HR 1581 and the RMEF

[RockyDog]

I just got the below mass email saying that RMEF was among the groups supporting HR 1581. Im assuming this is just email misinformation/propaganda. If RMEF is really endorsing HR1581, that would be just plain wrong and i imagine thousands would end their membership. i will in a heartbeat if this turns out to be true.





>>
>> If you belong to any of these organizations and give a hoot about elk
>>and backcountry, you may want to send these groups a letter if not
>>your resignation....see letter below which is filled with falsehoods:
>>
>> July 11, 2011
>> Hon. Doc Hastings, Chairman
>> Committee on Natural Resources
>> U.S. House of Representatives
>> 1329 Longworth House Office Building
>> Washington, DC 20515
>> Hon. Edward Markey
>> Committee on Natural Resources
>> U.S. House of Representatives
>> 1324 Longworth House Office Building
>> Washington, DC 20515
>> Dear Chairman Hastings and Ranking Member Markey:
>> The undersigned groups strongly support the Wilderness and Roadless
>>Area Release Act of 2011 (H.R.1581) introduced by Congressman
>>McCarthy of California. H.R. 1581 would help rectify the serious
>>problem faced by hunters who are being denied or limited in their
>>access to wilderness and roadless areas on public lands administered
>>by the Bureau of Land Management
>>(Bureau)
>> and United States Forest Service (Forest Service). Currently the
>>Bureau manages over 6.5 million acres as Wilderness Study Areas (WSA)
>>even though the agency has recommended to Congress that these areas
>>are not suitable for wilderness designation. The Forest Service also
>>has over 36 million acres under management that it has identified as
>>not suitable for wilderness.
>> Nevertheless, the Forest Service manages much of that land in ways
>>that prohibit road construction and hunter access.
>> The two agencies¹ protectionist management severely restricts hunter
>>access to these lands by 1) failing to authorize roads and trails
>>that would help disabled and elderly hunters access hunting areas; 2)
>>prohibiting or limiting hunters from using carts for game retrieval
>>and; 3) reducing hunters¹ ability to access lands inaccessible by
>>existing roads and trails. Studies have shown that one of the biggest
>>reasons for the decline in hunting participation in recent years has
>>been the lack of access to hunting lands. (Duda, The Future of
>>Hunting and the Shooting Sports, p. 53, available at:
>> http://huntingheritage.org/sites/default/files/Future_hunting.pdf).
>>It is vital to hunter recruitment and retention that these lands be
>>managed for conservation and not preservation and that management
>>strategies encourage rather than discourage use by families, younger
>>hunters and the disabled.
>> Additionally, Secretary Salazar recently issued the controversial
>>³Wild Lands² Order (Secretarial Order 3310) that directed the Bureau
>>to review multiple use lands with wilderness characteristics and
>>designate them as Wild Lands.
>>This
>> ³Wild Lands² designation enables the Bureau to manage lands that have
>>not been Congressionally designated as Wilderness or WSA¹s with the
>>same restrictions and limitations as those described above. Instead
>>of encouraging and facilitating hunting and outdoor recreation, the
>>³Wild Lands² designation will likely limit many activities that can
>>occur on these lands.
>> H.R. 1581 will rectify the current problems with hunter access on
>>lands not suitable for wilderness designation. The bill would release
>>WSA¹s recommended by the Bureau as not-suitable for a wilderness
>>designation from the requirement that these areas be managed to
>>retain their wilderness characteristics and allows these lands to be
>>managed in accordance with multiple-use management. This legislation
>>would also release lands which the Forest Service has recommended as
>>not suitable for a wilderness designation from being managed to
>>maintain roadless characteristics/values and would allow these lands
>>would be managed in accordance with the principles of the multiple use
>>management.
>> In addition, the bill would terminate the Secretary¹s recently
>>released ³Wild Lands² Order and prevent the Secretary of the Interior
>>from issuing future regulations that direct how lands unsuitable for
>>wilderness designation will be managed.
>> The undersigned groups strongly support multiple use management and
>>believe that the passage of H.R. 1581 is vital to maintaining hunter
>>access on our treasured federal lands. We thank you for taking the
>>time to understand our concerns and invite you to contact Melissa
>>Simpson at Safari Club International ([email protected] or
>>202-543-8733) for any additional information or assistance in moving
>>H.R. 1581 forward.
>> Sincerely,
>> Campfire Club of America
>> Conservation Force
>> National Rifle Association
>> National Trappers Association
>> North American Bear Foundation
>> Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation
>> Safari Club International
>> U.S. Sportsmen¹s Alliance
>> Whitetails Unlimited
>>

 

[Oak]

It is time for Congress and the BLM to make a decision on WSAs. I feel that they need to be either designated wilderness if they are suitable for designation, or released from the WSA designation. H.R 1581 might not be the right way to do it, but something does need to be done, IMO.

For those that might not be familiar with WSAs:

What is a Wilderness Study Area?

In 1976, Congress directed the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) through Section 603(a) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) to inventory and respond to Congress within 15 years:

"... those roadless areas of five thousand acres or more and roadless islands of the public lands, identified during the inventory required by section 201(a) of this Act as having wilderness characteristics described in the Wilderness Act of September 3, 1964 and shall from time to time report to the President his recommendation as the suitability or nonsuitability of each such area or island for preservation as wilderness..."

The wilderness characteristics that were used in the inventory as described in the 1964 Wilderness Act were:

- generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable
- has at least five thousand acres of land or is of sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition,
- has outstanding opportunities for solitude, or a primitive or unconfined type of recreation in at least part of the area.
- May also contain ecological, geological, other features of scientific, scenic, or historical value.
​

How are Wilderness Study Areas managed?

The BLM is required by Congress to manage each WSA consistent with the direction provided in Section 603(c) of FLPMA (commonly called the "Interim Management Policy for Lands Under Wilderness Review (or IMP)). In general, BLM is required to maintain the wilderness characteristics of each WSA until Congress decides whether it should either be designated as wilderness or should be released for other purposes.

The guidance for managing each WSA is provided in the IMP Manual (8550, July 5, 1995). The general management standard is that the suitability of the WSAs for preservation as wilderness must not be impaired. Valid existing rights are recognized, and grandfathered uses such as grazing and mineral uses are allowed but restricted to the same manner and degree as on the date FLPMA was approved. While many activities are allowed within WSAs, some have specific restrictions. For example, recreation vehicle use off existing travel routes and issuing new mineral leases are not allowed. Most primitive recreation activities are allowed and are encouraged. These include hiking and camping, backpacking, fishing and hunting, rock hounding, boating (with or without motors), horseback riding, and the use of pack animals.

For further information about the WSAs nearest you, feel free to contact our local Field Offices or review the information provided in this website.

 

[RockyDog]

Too bad this is Forest Service also not just BLM. The areas i hunt elk and deer are mostly WSAs. In montana much of the designated wilderness is for the most part set aside for the outfitting industry and high pressure early rifle hunting and the roaded areas are for the ATV hunters. The WSAs are where its at, opening them to development will pretty much ruin the Forest Service WSAs i love, unless you think they have a chance of becoming designated wilderness which i doubt in these policitical times.

 

[Oak]

Good luck getting them designated as wilderness. Most hunters are too concerned about "access". Wilderness designation eliminates hunter access, don't you know?

 

[RockyDog]

yeah the old "if i could just drive my my jeep/ATV/fatass in there crowd" that isnt smart enough to grasp that fact that once them and their motorized buddies have access it will be just like the crap they already drive around in. The NRA is expected to be full of slobs, but the RMEF? wow this just blows me away.

 

[----]

I don't really know one way or the other on whether the forwarded message should be believed, but I do know RMEF is getting really good at making me doubt my membership. Can't say much would surprise me with Allen at the helm.

 

[RockyDog]

This will be a straightforward decision for me. If RMEF supports HR1581 i will call and cancel my membership immediately and give the money to the Montana Wildlife Federation and/or the Backcountry Hunters and Anglers instead.

 

[Ben Lamb]

It is time for Congress and the BLM to make a decision on WSAs. I feel that they need to be either designated wilderness if they are suitable for designation, or released from the WSA designation. H.R 1581 might not be the right way to do it, but something does need to be done, IMO.

Oak, no disagreement, but the reality is Wilderness politics is now partisan politics. It's been that way for over a generation and getting WSAs actually protected as Wilderness is a herculean task. Look at Tester's Forest Jobs and Recreation Act, or the project I've been working on, the Rocky Mountain Front Heritage Act. These areas are incredibly deserving of protections and we have to fight everyone and their dog to get folks to stand up and move forward on common sense conservation issues.

Congress made the problem of WSA's being on the rolls for so long by making conservation a partisan issue, and this kind of legislation only weakens the grass roots attempts like Boulder White-Clouds, Rocky Mountain Front, Blackfoot, and so many other consensus based conservation attempts. These projects have broad based support from ranchers, hunters, conservationists, etc, etc. They're home grown proposals that try to respect all uses. HR 1581 completely disrespects that work. It's top down management by folks whom I doubt have ever set foot in a WSA or Roadless Area.

Here's a great example: We have four listening session in Helena, Great Falls, Choteau and Augusta starting tomorrow. Baucus will be there to hear what folks have to say. I'm sure the motorized guys will be in there screaming bloody murder when the reality is they've not been able to ride on most of the Front for quite a while now. The Rocky Mountain Front is 98% inventoried Roadless Areas. All of that land would be released so the FS could increase motorized use, timbering, mining, oil and gas development and reduce habitat security.

HR 1581 doesn't just affect WSA's, it affects Roadless Areas as well. That's almost 6 million acres in Montana alone. Those Roadless Areas are key for DIY hunters who only have a day or two to get in to elk and mule deer.

 

[Oak]

Ben, I think we agree 100%. My point was that something needs to be done about WSAs, and as I said, HR 1581 is probably not the right way to do it. I prefer local, stakeholder-driven processes that allow those most affected by the management to comment and participate. Even though I support wilderness designation, I am not a fan of bills introduced to Congress that designate multiple areas with absolutely no local input.

We have had one local success recently with the newly created Dominguez-Escalante NCA, where local stakeholders went through a long process of creating a vision of how they wanted the area managed. Groups involved included ranchers, OHV riders, hunters/anglers/, mountain bikers, recreationalists, etc. Not everyone got everthing they wanted, but in the end they came up with a plan that everyone could live with. Then it went to Congress for approval, and gained it relatively easily due to all of the front end work that went into the plan. We are currently in the infant stages of getting another plan off the ground with the Alpine Triangle in the San Juan Mountains.

I think what should really concern hunters is when organizations like RMEF start making statements like this:

H.R. 1581 would help rectify the serious problem faced by hunters who are being denied or limited in their access to wilderness and roadless areas on public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (Bureau) and United States Forest Service (Forest Service).

 

[RockyDog]

Every point you made is excellent except i wonder about this one....

Those Roadless Areas are key for DIY hunters who only have a day or two to get in to elk and mule deer.

over here the Allen Mountain WSA, the Stony Mountain WSA and the Blue Joint WSA are areas where you can spend weeks of backcountry hunting without having to compete the huge outfitting industry in the wilderness areas. i imagine they are examples of places that would be roaded under HR1581.

 

[Ben Lamb]

The Apline Triangle project is fantastic. I didn't know you were involved in that.

We're 100% together Oak.

Rocky,

I can hunt the Nevada Mtn Roadless area NW of Helena for day hunts. I don't have to compete with the atv crowd, and I can have a great experience. There's a lot of smaller IRA's around that are similar.

As far as the access is concerned, I always wondered who the elitist is, the guy w/ 30K worth of ATV's, or the guy with $250 worth of boots. I'm a fat bastard, and even I get out and walk.

 

[Ben Long]

I am a longtime member and supporter of RMEF. I've written maybe 100 articles for Bugle. But I am floored they would support HR 1581. For RMEF to support gutting roadless areas is like Ducks Unlimited working to drain swamps, or the Cancer Society giving cigarettes to school kids. It totally violates their mission. I've left voice mail messages at headquarters, but no one has returned my calls.

 

[muleguy]

This sound like it should be fhe first project for a new MT sportsmen group to work on, if it is true. I agree with Long on draining the swamp-throwing baby out with dishwater...
I sent this letter to Fin a few days ago-I'm sure he getting to bottom of it if he's not out chasing.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Several groups in MT are working on this right now in the hopes of making sure it doesn't get any farther than one subcommittee hearing.

 

[Ben Long]

I hate to see any issue split sportsmen so I cannot understand why RMEF would turn its back on its own science and common sense and go against habitat and hunter opportunity. Nearly elk I've killed since age 16 (and my best muley bucks too) have come from roadless areas. Destroying that in the name of "access" is just dumb. Why has RMEF destroyed its own credibility on this topic? Call and ask 'em. Maybe you'll get more of a response than I. 1.800.CALL.ELK.

 

[BuzzH]

Got the same email...I cant say I'm shocked by it.

 

[Oak]

I emailed the PR department yesterday and haven't gotten a response yet.

 

[RockyDog]

Some friends and i have each talked with individuals by phone at the missoula office.

It is obvious to me that RMEF has been taken over by people who would be an enemy of roadless elk habitat and that their personal ideals have taken first priority over the Mission Statement of RMEF.

Ive been a RMEF member most of my life, i even stuck with them when they they didnt help with the wolf issue, now im sending my cancellation notice this week.

If this act were to pass, 5 years from now when i go elk hunting in one of my favorite roadless honeyholes and find new roads and ATVs the thought of the RMEF being partly responsible is really nauseating.

 

[BuzzH]

The day I saw the first ATV add in the Bugle magazine...is the day I saw the end coming. Its about the $$$$ not the elk, not the habitat, and not what a majority of the membership wants.

The RMEF has made numerous blunders in the past 6 months...and its going to be tough to spin out of this one.

 

[RockyDog]

Buzz, do you know where i can find out whether the FS has recommended the WSAs in my area for wilderness?

I searched my the local website but could not find anything and am waiting for a call back from the local public affairs guy.