Jump to content
Nugget Shooter Forums

Nonprofit to sue Trump administration over historic hunting, fishing expansion across 2.3M acres


Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, KellycoDetectors said:

Personally I'm somewhat inclined toward letting the public use the land – hence the term "public land." I'd be okay with requiring copper bullets and banning lead sinkers, though.

Me too. I don't know why hunting and fishing was banned in the 1st place. Non toxic shot, bullets and sinkers are one thing. Banning hunting and fishing altogether is another. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Bedrock Bob said:

Because the areas were wildlife refuges.

2.3 MILLION acres? Who decided they should be refuges? 
Let me guess. The people who bought the adjacent land?
I know that's what happened when they established the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness in Minnesota.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Dakota Slim said:

Who decided they should be refuges? 

In most cases the land owners who donated the lands to the public for the express purpose of a wildlife refuge.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Bedrock Bob said:

In most cases the land owners who donated the lands to the public for the express purpose of a wildlife refuge.

 

In most cases? Can you name a few of these landowners? With 2.3 million acres you probably know a bunch. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Bedrock Bob said:

Pennzoil and Ted Turner have been two big ones in New Mexico.

Can you name any Slim?

I'd be pretty mad if I was Pennzoil or Turner and donated land for a refuge that was later opened up to hunting and fishing. Have they come out and said so?
I don't know of anyone who donated land for such a purpose. I thought most of the land in this case was part of a national forest or other area under the jurisdiction of the Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Here is the map for hunting: https://www.fws.gov/refuges/hunting/map/

The fishing map is here: https://www.fws.gov/refuges/fishingguide/

And if you like to canoe, you can have over a million acres in Minnesota all to yourself in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area. This page has links to all the lake maps. I personally recommend Basswood Lake. I used to fish there for a week every summer right up until they banned motors on all the lakes: https://bwca.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=maps.list

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Dakota Slim said:


I don't know of anyone who donated land for such a purpose. I thought most of the land in this case was part of a national forest or other area under the jurisdiction of the Fish and Wilde.life Servic

What you don't know would fill many volumes Slim.

No doubt most of the refuges in the system were designated back in the 30's when they were identifying critical habitat. That would have been under FDR. And yes, the NFS administers these lands under the Department of the Interior.

Now that you know WHO designated them you should learn WHY they were designated. It might shed some light on why some folks are upset they opened these areas for hunting.

Would you like for me to explain it to you or can you handle that yourself?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Bedrock Bob said:

What you don't know would fill many volumes Slim.

No doubt most of the refuges in the system were designated back in the 30's when they were identifying critical habitat. That would have been under FDR. And yes, the NFS administers these lands under the Department of the Interior.

Now that you know WHO designated them you should learn WHY they were designated. It might shed some light on why some folks are upset they opened these areas for hunting.

Would you like for me to explain it to you or can you handle that yourself?

Hey Bob, at least I admit I don't know everything.
I'm still waiting for you to elaborate and put some meat on your statement... "In most cases the land owners who donated the lands to the public for the express purpose of a wildlife refuge."
That tells us you know VOLUMES about this subject. Please enlighten us. We'll wait!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought you wanted to talk about the lawsuit Slim. You know, the one they filed against the NSF for allowing hunting on wildlife refuges?

It does not really matter who created them or how much of this land was donated. Each refuge has its own story about how it came to be. But that is irrelevant. It is also off topic.

The refuges in question were protected from hunting because they are nesting or breeding areas. Or because a bunch of a certain species gathered there. They figured sport hunters had plenty of other land to hunt and didnt need to be disrupting a nesting grounds or hatchery to have fun.

I don't know the details of any of these areas nor what the lawsuit says. So I have no clue as to the merits. I was simply trying to answer a few of the open questions you posed to the group. 

Each refuge area has a website. That website can tell you when the refuge was designated and why. Then, if you are still interested you can read the lawsuit. Im sure you can find that somewhere online. The nonprofit group that filed the suit probably has a website that will tell you why they think hunting should stop in these areas. Maybe then you can decide for yourself if you support the decision to open the area for hunting.

The refuges here are (mostly) up in the Rio Grande Valley above the lakes. There are two big refuges and some State and private land. It is a block about 750,000 acres in total. 

Hunting is restricted to certain areas because we have millions of waterfowl nesting there. They allow certain types of hunts in certain areas. And sometimes hunting may not be allowed at all.

I don't know if the refuge is being managed well or not. Nor do I know if there is too much hunting or not enough. But I figure that big azz bosque is for the birds and the elk to play and it does not bother me if I can't hunt there. Birdwatching, bicycling, photography and naturist activities are a big economic thing there that does not conflict with the objective of a refuge. So I figure all is bliss.

2.3 million acres across the West is not that much land in the grand scheme of things. Especially for nesting grounds and breeding grounds. Some places should be off limits for hunting and preserved for animal habitat. My hunch is those areas are being whittled away fast. So whenever I hear of politicians managing land I am skeptical. I think the biologists and the land managers that were hired to do that probably can make better decisions than those who want to "stop hunting" or "open hunting" for personal reasons.

 

 

  • well done 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Bedrock Bob said:

I thought you wanted to talk about the lawsuit Slim. You know, the one they filed against the NSF for allowing hunting on wildlife refuges?

It does not really matter who created them or how much of this land was donated. Each refuge has its own story about how it came to be. But that is irrelevant. It is also off topic.

The refuges in question were protected from hunting because they are nesting or breeding areas. Or because a bunch of a certain species gathered there. They figured sport hunters had plenty of other land to hunt and didnt need to be disrupting a nesting grounds or hatchery to have fun.

I don't know the details of any of these areas nor what the lawsuit says. So I have no clue as to the merits. I was simply trying to answer a few of the open questions you posed to the group. 

Each refuge area has a website. That website can tell you when the refuge was designated and why. Then, if you are still interested you can read the lawsuit. Im sure you can find that somewhere online. The nonprofit group that filed the suit probably has a website that will tell you why they think hunting should stop in these areas. Maybe then you can decide for yourself if you support the decision to open the area for hunting.

The refuges here are (mostly) up in the Rio Grande Valley above the lakes. There are two big refuges and some State and private land. It is a block about 750,000 acres in total. 

Hunting is restricted to certain areas because we have millions of waterfowl nesting there. They allow certain types of hunts in certain areas. And sometimes hunting may not be allowed at all.

I don't know if the refuge is being managed well or not. Nor do I know if there is too much hunting or not enough. But I figure that big azz bosque is for the birds and the elk to play and it does not bother me if I can't hunt there. Birdwatching, bicycling, photography and naturist activities are a big economic thing there that does not conflict with the objective of a refuge. So I figure all is bliss.

2.3 million acres across the West is not that much land in the grand scheme of things. Especially for nesting grounds and breeding grounds. Some places should be off limits for hunting and preserved for animal habitat. My hunch is those areas are being whittled away fast. So whenever I hear of politicians managing land I am skeptical. I think the biologists and the land managers that were hired to do that probably can make better decisions than those who want to "stop hunting" or "open hunting" for personal reasons.

 

 

No Bob. I was thrilled to know that Trump opened up millions of acres to hunting and fishing. 
Kellycodetectors seemed to agree. 
Don't mind me. You are doing great. Carry on with your lecture. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dakota Slim said:

No Bob. I was thrilled to know that Trump opened up millions of acres to hunting and fishing. 
Kellycodetectors seemed to agree. 
Don't mind me. You are doing great. Carry on with your lecture. 

Did you not appreciate my input Slim? 

You and Kellycodetectors are quite a team. Two peas in a pod I'm sure. A formidable army of two.

Your well thought out and reasoned opinions weigh heavily. And your excitement over being able to hunt in these new areas is palpable. 

I am not an avid waterfowl guy. But I would love to learn to hunt sandhill crane. If they opened the Bosque Del Apache wildlife refuge to hunting that's what I would want to hunt. 

So do you hunt waterfowl Slim? Which of these refuges would you like to hunt? What game would you pursue?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Bedrock Bob said:

Did you not appreciate my input Slim? 

You and Kellycodetectors are quite a team. Two peas in a pod I'm sure. A formidable army of two.

Your well thought out and reasoned opinions weigh heavily. And your excitement over being able to hunt in these new areas is palpable. 

I am not an avid waterfowl guy. But I would love to learn to hunt sandhill crane. If they opened the Bosque Del Apache wildlife refuge to hunting that's what I would want to hunt. 

So do you hunt waterfowl Slim? Which of these refuges would you like to hunt? What game would you pursue?

Oh man, Sandhill is amazing!!!! The rib eye of the sky buddy. Mmmmmmm! Im an AVID waterfowl hunter and i would quit hunting ducks and geese in a heartbeat for an open Sandhill crane season here lol.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, nugget108 said:

Oh man, Sandhill is amazing!!!! The rib eye of the sky buddy. Mmmmmmm! Im an AVID waterfowl hunter and i would quit hunting ducks and geese in a heartbeat for an open Sandhill crane season here lol.

There are bazillions of them here. They are everywhere up and down the valley at certain times of the year. 

When we are fishing and kayaking on the Rio Grande we see them all the time. But when the season comes around they fly when you are a mile away and stay high and fast.

In the Bosque Del Apache they cover the sky when they take off. You can see hundreds of acres covered in them. It is amazing to see so many of those big birds out there in the big swamp.

I don't know how you would hunt that refuge without air boats or helicopters. Maybe around the edges in spots. It is 60 miles long and 4-6 miles wide with only a couple roads anywhere near it. It is mostly standing water from a few inches to a few feet deep and salt cedar and mesquite so thick you can't push through it at all. 

Believe it or not one of the biggest elk herds in the state live in that bosque. There are dozens of huge bulls and a thousand animals in there. Big flocks of Turkey's too. Down in the very bottom of the valley with 50 miles of desert between them and the nearest mountain.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds just like the same terrain as here!! Up here where i live, we see a couple dozen Sandhills a year. They are a very goofy critter! We can be out deer hunting and something will come out of the tree pockets and rocks and its a dang Sandhill. They act like deer lol. 

Our refuges are about the same here too. Lots of salt cedar, flooded salt grass and lots of cat tails. But all of our refuges are huntable except in the closed off areas of course. I love hunting the open area on the refuges because the birds will "eat off" all of the food on the closed area so then they go feed outside of the refuge boundary and it makes for great hunting. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hunting is allowed in the Bosque Del Apache as it is in most federal wildlife refuges. There is quite a bit of farming in the Bosque too.

The elk tend to overpopulate and eat the fields of corn being grown for the birds. When that happens it's fat elk hunting time! Looks like another elk hunt will be coming up soon in the Bosque. I think the last one was back in 2013. The elk are thick as lice there now. Time to do some thinning.

The story posted was about a group of lawyers that are suing the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) which is an agency of the Department of Interior. The Forest Service which is an agency of the Department of Agriculture has nothing to do with the wildlife preserves or the FWS.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Nevada and New Mexico are very similar in many respects. 

The refuge areas are hunted around the boundaries. I think it is more about access than anything else. If they allowed folks into the Interior of the refuge they would have a nightmare of stuck vehicles and all sorts of creative machines disrupting the habitat. There are designated areas for waterfowl hunting that they monitor pretty closely.

The Rio Grande is huge and runs the entire length of the state right down the middle. So there are plenty of places off the refuge to hunt. The Bosque is smaller in most areas but there is still plenty of opportunity.

One of the best areas is miles away from water near Deming. There is a spot right on the Mexican border at Palomas that is a major spot in the central flyway. Millions of geese and cranes. It is way out in the flat desert is no-mans-land. Just a few grain fields on some remote farms. But it is one of the best waterfowl hunting spots in the nation. 

I'm not sure why the birds love the place so much but they do. 

For years we had a goose blind built out of tumbleweeds there. It sat on a fence corner and was as big as a small apartment. We would make decoys out of white sheets and wire to set out in the fields. We spent many days in our tumbleweed house trying to get those geese low enough for a shot.

My father would get impatient as heck and started taking his deer rifle with him. If a goose landed out in the field 400 yards away he could usually shoot their heads off. He was quite a marksman and had no taste at all for the shotgun. Nor waiting on birds to come down from the heavens. 

One afternoon there was a game warden trolling around and dad had four geese he had taken with the rifle. All of them missing about half their heads. The warden stopped to chat and a group of geese came down way the heck out there on the other side of the field. My dad bet him a hundred bucks he could shoot one with his rifle. The warden accepted the wager. Dad rested across a fence post and shot a goose sitting there. I stepped it off at about 600 yards. 

When I got back the warden was leaving. Dad had a ticket for shooting geese with an illegal weapon. The warden took his 4 geese and we only had the one I was carrying. He had given Dad a $100 bill because he lost the bet.

Dad pleaded innocent and went before the judge. The warden told the story about the 600 yard shot. My dad didnt have much of an excuse. I think he just wanted the judge to know he could hit a baseball sized spot at 600 yards. The judge fined him $250. 

I think that was the last time my Dad hunted geese. That was probably about 1974 or so. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, clay said:

 

The story posted was about a group of lawyers that are suing the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) which is an agency of the Department of Interior. The Forest Service which is an agency of the Department of Agriculture has nothing to do with the wildlife preserves or the FWS.

Yes. I typed the wrong acronym. It is the FWS and not the NFS.

I stand corrected.

  • Like 1
  • wow 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/28/2020 at 1:57 PM, KellycoDetectors said:

Personally I'm somewhat inclined toward letting the public use the land – hence the term "public land." I'd be okay with requiring copper bullets and banning lead sinkers, though.

AMEN it never should have been closed to start with/ I would be alright with BLM and Forest Service employees doing some work rather than driving around acting important also.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/31/2020 at 5:58 AM, devilishjim said:

AMEN it never should have been closed to start with/ I would be alright with BLM and Forest Service employees doing some work rather than driving around acting important also.

I agree. The same holds true for all forest and desert access if you ask me. The sides seem to be drawn these days -- those who think the public should have access to public land and those who don't. I think that more often than not, those who don't want locals to have access live so far away they would never access it if they could. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think most sensible people would agree that certain game refuges should restrict or limit hunting. Especially in mass breeding or nesting areas. After all that is what a "game refuge" is.

I have never heard anyone say they dont think the public should have access to public land.

Being able to hunt in a game refuge and having access to public land are two completely different things Slim. How do you figure they are even correlated?

You may think some people feel that way. But based on your posts I would be willing to bet you have no idea how others actually feel nor their opinions on the subject.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The critters do need a place to go to get away from the hunting pressure. If managed correctly, the refuges play an important roll in the success of hunters. Like with waterfowl, most times they leave the refuge to go feed. They get hammered on a bit when they leave but can go back to the refuge to get away from the hunters. I use to live around and work for one of the biggest National Wildlife Refuge in the west, and until you are up close and personal with one, a lot of folks dont realize the benefits. Now for the other side, i do know that a HUGE percentage of the managers that run them, are totally against hunting, so they tend to favor the non-hunting side of the decisions they make. They are really for the bird watchers and non-hunters. But like i said, i got to experience it while working there.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think managing a game refuge is the perfect job for someone who wants to limit hunting. I also think game refuges are perfect areas to enjoy non-hunting activities like bird watching. That type of activity is just as important as hunting and protected areas are just as important as areas open to hunting. 

I don't see any problems with allowing each game refuge and State to decide whether to hunt or not. Those managers know a lot more about their areas than any politician ever will. It is their job to manage each area and it is not the politicians job to tell them how to do it.

I don't know how any of it correlates with wanting to deny public access to public land. This is about who decides what activities are allowed.

The administration has decided to leave it up to the liberal Governors and the anti-hunter refuge managers to decide if you can hunt in these areas. I think that is an excellent idea and I support that decision.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, nugget108 said:

The critters do need a place to go to get away from the hunting pressure. If managed correctly, the refuges play an important roll in the success of hunters. Like with waterfowl, most times they leave the refuge to go feed. They get hammered on a bit when they leave but can go back to the refuge to get away from the hunters. I use to live around and work for one of the biggest National Wildlife Refuge in the west, and until you are up close and personal with one, a lot of folks dont realize the benefits. Now for the other side, i do know that a HUGE percentage of the managers that run them, are totally against hunting, so they tend to favor the non-hunting side of the decisions they make. They are really for the bird watchers and non-hunters. But like i said, i got to experience it while working there.

I totally agree about waterfowl refuges. I used to pass shoot ducks and geese which congregated every fall at the Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge. The water there stayed open after all the lakes in MN and WI froze up and huge flocks of Canadian geese and mallards would come off the refuge a couple times a day to feed in corn fields. There were a few places where they would fly up and over 400' bluffs at treetop level in huge V's. The lead duck or goose might be 100 yards away but as the rest of the flock came over the trees they got closer and closer until they were coming right over your head. I used to pick out the greenheads with a 12 ga with a 26" Improved Cylinder barrel and plain old 2 3/4" 4 shot. The ducks would start before sunup and the geese would come out at around 10 AM. I'd switch to 3" magnums for the geese. 

* There were tons of corn fed whitetails in that area as well. Other than a bow and arrow or a muzzle loader, a shotgun with a single slug was the only legal firearm for deer. I always bow hunted and if I didn't get a buck before the the 10 day bucks only gun season I would buy that license. 

  • well done 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...