BLM Sucks [again]

[1_pointer]

Tom- I said some RMPs because I'm only familiar with a few. Giving AUMs to wildlife in a RMP and charging for those AUMs are very different.

cjcj- I have no idea if there are any Horse Management Areas in AZ, just stating that if they are wild they can make management of that are more complicated. I won't be able to tell if a horse is wild from a picture.

Not sure of your above post as in Where are you coming from?... Are you supporting BLM or AZ G&F? in this thread?

I don't tihnk I've voiced support of either organization in this thread, but anyone that has read this part of Moosie's for very long will probably know where I stand. The second part of my post about the fire rehab was just to give you something to think about... Seems to be working, because you're confused.

 

[mtmiller]

Tyler & Jeff, no win. Heat up the burner if it needs it, but more fun to just sit back and watch.

 

[cjcj]

cjcj- I have no idea if there are any Horse Management Areas in AZ, just stating that if they are wild they can make management of that are more complicated. I won't be able to tell if a horse is wild from a picture.
I don't tihnk I've voiced support of either organization in this thread, but anyone that has read this part of Moosie's for very long will probably know where I stand. The second part of my post about the fire rehab was just to give you something to think about... Seems to be working, because you're confused.

1pt. If I`m confused then is Jose confused?... 1pt. to my knowledge there are NO wild horse herds left in AZ..

But I`am on the Side of AZ game&fish... BLM is the problem, same thing with the Buffalo in the grand canyon Forest service etc,etc./.. they won`t allow hunting the buffalo herd at the north rim.... even after the park is closed ... slow moving federal idiots... sorry no common sense... can`t work out a reasonable plan with Game & fish?... I could solve their problem with a fishbone chart ...2-3 days tops.

 

[1_pointer]

Who says AZ F&G is being reasonable? I agree that often action taken by the federal land agencies is slow, but that is due to the process that allows the AZ F&G (or anyone else in the country) to protest/appeal an action.

Would you rather the BLM/USFS not involve the public in the decision making process?????

PS- Are you sure it's the USFS stopping the bison hunting?? That sounds a bit fishy, but maybe you just forgot your shower cap....


miller- I'm just having fun.......!

 

[Tom]

1_pointer, do you think its a good thing to attribute AUMs for wildlife? I'm sure you do, they have to eat. I agree, its different to deal with those in an actual budget with money. I think there is no doubt they need to be there in the RMP planning to support the wildlife, right?

 

[Nemont]

Tyler & Jeff, no win. Heat up the burner if it needs it, but more fun to just sit back and watch.

Just a like to see what idea is coming to be posted next.

Why do you think I keep saying to ask you

 

[cjcj]

Who says AZ F&G is being reasonable? I agree that often action taken by the federal land agencies is slow, but that is due to the process that allows the AZ F&G (or anyone else in the country) to protest/appeal an action.

Would you rather the BLM/USFS not involve the public in the decision making process?????

PS- Are you sure it's the USFS stopping the bison hunting?? That sounds a bit fishy, but maybe you just forgot your shower cap....


miller- I'm just having fun.......!

Why is your "agency" so freaking slow?hump

they need to get of their fat asses and move/think...I have no problem with BLM/USFS getting involved... but thats the problem slow moving/slow thinking :BLEEP: suckers.....pushing paperwork around and trying to look busy.....

As for the Buffalo hunt.. here is the deal.. I go to house rock ranch [ northeast of grand canyon]the game warden[Mark] shows me a few buffalo[ 1 small herd... but informs me that 90% of the buffalo have migrated into the National park [Grand Canyon]

So I go up top [kaibab] and into the park...Park ranger says YES there are buffalo everywhere up there in the park [north rim].. He also states that they don`t want them there in the park... So i say why not allow hunting in the park after the park closes for the winter [end of Oct. /early Nov.]

He says CJ thats a good idea.. except its against the Park service Charter/ rules,etc... and its an insurmountable "task' to get an exemption or change|oo

W.T.F. is an insurmountable task? its not in my vocabulary

So the roadblock is at the Federal level.. no question.hump

1pt. did you read the thread? who`s the bad guys?
and who`s living in the 80`s?

[After 25 years since the last rangeland data analysis was completed (1982 Allotment Management Plan), livestock grazing on the Big Ranch ‘A’ Allotment was reinitiated in 2003 on the heels of Arizona’s worst recorded drought during which three separate wildland fires occurred. Year-round livestock grazing has continued since that time, despite documented bighorn sheep declines and repeated objections from the Arizona Game and Fish Commission.]

 

[BuzzH]

cjcj,

I think you're a bit confused on the agencies.

The BLM, FS, and NPS, are all different agencies. Very few national parks allow hunting of any kind.

Secondly, the FS, BLM and NPS does not manage wildlife directly. Thats controlled by the states.

Tom,

I can see your point, but its ridiculous.

When the FS, BLM, or NPS "allows" wildlife to "use" federal lands its paid for by all taxpayers. There are other uses of wildlife other than consumptive uses. The owners of the federal lands have no trouble with wildlife using their lands. Tax payers enjoy the intrinsic value of just knowing wildlife is present on the lands, they enjoy seeing a deer or elk on "their" federal land. I dont know many tax payers that find much, if any, instrinsic value of seeing cattle or sheep on federal lands. Plus, the individual leasee is gaining personal profit from grazing his privately owned livestock on the publics land. All taxpayers gain something for having wildlife use their public lands and thusly find no reason to seek reimbursement from the states for the states wildlife using those federal lands.

Your "pay" for having state wildlife on YOUR federal land is that you get to enjoy seeing wildlife there, you get to hunt it on your federal land if you choose, or you can stay in Texas and just be assured that elk, deer, antelope, etc. are being taken care of on your public lands.

 

[AZ402]

Tom,

I can see your point, but its ridiculous.

Best line of the entire thread..............

 

[JoseCuervo]

Best line of the entire thread..............

I can't believe you have wasted that much of your life reading the entire thread.... |oo

 

[AZ402]

I can't believe you have wasted that much of your life reading the entire thread.... |oo

I want to punch you..................

 

[cjcj]

cjcj,

I think you're a bit confused on the agencies.

The BLM, FS, and NPS, are all different agencies. Very few national parks allow hunting of any kind.

Secondly, the FS, BLM and NPS does not manage wildlife directly. Thats controlled by the states.[ quote Buzz]





Buzz I understand that National parks do not allow hunting, but when you have a situation, such as what has happened to the House Rock Buffalo herd... don`t you think Mitigating Circumstances... would/could allow for some flexability?... what would it hurt?

On the BLM topic... What do you think about the article.[ overgrazing] you seem to travel AZ .... have you been up in that area? very few springs/water..very dry, unless your near the Colorado river or Meadview...I would like your opinion on BLM vs. AZ Game and Fish

 

[Tom]

Buzz, I think you gave the answer we're supposed to use, do you know if all or just some RMPs put in AUM use for wildlife? How is that determined? I think its supposed to be the answer for those who object to the $1.35 grazing fee too, isn't it?

But it depends a lot on how they allocate the AUMs, is there an RMP or two on the net to read how they allocate for wildlife?

I don't know how they messed up on the national parks and stopped hunting on them, it was a misstake, I think. Probably to make it easy to stop all the poaching, since they didn't have many game wardens? We have controlled hunts on state parks here though.

 

[BuzzH]

cjcj,

My opinion is that the best case scenerio in all cases like the one you posted are for the managing agencies to cooperate with each other. The problems arise when you have competing uses for the same resource.

IMO, the BLM should at the very least show equal consideration for all resources when making management decisions. In my experience, even though its contrary to the laws that govern public lands management, the BLM consistantly favors extractive uses of their land like grazing and mining over other uses such as wildlife habitat, etc. The FS seems to show more concerns over other uses and does a much better job of giving at least some consideration to ALL users and uses of their lands.

I think theres just too much outside political motivation for the BLM to not manage correctly. Between livestock producers and mining interests...there is just flat too much political clout between those two groups to ever allow correct management to happen. I think there are people within the BLM that know what SHOULD be done...but the reality is, if they value their jobs, they'll do as they're told.

Until the BLM can get some backing from D.C. and find a leader with a set of balls the size of church bells, nothing much is going to change from the current status quo of being the Bureau of Livestock and Mining. Wildlife and other uses will always take a back seat to Livestock and Mining interests...always. Major change in direction is badly needed in the BLM, at least IMHO.

 

[Tom]

Wow, you gave a good argument for people concerned about wildlife to actually give money to the BLM for wildlife.

Its to easy for wildlife to get sluffed off, if there's nothing in the budget for them.

Buzz, You think the solution is find a guy with balls like church bells, eh? Now there's an idea.

I like mine better than that one, pay the BLM for AUMs for wildlife. I guess its not in the law to do that, or it would be happening.

 

[BuzzH]

Tom,

There is money in the budget for CORRECT MANAGEMENT.

Trouble is, its too open for interpretation and "guidance" from Congress on where the money should be spent and what projects get the money.

Yep, it will take a leader thats finds correct management more important than keeping his/her job. But, they cant go it alone...they'll need backing in D.C. or they'll get shit-canned in two minutes for not catering to livestock and mining interests.

 

[1_pointer]

cjcj- Obviously your problem with the federal agencies has to do with not knowing the processes that they have to go through to do things. In many ways these are governed by plans that are very inflexible on certain aspects (ie hunting buffalo in a National Park). Another aspect that you don't seem to understand are the time frames required by law for things like public review, protest, and appeal. Use some of your street science experience to find out about a couple of the topics posted above and you'll be off.

 

[cjcj]

I agree 1pt. I don`t understand "inflexible" processes....and I can tell you flat out, in the corporate world... you better be "flexible"... be able to change and change fast or your ass is gone..

if you want to condone or make excuses for slow moving , money wasting non-action by government... then you are a perfect fit.... Funny how the government works...

I agree with Buzz you have to have backing... don`t you guys have a union or something? if not start some kind of action to get the ball rolling on issues that need action NOW,,, not after the fact...

I tell you this you wouldn`t last very long in the private sector , where the "CUSTOMER" demands products/services. delivered on time and with the quality they pay for... too bad your inept federal agency`s are "NOT" held up to the same standards. Who are your customers ?? think about that...... what a waste of talent, when you have an "outdated" culture of "ineptness" in your organizations.

 

[1_pointer]

Would you show me where I've condoned or made excuses? All I did was give you some insight into the processes involved with federal agencies.

 

[BuzzH]

cjcj,

1pointer is right.

Its much easier in the private sector to make adjustments, changes, etc.

I dont think you even begin to comprehend what it takes for the Land Management Agencies to adopt new policy or change direction.

Its very complex, theres multiple users, multiple public interests, etc. etc.

The system in place is there for a very good reason...to stop or slow down politically motivated decision making on YOUR federal lands. The price you pay for that is a large number of environmental laws and regulations that must be followed in order to manage in the best interest of the public (owners of the public land).

It is a slow moving process, but the public has demanded that the FS, BLM, NPS, etc. use the best available data and science to support their decisions. It also requires, in most cases, to go through a public review (NEPA) process.

To simplify...heres an example.

Say you have a timber company like Plum Creek. They own 20 sections of land with timber on it. They make the decision to cut timber off say 5 sections.

They dont have to go through the process of figuring out if that is the best use of those 5 sections. Sure, there are minimal regulations they must follow as well as volunatary BMP's...but outside that, the decision is easy. They dont care about clean water, they dont care about wildlife, they sure as hell dont care about what YOU think they should do with their lands.

Conversly, lets now say the FS has the 20 sections right next door and they want to clearcut 5 sections.

By law, they are required to prepare at a minimum an EA and more than likely an EIS outlining all potential impacts of that logging. The EIS process involves an entire team of biologists, foresters, etc. etc. to review what impacts that cutting will have on clean water, clean air, wildlife habitat, plant communities, succession, fire cylces, etc. etc. etc. Then, the public, again by law, is allowed to comment on what the land management agency has found. The public has an enormous amount of impact on the direction of management under the EIS process...and rightfully so...it is THEIR land and THEY are the customers.

So, as you can see, the processes involved are much different between the public and private sector.

Its extremely unfair of you to be slamming 1-pointer with your "waste of talent" "slow inept" and all the other ridiculous comments you just threw at him.

The process, while slow, makes certain that the agencies manage "for the greatest good, for the greatest number, for the longest time...with equal consideration being given to all uses".

Quick decisions run the private sector...but only for the short-term good of the company and the share holders.

The land management agencies are managing for long-term best use of the publics land...just like they're required by law to do.