Sportsman's Group Prioritizes Protection For Conservation Budget

[Tim Smith]

From the AFS message board:

TRCP Presents ‘Sportsmen’s Priorities Checklist’

as Budget Debate Intensifies

Sportsmen highlight chief areas of concern in conservation programs

targeted in House spending bill

WASHINGTON – As Congress continues to debate a wide-ranging budget bill, the

Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership today released the TRCP

Sportsmen <http://www.trcp.org/assets/pdf/Conservation_Cuts_Checklist4.pdf>

’s Priorities Checklist, highlighting conservation programs targeted for

reductions that are critical to sustaining fish and wildlife habitat and of

foremost concern to hunters and anglers.

“As our elected officials continue budget deliberations, the TRCP offers the

Sportsmen’s Priorities Checklist as a window into issues of top concern to

hunters and anglers,” said TRCP President and CEO Whit Fosburgh. “We urge

our leaders to act decisively to uphold this nation’s grand tradition of

supporting and conserving our shared natural resources.”

Cuts passed by the House of Representatives last month but rejected by the

Senate would slash funding for a range of policies affecting fish and game

management, hunting and angling access and public- and private-lands

administration. The current budget extension expires March 18, and both

short- and longer-term proposals have been advanced by lawmakers. Another

temporary budget bill was passed yesterday by the House; it now awaits

Senate action.

“While sportsmen support budgetary conservatism, these proposed cuts would

adversely affect fish and wildlife populations and destroy decades of gains

made by our nation in the name of conservation,” Fosburgh continued. “Rather

than catalyzing fiscal recovery and growth, this legislation would

negatively impact the more than $192 billion that hunting and angling inject

into America’s economy every year. Sportsmen strongly oppose this course of

action.”

The TRCP Sportsmen’s Priorities Checklist spotlights the following

conservation programs:

ü Land and Water Conservation Fund: Funds to the LWCF, which has acquired

and conserved some of the nation’s most popular public-lands hunting and

angling destinations, would be cut by $393 million.

ü Natural Resources Adaptation: The Department of the Interior’s natural

resources adaptation programs, which are critical to fish and wildlife

management efforts in the face of climate change, would be reduced by more

than 30 percent.

ü State and Tribal Wildlife Grants: These grants provide federal money to

every state and territory for efforts aimed at preventing key fish and

wildlife species from becoming endangered; funding, currently at $90

million, would be completely eliminated.

ü North American Wetlands Conservation Fund: A core program for conserving

waterfowl and other migratory bird habitat, this partnership-based approach

would be eradicated under the House proposal.

ü Wild Lands: The Department of the Interior would be prohibited from

carrying out Secretarial Order 3310, which enables evaluation of BLM lands

to achieve management objectives designed to conserve high-quality

backcountry fish and wildlife habitat.

ü Clean Water Act: The EPA would be prevented from using funds to

implement, administer or enforce a change pertaining to definitions of

waters under the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act – a modification that

would restore conservation measures for millions of acres of wetlands and

miles of waterways.

These and other proposed reductions, including departmental cuts to the USDA

Natural Resources Conservation Service and Farm Services Agency and the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, could result in lasting effects to long-standing

American conservation activities.

“If these cuts and actions take place, waterfowl, waterfowl hunters and

wetlands conservation would lose in a big way,” said Dale Hall, CEO of Ducks

Unlimited, a TRCP partner, and former USFWS director. “In short, these

actions would adversely affect all of us who care about, and have funded,

wetlands and waterfowl conservation. We should remember, conservation in

America pays for itself through the economic return from hunters, anglers

and other outdoor enthusiasts.”

“Hunters and angler conservationists are willing to shoulder our share of

the burden for reducing federal discretionary spending, but a

disproportionate burden should not be saddled on programs of critical value

to sportsmen,” said Steve Moyer, vice president of government affairs for

Trout Unlimited, a TRCP partner. “We urge Congress to address these

shortcomings so that our nation’s fish and wildlife populations, our lands

and waterways, and our outdoor traditions don’t pay the price.”

Read the TRCP Sportsmen

<http://www.trcp.org/assets/pdf/Conservation_Cuts_Checklist4.pdf> ’s

Priorities Checklist.

Review the National Wildlife Federation

<http://www.nwf.org/News-and-Magazines/Media-Center/News-by-Topic/General-NW

F/2011/02-14-11-House-Continuing-Resolution.aspx> ’s breakdown of

conservation programs in jeopardy.

[awhuber]

Some good cuts in there:

ü Clean Water Act: The EPA would be prevented from using funds to

implement, administer or enforce a change pertaining to definitions of

waters under the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act – a modification that

would restore conservation measures for millions of acres of wetlands and

miles of waterways. The EPA wants to regulate all water!

ü Land and Water Conservation Fund: Funds to the LWCF, which has acquired

and conserved some of the nation’s most popular public-lands hunting and

angling deslandstinations, would be cut by $393 million. No need to aquire more land they cant take care of.

[Outside Bend]

Some good cuts in there:

ü Clean Water Act: The EPA would be prevented from using funds to

implement, administer or enforce a change pertaining to definitions of

waters under the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act – a modification that

would restore conservation measures for millions of acres of wetlands and

miles of waterways. The EPA wants to regulate all water!

ü Land and Water Conservation Fund: Funds to the LWCF, which has acquired

and conserved some of the nation’s most popular public-lands hunting and

angling deslandstinations, would be cut by $393 million. No need to aquire more land they cant take care of.

You can't be serious?

[Tim Smith]

Some good cuts in there:

ü Clean Water Act: The EPA would be prevented from using funds to

implement, administer or enforce a change pertaining to definitions of

waters under the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act – a modification that

would restore conservation measures for millions of acres of wetlands and

miles of waterways.

The EPA wants to regulate all water!

Interesting.

There was quite a bit of support for Federal funding of hatcheries here on the forum. How many fish do you think are produced naturally in US waters vs. the number that are produced in hatcheries (vastly, vastly more).

The standard the EPA uses to regulate US waters is that they be "fishable" (i.e. that they produce fish suitable for fisheries).

Why protect the hatcheries, but not natural reproduction?

[Outside Bend]

Interesting.

There was quite a bit of support for Federal funding of hatcheries here on the forum. How many fish do you think are produced naturally in US waters vs. the number that are produced in hatcheries (vastly, vastly more).

The standard the EPA uses to regulate US waters is that they be "fishable" (i.e. that they produce fish suitable for fisheries).

Why protect the hatcheries, but not natural reproduction?

Not only that, but the expanded EPA definitions expands protection to intermittent streams and wetlands- and any plumber can tell you $@! runs downhill.

Not only do these ecosytsems provide habitat for many organisms that occur nowhere else in the state, they collect water for as well as protect our downstream fisheries (& property, etc). Many of the Ozark's fisheries depend on baseflows provided by springs & seeps- and much of that water is derived from intermittent and losing streams- streams that won't receive any protection if this sort of legislation is passed. Not to mention all the benefits to waterways (& people) of intact riparian corridors, the water quality benefits of wetlands, etc...

ü Land and Water Conservation Fund: Funds to the LWCF, which has acquired

and conserved some of the nation’s most popular public-lands hunting and

angling deslandstinations, would be cut by $393 million. No need to aquire more land they cant take care of.

An angler arguing against public fishing accesses just strikes me as odd. How would you rather the land be "taken care of?" CAFO? Private dude-ranch which excludes the public from fishing? Mineral developments?

[mic]

Some good cuts in there:

ü Clean Water Act: The EPA would be prevented from using funds to

implement, administer or enforce a change pertaining to definitions of

waters under the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act – a modification that

would restore conservation measures for millions of acres of wetlands and

miles of waterways. The EPA wants to regulate all water!

Please explain your thoughts. How does someone on this forum whose recreation (and some cases, livelihoods) depends on clean, clear water want to see a reduction in the EPA's ability to manage the clean water act.

[awhuber]

Not only that, but the expanded EPA definitions expands protection to intermittent streams and wetlands- and any plumber can tell you $@! runs downhill.

This is taking land without just compensation. This is also out of Federal jurisdiction and should be a state matter.

Not only do these ecosytsems provide habitat for many organisms that occur nowhere else in the state, they collect water for as well as protect our downstream fisheries (& property, etc). Many of the Ozark's fisheries depend on baseflows provided by springs & seeps- and much of that water is derived from intermittent and losing streams- streams that won't receive any protection if this sort of legislation is passed. Not to mention all the benefits to waterways (& people) of intact riparian corridors, the water quality benefits of wetlands, etc...

An angler arguing against public fishing accesses just strikes me as odd. How would you rather the land be "taken care of?" CAFO? Private dude-ranch which excludes the public from fishing? Mineral developments?

The Feds owning land does not guarantee it will be taken care of, some of the most polluted propery in this country is owned by the Feds. Again this should be handled by the several states.

[Outside Bend]

The Feds owning land does not guarantee it will be taken care of, some of the most polluted propery in this country is owned by the Feds.

They also own some of the most pristine property in this country- Scenic Riverways, national parks, national forests, national seashores, roadless/wilderness areas, etc. What's your point?

Again this should be handled by the several states.

You know many state budgets which are flush enough with cash to be buying, protecting, and maintaining new public lands? The fact that many states are selling off public land to fund their budgets should be pretty telling.

The several states aren't in a position to be doing this.

[flytyer57]

Some good cuts in there:

ü Clean Water Act: The EPA would be prevented from using funds to

implement, administer or enforce a change pertaining to definitions of

waters under the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act – a modification that

would restore conservation measures for millions of acres of wetlands and

miles of waterways. The EPA wants to regulate all water!

ü Land and Water Conservation Fund: Funds to the LWCF, which has acquired

and conserved some of the nation’s most popular public-lands hunting and

angling deslandstinations, would be cut by $393 million. No need to aquire more land they cant take care of.

I can think of three reasons why you would think this way.

1) You are standing on the party line for these budget cuts.

2) You hate anything good that has come from Washington.

3) You totaly misunderstood the meaning of what is hapening here.

[awhuber]

They also own some of the most pristine property in this country- Scenic Riverways, national parks, national forests, national seashores, roadless/wilderness areas, etc. What's your point?

You know many state budgets which are flush enough with cash to be buying, protecting, and maintaining new public lands? The fact that many states are selling off public land to fund their budgets should be pretty telling.

The several states aren't in a position to be doing this.

I know here on the upper current alot of the most scenic spots are privately owned.

Our MDC seems to think they have plenty of cash to buy public lands.

Feds owning land does not guarantee access either. The wild lands referenced above will restrict access much like we have seen here with our recreation area (ONSR)