Arizona County Opposes Transfer of America’s Public Lands to the State

Board of Supervisors supports sportsmen’s access and local economies over short-term economic gain

Big news today as the Coconino County Board of Supervisors passed a resolution formally opposing wholesale efforts to transfer America’s public lands to the state of Arizona or local governments. The vote was held amid efforts by an Arizona State Legislature committee to examine processes for transferring or disposing of public lands within the Grand Canyon State.

The final resolution recognizes that:

  • Tourism related to federal public lands and recreational amenities accounts for more than $1.1 billion in annual economic impact in Coconino County, 40 percent of which is comprised of federal public lands.
  • Coconino County has productive and effective working relationships with local, state, and federal partners that have allowed for collaborative development and implementation of critical initiatives, such as the response to the 2010 Shultz Flood, the Flagstaff Watershed Protection Program, and the Four Forest Restoration Initiative.
  • Arizona currently lacks an adequate budget to fully support and manage its own state lands, including state parks, forests, and other areas—the state often relies on federal support for wildfire and flood emergencies.
  • There is broad consensus on the need to improve public land management and public access by focusing on effective and cooperative management of our federal public lands that includes the appropriate federal, state, tribal, county, and private agencies, plus other local stakeholders.

Image courtesy of USFS/Coconino National Forest.

“Coconino County’s resolution positively recognizes and places value on our traditions of access, recreation, and the application of multiple-use principles on our public lands,” says Art Babbott,Coconino County commissioner for District 1. “It is clear that efforts to transfer or sell our public lands will negatively impact our citizens, communities, and the regional economy. Access and management of our Western landscapes would be significantly altered if the state government attempts to take control of these public assets.”

The resolution emphasizes that the state does not have the financial resources to responsibly manage public lands—and sportsmen’s groups agree. “While federal land management certainly isn’t perfect, transferring these public lands to the state is not a viable solution, especially considering that the vast majority of Arizona sportsmen and women depend on public lands for hunting and fishing,” says John Hamill, Arizona field representative for the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership. “Arizona simply does not have the funds to maintain roads and recreation facilities, prevent and fight wildfires, restore damaged wildlife habitat, and enforce laws or prevent abuses. Ultimately, the state would be left with no choice other than to sell these lands, which, once privatized, would be off-limits to hunters and anglers forever.”

County support for public lands has been crucial at a time when the state legislature is considering a study of land transfer. “Coconino County appreciates the importance of federal public lands to the citizens of our state,” says Tom Mackin, the Regional Director for the Arizona Wildlife Federation. “In 2012, voters here and throughout Arizona overwhelmingly rejected the idea of transferring ownership of public lands to the state by a two-to-one margin. Today the Board of Supervisors recognized this fact and affirmed that the latest attempt to circumvent the loud voice of public opinion is a bad idea.”

A growing number of Western counties in states like Idaho, Wyoming, and Colorado have recently taken formal positions to oppose the sale or transfer of national public lands. To learn more about the land transfer movement across the country, visit sportsmensaccess.org.

Glassing The Hill: June 6 – 10

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

The Senate and House are both in session this week, after a week-long recess. Congress has just about six weeks left until lawmakers leave town for an extended recess that spans both party conventions in Cleveland (RNC) and Philadelphia (DNC).

Photo courtesy of Library of Congress.

Conservation groups continue to be wary, but so far no riders have been filed to ruffle feathers on the Senate NDAA. This week, the Senate will continue consideration of its National Defense Authorization Act, and although a sage grouse amendment modeled after the House language was rumored, no such amendment has been filed. Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has expressed a desire to wrap up the bill this week, so any threat to sage-grouse conservation plans would likely move along with the House bill to the NDAA conference.

But summer pool parties and BBQs are on hold until lawmakers get the finances (of the country) in order. It seems likely that individual funding bills may come back to the Senate floor after the chamber clears their NDAA, and that process may take the rest of the summer to complete. The Senate funding bill for the Department of the Interior—a big one for conservation funding levels—has yet to be publicly released.

The House may also try to get the appropriations train back on track this week, after several funding bills were derailed before the Memorial Day break. They have room on the calendar for the Legislative Branch Operations bill, which may be considered under a closed rule to help ensure its passage and avoid contentious amendments (ahem, like the ones that have sunk other spending bills recently.) We got a look at the House FY2017 Interior Appropriations bill, and there are rumors that the bill could be marked up by the subcommittee next week. As of posting this, there is no formal time scheduled for that subcommittee mark-up.

The House could also consider the Puerto Rico debt bill this week, the latest version of which no longer includes a provision allowing the transfer of Vieques National Wildlife Refuge to the commonwealth for short-term economic gain—a win for sportsmen on both sides of the Caribbean.

Here’s what else we’re tracking:

Tuesday, June 7, 2016

EPA’s unfunded mandates, such as the clean water rule, will be discussed in a Senate Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Management and Regulatory Oversight hearing

Wednesday, June 8, 2016

Wildfires and management on tribal lands will be the subject of a Senate Indian Affairs Committee hearing

Thursday, June 9, 2016

The Clean Power Plan, under scrutiny in a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing

Friday, June 10, 2016

Efficiency standards at the U.S. Department of Energy, to be discussed in a House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing

Filling Social Feeds With the Adventure, Freedom, and Possibility of Public Lands

Our new Western field associate explains why he’s #PublicLandsProud as we kick off our summer photo contest

As the TRCP’s newest staffer, I’ve been getting to know my colleagues and fielding a lot of questions about what I like to do outside, especially on public lands. It’s not an easy answer, because it all depends on the season.

Right now, the trout fishing is really picking up and I might spend the weekend backpacking, often without seeing another soul. But ask me in autumn and I’ll talk about hunting on public lands, and what it means to me to harvest my own food. I like to snowshoe to remote Forest Service cabins during the winter, and search for mule deer antlers shed on national forest or BLM lands in the springtime. By May, when morel mushrooms start popping up, I’m scouring areas that were recently burned (but good luck getting anything more specific on that from me!)

Image courtesy of Kevin Farron.

None of these activities would be possible without our public lands, which, to me, are all about possibility, freedom, and adventure. Like Theodore Roosevelt, I was born and raised in the eastern half of our country, then ventured out West later in life. With this transition came an even stronger appreciation for public lands. I did not grow up surrounded by, nor did I take for granted, the public lands that we enjoy in the Western states.

These lands keep me humble, healthy, and constantly in wonder. I like to imagine myself following in the footsteps of those intrepid outdoorsmen who experienced these lands, and the critters that rely on this habitat, for the very first time. It helps me see our country’s public lands the way they should be viewed, with reverence and awe, and with a sense of vulnerability. These are wild places where anything can happen. And hunting public land is no cakewalk, but it’s a challenge that comes with a greater reward—in fact, nothing gives me more pride.

Image courtesy of Kevin Farron.

I think that at the root of many threats to our public lands today is an ignorance toward wild places, especially as we grow more and more separated from the outdoors. It’s easier for people to take our privileges for granted, and to devalue outdoor opportunities, if they’ve never experienced these landscapes for themselves. And even though outdoor recreation represents a $646-billion industry, the third largest in the United States, the value of our public lands cannot be reduced to mere economics.

I know that it’s a right and a privilege to have access to our public lands—and for each of us as Americans to have ownership of 640 million public acres—so I’m willing to do anything I can to safeguard these experiences for future generations. Public lands have given so much to me, and to all of us who enjoy them. These lands are part of our American heritage, but they are also finite. They need, and deserve, our attention.

So, help us shine a spotlight on all the ways that sportsmen value our public lands by sharing your photos with the hashtag #PublicLandsProud.

In the second year of our #PublicLandsProud photo contest, we’ll offer prizes and kudos for the images of public lands and waters that make us want to be out there. Take us along as you scout, hike, hunt, fish, or introduce your kids to our national forests, national parks, and BLM lands. The majority of American sportsmen rely on these areas for our hunting and fishing opportunities, and there’s no better way to show lawmakers (and other indoor creatures) exactly what’s at stake—our sporting heritage, priceless experiences in our natural world, and the wonder of encountering the wild. Learn more at sportsmensaccess.org.

The Three Kinds of Hunters Competing for the Best Tags of the Season

Win, lose, or fail to draw, everyone has his own wish list for the perfect fall season on public lands

This Sunday is the deadline to enter the lottery for Idaho’s finest deer, elk, and pronghorn tags, and I am like a child on Christmas Eve. Instead of the J.C. Penney Christmas catalog of my youth, I endlessly thumb through the Idaho hunting regulations booklet, looking for the present I most want this year: a hard-to-draw controlled hunt that could help me plan a few dinner menus or even result in the trophy of a lifetime. My ultimate wish list includes an elk for the table and a muley for the wall.

But since I’m blessed to live in a state that is 62 percent public land, I can enter drawings for everything from wolves to mountain goats to turkeys. I have public access to world-class moose, sheep, and mountain lions, too.

So do I want an Oct. 1 bull tag? Or would a late cow hunt be better to fill the fridge? If I hunt cows in late November, I will have to wait until next year to chase whitetails in north Idaho. It is a tough call on an embarrassment of riches. With so many possibilities, it’s sad that there are so few fall days (and so many demands that come with earning a paycheck.) But choices need to be made. Santa won’t fill the tags.

Image courtesy of Dusan Smetana.

I flip the pages back and forth, checking for conflicts, considering my odds, and searching for that rare hunt that perhaps hasn’t been discovered by other hardcore hunters.

I am not alone celebrating this important date. Conversations with friends this time of year are without customary salutations. We cut to the chase: “You apply for tags yet?” Paul Kniss has his sights on a 14-inch pronghorn buck. Jimmy Gabettas is after a fat cow. Mike Clements is after monster bucks.

Idaho sells more than a quarter million hunting licenses in a given year. More than half of those who buy also spend the extra money for a chance in the lottery. Idaho Fish and Game offers 22,365 elk tags, 16,916 deer tags, and 2,345 pronghorn tags.

In my experience, hunters who apply for those tags generally fall into one or more of three categories:

  • Trophy hunters, who want a chance at a record and by nature pursue the most sought-after tags. In one eastern Idaho trophy hunt, only 2.5 percent of applicants are rewarded, because conservative limits allow only a tiny number of hunters to chase trophy animals when they are most vulnerable. The 20 who are lucky enough to draw are spread across thousands and thousands of acres.
  • Parents trying to get their children interested in hunting. Fish and Game has created a wide array of youth-only hunts that offer the highest odds of success. They normally start before the general seasons or run later, giving youngsters a chance to become lifelong hunters.
  • Specialists, or those who treasure the hunt itself, and have little interest in filling the fridge or the scrapbook—at least not anymore. They limit themselves to traditional gear, such as exposed-cap muzzleloaders, trading lower success rates for the alone time.

I basically fall into two categories and my lottery choices tilt, as always, against the odds.

Image courtesy of Roger Peterson/USFS.

If all goes as planned, I will hunt pronghorns with a muzzleloader in August and September on the Bureau of Land Management land near the High Divide. I have a 50-50 chance of drawing that tag. In early October, I will hopefully hunt for my trophy mule deer on public ground atop Idaho’s highest ridges, tucked far away from roads and other hunters. I missed a bruiser during my teen years and it would be rewarding to erase that memory. My chances of drawing that tag are one in six. In late November, I will return to the High Divide and tote a muzzleloader in the snow for elk. It is an either-sex hunt, offering that rarest of opportunities to harvest a trophy bull or a tasty yearling. I have a one-in-five chance of drawing that tag.

My wish list is set. Tag Day is near. I have been good (I promise), so my optimism is high. Still, my heart has been broken before. More years than not, I fail to draw a tag. But I still have a gift to treasure: a chance to hunt.

And that privilege is one that we’d be well-served to focus on, even without the promise of a tangible reward in the next few months—or even years. The critical conservation of the West’s most wild and intact backcountry areas might not impact this year’s tag selection, but ultimately we are all responsible for which critters will be in the lottery for those kids who are just starting to get hooked on that Christmas-morning feeling.

Here in eastern Idaho, the Bureau of Land Management is in the first stages of rewriting management plans for 3.14 million acres of critical wildlife habitat from Sand Creek to Salmon and Challis. Sportsmen have an important role in deciding how this wonderful area, and our public lands across the West, will be protected for decades to come.

The TRCP is here to help you stay informed on this process and the ways that all sportsmen can contribute to better conservation and land management policies. That’s actually the stuff that makes our wallhanger, freezer-busting wishes come true.

Watchdog Report Indicates Checks Were Written But On-Farm Conservation Was Never Verified

USDA’s Inspector General points to botched implementation of compliance checks that ensure real benefits go to fish and wildlife habitat on private lands

After thousands of hours of work, hundreds of meetings with Congressional staff, and three years of shared effort with colleagues that had become like family, I poured a tall Maker’s Mark when the president signed the 2014 Farm Bill at a special ceremony in Michigan. The law included bipartisan language that extended conservation compliance to the federal crop insurance program, the importance of which would be difficult to overstate. Was it the perfect compliance provision? Honestly, no. But politics is still the art of the possible, and I believe it was the strongest provision possible.

After all of that effort from so many folks, it is more frustrating than usual to hear from the US Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) watchdog agency that the provision the TRCP prioritized over all others has not been implemented with the vigor it requires. This should not only alarm sportsmen-conservationists but also the American taxpayer.

Image courtesy of Dusan Smetana.

For the uninitiated, conservation compliance can be explained like this: It’s a way for taxpayers to be sure that, in exchange for farm support payments, farmers are meeting a minimal threshold for avoiding environmental harm. Conservation compliance has applied to almost all USDA support programs since 1985, and the 2014 Farm Bill expanded compliance requirements to the federal crop insurance program, which has grown over the years to be the biggest farm support program. Conservation compliance is not onerous for farmers, most of whom have been subject to the requirements for years.

But a report issued in March by the Office of the Inspector General (OIG), which serves as the internal watchdog at the USDA, outlined a serious problem with the enforcement of conservation compliance. Many tracts of land that were subject to compliance were not being included in the random checks performed by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). In fact, in 2015, the first year after the new Farm Bill was passed, ten states—including major agricultural hubs like Illinois, Iowa, and Minnesota—had zero tracts subject to random compliance checks. That’s right. Zero. In Iowa!

The report mostly points to a lack of coordination between several USDA agencies, and it cites the need for a “Memorandum of Understanding” between those agencies to ensure a better universe of data and that an actual human being at each agency is held responsible for appropriate implementation. Frankly, these are typical shortcomings of a large bureaucracy that no one would describe as nimble. But what is at stake is critically important: water quality and the health of potentially innumerable wetlands, not to mention the continued defensibility of these financial support programs to the American taxpayer.

But let’s get to the main thrust of the problem: a bureaucratic lack of desire. The USDA is a department that for a hundred years has been in the business of writing checks to producers. Its stock-in-trade is financial incentives that smooth out the inherent risks of agriculture, making life more predictable for American farmers—and that is a laudable thing. This incentive-based business model is why the USDA is still a relatively popular federal entity; as a result, USDA finds it difficult to risk losing the popularity that comes with spreading the wealth. It is nice to be loved.

But the law must be enforced, and the USDA has a responsibility—not just to agricultural producers, but also to the American taxpayers who have invested billions in farmland conservation and expect plentiful clean water in return.

We work hard on Capitol Hill to make sure that the laws passed by Congress aim for the best results possible for fish and wildlife habitat. That can be an all-consuming task. But we cannot forget that the job continues for years after the ink on those laws is dry. For the duration of this five-year Farm Bill, and as we turn our attention to the next one, the TRCP will continue our work; we must close the gaps in compliance enforcement that are unnecessarily costing us our wetlands, water quality, and hard-earned wages.

Despite a Policy Victory, Another Year Without Clean Water

Why aren’t we celebrating the one-year anniversary of better protections for headwater streams and wetlands?

Today marks one year since the EPA and Army Corps finalized and signed the Clean Water Rule, which clarifies, after nearly 15 years of confusion, exactly what waters are—and are not—protected by the Clean Water Act. The rule has huge importance for cold-water fisheries and the majority of waterfowl habitat in the country, yet we’re still not able to move forward with implementing it.

Image courtesy of Dusan Smetana.

Sadly, almost before the ink was even dry on the final rule last May, the courts upended the decision and blocked the agencies from rolling out protections for these waters and wetlands. We have been forced to wait for a court decision while fish and wildlife habitat remains at risk of pollution and destruction.

Meanwhile, headwater streams, which make up 60 percent of stream miles in America and support our trout fisheries and salmon spawning grounds, are in limbo. These waters feed into warm-water fisheries and drinking water sources downstream.

While this widely-celebrated rule remains blocked, wetlands that provide high quality waterfowl habitat go without clear protections. And the rate of wetlands loss in the United States increased by 140 percent between 2004 and 2009, the years immediately following the Supreme Court rulings the created Clean Water Act confusion.

Today, nearly half of the nation’s river and stream miles are in poor biological condition while one-third of U.S. wetlands are in poor condition. We will need a clear and effective Clean Water Act to realize sportsmen’s desire for clean cold streams, healthy wetlands, and the ability to share these resources with our kids. Of course, court-issued roadblocks to implementing the Clean Water Rule are mostly out of our hands. But it’s important for sportsmen to note that many in Congress seem intent on preventing the EPA and Army Corps from ever fixing the confusion in the Clean Water Act.

Image courtesy of Dusan Smetana.

Don’t allow Congress to dictate your sporting heritage. Sportsmen must speak up for strong, science-based protections for the waters and wetlands we care about.

On May 27, 2016—the one-year anniversary of the signing of the Clean Water Rule—contact your lawmakers to say that you want clean water for fish and wildlife. Tell them you support the Clean Water Rule and urge them to oppose any legislation that would stand in the way of this victory for sportsmen. Let’s flood their offices with support for healthy headwaters and wetlands.

>>TAKE ACTION FOR CLEAN WATER<<

Glassing The Hill: May 23 – 27

The Senate and House are both in session this week. Next week, the chambers will be in recess.

Photo courtesy of Library of Congress.

The odds seem stacked against an energy reform package with sportsmen’s priorities. On Friday, the House dropped a revised energy bill that they are seeking to conference with Senate-passed energy legislation. However, with the clock ticking and the window of opportunity most definitely getting smaller, the House has added several provisions that seem to complicate the way forward for the energy package, including a controversial drought bill, a critical minerals package, and “The Resilient Federal Forests Act.” The House has also added their version of the sportsmen’s package, “The SHARE Act,” which will need to be conferenced with the key sportsmen’s act provisions in the Senate energy package. The House must still pass its amended legislation, but House-side conferees are expected to be named this week. There will be a House Rules Committee hearing on merging the House and Senate bills, as well.

The Senate has not yet named conferees, but would-be conference leader Chairwoman Murkowski has expressed interest in coming together quickly on next steps. Still, with so much discord between the two chambers, it could be a tall order for any conference committee to reconcile on a package that will pass.

Congress is also chipping away at appropriations bills. Last week, the Senate combined “The Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act” and “The Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act” into H.R. 2577, which passed with a 89-8 vote. The House passed their version of the military construction spending bill, too, with a 295-129 vote.

This week, the House will move to “The Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act,” which would provide adequate funding—a marginal increase from the President’s budget request—for the WaterSMART program to help keep water in our rivers for fish and wildlife. The increase goes to grants, a water recycling and reuse program, and the Cooperative Watershed Management Program, which would provide financial assistance for promotion of local water management solutions. However, the House bill includes language that would block the administration’s Clean Water Rule and does nothing to address Western drought. The Senate energy and water spending bill includes $100 million earmarked for a response to the lack of water in the West.

Then, on Wednesday, the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment and Related Agencies will mark up appropriations bills for the U.S. Interior Department, Environmental Protection Agency, and U.S. Forest Service. Language has not yet been released, but the bill will likely address the costs of fire suppression, endangered species listings, and the Land and Water Conservation Fund.

A wary eye goes to the Senate NDAA. Last Wednesday night, the House passed its version of “The National Defense Authorization Act” (NDAA), including provisions that would effectively halt federal conservation plans to restore and protect greater sage-grouse habitat, with a 277-147 vote. This week, the Senate will consider its version of the NDAA, which does not currently include any controversial language about the imperiled grouse. We could still see a similarly worded amendment offered before the Senate votes and leaves for the Memorial Day recess.

We’re also pulling for naturally-occurring water infrastructure to be emphasized in important water legislation. The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee released its version of the “Water Resource Development Act,” (WRDA), which would address national water resource projects managed by the Army Corps of Engineers. During the committee mark-up, Congressman Sanford (R-S.C.) is expected to champion language that would promote naturally-occurring infrastructure to enhance fish and wildlife habitat over traditional metal structures.

The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee already passed its version of WRDA, providing $9 billion in funds for water resource projects. The same appeal for natural infrastructure over new construction is expected when WRDA reaches the Senate floor sometime this summer.

What Else We’re Tracking

Tuesday, May 24, 2016

Research, monuments, and facilities on public lands, to be discussed in a House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Federal Lands hearing

Water rights and agreements up for authorization in a House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans hearing

Appropriations impacting federal fisheries, headed for a House Appropriations Committee mark-up on the commerce, science, and transportation spending bill

An inquiry into DOI ethics, to be explored the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations in a hearing

Implementation of the Clean Water Rule, to be discussed in a Senate Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Fisheries, Water, and Wildlife hearing

Wednesday, May 25, 2016

Mining safety and technological innovation will be explored in a House Natural Resources Subcommittee hearing on Energy and Mineral Resources hearing

Idaho County Opposes Transfer of America’s Public Lands to the States

Board of Commissioners supports sportsmen’s access and outdoor recreation spending over short-term economic gain

In a meeting yesterday, the Blaine County Board of Commissioners passed a resolution to formally oppose efforts to transfer or sell America’s public lands to the state of Idaho or local governments.

Blaine County Commissioner Larry Schoen explains that the resolution highlights the value of public lands to county residents. It also supports every American’s ability to hunt, fish, and benefit from a public lands system that is the envy of the world.

Image courtesy of Coby Tigert.

“We want that message to be crystal clear,” says Schoen. “Stakeholder groups in Blaine County have worked collaboratively, openly, and productively with the federal agencies for years on a range of issues to protect these resources and improve public access, management, and outcomes.”

The county’s resolution recognizes the importance of public lands for:

  • Providing fish and wildlife with habitat, while offering opportunities for outdoor recreation—including hunting, fishing, hiking, wildlife-watching, horseback riding, and bicycling—that is essential to residents’ quality of life.
  • Attracting outdoor recreation tourism that drives local spending and employs hundreds of county residents.
  • Preserving historically significant and irreplaceable cultural sites and landscapes.

Public lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and National Park Service comprise 62 percent of Idaho and 78 percent of Blaine County. These areas are cherished for their top-notch fisheries, beautiful open landscapes, and exceptional wildlife habitat, says Joel Webster, Western lands director at the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership. “There’s no doubt that the county is doing the right thing for its residents, and all Americans, by supporting one of our nation’s greatest treasures—our public lands.”

First Lite is a growing leader in the hunting world, and a growing outdoor business in the Wood River Valley,” says Ryan Callaghan, the hunting apparel manufacturer’s director of conservation public relations. “We have grown from an office of two to 14 employees since 2012, and I think we owe a great deal of our business to the simple fact that American outdoorsmen have so much access to public lands. We are certainly grateful that the commissioners are willing to formally oppose efforts that would take away that privilege here in Idaho.”

A growing number of Western counties in Colorado, Wyoming, and Arizona have recently taken formal positions to oppose the sale or seizure of America’s public lands. To learn more or take action, visit sportsmensaccess.org.

Sportsmen speak up and get huge win for Puerto Rico

We got good news out of the House of Representatives this morning when we learned that the latest version of legislation to help Puerto Rico deal with a looming debt crisis no longer contains language that would transfer the Vieques National Wildlife Refuge to the commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Initial versions of the legislation included a provision to give the popular wildlife refuge to Puerto Rico, potentially setting the stage for a fire sale to private interests in order to raise money to pay down debts. But as powerful economic engines that generate jobs and tax revenue, national public lands are part of the economically sustainable future, not part of the problem. So we’re glad the transfer provision was removed from the legislation, although we’ll remain vigilant as the bill moves through the process. Public lands are essential to American hunters and anglers, and TRCP will defend those lands from the tundra of Alaska to the gem-blue waters of Puerto Rico.

Click here to read the “Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act.”

Sportsmen, Here’s Your Chance to Help Shape Future Use of BLM Lands

From river breaks to high mesas, and from sage coulees to semi-arid mountain ranges, America’s 245 million acres of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) public lands are some of the best places to hunt and fish left on the planet. These lands are “Sportsmen’s Country” and their future management is currently being reevaluated by public land managers.

Image courtesy of Eric Petlock.

If you depend on these BLM public lands for access to hunting and fishing, now is your chance to shape how these lands are managed for the next 20+ years. With many sportsmen in the West dependent on publicly-accessible, highly-functioning BLM public lands—the ones essential for producing quality big game, robust fisheries, and sustainable hunting and fishing opportunities—it’s critical we speak up to ensure our sporting heritage.

The BLM is currently requesting public input on their proposed rules to revise the agency’s national land use planning strategy for these public lands located primarily in the West. Dubbed “Planning 2.0,” the process represents the first substantial revision to the BLM’s land use planning process since 1983. This action will address the land use planning process that shapes landscape-level management through the creation of Resource Management Plans (RMPs). All local areas of BLM land are managed through RMPs, and these plans are the basis for every action and approved use on BLM managed lands. RMPs help to determine how and if fish and wildlife habitat conservation and management will be carried out, and they direct the agency to manage for outdoor recreation.

So how will this benefit sportsmen?

More (and hopefully better) public involvement: Successful land use planning includes early and frequent communication with the public, including sportsmen and women. Under the current BLM planning process, the public submits comments at the scoping period, those comments seem to disappear into the hands of the agency, and years later the BLM comes back with a proposed draft land use plan. The public then submits comments on the draft land use plan and the BLM disappears for another year or more before issuing a proposed final plan. This long timeline with little communication from the agency makes it difficult for the public to remain interested in the process, and the lack of transparency makes people question how and if their comments are being used.

Planning 2.0 is focused on fixing these problems by increasing the transparency of the land use planning process by creating a “plan assessment” process and “preliminary alternatives.” The plan assessment stage would enable the public (as well as agencies and elected officials) to provide information about the planning area before the agency begins considering how the lands should be managed. The preliminary alternative stage would offer draft management alternatives to the public for feedback before the draft land use plan is formally proposed. These additional steps would help to maintain increased public interest in the planning process and help to ensure that the draft RMP more closely meets the expectations of stakeholders.

Image courtesy of Coby Tigert.

Landscape level planning: As hunters and anglers, we know that mule deer and steelhead don’t stop and turnaround at the county line. Neither should land use plans. The BLM planning rules are also proposing to revise RMPs at the landscape level, such as across multiple BLM Field Offices at one time. Right now, land use plans are created along artificial jurisdictional boundaries, often at the Field Office level of the BLM within a particular state. This current system doesn’t account for resources that move beyond the lines on a map. By integrating landscape level planning into BLM management, the agency should be able to better care for fish and wildlife species that migrate and depend on different habitats throughout the year. Numerous fish and wildlife species should benefit from this change.

Managing for modern resource needs: Times have changed since the last time the BLM made significant revisions to its planning regulations. Over the past 33 years, the US population has increased by 85 million people, driving with it an increased thirst for natural resources and an increasing demand for outdoor recreation. Advancements in science and technology have given land managers an improved understanding of how fish and wildlife species use the landscape. As proposed, Planning 2.0 would better enable the BLM to manage for modern challenges and opportunities, by balancing resource development with habitat and recreation, allowing for the conservation of intact habitats and migration corridors, and providing for high-quality dispersed recreation, like hunting and fishing.

Now is your chance to help see these important changes integrated into BLM lands use planning. Take action today to ensure a positive future for fish and wildlife and your sporting heritage on America’s public lands.