HR 1581 and the RMEF

[Ben Lamb]

it eliminates nothing.

According the Senator Barrasso's website, here is what the bill does:

• Terminates the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and the 2005 State Petition Rule with regard to release roadless areas and prohibits the Secretary of Agriculture from issuing a national regulation that directs how released roadless areas will be managed.

Here's the list of organizations that support it. It's an old list, apparently. It does show that the vast majority of people who support this are ATV users, livestock groups and extractive industries. The very same people who fight tool and nail for any increase in protection of wildlife habitat.

 

[BuzzH]

Ben,

You need to quit posting stuff like this, its all just a big conspiracy according to Black Hills.

 

[Ben Lamb]

One other interesting thing, Melissa Simpson, the lobbyist for the Safari Club, is a former (?) representative for the oil and gas industry:

IPAMS Wildlife Conservation Initiative:
IPAMS has hired Melissa Simpson with Pac/West on a retainer basis through 2009. Melissa’s efforts will include advocating on behalf of industry during Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies (AFWA) meetings, improving communication with state fish and wildlife agencies through an organized industry effort, and facilitating a dialog to mutually share information with the goal of predevelopment planning and monitoring. This effort will also serve as a tool to address wildlife protests from the Teddy Roosevelt Conservation Partnership (TRCP) and other sportsmen’s groups. Melissa and IPAMS staff met with companies that have agreed to fund and participate in this initiative on April 7th to discuss next steps. The group discussed the recently released ‘Sportsmen for Responsible Energy Development’ recommendations with proposed legislative language and regulatory changes. The group assigned topics from the document to each of the company representatives to analyze and the group will draft alternative proposals for future advocacy efforts thereafter. Special thanks to the five companies (Bill Barrett Corp., Fidelity, Newfield, Pioneer and Questar) that have agreed to fund this initiative. Please contact Spencer for more information or if your company is
interested in participating.

Here's her testimony for HR 1581:
http://naturalresources.house.gov/UploadedFiles/SimpsonTestimony07.26.11.pdf

 

[muleguy]

Ben,
You are needed on the forum on bowsite.com to interject some true knownledge on this matter. They are drinking the kool aid and haven't even thought about the oil and gas as being behind this travesty.
thanks
joe

 

[1_pointer]

FWIW, the condition of the habitat has no bearing on a parcels ability to be wilderness or not.

Though I feel it's a tough balancing act, the protections provided by WSA or Wilderness status also make it hard for the agency to improve (ie vegetation treatments) those same areas.

 

[sweetnectar]

Can Big Fin make a show were they hunt in wilderness or wilderness study areas?

 

[RockyDog]

I remember he saying either it takes paperwork and money or maybe he cant in wilderness. I see other shows filming in wilderness so maybe it's not off limits. I bet there's no problem in wsas

 

[Ben Lamb]

Can Big Fin make a show were they hunt in wilderness or wilderness study areas?

Here's a link about filming in Wilderness. Recreational filming is one thing, and requires no permits.

Filming in Wilderness

Moviemakers must get a permit to film in wilderness areas, and they have to pledge that their film will focus on the use of wilderness or its ecological, scientific, historical or educational value.

It's beyond me why some people would object to commercial filming in wilderness if properly permitted. but, I suppose they all are traditional archers too.

 

[Ben Lamb]

FWIW, the condition of the habitat has no bearing on a parcels ability to be wilderness or not.

Though I feel it's a tough balancing act, the protections provided by WSA or Wilderness status also make it hard for the agency to improve (ie vegetation treatments) those same areas.

I absolutely agree with your first point.

Second point, it's interesting to compare herd populations of elk in places with high wilderness components to areas with heavy development. Places like the Scapegoat, Bob, Beartooth, etc wildernesses seem to have more resilient elk herds (with the exception of the Selway, but that can be attributed to loss of habitat by conifer encroachment and habitat degredation 100 years after the great burn as much as wolves or other factors).

Sun River elk spend the majority of their time in protected landscapes:

Summer and calving grounds are in wilderness/Sun River Game Preserve
Migration routes are through Inventoried Roadless
Winter grounds are protected by FWP or USFWS Conservation easements.

That herd has incredibly high densities of predators including Grizz, Black bear, wolves, and lions. But it has incredible habitat security.

In fact, the key component to elk survivability seems to be linked to secure habitat rather than any other factor. BLM ground requires more mechanized treatments because of more soil disturbance from past grazing practices, loss of sagebrush, aspen, etc, road density, weeds, O&G development and drought.

I'd be interested to hear your point of view, 1 pointer, on the necessity for wilderness treatments v/multiple use land treatment.

 

[Lawnboy]

, I suppose they all are traditional archers too.

Or fishermen

 

[ERSS]

Count me in as one of those scratching my head about the RMEF and thier loyalties. As a former state chair and current life member, I significantly dropped my involvement level when there was no wolf statement/action, as well as some other reasons. Now this? I think those of us who prefer to walk into pristine country and look to hunt in solitude are the minority. As Buzz says, follow the money. ATV ads in bugle? Please the masses and get the money? After reading all these responses and a little google research, it is hard to see any good science that shows where passage of this bill matches up with the RMEF mission statement.

 

[mtelkhntr78]

Count me in as one of those scratching my head about the RMEF and thier loyalties. As a former state chair and current life member, I significantly dropped my involvement level when there was no wolf statement/action, as well as some other reasons. Now this? I think those of us who prefer to walk into pristine country and look to hunt in solitude are the minority. As Buzz says, follow the money. ATV ads in bugle? Please the masses and get the money? After reading all these responses and a little google research, it is hard to see any good science that shows where passage of this bill matches up with the RMEF mission statement.

I agree!
I called 1800-CALL ELK(225-5355) and left a message with the general voicemail and then one with David Allen voicing my displeasure with RMEF support on this matter.

 

[RockyDog]

Last night i took the time to read through the study report that was linked in the initial letter endorse by RMEF, SCI, etal. Its actually not too bad a report, the authors of that anti-roadless letter are actually making a claim about lack of motorized access that really isnt isn’t highlighted as a result in the report. the report links urbanization, home building, and other factors much more related to decreased hunting license sales than public land access. the people who were surveyed about access to public lands were actually a satisfied majority.

It appears that RMEF, SCI, NRA et al referenced the study results way out of context and chose to call for more motorized access, now im scratching my head even more.

 

[Oak]

Wilderness wins again!

But Lou Yost, executive secretary for the board, said a big challenge for McDaniel’s proposal — which he has yet to receive — could be the wilderness area question. Mount Sopris is in the Maroon Bells-Snowmass Wilderness Area.

Based on its interpretation of the Wilderness Act of 1964, “The board just feels that applying any more new names to features in wilderness areas detracts from the wilderness experience that future generations will have and it … won’t do it unless the proponent makes an overriding case,” Yost said.

He said exceptions normally would be made for reasons such as safety, or perhaps educational purposes.

John friggin' Denver?

 

[RockyDog]

someone picked up on this on another site - as cited in the "The Future of Hunting and the Shooting Sports", p. 53. Well, here is what the study actually said:

"As instructive as examining the factors and scenarios to which hunters positively respond is examining the factors and scenarios that cause dissatisfaction with and desertion of hunting (Figure 4.12). Hunters whose hunting participation has declined were asked in an open-ended question (meaning that no answer set is read, and respondents can give top-of-mind responses) to name the causes of the decline, and the most common answers were age/health (42%) and time obligations for family and/or work (32%)—the leading answers by far. In comparison, only 16% mentioned an access problem, the next nearest answer."

So….for those who hunted less or stopped hunting access was a very distant third place response at only 16% compared to 42% and 32% for the top two replies!
AND....

"active hunters were asked in an open-ended question about things that may have prevented them from going hunting in recent years (Figure 4.13). The top things preventing hunting participation were lack of time because of family and/or work obligations 29%) 54 Responsive Management / National Shooting Sports Foundation and age or poor health (19%)—both items outside of agency influence (Phase III—RM 2007a). The next item on the list was lack of access (9%). "

So…For those who were active hunters it was only 9% that listed access as a problem, again the third place answer behind the first two that ranked with 29% and 19%.
By listing access as a top three reason, they try to show that it is significant, even when it was a distant third in both examples and was given by less than one in five respondents from both active and inactive hunters.

Also, although the study and the don't state it as such, not surprisingly, I don't think that access as an issue is about not BEING ABLE TO get to areas to hunt I think that it is about not GETTING PERMISSION TO hunt on those lands/properties, and that is a big difference in meaning.
_____


wow RMEF is looking worse and worse. i think they need to can the entire executive staff.

 

[Oak]

Also, although the study and the don't state it as such, not surprisingly, I don't think that access as an issue is about not BEING ABLE TO get to areas to hunt I think that it is about not GETTING PERMISSION TO hunt on those lands/properties, and that is a big difference in meaning.

I'm sure that is largely the case. The survey was nationwide, and I'm guessing that the percentage of those who felt "locked out" of public lands was relatively low.

The sample of hunters was developed to match proportionally the distribution of hunters nationwide. This distribution was based on the data of hunters provided by the National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation.​

 

[lamdilligaf]

Here are some googleearth shots of our "multiple use" ares in the bitterroot. Now if we can only get RMEFs assistance makeing our roadless forests look like this, we will be in elk heaven!

#1 is southeast of Hamilton, MT
#2 is southern West Fork Bitterroot near Painted Rocks, MT
#3 west of Florence, MT

Just for the record, prior to the wolf explosion and poor elk management by our previous biologist, these areas that you are showing were tremendous elk hunting areas. Their elk density was way beyond what most wilderness areas carry. Multiple use doesn't mean poor elk hunting any more than wilderness gaurantees good elk hunting. There are a lot more factors involved.

 

[RockyDog]

Hi Lamdil,

i dont think these shots are from where you think. these areas have always been blasted as long as ive been here. For the roaded areas youve told me you used to hunt i believe you and i saw the tailend of those good times for myself, but that was back when we had ALOT less people and wolves.

RD

 

[RockyDog]

FYI - RMEF has sent out emails that they officially revoked their support of HR 1581

 

[kansasdad]

Somebody got some HEAT!!!