AZ G&F - concerns over potential national monument
- Thread starter cmc
- Start date
LopeHunter
Well-known member
Let me see if I understand this. A political leader is bypassing the process of consensus building to unilaterally dictate a change to something inside a state. Hmmmm, not exactly a new tactic lately. "Murica.
Federal Register
Home > Federal Register > Executive Orders >George W. Bush Executive Orders Disposition Tables
Executive Orders
Administration of George W. Bush (2001-2009)
Disposition of Executive orders signed by President George W. Bush:
291 Total Executive orders Issued
NOTE: The total number of Executive orders issued for each administration includes number-and-letter designated orders, such as 9577-A, 9616-A, etc.
You are correct, this is not a new tactic.
Home > Federal Register > Executive Orders >George W. Bush Executive Orders Disposition Tables
Executive Orders
Administration of George W. Bush (2001-2009)
Disposition of Executive orders signed by President George W. Bush:
291 Total Executive orders Issued
NOTE: The total number of Executive orders issued for each administration includes number-and-letter designated orders, such as 9577-A, 9616-A, etc.
You are correct, this is not a new tactic.
Last edited:
jryoung
Well-known member
Not a new tactic, and in this case it's been practiced for over 100 years and we've been blessed with great public lands because of it. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiquities_Act
I'm curious about the background on this? Monuments are in general a good thing for public lands due to congresses inability to act. Will this be administered by the NPS? Seeing "Utah's collaborative approach" and "Chaffetz" probably tell me all I need to know about AZDFGS "concern".
Eric Albus
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 24, 2012
- Messages
- 1,672
Maybe you should ask the folks who LIVE in the last one designated on the Missouri River how great it is................................................................................................................
AZGFD's previous response to this idea...
PHOENIX – Citing a long list of concerns, the Arizona Game and Fish Commission today (May 11) voted to oppose the proposed Grand Canyon Watershed National Monument, which as envisioned would encompass 1.7 million acres of northern Arizona.
The Game and Fish Commission also adopted a resolution concerning the continuing and cumulative effects that special land use designations have on multiple-use lands, including effects on access, conservation efforts and wildlife-related recreation (see resolution below).
The commission pointed out that the resolution does not preempt future discussions and dialogues, but sets the appropriate stage for them.
The Grand Canyon Watershed National Monument is being proposed by the Grand Canyon Wildlands Council, Center for Biological Diversity and the Wilderness Society.
The proposal encompasses 1.7 million acres of mostly public land spread across five geographical areas: the Kaibab Plateau; Kaibab-Paunsagunt Wildlife Corridor; Kaibab Creek Watershed; House Rock Valley; and the Tusayan Ranger District, south rim headquarters.
The Game and Fish Commission pointed out that the vast majority of lands in question are already public lands currently managed and conserved under multiple-use concepts, primarily by the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management, although the proposal would also impact State Trust Lands and private holdings as well.
The issue, pointed out various commissioners, is not conserving these lands and associated wildlife habitats – that is already being done very effectively, which has led to the largest un-fragmented block of wildlife habitat in Arizona.
However, the new monument is being proposed to “preserve” and in some cases lock away these lands rather than conserve them, which could impact public access, recreation, grazing, and the ability of the commission to manage wildlife.
“It’s not as if these lands aren’t already being managed and conserved. This is really about changing the status of these lands and adding another layer of federal bureaucracy, which has far-ranging implications,” said Commissioner Kurt R. Davis.
An analysis by the Arizona Game and Fish Department showed that monument designation can lead to restrictions on proactive wildlife management including:
Wildlife population augmentations;
Wildlife habitat manipulations and enhancements;
Wildlife water developments;
Hunting and fishing access.
The monument proposal would also entail voluntary retirement of grazing leasing on the lands. The department analysis points out that the loss of livestock management can cause significant loss of water availability for wildlife, besides negatively impacting the local economy.
“However, through our regional wildlife managers and our Landowner Relations Program, we have many cooperative habitat improvement projects with Arizona Strip ranchers that have benefitted wildlife and relationships,” states the department analysis.
Commissioners and the department also expressed concern over the loss of ability to mechanically thin high-risk forests with unnatural densities of small-diameter trees, or the potential to do prescribed burns, thereby exposing these forest habitats to the possibility of catastrophic wild fires in the future.
There is also concern that the monument designation may prompt external pressure to seek a mandatory lead ban, which would jeopardize the success of the Game and Fish Department’s ongoing voluntary non-lead efforts to restore California condor populations.
There are additional concerns that there would become further restrictions on motorized game retrieval.
Commissioners also pointed out that they very much oppose any process that eliminates public participation, especially from those in the communities affected. The process to create yet another national monument in Arizona requires no public input or congressional oversight.
-30-
A RESOLUTION OF THE ARIZONA GAME AND FISH COMMISSION
CONCERNING THE LOSS OF MULTIPLE-USE PUBLIC LANDS
DUE TO SPECIAL LAND-USE DESIGNATIONS
WHEREAS, Arizona’s great strength lies in the value of its public lands, and the ability for the public to access and utilize those lands for a variety of recreational uses, and
WHEREAS, although federal lands make up 42 percent of Arizona, more than 43 percent of those lands have special land use designations which prescribe significant restrictions to recreation and management. Only 23 percent of Arizona’s lands remain open for public use and free from special land use designations, OR More than 77 percent of Arizona’s lands are restricted from public access and recreation through ownership (private, state, and tribal) or through federal special land use designations, and
WHEREAS, the conservation of wildlife resources is the trust responsibility of the Arizona Game and Fish Commission (Commission) and this extends to all lands within Arizona, to ensure abundant wildlife resources for current and future generations, and
WHEREAS, with 4.5 million acres, Arizona has the third highest total designated wilderness acreage in the U.S. This, coupled with an additional 5.8 million acres of special land use designations, which include National Monuments, National Parks, National Wildlife Refuges, National Conservation Areas, Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, Wild and Scenic Rivers, and Wilderness Characteristics Areas, has caused the systematic loss of recreational opportunities and erosion of the Arizona Game and Fish Department’s (Department) ability to proactively manage wildlife on more than 10.3 million acres, and
WHEREAS, the Arizona Game and Fish Department has experienced restrictions resulting from special land use designations including project delays, increased costs, increased man-hours, and legal challenges. This ultimately leads to decreased efficiency in conserving and managing Arizona’s wildlife resources, and
WHEREAS, public land managers have a responsibility to the people of Arizona to ensure continued opportunities for multiple-use recreational activities. For example, FLPMA (1976) is the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) "organic act" that establishes the agency's multiple-use mandate to serve present and future generations. Once federal lands are converted to special use lands such as Wilderness and National Monuments, the FLPMA mandate no longer applies and those lands permanently lose multiple-use provisions, and;
WHEREAS, in spite of organic legislation emphasizing multiple-use of public lands, neither the USFS or BLM have established any objectives for acreages of public lands to be maintained in full multiple-use, free from restrictive designations in Arizona, and
WHEREAS, the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 and the Federal Land and Policy Management Act of 1976 both legally prohibit the federal land management agencies from affecting the state’s jurisdiction and responsibilities.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Arizona Game and Fish Commission supports public land use that provides Arizona’s public and resources with a net benefit, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Arizona Game and Fish Commission does not support the continual conversion of public lands from multiple-use to land use designations that result in the net loss of wildlife resources, wildlife related recreational opportunities, and wildlife dependent economic benefit without expressed concurrence of the state of Arizona and the Commission, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that any proposed special land use designation analyze the cumulative impacts of further loss of public lands that provide for multiple-use and wildlife related recreational and economic opportunities, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that any proposed special land use designation on federal lands analyze the impact to the Arizona Game and Fish Department’s ability to fulfill its trust responsibility to manage the state’s wildlife resources.
PHOENIX – Citing a long list of concerns, the Arizona Game and Fish Commission today (May 11) voted to oppose the proposed Grand Canyon Watershed National Monument, which as envisioned would encompass 1.7 million acres of northern Arizona.
The Game and Fish Commission also adopted a resolution concerning the continuing and cumulative effects that special land use designations have on multiple-use lands, including effects on access, conservation efforts and wildlife-related recreation (see resolution below).
The commission pointed out that the resolution does not preempt future discussions and dialogues, but sets the appropriate stage for them.
The Grand Canyon Watershed National Monument is being proposed by the Grand Canyon Wildlands Council, Center for Biological Diversity and the Wilderness Society.
The proposal encompasses 1.7 million acres of mostly public land spread across five geographical areas: the Kaibab Plateau; Kaibab-Paunsagunt Wildlife Corridor; Kaibab Creek Watershed; House Rock Valley; and the Tusayan Ranger District, south rim headquarters.
The Game and Fish Commission pointed out that the vast majority of lands in question are already public lands currently managed and conserved under multiple-use concepts, primarily by the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management, although the proposal would also impact State Trust Lands and private holdings as well.
The issue, pointed out various commissioners, is not conserving these lands and associated wildlife habitats – that is already being done very effectively, which has led to the largest un-fragmented block of wildlife habitat in Arizona.
However, the new monument is being proposed to “preserve” and in some cases lock away these lands rather than conserve them, which could impact public access, recreation, grazing, and the ability of the commission to manage wildlife.
“It’s not as if these lands aren’t already being managed and conserved. This is really about changing the status of these lands and adding another layer of federal bureaucracy, which has far-ranging implications,” said Commissioner Kurt R. Davis.
An analysis by the Arizona Game and Fish Department showed that monument designation can lead to restrictions on proactive wildlife management including:
Wildlife population augmentations;
Wildlife habitat manipulations and enhancements;
Wildlife water developments;
Hunting and fishing access.
The monument proposal would also entail voluntary retirement of grazing leasing on the lands. The department analysis points out that the loss of livestock management can cause significant loss of water availability for wildlife, besides negatively impacting the local economy.
“However, through our regional wildlife managers and our Landowner Relations Program, we have many cooperative habitat improvement projects with Arizona Strip ranchers that have benefitted wildlife and relationships,” states the department analysis.
Commissioners and the department also expressed concern over the loss of ability to mechanically thin high-risk forests with unnatural densities of small-diameter trees, or the potential to do prescribed burns, thereby exposing these forest habitats to the possibility of catastrophic wild fires in the future.
There is also concern that the monument designation may prompt external pressure to seek a mandatory lead ban, which would jeopardize the success of the Game and Fish Department’s ongoing voluntary non-lead efforts to restore California condor populations.
There are additional concerns that there would become further restrictions on motorized game retrieval.
Commissioners also pointed out that they very much oppose any process that eliminates public participation, especially from those in the communities affected. The process to create yet another national monument in Arizona requires no public input or congressional oversight.
-30-
A RESOLUTION OF THE ARIZONA GAME AND FISH COMMISSION
CONCERNING THE LOSS OF MULTIPLE-USE PUBLIC LANDS
DUE TO SPECIAL LAND-USE DESIGNATIONS
WHEREAS, Arizona’s great strength lies in the value of its public lands, and the ability for the public to access and utilize those lands for a variety of recreational uses, and
WHEREAS, although federal lands make up 42 percent of Arizona, more than 43 percent of those lands have special land use designations which prescribe significant restrictions to recreation and management. Only 23 percent of Arizona’s lands remain open for public use and free from special land use designations, OR More than 77 percent of Arizona’s lands are restricted from public access and recreation through ownership (private, state, and tribal) or through federal special land use designations, and
WHEREAS, the conservation of wildlife resources is the trust responsibility of the Arizona Game and Fish Commission (Commission) and this extends to all lands within Arizona, to ensure abundant wildlife resources for current and future generations, and
WHEREAS, with 4.5 million acres, Arizona has the third highest total designated wilderness acreage in the U.S. This, coupled with an additional 5.8 million acres of special land use designations, which include National Monuments, National Parks, National Wildlife Refuges, National Conservation Areas, Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, Wild and Scenic Rivers, and Wilderness Characteristics Areas, has caused the systematic loss of recreational opportunities and erosion of the Arizona Game and Fish Department’s (Department) ability to proactively manage wildlife on more than 10.3 million acres, and
WHEREAS, the Arizona Game and Fish Department has experienced restrictions resulting from special land use designations including project delays, increased costs, increased man-hours, and legal challenges. This ultimately leads to decreased efficiency in conserving and managing Arizona’s wildlife resources, and
WHEREAS, public land managers have a responsibility to the people of Arizona to ensure continued opportunities for multiple-use recreational activities. For example, FLPMA (1976) is the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) "organic act" that establishes the agency's multiple-use mandate to serve present and future generations. Once federal lands are converted to special use lands such as Wilderness and National Monuments, the FLPMA mandate no longer applies and those lands permanently lose multiple-use provisions, and;
WHEREAS, in spite of organic legislation emphasizing multiple-use of public lands, neither the USFS or BLM have established any objectives for acreages of public lands to be maintained in full multiple-use, free from restrictive designations in Arizona, and
WHEREAS, the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 and the Federal Land and Policy Management Act of 1976 both legally prohibit the federal land management agencies from affecting the state’s jurisdiction and responsibilities.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Arizona Game and Fish Commission supports public land use that provides Arizona’s public and resources with a net benefit, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Arizona Game and Fish Commission does not support the continual conversion of public lands from multiple-use to land use designations that result in the net loss of wildlife resources, wildlife related recreational opportunities, and wildlife dependent economic benefit without expressed concurrence of the state of Arizona and the Commission, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that any proposed special land use designation analyze the cumulative impacts of further loss of public lands that provide for multiple-use and wildlife related recreational and economic opportunities, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that any proposed special land use designation on federal lands analyze the impact to the Arizona Game and Fish Department’s ability to fulfill its trust responsibility to manage the state’s wildlife resources.
shoots-straight
Well-known member
So how has his effected the people on the Missouri River? Do you know of any positives, or just negatives?
Seems like some people only like to focus on the negative.
In some cases I could agree with the part I bolded, but not in this case. My limited experience with the folks working on the Grand Staircase-Escalante NM is definitely coloring my opinion.
My guess is that it would be managed by either USFS or BLM, with the latter having better odds. If it did go to NPS that would be a great loss.
jryoung
Well-known member
Yikes, so potentially a bad NM designation on one side and the Utard Public Land thieves on the other. Is this as bad as it sounds?
I've been involved with the Berryessa Snow Mountain NCA/NM designation here in CA. I haven't found much to disagree with, and there is support from a broad base reaching as far as the Blue Ribbon Coalition, Backcountry Horseman, and The Wilderness Society. The approach has been been very collaborative.
It's not really that bad IMO. Just stop the idea of selling public lands for one. If/when we can get there then we can focus on management. In some places the mechanisms are already in place to properly manage an area. I am unaware of any special issues in the Kaibab area that would be greatly bettered by NM designation. I'm open to hearing of them and willing to change my mind if I can be shown sufficient evidence.
The cases I could support NM designation are generally those that involve Wilderness Study Areas. I'm of the opinion that they should no longer exist. No more real "studying" is going on. Either declare them or not. I do understand that in some cases they only way to get this done is through the Antiquities Act.
The cases I could support NM designation are generally those that involve Wilderness Study Areas. I'm of the opinion that they should no longer exist. No more real "studying" is going on. Either declare them or not. I do understand that in some cases they only way to get this done is through the Antiquities Act.
jryoung
Well-known member
I see the RMEF has weighed in, but doesn't offer much other than a copy and past of the AZ F&Gs thoughts. I still would like to know more.
http://rmefblog.blogspot.com/2015/05/red-flags-for-arizona-hunters.html
http://rmefblog.blogspot.com/2015/05/red-flags-for-arizona-hunters.html
Look who is instigating in this case: "Grand Canyon Wildlands Council, Center for Biological Diversity and the Wilderness Society." Any of those names ring a bell? Does the bell sound like Sierra Club or ASPCA, or ?? I've checked sites for all three organizations. They all talk about climate change, camping, hiking, and saving the spotted owl and other endangered species. Not once, on any of the sites did I read anything about hunting, or hunters or the contributions they make to managing wildlife. The silence was deafening.
jryoung
Well-known member
I'll give you CBD, no argument there. But the wilderness society worked alongside hunters and anglers for Brown Canyon and Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks and they are a strong voice for public lands. I'd take them any day of the week over SFW (which has ties to the commission IIRC) or those references to Utah's approach and Rep Chaffetz.
Last edited:
BuzzH
Well-known member
danr55, outfitters don't contribute jack chit to the GF departments either for managing wildlife...care to reconcile that?
Many groups focus on the proper management of the land from the 30,000 foot view, rather than just focusing on wildlife. Right now, my biggest concern is making sure that Federal public lands are retained by the Federal Government...and if that means partnering with the Wilderness Society, local Wilderness advocacy groups, etc...that's exactly what I will do.
jryoung, thank you for pointing out the collaborative approach with your examples...fair to note that LOCAL involvement is why these collaborations work.
Many groups focus on the proper management of the land from the 30,000 foot view, rather than just focusing on wildlife. Right now, my biggest concern is making sure that Federal public lands are retained by the Federal Government...and if that means partnering with the Wilderness Society, local Wilderness advocacy groups, etc...that's exactly what I will do.
jryoung, thank you for pointing out the collaborative approach with your examples...fair to note that LOCAL involvement is why these collaborations work.
Is this an actual thing or is it just more fear-mongering from the SFW crowd?
I have no problems with the Antiquities Act or Monuments but there does need to be an open and honest process by which terms are come too. I'm not sure that's happened with this one yet, especially since there really hasn't been any movement that I've seen in the last year or two other than a draft paper by the proponents, who hadn't done much work beyond a top down approach.
Third what Buzz & JR says about TWS. I've worked with them on projects for over a decade now and been impressed with their staff in the Northern Rockies. Most of them are avid hunters or anglers. Not sure about the SW.
I have no problems with the Antiquities Act or Monuments but there does need to be an open and honest process by which terms are come too. I'm not sure that's happened with this one yet, especially since there really hasn't been any movement that I've seen in the last year or two other than a draft paper by the proponents, who hadn't done much work beyond a top down approach.
Third what Buzz & JR says about TWS. I've worked with them on projects for over a decade now and been impressed with their staff in the Northern Rockies. Most of them are avid hunters or anglers. Not sure about the SW.
utah400elk
Well-known member
If you give me a choice between a NM and land transfer...I will take the NM.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
Those ranchers and others who give a care about the lands and the preservation for future generations are willingly collaborating regarding national designations and preservation efforts.
It's the whiners and those whose self-interests are paramount who make all the noise and the headlines ... and are apparently the few listened to by Eric Albus.
It's the whiners and those whose self-interests are paramount who make all the noise and the headlines ... and are apparently the few listened to by Eric Albus.
Similar threads
