Any one know the details of this ?suppose be a good thing??

[dhpro]

https://www.doi.gov/document-librar...0jY69ApngPve4ZS2b4_aem_g7tq4QZkxNkPceMWB4lkAA

 

[cbhunter]

Myself and @Andy S. Was discussing this a bit yesterday. He has some resources he will ask when he gets time to see if they have any idea or intel

 

[Grnwing]

Agency directors still maintain control on the local refuges. Not sure exactly how many new acres will be opened. It sends a message to allow hunting and fishing on our public lands. However some portions will remain closed to activities based on the local agency directors. I would certainly say it's a good thing.

 

[tickweed]

It will offer more opportunities, but they are still refuges. I would say no access to waterfowl. Which really, probably should be that way.

 

[MickThompson]

Not sure how much more opportunity our federal refuges can offer and still function as refuges

 

[BSK]

Not sure how much more opportunity our federal refuges can offer and still function as refuges

This is an important point. Although I hate to see large chunks of land off-limits to any form of human activity, isn't that what "refuges" are supposed to be - a refuge from human activity?

 

[mike243]

Well the states that have large sections of land will keep raising the prices where it is to hunt, reckon if $$ is no problem there is always places to hunt. Won't matter how much is opened if you can't pay the price. I hate they can gouge folks so bad, a federal agency should be in control of the prices in order to make it fair for in state and oos folks.

 

[PickettSFHunter]

I believe I saw NPS included in this right? Not for places like Yellowstone, etc but there are NPS lands that offer hunting and that hunting could be expanded. I know in our situation locally, hunting could be expanded on NPS lands but the local superintendent is a bear lover.

 

[dhpro]

Myself and @Andy S. Was discussing this a bit yesterday. He has some resources he will ask when he gets time to see if they have any idea or intel

Thanks

 

[Andy S.]

This is an important point. Although I hate to see large chunks of land off-limits to any form of human activity, isn't that what "refuges" are supposed to be - a refuge from human activity?

Portions of them yes, all of them, no, IMO. My opinion is based on my experience supporting/hiking/hunting NWRs in middle and west TN. It seems these "portions" rarely ever grow in favor of public access, or any additional acreage is added for public access, hunting, fishing, etc.

As I've told others, I fully expect some agency/area supervisors to comply (provide 1 acre of additional access and you can argue you've met the intent), but fully expect many to drag their feet to outlast the current administration, or open areas that you need a helicopter to access, in the interest of "meeting the intent".

 

[BSK]

Portions of them yes, all of them, no, IMO. My opinion is based on my experience supporting/hiking/hunting NWRs in middle and west TN. It seems these "portions" rarely ever grow in favor of public access, or any additional acreage is added for public access, hunting, fishing, etc.

As I've told others, I fully expect some agency/area supervisors to comply (add 1 acre and you can argue you've met the intent), but fully expect many to drag their feet to outlast the current administration, or open areas that you need a helicopter to access, in the interest of "meeting the intent".

But aren't most of the non-waterfowl areas of NWR open to at least some hunting now? Don't they have quota hunts?

 

[Andy S.]

But aren't most of the non-waterfowl areas of NWR open to at least some hunting now? Don't they have quota hunts?

Yes, with restricted dates access for some units (15NOV - 15MAR, etc) , and year long access for some units (big improvement over just a decade ago). We are grateful for these improvements over the last decade, but suspect, it could be replicated at other NWRs to some degree. Not expecting full blown access, or harassment of the wildlife, but revisit the issue and possibly consider adding some public hunting/fishing access where it makes sense. Quota hunts are still used for many west TN NWRs. The wild card for those are mother nature/Mississippi River flooding and cancelling the hunts due to high back water and regulations that prohibit access at those river stages (rightfully so).

 

[BSK]

Yes, with restricted dates access for some units (15NOV - 15MAR, etc) , and year long access for some units (big improvement over just a decade ago). We are grateful for these improvements over the last decade, but suspect, it could be replicated at other NWRs to some degree. Not expecting full blown access, or harassment of the wildlife, but revisit the issue and possibly consider adding some public hunting/fishing access where it makes sense. Quota hunts are still used for many west TN NWRs. The wild card for those are mother nature/Mississippi River flooding and cancelling the hunts due to high back water and regulations that prohibit access at those river stages (rightfully so).

I have no problem with reviewing each NWR on a case-by-case basis.

 

[killingtime 41]

Smokey mountain national park is 522,000 acres most of it hasn't seen a person. Since the feds took the land from land owners years ago. Why couldn't At least half of that be huntable.

 

[MickThompson]

The flip side of more access- take TN national along KY as an example. It used to be a really good draw for trophy bucks. Now, not so much. EaB and other policies to reduce the herd were part of it too, but long seasons on public land aren't conducive to trophy management.

 

[Andy S.]

^^^ Yessir, I agree 110%. I know exactly what you're referring to as well.

 

[RobbyW]

Would this include the Big Sandy Refuge?

 

[BSK]

The flip side of more access- take TN national along KY as an example. It used to be a really good draw for trophy bucks. Now, not so much. EaB and other policies to reduce the herd were part of it too, but long seasons on public land aren't conducive to trophy management.

The herd there just never rebounded after a decade of Earn-A-Buck.

 

[CATCHDAWG]

Smokey mountain national park is 522,000 acres most of it hasn't seen a person. Since the feds took the land from land owners years ago. Why couldn't At least half of that be huntable.

Me personally would not support hunting in the GSMNP. It's crowded enough as it is and for the most part a different kind of crowd. There's 660,000 acres of huntable land in CNF on either side of the park.

 

[Chiflyguy]

Not a fan of lifting restrictions on lead shot.
I still remember the pictures of thousands of dead ducks in South Dakota pothole region in the mid 80's.

 

[MickThompson]

Me personally would not support hunting in the GSMNP. It's crowded enough as it is and for the most part a different kind of crowd. There's 660,000 acres of huntable land in CNF on either side of the park.

I'd wager the vast majority of the park never sees a person though

 

[CATCHDAWG]

I'd wager the vast majority of the park never sees a person though

And I'd wager that you are correct. I'd also wager that neither does CNF.