Urgent Help Needed in AZ

[sagebrush]

As if we don't have enough problems in our state.

The Center for Biological Diversity, Grand Canyon Wildlands Council and The Wilderness Society have jointly proposed a new 1.7 million acre national monument which will include all lands west of the Colorado River to the Parashant and from the Grand Canyon National Park to the Utah border. This is all of Unit 12, the famed Kaibab Plateau, the drainages to the west and Paunsagaunt-Kaibab Corridor. They are bringing this proposal to congress to vote on the national monument designation probably attached to some funding bill or continuing resolution. They are also pitching it to Obama as an executive order.

One of the stated purposes of the national monument is to restore extirpated wildlife such as the black bear, grizzly bear and gray wolf. The Mexican gray wolf is not native north of the Colorado River, so my assumption is they want to bring some wolves from the Yellowstone down here.

This is a national proposal, not something we can prevent from within the state. Please support us by contacting your senators, members of the house and the Secretary of the Interior and voice your opposition to the Grand Canyon Watershed National Monument.

Randy - I will send you a pdf containing the proposal and maybe you can figure out a way to post it for me.

 

[shoots-straight]

Could you post the pdf. here?

 

[sreekers]

Do you have any bill numbers?

 

[Ben Lamb]

I would have a hard time believing that the Wilderness Society would try to close down hunting anywhere.

 

[azcoueshunter]

this is off another site and gives a little insight to who's really behind it!


http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/201203/create-national-monuments-107.aspx

 

[sagebrush]

I guess I can

Pages 1 through 4

 

[sagebrush]

Pages 5 through 9

 

[sagebrush]

Pages 10 through 15

 

[sagebrush]

I don't know that its been attached to a bill yet. I don't believe its been introduced as a stand alone bill either. Sorry about posting each page individually but there is a 732K maximum on a pdf attachment. Page 5 is a map showing the boundaries and Page 1 has The Wilderness Society logo on it for you Ben.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Okay, I read the whole thing.

1.) Hunting would still take place. It's not spelled out well but it is recognized as a legitimate use of the landscape. Personally, I feel like these groups could do a much better job talking about the hunting and angling aspects of the area because that's a huge part of their economic assessment, I would imagine. Plus, the sportsmen and women are fairly well organized right now and can wield a powerful political ax if they chose to.

2.) They are proposing closing user created trails, and roads in excess of 1 per square mile. That's not a bad thing if you are a hunter.

3.) They are looking to phase out grazing. I don't know anything in particular about the grazing on this piece of land, so I'll stay out of that issue.

4.) There are some very concerning words in this about grizzly bear and wolf native habitat. It's not something I would have put in a proposal. I don't know if there is space for them there, but for right now, it's bad idea to discuss the suitability of the landscape for thatl. To be clear though, reintroduction of wolves or grizz is not in the proposal. It simply states that protecting this land would protect a corridor between two other areas that have "suitable" habitat for wolves. Since CBD is a partner on this, I can see why that language is in there. They think that is a path to wolf and grizz restoration in AZ. It's a lightning rod that only turns off folks.

5.) This is just a proposal. I can't see anyone biting on a National Monument designation in an election year, especially this one. There is still a ton of opportunity to influence the decision makers on this. The bigger question is - "Does this land deserve to be conserved through a designation." I can't say, never been there. Proposals like this get drafted all the time. Only a few ever get to see introduction, especially if they are not grassroots oriented. This proposal does not appear to be grassroots oriented. It appears to be a proposal put together by three NGO's. Hopefully this is just a starting point. National Monument Designation is not always a bad idea.

6.) Uranium mining would be banned. I'm not sure what the impacts of uranium mining are on Mule Deer. Anybody know?

So, I think it needs a lot of work. There is some good stuff in it, but overall I wouldn't support it as is. I would support these groups working with local groups and folks who live in these areas to adjust or redraft this proposal.

 

[Dinkshooter]

Ben Lamb for President.

 

[sagebrush]

I can't imagine anything good coming from groups outside of the state of Arizona making a decision on a National Monument designation. This proposal also covers the east end of Unit 13A which is part of the Strip. Turning willdlife management over to the feds on the Kaibab and the Strip is just plain bad. We have worked for years to get the mule deer herds to where they are today. Everyone knows the reputation of the Strip and the Kaibab is doing so well, it may surpass the Strip in trophy potential in the next few years. The Kaibab already has more deer per square mile than any other unit in AZ.

I just know what happened when the feds took over the Kofa. We used to trap bighorn sheep out of those units for relocation. Now, the tags are being cut back and I think G&F should really close those units to sheep hunting and drastically reduces the number of deer tags as well. Same thing happened in the Eagletail. Once we trapped sheep for transloaction, now the population is down since the wilderness designation went into effect. Why the down turn? We now must file mountains of paperwork to go in and repair the water catchments installed under the direction of the G&F with labor and funds from volunteer groups. We no longer can add any water catchments in the Kofa. Mountain lion hunting has been banned by the feds and predator control can be done only by G&F after applying for permission, which is never granted. The lions are decimating the sheep and we are powerless to overcome federal control.

The critter groups in AZ have big plans for further imporvements on the Kaibab. Once it becomes a national monument, they will close off all the access roads into the project areas and deny permission to do water projects and habitat restoration. Its been done before and is being done right now in other areas. Ever try to carry a 5,400 gallon water tank 6 miles into a wilderness area? Anyone that thinks putting federal restrictions and controls in place is a good thing is taking a very narrow view. Hunters supporting this type of a proposal think fewer roads and more wilderness will give them a better experience (less competition and no ATV's) if they are fortunate enough to draw a tag. The sad thing is there will be fewer deer, fewer sheep and another success story due to years of planning and hard work by locals that know the issues will never again see its full potential.

We need to take a stand against groups like the Defenders of Wildlife, the Center for Biologoical Diversity and the Wilderness Society and their desire to control the resources in areas they will never set foot on. I'm asking outdoorsmen to support us in keeping control local where it needs to be.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I can't imagine anything good coming from groups outside of the state of Arizona making a decision on a National Monument designation. This proposal also covers the east end of Unit 13A which is part of the Strip. Turning willdlife management over to the feds on the Kaibab and the Strip is just plain bad. We have worked for years to get the mule deer herds to where they are today. Everyone knows the reputation of the Strip and the Kaibab is doing so well, it may surpass the Strip in trophy potential in the next few years. The Kaibab already has more deer per square mile than any other unit in AZ.

I just know what happened when the feds took over the Kofa. We used to trap bighorn sheep out of those units for relocation. Now, the tags are being cut back and I think G&F should really close those units to sheep hunting and drastically reduces the number of deer tags as well. Same thing happened in the Eagletail. Once we trapped sheep for transloaction, now the population is down since the wilderness designation went into effect. Why the down turn? We now must file mountains of paperwork to go in and repair the water catchments installed under the direction of the G&F with labor and funds from volunteer groups. We no longer can add any water catchments in the Kofa. Mountain lion hunting has been banned by the feds and predator control can be done only by G&F after applying for permission, which is never granted. The lions are decimating the sheep and we are powerless to overcome federal control.

The critter groups in AZ have big plans for further imporvements on the Kaibab. Once it becomes a national monument, they will close off all the access roads into the project areas and deny permission to do water projects and habitat restoration. Its been done before and is being done right now in other areas. Ever try to carry a 5,400 gallon water tank 6 miles into a wilderness area? Anyone that thinks putting federal restrictions and controls in place is a good thing is taking a very narrow view. Hunters supporting this type of a proposal think fewer roads and more wilderness will give them a better experience (less competition and no ATV's) if they are fortunate enough to draw a tag. The sad thing is there will be fewer deer, fewer sheep and another success story due to years of planning and hard work by locals that know the issues will never again see its full potential.

We need to take a stand against groups like the Defenders of Wildlife, the Center for Biologoical Diversity and the Wilderness Society and their desire to control the resources in areas they will never set foot on. I'm asking outdoorsmen to support us in keeping control local where it needs to be.

Sagebrush,

You certainly have some great arguments about the work that is needed in the area. The important thing is that people work together to get these exceptions included into the area, if something gets introduced. Which there isn't.

As I said, I couldn't support this proposal as it's written, but I do not believe that there are ulterior motives by the Wilderness Society here.

Regarding sheep and wilderness, I don't think you can lay blame on a decline based on wilderness designation. I can point to wilderness areas that are strongholds for Bighorns in the Northern Rockies, and those areas are the ones that have largely avoided the die offs that have happened across MT.

I can also point to an elk herd that lives in the highest density of large carnivores in the lower 48 - the Sun River Elk herd. It has it's summer range in wilderness, the migration routes are administratively protected by the Roadless Rule, and the winter range is protected by USFWS Conservation Easements and State Wildlife Management Areas. That herd continues to grow because it's habitat is protected.

As for road densities, yes, fewer roads means better elk habitat. The science is crystal clear on that.

But, does a National Monument make sense? Doubtful. Does making sure that this area remain productive and full of all wildlife? Yes.

As I said, this should be a grassroots proposal, not a top-down one. After reading a bit about the area, I can see why folks are passionate about it. You've got some great arguments to be made as to why this shouldn't get a monument designation, but landscape level conservation designations aren't one of them. Details about management can be addressed so that the feds have no role other than habitat management as it's their administrative authority there.

 

[sagebrush]

That's not how they roll down here. And, with all due respect, rocky mountain bighorns, their habitat and environment don't equate to desert bighorn sheep at all. Same with elk and desert mule deer. What works up north could never work down here. The places we're discussing get 7-13 inches of rain per year and sometimes half of that can fall in a few days. We need to capture as much of that rainfall as possible and store it underground where it can't evaporate. If a big cat decides to sit on one drinker, the deer and sheep don't get to avoid it by going to another water source unless we are allowed to build it. In the Eagletail, there are exactly four permanent water sources, all man made, and none being maintained. In the desert, our animals live in the same area year round, there is no migration. On the Kaibab, the deer move from the top of the plateau to the bottom. There are no elk on the Kaibab or the Strip. G&F issued a few limited opportunity tags for a while because some people claimed to see elk on the Kaibab and G&F wanted them out of there. It's strictly mule deer. The Kaibab and the Arizona Strip are great success stories and we did it with controlled mining operations, lots of roads, and local control of everything, including access. The Kofa and the Eagletail were great success stories for desert mule deer and desert bighorn sheep when the citizens of the state of Arizona and the people we chose were in control. Once the federal government took over, introduced an unbelievable level of bureaucracy, and added management by the misinformed and misguided, the big game populations started crashing and continue in a downward spiral. In the past, if a game manager on patrol found a cat on a water source, he made a phone call and within days a houndsman was out there. Now, the same game manager has to report to headquarters, they have to fill out requests, send to the feds for their review , they conduct a study when they get around to it and deny the request. In the meantime, the cat has eaten 8 of the 14 sheep in the group, run the rest off their only water and moved on to the next area of opportunity. You will never be able to convince me putting the federal government in control, with input from the likes of the Center for Biological Diversity and the Wilderness Society, is better for wildlife and outdoorsmen in Arizona.

But you make my point for me. What works in Montana probably isn't going to work in Arizona. People in Montana, and especially people in DC or New York City, shouldn't be making decisions for us. You may not agree with me, and I may never be able to get you to agree with me. I'm not asking you to help me make management decisions for our wildlife. I'm asking every outdoorsman to support our right for self-determination of what happens within our borders and I'll do the same for you. If the outdoorsmen in Montana want to delegate the decisions on wildlife management and public land access to the USFWS, BLM, NPS, the Center for Biological Diversity, et al, I will gladly support your position.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Perhaps I'm not being clear enough: I don't support this proposal. I do support local folks working together to make the best decisions.

We're saying the same thing, just using a different language.

 

[BillyGoat]

My question is this... How has National Monument designation for nearby Grand Canyon-Escalante (1996), Vermillion Cliffs (2000), and Grand Canyon-Parashant (2000) benefited or harmed us? You can still hunt in each of these and obviously there have been no grizzly or wolf reintroductions in these. I know some roads have been closed, but most here would probably agree that was a good thing.

 

[1_pointer]

Of note, some folks I've met that work there have stated that the amount of traffic and people visiting the GSENM area have greatly increased since the monument designation. I've also heard that it'd a bit tougher to get certain management prescriptions applied (ie. vegetation treatments) due to the increased need to consider things like viewsheds and aesthetics.

I wonder if it could be a case of saving something to death...

 

[Ben Lamb]

It's also created a thriving recreational economy according to Headwaters Economics.

1 pointer, what you say is true. That's why it's critical for sporting groups to get involved in the process of these proposals rather than just try to kill them. If you put all your eggs in one basket, then you lose big if a proposal like this goes through.

SFW has adopted the model that you only take hard line positions. Look where that's gotten them.

 

[1_pointer]

I hope I wasn't conveying any position on the matter as that was not my intent.

I do agree though that sportsmen's groups (and even individuals) definitely need to get involved if they are concerned with the outcome. You'll often not get anything you want with that complacency.

Though in the case of GSENM I do find the irony in that the stricter "protections" provided for by its designation can make it harder to do carry out management that would make it "better" are tougher to accomplish than on less "protected" lands funny. The disparity in budgets between GSENM and other offices with much more land wasn't quite so funny...

 

[Ben Lamb]

I hope I wasn't conveying any position on the matter as that was not my intent.

I do agree though that sportsmen's groups (and even individuals) definitely need to get involved if they are concerned with the outcome. You'll often not get anything you want with that complacency.

Though in the case of GSENM I do find the irony in that the stricter "protections" provided for by its designation can make it harder to do carry out management that would make it "better" are tougher to accomplish than on less "protected" lands funny. The disparity in budgets between GSENM and other offices with much more land wasn't quite so funny...

W/ GSENM the wildlife component wasn't as critical in consideration for NM desigantion as the possibility of oil and gas or hard rock mining, IIRC. Therefore the declaration wasn't as well suited to allowing these kind of management options.

The nice thing about all of these declarations or legislation when it comes to protecting landscapes is that if you work the process and get your concerns met in writing, then you can keep the needed habitat management protocols and procedures that you want.