Elkhunter1 Report post Posted February 6, 2015 B.S. The Feds aren't "taking over" although the Arizona Game and Fish would impose that rhetorical language. The Grand Canyon is plum full of uranium. A Canadian company has their heart set at getting at that uranium and has been fighting with the Feds to open mines. Right now, there are 39 locations that are targeted by so called "stakeholders" for prospective mines and there is a deep desire by mining interests to explore for more. The international market for uranium has gone up over 800% over the last decade and that has fueled the debate over mining in the areas on the north rim and south rim around the park. The AZGFD is not on the side of sportsman and fisherman with this issue. In fact, when they link this issue with the Utah effort to take over federal private lands for private interests. With the rise in value of natural resources, the pressure will continue to grow for federal land holdings to be transferred over to private interests to "access" those resources. As sportsman, the national monument wont stop hunting or hinder our access. This issue is directly related to the efforts to get at the value of the Natural resources. If access is lost, it will be at the hands of those interests, not as a result of National monument designation. For example, look at the Agua Fria National Monument. We can hunt and camp and do whatever in a national monument. The only limit in a national monument is upon it's destruction. The rise of Asian economies is going to continue and therefor the value of natural resources will rise with them, If the area is turned into National Monument, the result would prevent mining companies of defeating the Feds in the courts in the Feds efforts to prevent the Grand Canyon from becoming a mining operation all around it. The mines wouldn't hire a lot of people and will not have much of a benefit for Arizona's economy, but when big money talks. This is all part of a bigger story. This is a direct challenge to the Feds efforts to maintain public lands in the west. Our wide open public lands are under severe threat in the west. As long as market prices continue to rise for natural resources, and they will, then this is going to be a long fight to preserve the wide open spaces that defines the west. The very lands that we hunt on can be lost to "NO TRESPASSING" signs if we sportsman and westerners fail to recognize what is going on here. Our beloved Game and Fish aren't with us and are using lies and rhetorical language to distort the issue. Personally, I am deeply bothered by Arizona's Game and Fish depts position on this issue. They are NOT on the side of us sportsman. They are, in fact, trying to hide the truth that they are representing interests that are counter to their mission. If that statement is correct then I can hunt on Saguaro National Monument.... oh wait I CAN'T you want to run that by me again!!!!!!!! 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pine Donkey Report post Posted February 6, 2015 Helps Clear red tape for wolf introduction. Yep. Removes the voice of opposition. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billrquimby Report post Posted February 6, 2015 The reason we cannot hunt in Sahuaro National Monument is because its status (and name) was changed to Sahuaro National Park. I remember the change happening swiftly with little public input or controversy. Those who believe placing the federal lands on the Arizona Strip under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service (even if only as a monument) will keep public land open to hunting in the long term are only fooling themselves. Bill Quimby 5 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
