Op-Ed | On Hunting In Bandelier National Monument

Yes indeed, what is Heinrich thinking?  Senator Heinrich has been a staunch advocate for conservation and environmental protection since, well, at least his teens and he's orchestrated or helped orchestrate some serious conservation victories.  Personally, I've been in favor of simplifying the many different and often confusing "flavors" of NPS assets, like this "preserve" nonsense, by upgrading as many of them as possible to a higher, stricter, more impervious, protection category and, considering the history of national monument designations in Wyoming and at Olympic and what the Trump Administration and the State of Utah more recently did to national monuments in Utah, I initially supported these full national park protections for Bandelier; but, this "recreational sport hunting" thing has me also unsure of what Heinrich is thinking.

Giving Senator Heinrich the benefit of the doubt, he may have gotten himself entangled in some sort of "horse trade" in which he ended up willing to accept this 4,000 acre elk killing ground in exchange for winning support for the national park conversion.  He or his staff may have misunderstood or misjudged the full risk posed by dealing with "collaborators" who might want this kind of exchange and this precedent to be set.  This may have been the "circumstance motivating" or at least in his mind or his staff's minds "justifying Heinrich's proposal" and, if so, it might be more understandable; but, it still needs to be blocked.  At a time when "recreational sport hunting" is actually dying out, opening the last small pieces of choice habitat so that the last and best parts of the remaining game animal gene pools can be killed, primarily just for fun, is absolutely inappropriate.

However, at the other end of the spectrum, if Senator Heinrich has or some part of his staff have allowed political, business, social, or even religious affiliations or objectives to intrude on what has hitherto been a trusted conservation record, then individuals who have gone to him or his office for help and support on conservation or environmental protection issues unfortunately need to know that, to reassess their situation, and to begin to act accordingly.  I believe that would be a proverbially sufficient "word to the wise" so to speak.

And, either way, this proposal to carve a 4,000 acre elk killing ground out of what is now Bandelier National Monument needs to be stricken from the proposal or the proposal needs to be firmly blocked.

Yeah, with more time and surprisingly little further investigation, "collaborators" are revealing themselves to be just flat drooling to get this bad precedent set. I hope Martin realizes he's stumbled into courting the wrong constituency on this one.  At the rate and in the direction he's going, he's on his way to having a ridiculous cartoon painted machine gun to show off in his office too.  From Ossining to Windsor, a family spreading enlightenment everywhere.

Perhaps unfairly, this 'action' makes me think of the line from All The President's Men - "Follow the Money"!!!

Elk are far from being one of the worst conservation issues that hunting aggravates; but, even in the case of elk, two subspecies of North American elk have already been hunted to extinction within the last couple of centuries.  The genetic heritage of those two subspecies has been lost forever.  For other species, trumpeter swans, grizzly bears, or some wolf subspecies for example, hunting, legal and illegal, remains a major threat.  Modern "sport" hunting, which is nothing more than killing off, just for the fun of it, what are often the last remnant gene pools of species that were many times more plentiful (well over a million times more plentiful in the case of bison) in very recent evolutionary timeframes, is what makes no sense at all.

I think Rumpel may be on to something in that Senator Heinrich might be giving his support for the full conversion of Bandelier National Monument to Bandelier National Park and Preserve in exchange for 4,000 acres of hunting in the Preserve. I'm not against hunting being a bow hunter myself, but this sets a poor precedent in the lower 48.  I almost guarantee you that by doing this there will be future calls to re-designate portions of Yellowstone, Yosemite, Big Bend, Glacier, Olympics, North Rim of Grand Canyon on the Kaibab Plateau, North Cascades, etc as National Park and Preserves.  Preserve the integrity of the parks, while keeping hunting to the National Forests and vast Wilderness Areas that surround these parks. 

Yes, good point, national parks and other such areas, imperfect as they are, often serve as valuable breeding areas that replenish populations and genetic diversity in the areas around them.  For many species facing extirpation if not extinction at the end of the 19th century, including elk and bison, the closure of Yellowstone to hunting saved, not only hunting opportunities for the future, but the species themselves.  The elk you hunt today, almost wherever in America you hunt them, may be there because their ancestors were transplanted from the herds protected and preserved in Yellowstone.

However, in addition to being cautious about the potential hidden precedents, agendas, or consequences behind opening these areas, do your research on the natural history, habits, needs, and population dynamics of whatever you hunt, wherever you hunt it.  Think about how much of their gene pool they may have lost in recent times (think in biological time, not your time).  Think about their remaining habitat, their distribution, their needs into the future, and the threats they may be facing.  Except for Tule elk or perhaps some other isolated Distinct Population Segment, our remaining elk are generally in pretty good shape; but, it still doesn't hurt for even elk hunters to keep these questions in mind.  And, also take a second to ponder whether you can really trust the conservation assurances of people, groups, or agencies that may have vested political, social, business, funding, or cultural interests in the goods, services, licenses, or general "hooplah" behind getting you into the field and blasting or "twanging" away. 

To answer Frank's question, I can think of one instance in which Congress allowed recreational hunting to an area of the National Park System in which hunting had not previously been permitted.  When Hagerman Fossil Beds National Monument in Idaho was established on November 18, 1988, language in the enabling legislation was that used in most new park legislation.  Section 303 of Public Law 100-696, Title III, states that:  "The Secretary shall administer the monument established pursuant to this title in accordance with the Act entitled "An Act to establish a National Park Service, and for other purposes," approved August 25, 1916 (39 Stat. 535; 16 U.S.C 1 et seq.), as amended and supplemented."  I was working at Great Basin National Park in neighboring Nevada at the time, and I recall hearing reports that the Idaho senators who had supported the HAFO legislation were mortified when they learned, after the legislation passed and was signed into law, that administration under the NPS Organic Act meant that there would be no hunting allowed.  They vowed to correct what they saw as their error.  They accomplished this about two years later, on November 5, 1990, with the passage of PL 101-512 (104 Stat. 1924).  A provision in that law states:  "that with respect to lands and waters under the jurisdiction of the Secretary within the Hagerman Fossil Beds National Monument, established by title III of Public Law 100-696, the Secretary shall hereafter permit hunting and fishing as well as maintenance of structures necessary to undertake such activities, including but not limited to duck and goose blinds on those lands within an area fifty feet in elevation above the high water level of the Snake River in accordance with otherwise applicable laws of the United States and the State of Idaho."

So, it has happened before outside of Alaska.  For about two week shy of two years, Hagerman Fossil Beds National Monument was closed to all hunting.  Then, a small portion of the monument upslope 50 feet from the Snake River was opened to recreational hunting, and this provision continues to this day.

Of course, none of this means that opening a portion of HAFO or Bandelier to hunting is a good idea.  In the Bandelier proposal it sounds like the area opened to hunting would be re-designated as a National Preserve.  That did not happen at Hagerman, where the hunting is permitted within a portion of the overall national monument.

All of the legislation referenced here, as well as the park brochure map that delineates the hunting area within the monument can be found on the park's website: nps.gov/hafo

Al Hendricks

All the more reasons, first, to stop the establishment of any and all of these precedents in their tracks from the very start and, second, to simplify NPS designations into fewer categories with less "weasel room" for mischief and the most stringent possible protections whenever and wherever possible (apply the "never negotiate with terrorists" principle).