed monument area.I wonder if Mr. Trevey hunts on the Craters of the Moon Natl Monument & Preserve in Idaho which is open to hunting. Kind of sounds like to him "monument" = no hunting.
Just a note. Designating monument status takes no authority away from the state :twocents:
Post by: dontgetcrabs on July 15, 2014, 09:19:28 PM
Just a note. Designating monument status takes no authority away from the state :twocents:
Maybe not yet. :tup:
Post by: bearpaw on July 16, 2014, 10:12:02 AM
Just a note. Designating monument status takes no authority away from the state :twocents:
Maybe not yet. :tup:
:yeah:
I expected Idahoans to be wiser than to ask for monument designation. Every year we read about the federal government trying to take away something from local people. All it takes is an executive order from BHO to erase any hunting on these monuments.
Post by: bigtex on July 16, 2014, 06:51:42 PM
So does the Idaho Fish and Game Commission speak for everyone in Idaho?:yeah:Just a note. Designating monument status takes no authority away from the state :twocents:Maybe not yet. :tup:
I expected Idahoans to be wiser than to ask for monument designation. Every year we read about the federal government trying to take away something from local people. All it takes is an executive order from BHO to erase any hunting on these monuments.
With that mindset I guess we all agree with the WDFW Wolf Plan because it was approved by the WA Fish and Wildlife Commission.
The article you mentioned Bearpaw even mentioned there are hunting/sportsmens groups on both sides of the fence regarding the monument.
Post by: grundy53 on July 16, 2014, 06:56:17 PM
IDFW is a little bit different then the WDFW. ;)So does the Idaho Fish and Game Commission speak for everyone in Idaho?:yeah:Just a note. Designating monument status takes no authority away from the state :twocents:Maybe not yet. :tup:
I expected Idahoans to be wiser than to ask for monument designation. Every year we read about the federal government trying to take away something from local people. All it takes is an executive order from BHO to erase any hunting on these monuments.
With that mindset I guess we all agree with the WDFW Wolf Plan because it was approved by the WA Fish and Wildlife Commission.
The article you mentioned Bearpaw even mentioned there are hunting/sportsmens groups on both sides of the fence regarding the monument.
sent from my typewriter
Post by: CAMPMEAT on July 16, 2014, 07:08:11 PM
Post by: bearpaw on July 20, 2014, 08:53:30 AM
IDFW is a little bit different then the WDFW. ;)So does the Idaho Fish and Game Commission speak for everyone in Idaho?:yeah:Just a note. Designating monument status takes no authority away from the state :twocents:Maybe not yet. :tup:
I expected Idahoans to be wiser than to ask for monument designation. Every year we read about the federal government trying to take away something from local people. All it takes is an executive order from BHO to erase any hunting on these monuments.
With that mindset I guess we all agree with the WDFW Wolf Plan because it was approved by the WA Fish and Wildlife Commission.
The article you mentioned Bearpaw even mentioned there are hunting/sportsmens groups on both sides of the fence regarding the monument.
sent from my typewriter
Cmon bigtex, I don't think anyone in any state can speak for every citizen in their state, I'm sure you must realize I was speaking in a generalized manner, I'm certain you would agree, as a whole Idahoans are much different than Washingtonians.
It's no secret I opposed to the WA wolf plan, yet it seems to be what the urban majority desired in Washington at the time it was developed. Only time and experience with wolves on the ground in W WA will change the wolf plan, we are stuck with it even though the bulk of people in NE WA (a minority) are opposed to it.
We talked about the supposed sports groups that supported monument status, I had never heard of most of them and suspect many could be fringe groups developed for certain goals. I do not remember seeing SCI, RMEF, MDF, IFW, or other traditional hunter groups on the list of supporters. :twocents: