national monument designation

[Alpinebullwinkle]

I can support "diversity" in managing our states wildlife. I'll give you two examples from Unit #27 how "diversity" by AGF has had a tremendous negative affect on the unit. Native trout.....AGF originally requested 3 streams in the unit to kill the more prolific but non-native rainbow trout where the fishing was fabulous in the 1970's. The tremendous fishing waters of Bear Wallow, KP, and Fish Creek were originally poisoned about 1980 and native trout reintroduced. They have never taken because they are inferior and can't survive either severe winters or drought. As a result we have not been able to fish for these reintroduced inferior trout in these streams for less than 5 of the last 30 years. But wait.....there is more! AGF was untruthful and then decided to take over almost every stream in unit #27 (not just the originally intended 3) to reintroduce the inferior native trout. Now we have almost no streams in the unit to fish!! When I challenged AGF why they changed the original scope they said they did it to achieve a quota to secure additional federal funds! Same story with the wolves. The program started off with the original intention of a maximum 100 wolves in the state. Now we hear certain groups want 700 more yet we hear no communication on this rediculous request by our AGF. And they wonder why the AGF organization has lost credibility with most of their stakeholders. AGF should not be surprised with the current revolt that is justified by most of the conservation clubs (not to be confused with the "extremist environmental clubs" like Biodiversity).

[donniedent]

People need to realize its NEVER going to be the way it was before we got here. There was a reason my ancestors killed the wolves out of the white mountains. People and predators, in most cases, cannot co-exist. I am concerned that the dept is fearful of the envoronmentalists. I'm all for diversity but at the same time that diversity has its limits.

 

The real reason for the monument designation is that if they can restore the predator prey balance, they think they can use it to stop hunting. That's all any of this is about. They hate us hunters. If you give them an inch they will take a mile. We need to fight every change they try and make because there will never be a compromise with them... Never!

[archerycrazy]

Draft

 

The Honorable Barack Obama

 

President of the United States

 

The White House

 

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

 

Washington, D.C. 20500

 

Dear Mr. President:

 

The U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance (USSA) and the undersigned organizations, representing over a million sportsmen, urge you to not use the Antiquities Act to establish a new “Grand Canyon Watershed National Monument” in northern Arizona. Various environmental activists havurged creation of a new 1.7 million acre monument north and south of Grand Canyon National Park. This unwarranted, unnecessary proposed Monument would adversely impact on-the ground wildlife conservation management efforts, traditional hunting activities, and public access to nearly two million acres of federal public land. Present management of public lands by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S. Forest Service remains the best approach to assure conservation and appropriate public use of these valuable lands. Most of the public lands, earmarked for inclusion in the proposed monument are part of the Kaibab National Forest. Other public lands within the proposed monument are managed by BLM. In both cases, long standing federal statutes prescribe conservation and management of this public estate (e.g., Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), Multiple Use and Sustained Yield Act, National Forest Management Act, etc.). Pursuant to these laws, the two federal agencies also cooperate with the Arizona Game and Fish Department to conserve and manage the fish and wildlife resources on these lands. These collaborative efforts have done much to improve the area’s mule deer population among other species. While assuring wildlife and resource conservation, public

access to these lands is also provided so that anglers and hunters, among others, are able to engage in these valued traditional pursuits. Designating, segregating or withdrawing 1.7 million acres of these lands as a new monument will fundamentally change management and public use. We know from specific past experience that monument designations interfere with wildlife conservation management and give rise to access restrictions that adversely impact hunting opportunities. This has in fact been a legacy of other southwestern monument units in Arizona, California, and Utah. USSA is strongly opposed to new limitations being imposed on the BLM and Forest lands north and south of the Grand Canyon Park. Compared to these unwarranted limitations and restrictions, we see no bona fide value arising from a new monument. Presently the broader region already includes nearly four million acres of national parks and monuments and another 400,000 acres of Wilderness on BLM lands. There is no demonstrated need for more restrictive land designations beyond this existing 4.4 million acres. Logging is already heavily managed and restricted by the Forest Service; grazing is subject to BLM control per FLPMA; and archeological resources are protected by existing federal laws and the agencies. The effect of this present land management is to conserve the greater Grand Canyon watershed. Moreover, the largest impact on the Grand Canyon – and the Colorado River – comes from upstream dams and the 80 year old federal-state legal regime that governs the Colorado. No new monument – despite

the proposed name – is going to change these facts (and law) hence the notion that an Antiquities Act designation is going to conserve the Grand Canyon watershed is completely illusory.

“If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” is the right principle to govern this unwarranted monument proposal. Existing on-the-ground management by BLM and the Forest Service is not “broke” and in need of no fundamental change or “fix.” We reiterate our strong recommendation to leave well enough alone and not designate a new monument in this region.

 

 

Sincerely,

 

Walter P. Pidgeon, Jr., Ph.D., CAE, CFRE

 

President and Chief Executive Officer

 

CC: Honorable Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar

 

Honorable Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack

[archerycrazy]

I'm not sure why the draft letter from USSA appears where it does. I received it Thursday afternoon. All conservation minded sportsman's organization should endorse this letter and draft another seperate letter for their own organization.

 

The Game and Fish Commission has voted 5-0 to oppose this National Monument designation.

 

George