Registered: Jun 2008
Location: Burlington, CT
Posts: 1758

We've been working with the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service on access to public lands; working at the Federal level to propose new language to the federal regulation, that governs all states' use of lands funded with federal dollars. We're making some progress, but also thought it would be beneficial to share some of the feedback we received to our original inquiry, as I know many of you may have the same questions...


• Assuming that P-R funded lands were procured with some “plan” in the funding request, does that plan have to involve public feedback?

States that choose to administer their funds through the Comprehensive Management System process must include public participation in the planning process. The particular nature and extent of the public participation is up to the State. Currently, the States that use this process for administering their financial assistance are Wyoming, Arizona, Tennessee, Ohio, and Wisconsin. For all other States, public participation is not a compulsory part of the plan for land acquisition.


• If “public involvement” in development of a plan is required or at least desirable, how is it attained and ensured? Are there specific policies, protocols, or guidance (that you provide)?

States have different methods for ensuring public involvement in their plans, if public involvement is required. The Fish and Wildlife Service does not set standards for States to follow for ensuring public involvement in their process of implementing Federal financial assistance.


• Again, assuming there are plans submitted with approved P-R programs, are they public domain, where one could see what activities and purposes for those lands are permissible?

Land acquisition records and Federal financial assistance documentation is public domain. The Fish and Wildlife does not require details on permissible recreational activities on those lands, and those decisions are made at the State agency level. This information is accessible from State fish and wildlife agencies.


• If a comprehensive plan that acquired funds for a P-R program outlined conservation projects and wildlife-associated recreation projects without specific limitations, can limitations be applied after acquisition and initial implementation? Is public involvement required for changes?

According to our regulations, a State agency may restrict uses of land acquired with Federal assistance if those uses interfere with the purposes of the original award. Our regulations don’t stipulate that the State must hold a public forum to present or vote on those changes.


• If uses can be redefined and/or restrictions imposed without public involvement, who is authorized to do so?

In the case of P-R, the recipient of Federal assistance is the State agency, and as title holder to land acquired for conservation, they are authorized to impose restrictions on recreational activities on subject lands if they determine that they interfere with the purposes for which those lands were acquired.


• If public involvement is not required and citizens hear of pending changes (to allowable recreational uses on those lands), can they request and/or demand a hearing for discussion and/or have changes put to a vote?

Depending on the State agency’s process for public involvement and the presence of advisory boards or panels, this may be a viable way to advocate for changes to policies on conservation lands. If such forums exist for your organization to promote its views, we encourage you to engage your State fish and wildlife agency. This would also provide the State agency with an opportunity to provide feedback on why they have established particular rules regarding permissible recreational uses on land acquired with P-R funds.

The Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act established a Federal/State relationship wherein we work together for national conservation. The partnership gives the Fish and Wildlife Service administrative responsibility over the funds, and gives State agencies the latitude to administer many aspects of their agencies as they see fit if they assent to abide by the requirements of the legislation. We are interested to accommodate all recreational users of P-R funded land, but defer to the State agencies when it comes to specific management decisions, such as permissible recreational activities on P-R lands.




The above does not mean that we cannot challenge some of those state property manager's decisions, if done appropriately. Meaning, if we feel we're being discriminated against, we can make inquiries to the state on what basis certain restrictions have been put in place, and we can request reconsideration.

__________________
David Schmidt
219-614-0654

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jun 2008
Location: Burlington, CT
Posts: 1758

We've been told that a "State agency may restrict uses of land acquired with Federal assistance if those uses interfere with the purposes of the original award."

So... if Pittman Robertson funded properties were once open to hound and tree dog activities, and are now closed to those activities, the question we need to ask of the state agency is...

How are these activities interfering with the "purposes" of the original award???

__________________
David Schmidt
219-614-0654

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jun 2015
Location:
Posts: 20

I really wish we could get a more liberal training season in NC on federal lands be nice to have year round for residents.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Mar 2006
Location: Western NC
Posts: 1529

quote:

---

Originally posted by zallison
I really wish we could get a more liberal training season in NC on federal lands be nice to have year round for residents.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jun 2015
Location:
Posts: 20

I'm not sure where to start to get this done any ideas anyone. We have a public hearing in our area April 6 but it's about allowing still hunting over bait for the entire season in North Carolina.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jun 2015
Location:
Posts: 20

I'm not sure where to start to get this done any ideas anyone. We have a public hearing in our area April 6 but it's about allowing still hunting over bait for the entire season in North Carolina.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jun 2008
Location: Burlington, CT
Posts: 1758

Each state has a Fish and Wildlife Service office, which can be found on-line. They almost always have a contact page. Once you get through to that office, you need to request the name and contact information of the Property Manager, for the property in question.

It's not as over-whelming as it may seem, but like most things, to get the right answers you need to ask the right questions. You'll need to ask if the property in question was funded with Pittman-Robertson dollars. If so, that means it was purchased with Federal dollars and we have more leverage, because the monies came from sportsmen/women.

Once that's determined, the question is simply we used to be able to do X and now we can't... Why? Those activities were once permitted, with the purpose that was funded with federal dollars, so why is it no longer allowed? And push to make them answer, how those activities were later determined to interfere with those purposes. If they can't answer those questions, the NHTDA can go back to the Federal office and make a challenge.

BUT, we've been instructed to work each case at the state level, first! And of course, the state agencies should be more responsive to residents of their own states.

Hope this helps!

__________________
David Schmidt
219-614-0654

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Mar 2010
Location: maine
Posts: 213

still hunting was what the antis used here in maine to try an edge hounds and bait hunters out ,and try to get the public to side with them.im not against people that want to still hunt by no means ,but be careful cause that is one of there windows they tried to use.mainers for fair bear hunting was their motto.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Mar 2006
Location: Western NC
Posts: 1529

David, we're on the western end of the state, it's ~90% federal land that's been in existence since Teddy himself said so, (pisgah nat'l forest). For the majority of my lifetime I can't recall being allowed to run hounds from the April-August as it reads now, but I also didn't get serious about owning my own hounds until after college so I'll have to check. Thanks for the info and effort, keep it up.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Nov 2015
Location:
Posts: 8

Same thing in Virginia...year round training season on private land for coon dogs but bear hounds can only legally run second week of aug-end of sept...hard to make a dog with only seven weekends a year to train

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jun 2008
Location: Burlington, CT
Posts: 1758

If access rights have changed, then the approach I've described is how you would attack getting it changed back. If however, it's always been this way, you can take a similar approach to pursuing a change. Contact the property manager, ask if they would consider a change and then ask what they would require for consideration.

No one is going to do this for us... We must get engaged to pursue the changes we want. Others, including antis are doing the same to pursue the changes they desire.

__________________
David Schmidt
219-614-0654

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2013
Location: Waldron, Arkansas
Posts: 1333

They'll regulate and litigate us till were all bug eyed! Starting to hit running hogs with hounds now. Getting really silly. Everyone is so politically correct nowadays. And if you run your hounds, your not politically correct.

__________________
Bobby Cagle,
Waldron, Arkansas
(479) 207-3789

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jun 2008
Location: Burlington, CT
Posts: 1758

Unfortunately very true... But I believe those defining "political correctness" are the loud minority. If the silent majority would choose to not be so silent, we would be looking at a very different landscape.

__________________
David Schmidt
219-614-0654

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jun 2011
Location: Monticello, Georgia
Posts: 246

No dogs allowed on Oconee Ntl Forrest June first til Aug 15. Said dogs will harass new born wildlife. Most gates closed when deer season goes out small game hunters are second class in their eyes. Deer hunters and horse riders rule.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jun 2008
Location: Burlington, CT
Posts: 1758

Mike,

I highly recommend you reach out to the local Fish and Wildlife Service, and ask why they have imposed this restriction... In other words, do they have proof that there's actually an issue? Has the state biologist weighed in? Has their been a study? If no to all the above, you need to ask what is required to reconsider...

In other words, I feel your frustration but it's time the small game hunters go on offense and challenge these decisions and restrictions.

__________________
David Schmidt
219-614-0654

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged