Public Lands Package moves forward in Congress

Regarding the Valles Caldera (which will be a National Preserve, not a Park) From the bill, page 1273, Section 7 (Lines 20-25)

(7) HUNTING, FISHING, AND TRAPPING.—
21 (A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in
22 subparagraph (B), the Secretary shall permit
23 hunting, fishing, and trapping on land and
24 water within the Preserve in accordance with
25 applicable Federal and State law.
 
I'm not a big fan of it going to NPS either, but I believe, at least under the proposal I read a while back, that the current hunt structure would be maintained under NPS management.

I did find this, interesting read: http://rmefblog.blogspot.com/2013/06/coalition-letter-to-senators-regarding.html

It's interesting that the letter is signed by groups who didn't work on the proposal. The switch to a preserve is supported by NM sportsmen organizations, some of whom worked on the bill for a long, long time.
 
Thanks for the different info on the VC. I'll have to dig into it a more. I just don't understand why they wouldn't transfer it to the FS. Parks system just makes me nervous
 
Thanks for the different info on the VC. I'll have to dig into it a more. I just don't understand why they wouldn't transfer it to the FS. Parks system just makes me nervous


I think this is why: "The Sierra Club, Caldera Action, National Parks Conservation Association, New Mexico Wildlife Federation, Coalition of NPS Retirees, Audubon and others..."

I usually like to see at least one group I trust in the mix...

Apparently it would transfer to the USFS in 2020 if nothing is done.

http://riograndesierraclub.org/Valles-Caldera-bill
 
I think this is why: "The Sierra Club, Caldera Action, National Parks Conservation Association, New Mexico Wildlife Federation, Coalition of NPS Retirees, Audubon and others..."

I usually like to see at least one group I trust in the mix...

Apparently it would transfer to the USFS in 2020 if nothing is done.

http://riograndesierraclub.org/Valles-Caldera-bill

Ah, I see. NPS would protect it better from grazing, logging, etc. Hunting grandfathered in, but of course that could change.

Sierra Club was one of the groups that opposed the current version of the bill.
 
Ah, I see. NPS would protect it better from grazing, logging, etc. Hunting grandfathered in, but of course that could change.

No, it couldn't. If it is in the enabling act, and defined as the shall versus may, then it is a condition of the act and must be allowed. Any sporting group could take the NPS to court and easily win if they shut down hunting. Here's the full language related to hunting and angling in the Preserve (remember, it's a preserve, not a park):

(7) HUNTING, FISHING, AND TRAPPING.—
21 (A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in
22 subparagraph (B), the Secretary shall permit
23 hunting, fishing, and trapping on land and
24 water within the Preserve in accordance with
25 applicable Federal and State law.

1 (B) ADMINISTRATIVE EXCEPTIONS.—The
2 Secretary may designate areas in which, and es-
3 tablish limited periods during which, no hunt-
4 ing, fishing, or trapping shall be permitted
5 under subparagraph (A) for reasons of public
6 safety, administration, or compliance with ap-
7 plicable law.
8 (C) AGENCY AGREEMENT.—Except in an
9 emergency, regulations closing areas within the
10 Preserve to hunting, fishing, or trapping under
11 this paragraph shall be made in consultation
12 with the appropriate agency of the State having
13 responsibility for fish and wildlife administra-
14 tion.
15 (D) SAVINGS CLAUSE.—Nothing in this
16 section affects any jurisdiction or responsibility
17 of the State with respect to fish and wildlife in
18 the Preserve.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the info Ben. Haven't had a chance to go through the bill myself yet. Still seems dumb to me to turn it over to the Parks Service when it is already surrounded by the Santa Fe and could be easily merged with the existing NF
 
The reason I made that statement is even though it says "SHALL", I'm skeptical that things will stay the same in the long run when they possibly decide there are conflicts of some sort and hunting has to be decreased, changed, or whatever that could be detrimental to us. Maybe it won't happen, but I"ve always believed in the "never say never" theory"!
 
The reason I made that statement is even though it says "SHALL", I'm skeptical that things will stay the same in the long run when they possibly decide there are conflicts of some sort and hunting has to be decreased, changed, or whatever that could be detrimental to us. Maybe it won't happen, but I"ve always believed in the "never say never" theory"!

That's why people always need to keep their eye on what is happening. Hopefully they will do right by the sportsman who are basically the only outside revenue stream that the VC has coming in. I have never been lucky enough to hunt there but just visiting it once was enough to always have me putting in for the lottery.
 
The reason I made that statement is even though it says "SHALL", I'm skeptical that things will stay the same in the long run when they possibly decide there are conflicts of some sort and hunting has to be decreased, changed, or whatever that could be detrimental to us. Maybe it won't happen, but I"ve always believed in the "never say never" theory"!

The only way that VC would eliminate hunting under this bill is if Congress goes back in and amends the enabling act. The way the bill is written, hunting is a mandated activity, to be managed in conjunction with the NMGFD.

Not that I put anything past congress, but I doubt they do this for several reasons, most importantly being that it would cause a major firestorm politically.
 
Interior secretary disappointed at land swap in Defense bill

“I’m happy to see public lands bills make progress,” Jewell said Saturday, according to the Washington Post. “The preference on public lands bills is that they go through a typical process of public lands bills and they get debate and discussion.”

This is what I feel is missing from the discussion - the process that involves the public and the science. Just as many bills these days are including categorical exclusions, to cut the public out of the process, as well as the science, packages, such as this one, are acting like a categorical exclusion.

Roosevelt-
“I recognize the right and duty of this generation to develop and use the natural resources of our land but I do not recognize the right to waste them, or to rob, by wasteful use, the generations that come after us....

“Of all the questions which can come before this nation, short of the actual preservation of its existence in a great war, there is none which compares in importance with the great central task of leaving this land even a better land for our descendants than it is for us, and training them into a better race to inhabit the land and pass it on. Conservation is a great moral issue, for it involves the patriotic duty of insuring the safety and continuance of the nation.”

Using the public and science public land process and Roosevelts moral issue perspective of conservation for this nation as a basic measuring rod, how does trading land to a foreign mining company with a bad record, establishing an open pit copper mine, the copper from which will be sold to another foreign country, follow a public and scientific process that is not wasteful or robbing this generation or those that come after us?

In a discussion with a conservation friend the other day, his statement was that elk were responsible for brucellosis transmissions to cattle. I corrected that there are some documented cases of elk transmission to cattle in WY and ID, but not proven cases in Montana, that it was irresponsible to keep using this statement as a means to try and get bison out of APHIS/DOL's crosshairs. He disagreed, said it was strategic, that once the focus was on elk, removing the bison from the picture, that RMEF would fight against whatever would happen to elk. I pointed out how long this has been going on for bison and how many have been killed on an assumption, that you cant jeopardize elk in a shell game. To me, this is not conservation.

Political shell games with public lands and wildlife are disingenuous, selfish and short sighted.

At yesterdays 7 county commission work group, some of the commissioners were asking the Forest Service district rangers about fires, how many of their employees were dedicated strictly to fire control? And how many get shipped off to another state when they have fires? They replied the numbers, but stated that with the little funding they had for employees, they had to do the best they could with what they have, that meant sharing employees during a fire. That not only did it allow for training experience, but they wanted to share personnel, because if we had a fire, they would surely want those other states employees to come and help Montana out.

If western Montanans burn eastern Montana, simply because it is not in their backyard, or they burn Arizona, Nevada, Oregon or Alaska for their local pet projects, dont expect their help when you need it. Burned people have a tendency to remember. The public and science process is there to benefit and further conservation, without partiality, for future generations. If you throw that process out, you open the door and set a precedent for more of this bs in the future.
 
NDAA passed the Senate. It's headed to Obama's desk.

The Rocky Mountain Front, North Fork Protection Act, Valles Caldera National Preserve Act and a bunch of other good and not so good stuff is now law.

While we can all dislike the bad parts of the bill, we should still celebrate the passage of MT's first wilderness in 31 years. Now it's time to get back into the fight and right the wrongs.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
113,564
Messages
2,025,247
Members
36,231
Latest member
ChasinDoes
Back
Top