Public Lands Package moves forward in Congress

[johnp]

Otter creek wsa's released for o&g developement . Say it aint so.
If and when roads , drilling ,traffic etc. happen there , I will feel like an old friend just got buried .

 

[Canoe Country]

Just a comment after reading this thread, it appears that some very good measures were passed with this bill, even if it was backdoored onto the Defense Bill. I will admit, I am and avid hunter and outdoorsman but other than attending an occasional whitetails unlimited or Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation events, along with buying a lot of licenses from several states, I do not keep up with the latest legislative bills being pushed or advocate nearly as much as the folks on here.

I take my hat off to all of those like Ben, Oak, Big Fin, and all others who fight to keep our public lands public and protected, advocate for protecting more resources, and protecting the resources these animals need to survive ( which is one of Oak's biggest frustrations from what I am reading). If it wasn't for folks for you we would certainly be in worse shape than we are right now.

With this being said, no matter what view point one has on any topic, their is someone in this country who feels the opposite about it or at least has a contradicting view. We cannot believe we will get everything we want otherwise we would not live in a democracy. There are some pieces that are hard to swallow but as a whole, in regards to protecting and setting aside future lands for the public land hunter, this bill is a huge win.

To all of you that do so much for these causes, I think you and ask that you don't give up your fight, we all owe you dearly. THANK YOU!

 

[katqanna]

Does anyone have a copy of the final grazing improvement wording?

Rob, being the weekend, I am not seeing some of the sites updated yet, not even for the vote, like govtrack or even the Armed Services Committee (they were the worst at updating). But Library of Congress had updates from Dec. 12th and here is the text they had up for the grazing section. I dont know if this is the final though.

Section 402 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1752) is amended--

(1) in subsection (c)--

(A) by redesignating paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) as subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C), respectively;

(B) by striking `So long as' and inserting the following:

`(1) RENEWAL OF EXPIRING OR TRANSFERRED PERMIT OR LEASE- During any period in which'; and

(C) by adding at the end the following:

`(2) CONTINUATION OF TERMS UNDER NEW PERMIT OR LEASE- The terms and conditions in a grazing permit or lease that has expired, or was terminated due to a grazing preference transfer, shall be continued under a new permit or lease until the date on which the Secretary concerned completes any environmental analysis and documentation for the permit or lease required under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and other applicable laws.

`(3) COMPLETION OF PROCESSING- As of the date on which the Secretary concerned completes the processing of a grazing permit or lease in accordance with paragraph (2), the permit or lease may be canceled, suspended, or modified, in whole or in part.

`(4) ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWS- The Secretary concerned shall seek to conduct environmental reviews on an allotment or multiple allotment basis, to the extent practicable, if the allotments share similar ecological conditions, for purposes of compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and other applicable laws.';

(2) by redesignating subsection (h) as subsection (j); and

(3) by inserting after subsection (g) the following:

`(h) National Environmental Policy Act of 1969-

`(1) IN GENERAL- The issuance of a grazing permit or lease by the Secretary concerned may be categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) if--

`(A) the issued permit or lease continues the current grazing management of the allotment; and

`(B) the Secretary concerned--

`(i) has assessed and evaluated the grazing allotment associated with the lease or permit; and

`(ii) based on the assessment and evaluation under clause (i), has determined that the allotment--

`(I) with respect to public land administered by the Secretary of the Interior--

`(aa) is meeting land health standards; or

`(bb) is not meeting land health standards due to factors other than existing livestock grazing; or

`(II) with respect to National Forest System land administered by the Secretary of Agriculture--

`(aa) is meeting objectives in the applicable land and resource management plan; or

`(bb) is not meeting the objectives in the applicable land resource management plan due to factors other than existing livestock grazing.

`(2) TRAILING AND CROSSING- The trailing and crossing of livestock across public land and National Forest System land and the implementation of trailing and crossing practices by the Secretary concerned may be categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).

`(i) Priority and Timing for Completion of Environmental Analyses- The Secretary concerned, in the sole discretion of the Secretary concerned, shall determine the priority and timing for completing each required environmental analysis with respect to a grazing allotment, permit, or lease based on--

`(1) the environmental significance of the grazing allotment, permit, or lease; and

`(2) the available funding for the environmental analysis.'.

 

[1_pointer]

Just a comment on the quote in the grazing portion that katqanna posted. Item #2 is not that far off from what is often practiced in some places already. I dealt with crossing permits in a previous life. The office I worked in had one trailing area left. Two other trailing areas had been closed during the land use planning process. We issued trailing permits via Documentation of NEPA Adequacy (DNA) as we did a programmatic EA at the beginning of every year. Never once had a comment, let alone an protest or appeal on the EA. Not sure how it works in other districts/areas but I'd bet it works quite similar. If an area is not designated for trailing in the land use/resource management plan I'm not sure, even with an EA/EIS, trailing could be authorized. I'd think the permittee's in the allotments being crossed would have a bit of heartburn over the loss of AUMs.

 

[6speed]

After reading the cut and paste version it doesn't look that bad. I have to admit I look at it from both sides as I have family that ranges cattle. Knowing the group's that have been pushing to use the EAJA to require an EIS for everything they don't like in an effort to create an expensive red tape mess and the current oversight and regulation in the areas I hunt fish and hike this won't really have any foreseeable negative effects.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Being snide and obtuse is not your best side.

I wasn't being snide or obtuse. Elections matter and this bill is a direct result of the last election. Apologies if I came across as flippant.

 

[BuzzH]

I hope not to offend anyone with this post, particularly Oak and Randy...but here goes.

I think many times, (myself included and likely one of the WORST for this), a personal agenda clouds the greater good of "deals" like this. While I completely understand that there are some things in the bill that aren't going to do wild sheep any favors, I take this deal every time, no doubt about it.

Heres why:

1. While I like hunting sheep, realistically trying to thwart an effort like this to protect areas like the Rocky Mountain Front, based on the ramifications (pun there) of any potential impacts on wild sheep is a bit selfish of the sheep guys.

The big picture to me is that if hunting has a chance to continue, we need large areas like the Front to stay unchanged. If that means a few less sheep to hunt, so be it. The meat and taters of hunting and its future is NOT wild sheep. Its elk, deer, black bears, and pronghorns. Things that the average hunter will, or can, hunt every year. There just aren't many people each year that hunt sheep in the lower 48, there are hundreds of thousands of people that hunt elk, deer, pronghorn, black bears, etc. It makes sense to protect areas that will continue to support access, habitat, and requirements needed for those species we hunt the most.

2. The RMF is some of the best sheep habitat in the West, there was a gain there for wild sheep.

3. The number one reason that people quit, or never start hunting, is because they have no place to hunt or have lost access to areas. These types of land packages ensure access and protections needed for ALL wildlife.

In a perfect world, nobody would ever lose anything they want. But what I'm going to fight the hardest for, and give the nod to EVERYTIME, is the future of the sport/landscapes, as a whole and those species most often hunted by a majority.

Wild sheep and sheep hunting are about as good as it gets, I wish everyone could hunt them every year, but the reality is, its a very tiny segment of hunters that will ever get the chance. I find it a bit tough for me to give up areas like the front for something such a small portion of hunters will ever do.

Long-term, this bill will have a much more positive impact on big-game and hunting than having a handful more bighorns to hunt.

This doesn't make me happy posting this...and like Randy and Oak have either said or eluded to, it sucks big-time, having to make these kinds of choices. But, I just think at this point, with accelerated development of public lands, etc. etc. that we have to do the "greatest good, for the greatest number, for the longest time"...

 

[TheJason]

Forgive my ignorance here, but can someone please explain to me what in this package is so detrimental to wild sheep?

Buzz is entirely correct too, very few folks ever get to hunt bighorn sheep. Wildlife managers will tell you that they are a pain the ass to manage and are high maintenance. It's a lot easier to grow deer and elk, and many more people hunt them.

As far as Buzz's #3, I couldn't agree more.

 

[Big Fin]

I hope not to offend anyone with this post, particularly Oak and Randy...but here goes....

No worries, Buzz. A very good post and no offense taken.

I guess part of my reduced excitement when such great benefit comes to Montana is the realization that we are in a different political time and space . For 20+ years I've worked on public land issues; exchanges, acquisitions, etc. In the past, we were able to take on those issues as stand alone legislation; allowing the merits of the idea to stand on its own. We did not have to sacrifice equally important priorities for the sake of excellent land conservation ideas.

Maybe I just have to get used to the new paradigm. I'm not good at "getting used to" bad policies, but given I will never be the leader of the US Senate, I probably have no other option.

My reason for posting as I did was not to put a downer on some great land protection in Montana, but to hopefully get people interested in getting behind the hard work that lies ahead for wild sheep. And not because I ever expect to get an opportunity to hunt wild sheep, even with the mountain of points I have in so many states. Rather, because as hunters, we have always been about enhancement of species. No species of my life has seen a lowered expectation of its future than have wild sheep.

In my home state of Montana, we issue far less ram tags than we did 15 years ago. Not because we don't have habitat or sheep to re-locate. Rather, we have politicians who are against the idea. Same in Idaho, which is where a big part of the bad portions of this bill are originating. And, the same tone seems to be coming from those representing us in DC.

So yes, let's raise a toast to some great work for the landscape. A toast for the fact that we now have a Montana Republican Senator on record of supporting some really good landscape ideas, as was the case of some prior MT Senators from the GOP, a generation ago. A toast for the fact that we can find a way to get things accomplished, even in this strange world of adolescent politics in DC.

And as we raise our glasses for the great landscape protections that have come from this bill, let's also raise our commitment to work on behalf of the species and landscapes that did not come out on the positive end of this bill. As has been pointed out, we will not get everything we want and this new political age requires some serious calculation of benefits and costs; making it even more important that hunters understand these trade offs and realize that we are the only voice for some of the species/landscapes getting the "lead pipe treatment."

Enough on this topic, for me. Last thing I want to see is those people who are doing some really heavy lifting on behalf of wildlife/landscapes end up in opposing corners. We are all on the same path and in spite of the best efforts of politicians to divide us, we will continue working for the benefit of the public lands and the species so dependent upon those lands.

Cheers!

 

[Topgun 30-06]

Excellent posts by both BuzzH and BigFin!!!