BLM proposing conservation leasing

[BoulderBulls]

Not sure if this has been posted yet. It think it's a great idea but would love to hear further discussion.

Interior Department Releases Proposed Plan to Guide the Balanced Management of Public Lands | U.S. Department of the Interior

Today the Department of the Interior published a proposal to guide the balanced management of America’s public lands for the benefit of current and future generations. The proposed Public Lands Rule provides tools for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to improve the resilience of public lands...

doi.gov

 

[Oak]

Here's a thread.

US wants to lease public lands for conservation, Interior Dept says

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-wants-lease-public-lands-conservation-interior-dept-says-2023-03-30/ Anybody got a read on whether or not this is a good idea?

www.hunttalk.com

 

[BoulderBulls]

Here's a thread.

US wants to lease public lands for conservation, Interior Dept says

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-wants-lease-public-lands-conservation-interior-dept-says-2023-03-30/ Anybody got a read on whether or not this is a good idea?

www.hunttalk.com

Thanks @Oak

 

[WYWINCHESTER]

The Government has ALWAYS twisted their titles to make you think it will benefit you. The money they receive from the leasing will not benefit the public. And soon after, you will not be able to use YOUR public land. Bet on it.

 

[rogerthat]

The Government has ALWAYS twisted their titles to make you think it will benefit you. The money they receive from the leasing will not benefit the public. And soon after, you will not be able to use YOUR public land. Bet on it.

So you think the rule will preclude recreational access such as hunting? Sometimes it’s hard when people say “use” rather than “rape and pillage” so it’s hard for me to know what they mean

 

[WesternWyoming]

Not sure if this has been posted yet. It think it's a great idea but would love to hear further discussion.

Interior Department Releases Proposed Plan to Guide the Balanced Management of Public Lands | U.S. Department of the Interior

Today the Department of the Interior published a proposal to guide the balanced management of America’s public lands for the benefit of current and future generations. The proposed Public Lands Rule provides tools for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to improve the resilience of public lands...

doi.gov

I think it's a good idea. Someone could lease the land for, say, cheatgrass eradication. They pay a bond, and a fee, and then go about making improvements that might otherwise not be made. The lease is proposed to be for 10 years, and will not affect existing leases of other types. DOI would like suggestions for what the fee should be.

 

[antlerradar]

Could this open the door for public land hunting leases or non hunting leases by anti hunting groups?
Hard no if it is even a step in that direction.

 

[mtmiller]

Could this open the door for public land hunting leases or non hunting leases by anti hunting groups?
Hard no if it is even a step in that direction.

Could you expound on this comment.

Non hunting leases? I don't know what that is. Like grazing permits, fluid mineral development??? Or are you saying an anti hunting group would lease public land and not allow recreational hunting?

 

[Deleted member 18333]

Please someone correct me if I am wrong, but the overwhelming majority of public land leases prohibit the lessee from excluding public access to the public lands they lease. I operate on a BLM lease and we do prohibit the public from accessing the public lands where we have active mining taking place.

https://www.blm.gov/sites/default/files/documents/files/Program_Recreation_BLM%20WY%20Access%20Guide.pdf

In addition to federal grazing leases, both BLM and Forest Service authorize a variety of other uses with a number of different types of authorizations. In general, holders of these authorizations may not exclude the public from the public lands within their lease or permit area, if appropriate public easements exist. They do have the right to exclude the public from entering any buildings they may have been authorized to construct under the terms of their authorization. Additionally, some areas may be closed to public entry by order of the federal land management agency. An example of this is a mining operation that has been closed for reasons of public safety.

I see nothing in this new proposal that would change that. I think the idea has merit. Hopefully the conservation world will put its money where its mouth has been for far too long.

 

[antlerradar]

Could you expound on this comment.
Or are you saying an anti hunting group would lease public land and not allow recreational hunting?

This, for example I could see groups leasing public land close to Yellowstone for bison or wolf preservation. Probably raise a lot of money to get it done.
I could also see a different administration using something like this to justify exclusive hunting leases the highest bidder. I am sure SFW and thier buddies would be all for this and you have to find some way to keep those campaign contributors happy.
Could be all wrong and hope I am but if we continue to allow the executive branch and bureaucrats to write all the rules, just hard to say where we will end up when administrations change.

 

[Ben Lamb]

This, for example I could see groups leasing public land close to Yellowstone for bison or wolf preservation. Probably raise a lot of money to get it done.

Here's the scoping notice that @Oak posted in the other thread.

my $.02 is that some of these leases could be closed to public use, but not likely how Art is thinking.

The restoration piece is one to consider: Does it make ecological sense to allow for access to an area that is being treated for cheatgrass or working to establish new plant starts for sagebrush, etc? if there is a restriction to access, then there needs to be a legitimate reason, such as how @mulecreek explained their public land lease for mining. Lots of O&G leases where portions are off limits, etc. Lots of public land leases for other developments have timing restrictions, etc. The idea behind this concept is about the health of the land, not recreational access.

I've talked with some folks in the ag and energy world who are pretty skeptical of this, but I'm not so sure that isn't just the gut-level reaction (often times warranted from their perspective). I'm not as familiar with the proposed rule as others, but having known the BLM director and chief legal counsel for over 2 decades, I can say that they're some of the smartest people I've ever worked with and I'm 100% confident they've taken all of this into consideration.

 

[manitou1]

Please someone correct me if I am wrong, but the overwhelming majority of public land leases prohibit the lessee from excluding public access to the public lands they lease. I operate on a BLM lease and we do prohibit the public from accessing the public lands where we have active mining taking place.

https://www.blm.gov/sites/default/files/documents/files/Program_Recreation_BLM%20WY%20Access%20Guide.pdf

In addition to federal grazing leases, both BLM and Forest Service authorize a variety of other uses with a number of different types of authorizations. In general, holders of these authorizations may not exclude the public from the public lands within their lease or permit area, if appropriate public easements exist. They do have the right to exclude the public from entering any buildings they may have been authorized to construct under the terms of their authorization. Additionally, some areas may be closed to public entry by order of the federal land management agency. An example of this is a mining operation that has been closed for reasons of public safety.

I see nothing in this new proposal that would change that. I think the idea has merit. Hopefully the conservation world will put its money where its mouth has been for far too long.

Yup, sure.

"Conservationist Organizations" will lease up the public land, build a shed or two on it, then apply to restrict or block hunting as it is a hazard to such structures or activities.

Just watch...

 

[Deleted member 18333]

Yup, sure.

"Conservationist Organizations" will lease up the public land, build a shed or two on it, then apply to restrict or block hunting as it is a hazard to such structures or activities.

Just watch...

In your scenario, the only thing they could block access to would be the shed or two. Doubt highly they could apply for a conservation lease and be allowed to even build a shed. You are creating things in your head to worry about.

 

[mtmiller]

Yup, sure.

"Conservationist Organizations" will lease up the public land, build a shed or two on it, then apply to restrict or block hunting as it is a hazard to such structures or activities.

Just watch...

Lots of sheds being built out on the BLM lands.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Lots of sheds being built out on the BLM lands.

This is why you step up to a better road hunting beer than Natty Light. Some guys build sheds over their tools, men build a barn. #Guinesslife

 

[mtmiller]

I'll let the experts figure it out.

 

[kwyeewyk]

Yup, sure.

"Conservationist Organizations" will lease up the public land, build a shed or two on it, then apply to restrict or block hunting as it is a hazard to such structures or activities.

Just watch...

This makes no sense, BLM does not control hunting beyond simple area closures for reasons like mulecreek mentioned, and restricted access leases are usually always related to safety as in cases of mines, O&G, etc. There is no BLM plot to end hunting and this won't facilitate groups that would try to use it for such purposes. The leases "would not override existing valid rights".

It's a confusing concept that hasn't been explained well, but I think a big part of the intent is to facilitate mitigation for other development/resource extraction projects by establishing a system that can be used in the mitigation process. This is probably more worthy of contemplation regarding effects to the big picture of conservation and game management than a plot to restrict hunting access.

 

[joelweb]

Could this open the door for public land hunting leases or non hunting leases by anti hunting groups?
Hard no if it is even a step in that direction.

The leases would be available for two purposes: restoration and mitigation. Not to lease the land to prevent use.

Also, there is specific language in the rule preamble about casual use (hunting and fishing by the public are casual uses). That language is below.

The proposed rule would define the term “casual use” so that, in reference to conservation leases, it would clarify that the existence of a conservation lease would not in and of itself preclude the public from accessing public lands for noncommercial activities such as recreation. Some public lands could be temporarily closed to public access for purposes authorized by conservation leases, such as restoration activities or habitat improvements. However, in general, public lands leased for conservation purposes under the proposed rule would continue to be open to public use.

 

[RoughCountry]

Has the BLM and DOI run this past BuzzH yet? I’m sure nothing will happen until he tells them how he would do it and what they’re doing wrong.

 

[Slam]

Interesting concept. Look forward to reading more about this as the concept works its way through the process.

Many portions of the language used concerning better management of BLM lands should have been or should be incorporated in the BLM's overall mission NOW.

In my limited understanding of the Feds responsibility to manage federal lands (and $ allocated for such) I question whether there is the management ability to juggle another ball successfully.