Safari Club International supports WEST Act to withdraw Public land rule

[brocksw]

Wanted to get this out there for discussion as SCI just sent out an action alert for this and I find this to be an interesting dynamic within the conservation world.

SCI is supporting
"SUPPORT H.R. 3397: The Western Economic Security Today (WEST) Act withdraws the recently announced final public rule by the Bureau of Land Management that would tie up BLM public lands and potentially prevent recreational and guided hunting."

Bill Sponsor (R) Utah:
"The BLM’s proposed rule would undermine the livelihoods of Utah’s farmers, ranchers, recreation businesses, and more,” said Congressman Curtis. “In a state that has so much natural beauty to share, this rule attempts to lock up those precious lands that should be open and accessible to the public.”

https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/3397

Public Lands Rule | Bureau of Land Management

Español

www.blm.gov

SCI is actively working to undue work that was supported by other conservation orgs (TRCP, BHA, TU, others). My question is why?


RMEF even expressed some hesitancy:


Perhaps someone smarter than I can tell me why the public lands rule is or is not a good thing?

 

[Bambistew]

The current administration is doing its best to make BLM lands basically national park status. It will start with the extraction industry, to ranching, to ORVs, then hunters. That's where its going, like it not.

 

[BuzzH]

The current administration is doing its best to make BLM lands basically national park status. It will start with the extraction industry, to ranching, to ORVs, then hunters. That's where its going, like it not.

That's a nice talking point, but you have been to Wyoming lately?

There isn't much left to turn into "park status".

 

[Bambistew]

That's a nice talking point, but you have been to Wyoming lately?

There isn't much left to turn into "park status".

WY is exactly the reason its going the way its going. I'm all for it, just lock it all up and get it over with.

 

[BuzzH]

WY is exactly the reason its going the way its going. I'm all for it, just lock it all up and get it over with.

About 40 years ago it would have been a worthwhile thing to consider, been "over with" for a long time.

 

[Elky Welky]

BLM is mixed use, and conservation should absolutely be part of the mixed use equation. That doesn't mean it is the only use, just another consideration. SCI doesn't surprise me, but I am surprised by RMEF. If RMEF truly believes their own motto, that "hunting is conservation," then they shouldn't be that concerned.

 

[nrpate05]

I think the BLM took out the "conservation leasing" part in the final rule. They renamed it mitigation or compensatory leasing I think. I haven't read the rule in detail but it seems like these would ultimately be good things. They also honor valid existing rights and don't necessarily exclude historic uses. Like a group can't just lease piece of land and lock it up. If there are guided operations that use land that might go into a mitigation lease, I gotta imagine that will be addressed at the project level and the operation will be allowed to continue.

To me the rule, ultimately just codifies what the agency set out to do in the first place. I don't know much about SCI, so can't say why they would be opposed to it.

 

[brocksw]

BLM is mixed use, and conservation should absolutely be part of the mixed use equation. That doesn't mean it is the only use, just another consideration. SCI doesn't surprise me, but I am surprised by RMEF. If RMEF truly believes their own motto, that "hunting is conservation," then they shouldn't be that concerned.

Based on the contacts I've made, SCI hasn't even engaged with the BLM on that issue. It's almost as if they are just following the bill sponsor's lead for political expediency or for other political motivations. I can't find any validity to Congressmen Curtis's sentiment that this rule will result in less access for anyone. SCI hasn't provided any clarity on this either that I can find.

 

[VikingsGuy]

That's a nice talking point, but you have been to Wyoming lately?

There isn't much left to turn into "park status".

Those who hate O&G, mineral extraction, cattle production and hunting are always looking for ways to shrink those activities. They could care less if there are any lovely settings to protect - it is just one level to pull on squeeze the "enemies". Surprised BHA & RMEF and others missed the long game.

 

[rogerthat]

Tinfoil hats must be on sale today.

Edit: and yesterday

 

[mtlilguy]

It's hard to say if anyone, even those involved in drafting the rule, truly know what this ends up looking like a few years from now. It seems to me like this was somewhat unnecessary.

There's nothing currently preventing the BLM from considering and/or implementing conservation related actions, mitigation actions, compensatory actions, or whatever name you want to put on it. Its part of the NEPA process. Develop what those actions look like, include them as alternatives in the process, and analyze the impacts.

However, it does appear like this provides an avenue for litigation to question whether or not the BLM followed its own policies when a "conservation" action is not considered or selected whenever some outside NGO thinks it should have been.

Its much easier for groups litigating federal agencies to win on process, procedures, and/or established policy not being followed rather than winning a legal argument based on disagreement over science and how it is applied.

 

[MTGunner]

Wanted to get this out there for discussion as SCI just sent out an action alert for this and I find this to be an interesting dynamic within the conservation world.

SCI is supporting
"SUPPORT H.R. 3397: The Western Economic Security Today (WEST) Act withdraws the recently announced final public rule by the Bureau of Land Management that would tie up BLM public lands and potentially prevent recreational and guided hunting."

Bill Sponsor (R) Utah:
"The BLM’s proposed rule would undermine the livelihoods of Utah’s farmers, ranchers, recreation businesses, and more,” said Congressman Curtis. “In a state that has so much natural beauty to share, this rule attempts to lock up those precious lands that should be open and accessible to the public.”

https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/3397

Public Lands Rule | Bureau of Land Management

Español

www.blm.gov

SCI is actively working to undue work that was supported by other conservation orgs (TRCP, BHA, TU, others). My question is why?


RMEF even expressed some hesitancy:
View attachment 324745

Perhaps someone smarter than I can tell me why the public lands rule is or is not a good thing?

I AM an SCI member. Albeit I do not support guided hunts on public land.

 

[brocksw]