You don’t see many hybrid cars parked at trailheads during elk season. I’m no exception: full-size, four-door pickup. And willing to drive hundreds of miles for a handful of days spent chasing elk. As part of my job, I also spend a lot of time on airplanes. This is neither bragging nor complaining. Just telling you how it is. However, I wouldn’t mind changing the ratio of days spent in terminals, planes and hotels versus aspens and black timber. The point is, I consume my share of fossil fuels. And fossil fuels, in the most fundamental way, account for our country’s safety, prosperity and ability to function. Our growth and consumption of fossil fuels in many ways drives our economy and standard of living.
The nation’s dependence on foreign oil and the risks this poses to our national security are deeply troubling. Who wouldn’t wish for the United States to be less reliant on other countries to meet our energy needs? Economic growth and prosperity in small-town communities across the West are keenly important to me as well. I understand that the energy industry plays a key role in this equation. That said, there are few things I’d rather do than climb some wild and beautiful mountainside with a bow in my hand and a grunt tube over my shoulder. And there’s no denying that oil and gas exploration and development will change the face of elk country in some pretty special parts of the Intermountain West.
We’re devoting a sizeable piece of this Bugle and the next one to exploring the challenges of balancing our need for domestic energy with our desire to pass the riches of elk country on to our children and grandchildren (see “Elk Country and the Price of Energy,” page 72). Looking at some of the pictures, reading the numbers, hearing the passion in the voices of lifelong elk hunters and longtime Elk Foundation members, it can seem daunting indeed. But with careful thought and a sincere desire to find the balance, and with the understanding that this will require compromise, we hunter-conservationists can make a lasting difference.
For the past 14 years, the Elk Foundation has worked shoulder to shoulder with many in the energy industry to directly protect and enhance wildlife habitat. Equally important, we’ve joined forces to guide and support the solid scientific research necessary to make the best decisions for the resource. (See “Good Partners,” page 76, for more on our successful partnerships with energy companies.) Now, with the rapidly accelerating demand for energy, our nation needs to increase innovation while deepening the commitment to conservation. The Elk Foundation wants to help lead the way in finding the best solutions.
We want to work with our policy makers in Washington, D.C., as well as the leaders of the oil and gas industry to find the middle ground. We want to form new partnerships and strengthen those already in place. We want to persuade and inspire those in the industry to do everything in their power to produce the cleanest energy with the lightest footprint on the land—and reward those who do.
We know that none of these things are possible without compromise. We may well argue that some of the most critical places in elk country deserve to remain wild. But we know that other places can be responsibly developed. Together with other conservation organizations, the Elk Foundation has a seat at the table with President Bush and his administration. This is a high honor and a tremendous opportunity, and we will continue to work with the White House to achieve a balance between our need for oil and gas and the needs of the wildlife that so enrich our lives.
But we need your help, too. On page 81, Assistant Secretary of the Interior Rebecca Watson asks each of us to speak up and get more involved in public land-use planning at the local level. She says, “Go and approach your county commissioners. You can make a difference with them. That’s the process that wildlife groups should take advantage of.”
Each of us carries a specific piece of elk country in our heart—a place that we think about on February mornings and in the dog days of summer, a place where we come fully alive each fall. We should all remember that every hunter-conservationist’s voice counts and makes America a greater country. This is one of the finest freedoms we have, and I too urge each of you to make a difference for elk country and the hunt.
I am not happy with them anyway, for locking gates onto public land around the Double H ranch in New Mexico, like it was their own private hunting grounds. Then again, as President of RMEF, the Double H probably IS his own hunting grounds.... so he can afford to compromise with the oil producers about the lands left to the rest of us poor SOBs.
Calif. Hunter- I'm with you on this one. His compromising sounds like lip service to oil and gas companies. I liked the RMEF a lot better when they were a grassroots type organization. I think they've gotten too big and lost focus on their objective (helping elk habitat). They still do that some but a great example of their helping elk habitat is building their "headquarters" right in the middle of some elk winter range.
Cali- I remember asking this previously, but don't remember if you replied. Did you ever check to see if that was a private road? I know of many situation in UT & WY where roads have been closed to the public by county and many of them have public land near or adjacent to the road. Just a thought and couldn't remember if you replied earler.
Boys, I was going to begin a post about RMEF and other organizations, but it looks like you're already talking about the subject. So here goes..........
I would like to know what the official position is regarding "Ranching for Wildlife" programs in various western states. I'm aware that RMEF does indeed own a ranch in New Mexico, and they DO participate in purchasing landowner tags. Now, before I go out and join forces with RMEF, or the Wild Turkey Federation, or Ducks Unlimited, or whoever, I want to know what the position of each of these organizations, and others, IS!!!!
Beings that they state that they are 'A-Political' (especially regarding the wolves) I feel they just work within the laws of the states they operate in. I'd be pretty surpised if the actually have an official position on the Ranching for Wildlife programs. 'Course I'm young, idealistic, and a bit niave...
1-ptr, the road was ON public land. It was not near or adjacent to public land, it was right in the middle of several thousand acres of public (state-owned) land. Does a road in the national forest, for example, leading to a windmill and water tank maintained by a rancher with grazing rights belong to the rancher? I wouldn't think so. There may be some kind of prescriptive easement rights, but fee ownership would not change.
Also, the "No Trespassing for Any Reason" signs clearly were marked with the Double H name.
Thanks, just was curious. Yes, the USFS and BLM close roads on public land to the public but allow administrative access to permittees (range improvement projects mostly) and federal employees. Being that it was state land their laws would apply. Did you check the status of the road with the state lands program? They could very well have allowed the closure by Double H. I know of this happening in UT.
Charging fees and signing public (fed) land is a no-no, but this can be VERY hard to keep up with. Maps aren't updated for every land trade.
I know it ticked you off and probably would me as well. It's just that my experience in WY this past fall and my job have shown me that access issues aren't as cut & dried as thought. Maps showing roads doesn't mean that they are open to the public, regardless of the ownership it's on. Thanks for the friendly discussion.
You know, it will be interesting if any of the major wildlife organizations become advocates of the RFW, given that some have stated that they are apolitical!!!! Our own Senator Flake has stated that the RFW must have the support of those organizations before this issue can be passed..........We'll be watching!!!!!!!
