Hunting And Fishing Groups Are Starting To Turn On Trump’s Interior Secretary

[Sytes]

He clearly isn't. You tell me how having zero access is greater than some access? Sure wilderness is restrictive but a heck of a lot less restrictive than zero public access. While I understand the opposition to new wilderness that is apples to oranges compared to this. When we the public have no legal access to a piece of public land and through a local effort there is an option to gain access, even if it's wilderness restricted, that's a no-brainer clearly greater public good decision.

Based on his flop of an ego based decision to demand from what is offered as a donation, all be it, with the contingent purchase of land (still a no brainer decision), your comment conflicts with his expressed interest.
His position is to negotiate for the sake of all opportunities for outdoor enthusiasts and not for the select few, fit backpack or pack animal use.
Your comment - He is only for specific types of access. You are not referencing no access as you comment above.

Zinke is... </snip> for specific types of public access, and only those certain types.

 

[theat]

Embarrassed to be a from the same state as Zinke. I had a little hope that he would stand by his word, but with how quickly he abandoned his constituents in Montana for political gain, I am not surprised with the way he is turning out.

 

[Nameless Range]

At this point I wouldn't be surprised if Zinke comes out in support of PLT. The words and positions of yesteryear aren't very useful in predicting political positions of individuals within, or sucking on the tit, of this administration.

I hope Zinke stays true to his opposition to that at least.

 

[onpoint]

I have been observing this thread and reminiscing on older threads that dealt with the election(s) of Zinke and his numerous partners in crime. Some on this forum do pay close attention to folks like Ryan Zinke, Steve Daines, hell - their despot of a leader, even - as these people appear on the political stage and begin their meteoric rise(s) through their ranks. I invite folks to go back and review the many thoughtful and insightful posts about the character and leanings of these guys as it pertains to the things important to many on here. Those who can utter the pitiful "I told you so" - I'm guessing - are experiencing no comfort in being right all along.
Nearing the end of a thirty some year career in fish and wildlife management and conservation, of which the vast majority has been spent doing this task on OUR public lands, I am (or was?? - yeah still am) looking forward to having the time and opportunity to more enjoy the very things I got into my profession for.
Public land sportsmen and women better wake up to a multitude of realities.
One of my colleagues recent favorite sayings is "this isn't going to end well".
We all better hope he's wrong.

 

[Northwoods Labs]

In the original posted article, the individual from the National Wildlife Federation hit the nail on the head. Instead of solving issues now, and looking to the future, it seems like we are constantly "reviewing" the past. The Sage Grouse Plan and National Monuments were already created with input and public support. The vast majority of Americans support them. Only a few, loud shouting groups do not. By reviewing these things, who is Zinke really supporting?

As to the video, I have to applaud Senator Heinrich for putting boots on the ground to solve an issue. Well spoken guy, who should be given great support by outdoorsman. Zinke, meanwhile, was up there mumbling incoherently something about supporting public access, yet supporting zero access. I honestly have not a clue where this guy stands on the issue. I don't even know if he knows where he stands. All I gotta say is actions speak louder than words. Zinke claims to be a "Teddy Roosevelt guy". Well who looked like the "Teddy Roosevelt guy" in that exchange. Thank you Senator Heinrich (and I am not fro New Mexico and will likely never visit that wilderness). As for Zinke, hope he gets his act together quick

 

[Ben Lamb]

In the original posted article, the individual from the National Wildlife Federation hit the nail on the head. Instead of solving issues now, and looking to the future, it seems like we are constantly "reviewing" the past. The Sage Grouse Plan and National Monuments were already created with input and public support. The vast majority of Americans support them. Only a few, loud shouting groups do not. By reviewing these things, who is Zinke really supporting?

The Western Energy Association, Big Game Forever, and the State of Utah.

 

[Northwoods Labs]

Here is a strange one, on Zinke supposedly threatening Alaska with a loss of Interior nominations and drilling opportunities based on Murkowski's no vote on healthcare. http://www.wisn.com/article/alaskas-senators-receive-troubling-message-from-trump-administration/10370214

 

[esracerx]

Not quite sure how I got the Pittsburgh link in there, sorry.

Trying to rub the Stanley cup thing in huh? I'm onto you

 

[cgarner]

What a sad sad display by Secretary Zinke. I tend to try and give figure faces the benefit of the doubt for some stupid comments. However, there is a scary trend by Zinke that boggles the mind and is way past the benefit of doubt. Hopefully he can right the ship soon for public land support or as stated above, "this isn't going to end well".

 

[Paul in Idaho]

Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke in a memo on Monday directed his deputy David Bernhardt to make nine broad changes to the program. In June Zinke stated the sage grouse protection program needed to be revised to "protect sage grouse and its habitat while also ensuring conservation efforts do not impede local economic opportunities."

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-interior-sagegrouse-idUSKBN1AN2B5

https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/uploads/so3353_memo_coverletter_report_080717.pdf

 

[JWP58]

It is actions like what is shown in this video that are so hard to reconcile with a Secretary of Interior whose claim is the next Theodore Roosevelt. If you want more access, like access to 20,000 acres of wild public lands currently without any access and you have a landowner willing to donate 3,000 acres if you will buy 700 of his acres and 700 more acres of inholdings held by neighbors (at appraised value), then you don't sit in front of Senate Committees mumbling and bumbling like this five minute clip from a couple weeks ago.

The deal is packaged and ready to go. Naturally hunters want it, and even the local County Commission wants it done. It was approved last year, but somehow the breaks have been put on because the donor wants to make his donated property an extension of the existing Wilderness Area.

Let me get this straight - You (not we) would rather have no access than upset the Utah delegation that is pushing the doctrine that we need a motorized route to every piece of public land.
C'mon Secretary, testimony like this is embarrassing us 'Tana folks.

Watch this video showing how Secretary Zinke is taking his orders from the Utah delegation and it will likely clarify why hunters are questioning their support to get former Congressman Zinke appointed as Secretary of Interior.


[video=youtube_share;OvjXookTq38]https://youtu.be/OvjXookTq38[/video]


Since this thread started here on Hunt Talk I approved a new member with an IP address connected to United States Department of Interior, Secretary Office. If they are lurking and watching, maybe pass this video on to the boss and the comments about such.

I've got to ask, is there a reason the state can't purchase the land to get this deal done? Or maybe a local or regional conservation group? I'm assuming that since it's such a popular deal (per the congressman) it would be easy to bypass the doi....no? Just trying to think outside the box.

Could maybe trcp and bha join forces and do what rmef does to purchase this property in order to donate it for public access?

 

[Frenchy]

I've got to ask, is there a reason the state can't purchase the land to get this deal done? Or maybe a local or regional conservation group? I'm assuming that since it's such a popular deal (per the congressman) it would be easy to bypass the doi....no? Just trying to think outside the box.

Could maybe trcp and bha join forces and do what rmef does to purchase this property in order to donate it for public access?

Now there is an idea!

 

[Nameless Range]

.....

 

[Ben Lamb]

I've got to ask, is there a reason the state can't purchase the land to get this deal done? Or maybe a local or regional conservation group? I'm assuming that since it's such a popular deal (per the congressman) it would be easy to bypass the doi....no? Just trying to think outside the box.

Could maybe trcp and bha join forces and do what rmef does to purchase this property in order to donate it for public access?

http://www.wildernesslandtrust.org/public/File/Sabinoso Handout FINAL.pdf

It's already a part of the overall package. It's also why program like the Land & Water Conservation Fund were created over 50 years ago. Existing programs combined with private dollars are routinely used to leverage funds and increase ability. Sabinoso is no different.

A deal was cut with the landowner, now the federal government, and in particular, the secretary of the united states, are holding that up based on pure ego and willful ignorance.

 

[Ben Lamb]

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-interior-sagegrouse-idUSKBN1AN2B5

https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/uploads/so3353_memo_coverletter_report_080717.pdf

On the grouse plans, ZInke is ignoring the western association of fish & wildlife agencies, every governor in the west except Herbert & Otter and the vast array of groups representing sportsmen and even ag who asked for no major changes. ZInke's order and memo set us back 10 years when it comes to collaborative conservation and seeking solutions to complex conservation issues across the range. As SOI, now Zinke thinks it's the fed's job to tell states what population objectives for grouse should be, is ignoring the will of the west and isn't listening to western game and fish agencies at all.

If you've ever complained about federal overreach as it relates to wildlife management, then you should be squawking now. Zinke is setting interior up to be the heavy-handed agency everyone dislikes.

 

[JWP58]

http://www.wildernesslandtrust.org/public/File/Sabinoso Handout FINAL.pdf

It's already a part of the overall package. It's also why program like the Land & Water Conservation Fund were created over 50 years ago. Existing programs combined with private dollars are routinely used to leverage funds and increase ability. Sabinoso is no different.

A deal was cut with the landowner, now the federal government, and in particular, the secretary of the united states, are holding that up based on pure ego and willful ignorance.

How can the DOI be holding up the deal, of it's already been cut? Is it because of money? Or because the deal hinges on making the donated/purchased land wilderness instead of just public? Or does this deal require DOI approval for some reason? Serious question here.

I wonder if the feds are holding up the process, why not donate it to the state with deeded requirements of public access.

I also wonder why access wasn't considered in 2009 when the wilderness area was designated.

 

[Ben Lamb]

How can the DOI be holding up the deal, of it's already been cut? Is it because of money? Or because the deal hinges on making the donated/purchased land wilderness instead of just public? Or does this deal require DOI approval for some reason? Serious question here.

I wonder if the feds are holding up the process, why not donate it to the state with deeded requirements of public access.

I also wonder why access wasn't considered in 2009 when the wilderness area was designated.

The deal that was cut, at the request of the landowner, is that the donated/purchased land be given wilderness status. That's what's holding Zinke up from following through with the deal. He has long been opposed to new wilderness although I've never heard a cogent reason as to why. In the Sabinoso instance, you have a landowner who wants to put their land into public hands, and in order to protect it as they have for generations, they want wilderness status. That's an amazing conservation ethic on the landowner's part, and it's a sad comment on where our Secretary is when he won't honor the wishes of the landowner and the people, including his own staff, that put this together.

As for the purchase, I think it's a big mix already of part donation, part private and part public. The funds are there, DOI just need to follow through.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Here's a good follow up article from ZiInke's trip to Sabinoso. We all should be sending thanks to Senators Heinrich & Udall for their persistence:

https://www.abqjournal.com/1040466/interior-secretary-zinke-surveys-sabinoso-wilderness.html

 

[JWP58]

The deal that was cut, at the request of the landowner, is that the donated/purchased land be given wilderness status. That's what's holding Zinke up from following through with the deal. He has long been opposed to new wilderness although I've never heard a cogent reason as to why. In the Sabinoso instance, you have a landowner who wants to put their land into public hands, and in order to protect it as they have for generations, they want wilderness status. That's an amazing conservation ethic on the landowner's part, and it's a sad comment on where our Secretary is when he won't honor the wishes of the landowner and the people, including his own staff, that put this together.

As for the purchase, I think it's a big mix already of part donation, part private and part public. The funds are there, DOI just need to follow through.

Are there requirements for wilderness areas in the wilderness act? Like can there be roads, out buildings, homes, etc on designated wilderness areas?

You gloss over the fact that Zinke stated he was for providing access to the relatively new wilderness area, and that he only had reservations about the contingently donated property meeting the historical requirements of wilderness areas.

But that's expected. Non partisan discussion is impossible..

 

[Ben Lamb]

Are there requirements for wilderness areas in the wilderness act? Like can there be roads, out buildings, homes, etc on designated wilderness areas?

You gloss over the fact that Zinke stated he was for providing access to the relatively new wilderness area, and that he only had reservations about the contingently donated property meeting the historical requirements of wilderness areas.

But that's expected. Non partisan discussion is impossible..

There currently are not roads in this area that are open to the public, and if there are two-tracks or ranch roads, they would be closed. The public has no access now, and the landowner is being generous in his donation. The Landowner is the one stipulating the condition of wilderness, not the gov't.

In Wlderness, there are no roads. There are buildings, etc in current wilderness areas as well as provisions within the wilderness act that give local forest rangers the ability to use motorized vehicles, chainsaws, etc if necessary. Several wilderness areas have guzzlers, stock tanks and other infrastructure installed and the act allows for the maintenence thereof.

Most rangers will not allow that use as it will reduce the wilderness values. Most folks I know who do trail work in the wilderness laugh when you ask if they bring in a chainsaw. The basic take is that it's too heavy to pack in over a cross cut or handsaw.

Zinke is ignoring the will of the landowner, who is asking that this be protected as wilderness. How would you feel if you were making a donation, but I told you only foot traffic would be allowed, even though you want ATV's to use it? Zinke is ingoring the will of the people who have worked to put this deal together. He is sitting on his perch in D.C. trying to play king, while ignoring the locals who put this together. I'm not being partisan, I'm favoring local control over DC heavy-handedness and willful ignorance.