by:

posted in: General

August 12, 2015

Public Lands Transfers Threaten Sportsmen’s Access: Moosehead Mountain

In an increasingly crowded and pay-to-play world, America’s 640 million acres of public lands – including our national forests and Bureau of Land Management lands–have become the nation’s mightiest hunting and fishing strongholds. This is especially true in the West, where according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 72 percent of sportsmen depend on access to public lands for hunting. Without these vast expanses of prairie and sagebrush, foothills and towering peaks, the traditions of hunting and fishing as we have known them for the past century would be lost. Gone also would be a very basic American value: the unique and abundant freedom we’ve known for all of us, rich and poor and in-between, to experience our undeveloped and wild spaces, natural wonders, wildlife and waters, and the assets that have made life and citizenship in our country the envy of the world.

A big game hunter’s bucket list might include a trip to the slopes of Alaska’s Brooks Range for Dall sheep or an excursion deep into the southwestern desert for beautiful little Coues deer. But, one thing is certain: That list will hold a hunt for big bull elk, and there is no better place to do that than on high-country public lands in Colorado.

In Part Four of our series, we head to the northwest part of Colorado.

Moosehead Mountain is in the northwest part of the state, south of Dinosaur National Monument and not far from the towns of Rangely and Dinosaur. Its elevation tops out at about 8,400 feet and the terrain is thick with sagebrush, mountain mahogany, pinyon pine, and juniper—all the makings of a classic glass-and-stalk hunt to get in front of moving elk. Cross paths with bands of pronghorns in the warmer months and big mule deer bucks transitioning from high country to low as the snows come in.

Image courtesy of Nick Payne.

This area serves as a portion of the home range for the second-largest elk herd in North America, including some truly big bulls scoring up to 370. It’s a wild place, remote and empty, and accessible to hunters on foot or on horseback. The bull tag for Game Management Unit 10 has been one of the most coveted big-game tags in America for decades.

Colorado elk hunters have been among the first citizens to oppose proposals for largescale transfer of federal lands to the states, because they know best what is at stake: their access to places like Moosehead Mountain and, quite possibly, the future of hunting in Colorado. Despite public opposition, some Colorado politicians are pushing the idea, and two land transfer bills were promoted by anti-government activists during the 2015 legislative session. More than 200 sportsmen and women rallied at the Colorado state capitol in opposition to this legislation, and the bills were defeated.

Currently, federal land managers are bound by law to manage public lands like Moosehead Mountain for multiple uses, such as for wildlife habitat and hunting opportunities. The state of Colorado has no such multiple-use mandate, and, to the contrary, its mandate is to maximize profits from state-held public lands, not to conserve resources or access to hunting and fishing. In fact, most state lands in Colorado are closed to hunting, fishing, shooting, and camping, and so sportsmen must remain diligent to put a stop to any proposals that threaten our ability to pursue these American traditions on federal public lands.

State management of these lands could result in unrestricted development, based solely on what will net the highest possible profits. It might even mean the outright sale of game-rich lands, like Moosehead Mountain, to private interests that will make a fortune selling access or high-priced hunts on what now belongs to every American hunter. If we want once-in-a-lifetime big-game hunts to be available to the average hunter, sportsmen need to continue to voice our opposition to this controversial idea.

Let’s cross Moosehead Mountain off our bucket lists because we’ve been there, not because we’re locked out forever.

Here are three ways you can support sportsmen’s access on public lands. 

Stay tuned. In the rest of this 10-part series, we’ll continue to cover some of America’s finest hunting and fishing destinations that could be permanently seized from the public if politicians have their way.

2 Responses to “Public Lands Transfers Threaten Sportsmen’s Access: Moosehead Mountain”

  1. Chuck Middleton

    How can I post this to Facebook. I really would appreciate it you could share with me how I can do this. I have many friends are both hunters and non hunters and both will benefit from this knowledge

    Chuck

Do you have any thoughts on this post?

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Steve Kline

by:

posted in: General

August 6, 2015

Without Congressional Compromise, Conservation Will Come to a Halt

What 34 sportsmen’s groups have joined forces to ask of our nation’s lawmakers as they craft next year’s budget

Agreement in the year 2015 seems to be a rare thing—whether it’s among Republicans and Democrats or about Coke or Pepsi. Even hunters and anglers have loyalties that can lead to fireside arguments about smallmouth or cutthroat, ducks or deer. With so many options, disagreement just seems to be the natural status quo.

Image courtesy of Nicolas Raymond.

But there was absolutely no disagreement last week, when 34 of the nation’s leading hunting and angling conservation organizations, representing sportsmen and women from every region of the country, signed a letter urging Congressional leadership to begin negotiating a bipartisan budget deal.

Many of the issues that we work on at the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership are regional by nature of being specific to certain terrain or species, like sage grouse, red snapper, or Prairie Potholes. It can sometimes be difficult, and understandably so, to get fishing groups interested in upland issues or to ask waterfowl groups to advocate for the sagebrush steppe. It’s not that these groups don’t care, it’s just that, with limited bandwidth and capacity, their focus on one core mission is essential. And so TRCP has made it our core mission to bring the widest swath of the sporting community to bear on the issues that truly impact the full spectrum of America’s hunters and anglers.

Few issues are more important to fish and wildlife habitat and the future of quality experiences afield than conservation funding.

The end of September marks the end of the federal fiscal year 2015, and as the fiscal year ends, so does the Murray-Ryan budget deal (formally known as the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015). It was negotiated in good faith by then-chairs of the House and Senate Budget Committees, Paul Ryan and Patty Murray, respectively. Its provisions allowed for a temporary lift from the onerous, sweeping, and automatic cuts referred to as “sequestration,” which would have fundamentally altered the landscape of fish and wildlife habitat conservation in the United States. However, the expiration of the deal means the return of sequestration and, in such a scenario, habitat projects often wind up on the cutting room floor. Access enhancement stops in its tracks. Conservation priorities wither on the vine.

That is, unless Congressional leaders can come together on a successor agreement to Murray-Ryan. Dozens of sporting-conservation groups have gone on the record in support of Congressional negotiations that result in a bipartisan budget agreement to provide for a meaningful reinvestment in conservation funding. Private lands, public lands, marine fisheries, water, and literally everything else in the universe of issues that sportsmen care about most would be dramatically impacted by the return of sequestration.

It is time for Congressional leaders to come together for this greatly needed compromise—we can all agree on that.

Steve Kline

by:

posted in: General

August 3, 2015

Glassing the Hill: August 3 – 7

The TRCP’s scouting report on sportsmen’s issues in Congress

The Senate will be in session this week. The House has adjourned for the August recess.

Two for the Road

Photo courtesy of Library of Congress.

Last week, the Senate passed both a six-year highway bill reauthorization and a three-month extension of the Highway Trust Fund. The three-month extension was also passed by the House and signed by the President, effectively avoiding an expiration of the Highway Trust Fund on July 31 and giving the House time to craft its own version of a long-term highway bill in September and October.

Also last week, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee passed their comprehensive bipartisan energy bill, which includes a permanent reauthorization of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. (You can see the legislation and amendments here.) The committee also passed legislation lifting the ban on crude oil export.

This week on the floor, the Senate will discuss cyber-security measures and consider bills to de-fund Planned Parenthood.

Also this week:
Tuesday, August 4
Senate Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Regulatory Oversight hearing on litigation at EPA and FWS

Thursday, August 6
The first Republican presidential debate will air on Fox News at 9PM

 

by:

posted in: General

July 30, 2015

Trout on the Fly, Newsrooms Under Pressure, and Wildlife as Inspiration

Day Three of our Western Media Summit

TRCP guests of all skill levels spend a morning flyfishing for trout on the Yellowstone River #publiclandsproud

Just as the sun was rising over the Gallatin Range, more than four dozen guests at TRCP’s Western Media Summit left Bozeman and drove southeast to the Yellowstone River for a morning of flyfishing on the final day of the conference. Eighteen guides piloted boats down the river, as anglers caught (and released) rainbows, browns, cutthroats, and whitefish, and the temperature climbed from the 50s into the 70s. As guests got to know their guides, and each other, the experience helped to put a personal face on the connection between access to these iconic public lands and waters and the businesses that rely on them: the sandwich shop where the guides bought guest lunches, the gas station where they fill up their trucks, the outfitter that books their services, the fly shop where they get their gear, and even the guy who shuttles their trucks and trailers the seven miles from the put-in to where they take their boats off the river.

Froma Harrop, syndicated opinion columnist: “You can’t ignore the politics behind conservation issues. We [as journalists] don’t have to be afraid of passion. That’s how you get people to listen to you. At the end of the day, people want to know what you think.”
After four hours of fishing, and with a few new tan lines, the group then gathered at the Bozeman offices of SITKA Gear for an afternoon of discussion. Led by a panel of four media professionals, and moderated by Outdoor Life Editor-in-Chief Andrew McKean, a conversation about reassessing the role of the conservation reporter got everyone in the room involved. Panelists examined how outdoor writing and conservation coverage is faring with shrinking newsrooms, thinning publications, and, perhaps, an increasingly selective pool of readers who have the content they want at their fingertips, whenever and wherever they want it. McKean asked the room if the outdoor media is partly responsible for creating a divide between “environmentalists” and “conservationists.” Gray Thornton of the Wild Sheep Foundation questioned whether sportsmen can reclaim the latter title, which many felt we have lost. Brett French, outdoor editor for the Billings Gazette, confessed that he felt like an endangered species—his role has become quite rare for the average daily newspaper. There was also some discussion of the partisan politics of conservation stories, and whether the potential for dissention among readers, publishers, or lawmakers makes telling these stories a risky proposition. Overall, journalists seemed to agree that immersive experiences, like the media summit, re-energize them to cover conservation—politics and all.

Jim Lyons, U.S. Department of the Interior: “Sage grouse restoration is the most complex issue I’ve ever worked on.”

The second panel discussion focused on the potential endangered species listing and controversial restoration strategies currently under review for the greater sage-grouse. Jim Lyons, the deputy assistant secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior, Tim Baker from the Montana Governor’s Office, and Rolling Stone Ranch Owner Jim Stone addressed the group with a timely update on the flurry of activity around the iconic game species. There are just 63 days until the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s court-ordered deadline for determining whether or not the bird requires protection under the Endangered Species Act, and the panel was held on the same day as the deadline for state Governors to file their protests against BLM land management plans to benefit the birds in 10 Western states. TRCP’s senior scientist Dr. Ed Arnett led the discussion, pointing out that sage grouse conservation and the public lands transfer movement share a common thread: Critics are capitalizing on the discontent of sportsmen with the way federal land management is being done, but it’s not as simple as having state’s take over management. It will be necessary to have federal, state, and volunteer conservation efforts working in concert to avoid a listing, and it will be necessary for sportsmen to engage in a conversation around solutions to federal land management issues so we don’t lose those lands forever.

David Brinker, Sitka: “We support conservation simply because it’s the right thing to do.”

Following the sage-grouse panel, David Brinker, marketing director for SITKA Gear, welcomed the journalists to his company’s headquarters and explained how SITKA’s passion for conservation led them become a founding member of the nonprofit One Percent for Conservation. The initiative was created by SITKA staffer Jeff Sposito to enlist retailers and small businesses in the sporting community that are not required to contribute Pittman-Robertson excise taxes toward conservation efforts, hunter’s education, or shooting programs, and facilitate the donation of one percent of their profits to a hunting-related cause of their choice. The effort will be officially launched this winter.

Guests then filtered downstairs to the other half of the refurbished industrial warehouse to enjoy cocktails, pizza, Italian desserts, and a powerful speech by Shane Mahoney. The CEO of Conservation Visions, Inc., is also a filmmaker, writer, and TV personality with 30 years of experience in science, wildlife management, and policy innovation in the U.S. and Canada. He gravely told the group that we have much work to do to protect our great sporting traditions, public land and water resources, and health of all species. “Wildlife are a democratic resource. It is something to inspire us. It is something to give us joy. It is not some side show,” he said. His remarks received a standing ovation from the crowd.

TRCP’s Joel Webster (left) makes a great cast.
Perfect conditions for a day on the water
John Kruse, Northwestern Outdoors Radio: “I have to be able to personalize a conservation story, which may only be explained at the 150,000-foot level in a press release, for my listeners in the Pacific Northwest.”
Ed Arnett, TRCP: “This is about more than sage grouse. This is about an entire ecosystem that has been in peril for some time—an ecosystem that currently supports more than 350 species.”
Tim Baker, Office of the Governor of Montana: “The Endangered Species Act needs some victories.”
Jim Stone, owner of Rolling Stone Ranch: “The government does work. But it takes time to make broad changes to the way we manage our herds and landscapes. It’s to the benefit of all of us that we invest that time.”
Shane Mahoney, CEO of Conservation Visions: “Wildlife is a democratic resource. It is something to inspire us. It is something to give us joy. It is not some side show.”

by:

posted in: General

This is how far out of touch Congress is with sportsmen

This isn’t the first time I’ve written about how Congress is ignoring the wishes of sportsmen and voting against clean water protections that are best for fish and wildlife. Now we have the data to prove it.

Our friends over at the National Wildlife Federation have released a poll showing just how broad and deep the support for restoring protections under the Clean Water Act runs among sportsmen. What did they find? A remarkable 83 percent of the hunters and anglers surveyed thought that the Environmental Protection Agency should apply the rules and standards of the Clean Water Act to smaller, headwater streams and wetlands—because we can’t clean up larger bodies of water without protecting the waters that flow into them, and because smaller streams and wetlands are crucial fish and wildlife habitat.

Whether or not to protect smaller streams and wetlands has been a politically contentious issue for nearly 15 years. The Clean Water Act protected the nation’s streams and wetlands from the time it was passed in 1972 until two Supreme Court decisions in 2001 and 2006 left it unclear exactly which streams and wetlands could be covered by the law.

Image courtesy of Eric Petlock

In May, the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers completed the clean water rule to clear up this confusion. After a multi-year process of holding more than 400 stakeholder meetings and generating over 800,000 supportive public comments, the agencies produced a rule welcomed by sportsmen. Dave Perkins, executive vice chairman of the Orvis Company, said, “The clean water rule is good for our business. Improving the quality of fishing in America translates directly to our bottom line, to the numbers of employees we hire right here in America, and to the health of our brick-and-mortar stores all over the country.”

Nevertheless, Congress is hell bent on stealing this victory from sportsmen. More than half of all senators are on record opposing the clean water rule, and the House has voted in the past to undermine it. Why does a majority of Congress oppose what an overwhelming majority of sportsmen want? That’s a question Jim Martin—conservation director at the Berkley Conservation Institute, a branch of one of the largest tackle manufacturers in the sportfishing industry—asks, too.

“If the support is so widespread why are politicians not voting to support the rule?” wonders Martin. “This poll quite clearly shows what the public supports. Now, it is up to the political leaders to determine if they support the interests of their constituents or special interests on the issue of protecting watersheds.”

These same political leaders will surely get another chance to stand with, or against, sportsmen for clean water, before the year is out. It is incumbent on hunters and anglers to let our leaders in Washington know where we stand, and how we expect them to represent our interests.

Contact your senators and representative directly to tell them you support the clean water rule.

HOW YOU CAN HELP

WHAT WILL FEWER HUNTERS MEAN FOR CONSERVATION?

The precipitous drop in hunter participation should be a call to action for all sportsmen and women, because it will have a significant ripple effect on key conservation funding models.

Learn More
Subscribe

You have Successfully Subscribed!

You have Successfully Subscribed!

You have Successfully Subscribed!