sdbrewer
Active Member
I repeat, you really ought to read this!!!! It isn't long and it isn't complicated.
http://www.fws.gov/saltonsea/pdf/Planning%20Update%202.pdf
Here's a direct quote that some might find interesting: "The hunting program would be modified to eliminate hunting on Wednesdays during the hunting season in the Union Tract, while also providing an additional hunting blind in this area for use on Saturdays and Sundays."
Page 5 lists the three proposed alternatives for managing the refuge. The quote above comes from Alternative B which is the preferred alternative. IF YOU DO NOTHING, THIS IS LIKELY WHAT WILL HAPPEN. If you voice your opinion, it may happen anyway but at least you can say you tried. Plus, you never know, we TOGETHER might be able to change the course a little.
Here is where you send your comments:
Victoria Touchstone, Refuge Planner (Please note new mailing address)
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Post Office Box 2358
Chula Vista, CA 91912‐2358
619‐476‐9150 ex. 103 (phone), 619‐476‐9149 (fax)
Email: [email protected]; please include Sonny Bono Salton Sea NWR CCP in the subject line message.
If you want your comments considered, you must get them to Ms. Touchstone by February 27, 2012
Here's what I'm thinking of sending (I welcome any comments -- feel free to use whatever you would like for your own letter):
Dear Ms. Touchstone:
I write in reference to Planning Update 2 regarding the development of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for the Sonny Bono Salton Sea National Wildlife Refuge (the Refuge). Thank you for your work on this project and for the opportunity to comment on the CCP.
I reside in the greater San Diego area and visit the Refuge frequently during hunting season. I have been hunting on the Refuge and the Wister Unit for approximately 12 years and spend 16 to 24 days per year hunting there. My oldest son, currently 11 and on his second season as a licensed hunter, has been accompanying me on almost every trip for the last five years or so. The CCP will have profound impact not only on me but also on him. Accordingly, I write on behalf of both of us. During the non-hunting season, I visit the refuge occasionally for wildlife viewing. I also have participated in at least one volunteer work party on the Hazard Unit that was overseen by Mr. Schoneman. All of the 20 or so volunteers that day were hunters. In short, I suspect that I (and the many other hunters that frequent the refuge) visit and use the refuge far more than the general population.
I have reviewed the three alternatives set forth in Planning Update 2 and have the following comments:
As a general comment, I would like to remind you of Executive Order 13443 which states The purpose of this order is to direct Federal agencies that have programs and activities that have a measurable effect on public land management, outdoor recreation, and wildlife management, including the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture, to facilitate the expansion and enhancement of hunting opportunities and the management of game species and their habitat. Accordingly, I believe the CCP should be developed to facilitate the expansion and enhancement of hunting opportunities and the management of game species and their habitat. I was surprised and disappointed that no reference to the Executive Order was included in the Goals or Refuge Purposes sections of Planning Update 2 since, by its own terms, Executive Order 13443 applies to the Department of the Interior and therefore the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and the Refuge. I hope that reference to Executive Order 13443 will be included in future Planning Updates, the Draft CCP and the Final CCP.
As to Alternative B (the current preferred alternative): I support the restoration and enhancement of existing managed habitats on the Refuge. I also support permitting cooperative farming on the portions of the Refuge designated as foraging areas for wintering geese provided (i) such farming includes only crops of high food value to geese; (ii) such farming does not include livestock of any kind; and (iii) there is no difference in the type or intensity of farming between those areas of the Refuge that are hunted and those areas that are not. With respect to (iii), the hunting community has consistently noticed that those areas of the refuge that are not hunted (e.g. Unit 1) are managed much better than those areas of the refuge that are hunted (e.g. Union Tract) resulting in the non-hunting areas producing habitat with abundant food and cover whereas the hunting areas have sparse food and are generally not particularly attractive to geese. I think the management plan should state that except where soil or other objective factors prevent it, the hunting and non-hunting areas should be subject to identical farming practices.
In addition, I strongly oppose the proposal to close Union Tract to hunting on Wednesdays. Such an action would be in contradiction to Executive Order 13443. In addition, I suspect a large portion of the funding for the Refuge comes from hunters (through federal waterfowl stamp sales and Pittman-Robertson funds I have never seen a birder or other non-hunter pay a day use fee at any waterfowl area whereas I paid $146.62 for my Type A Season Pass last year). It stands to reason, therefore, that the management of the Refuge should particularly favor hunters and game species.
Finally, I strongly support the addition of a fifth waterfowl blind in Union Tract (for use on Wednesdays, Saturdays and Sundays along with the other four blinds). Such an action would be in accordance with Executive Order 13443 and would be appropriate recognition of hunters significant contribution to the funding of the Refuge.
As to Alternative C: As discussed above, I support allowing third-parties to farm those portions of the refuge used by foraging geese subject to points (i)-(iii) discussed above. I also strongly support opening a hunting area in Unit 1. Such an action would be in accordance with Executive Order 13443 and would be appropriate recognition of hunters significant contribution to the funding of the Refuge.
Finally, I would like to see recognition of Executive Order 13443 and the fact that hunters provide a significant contribution to the funding of the Refuge in the final CCP. I have in mind including a statement such as A primary goal of the management of the Refuge shall be to facilitate the expansion and enhancement of hunting opportunities and the management of game species and their habitat.
Thank you very much for taking the time to read and consider my comments. If you have any questions or wish to discuss any of my comments, please feel free to contact me.
THIS PLAN GOVERNS THE REFUGE FOR THE NEXT 15 YEARS. GET INVOLVED AND LET YOUR VOICE BE HEARD!!!!
http://www.fws.gov/saltonsea/pdf/Planning%20Update%202.pdf
Here's a direct quote that some might find interesting: "The hunting program would be modified to eliminate hunting on Wednesdays during the hunting season in the Union Tract, while also providing an additional hunting blind in this area for use on Saturdays and Sundays."
Page 5 lists the three proposed alternatives for managing the refuge. The quote above comes from Alternative B which is the preferred alternative. IF YOU DO NOTHING, THIS IS LIKELY WHAT WILL HAPPEN. If you voice your opinion, it may happen anyway but at least you can say you tried. Plus, you never know, we TOGETHER might be able to change the course a little.
Here is where you send your comments:
Victoria Touchstone, Refuge Planner (Please note new mailing address)
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Post Office Box 2358
Chula Vista, CA 91912‐2358
619‐476‐9150 ex. 103 (phone), 619‐476‐9149 (fax)
Email: [email protected]; please include Sonny Bono Salton Sea NWR CCP in the subject line message.
If you want your comments considered, you must get them to Ms. Touchstone by February 27, 2012
Here's what I'm thinking of sending (I welcome any comments -- feel free to use whatever you would like for your own letter):
Dear Ms. Touchstone:
I write in reference to Planning Update 2 regarding the development of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for the Sonny Bono Salton Sea National Wildlife Refuge (the Refuge). Thank you for your work on this project and for the opportunity to comment on the CCP.
I reside in the greater San Diego area and visit the Refuge frequently during hunting season. I have been hunting on the Refuge and the Wister Unit for approximately 12 years and spend 16 to 24 days per year hunting there. My oldest son, currently 11 and on his second season as a licensed hunter, has been accompanying me on almost every trip for the last five years or so. The CCP will have profound impact not only on me but also on him. Accordingly, I write on behalf of both of us. During the non-hunting season, I visit the refuge occasionally for wildlife viewing. I also have participated in at least one volunteer work party on the Hazard Unit that was overseen by Mr. Schoneman. All of the 20 or so volunteers that day were hunters. In short, I suspect that I (and the many other hunters that frequent the refuge) visit and use the refuge far more than the general population.
I have reviewed the three alternatives set forth in Planning Update 2 and have the following comments:
As a general comment, I would like to remind you of Executive Order 13443 which states The purpose of this order is to direct Federal agencies that have programs and activities that have a measurable effect on public land management, outdoor recreation, and wildlife management, including the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture, to facilitate the expansion and enhancement of hunting opportunities and the management of game species and their habitat. Accordingly, I believe the CCP should be developed to facilitate the expansion and enhancement of hunting opportunities and the management of game species and their habitat. I was surprised and disappointed that no reference to the Executive Order was included in the Goals or Refuge Purposes sections of Planning Update 2 since, by its own terms, Executive Order 13443 applies to the Department of the Interior and therefore the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and the Refuge. I hope that reference to Executive Order 13443 will be included in future Planning Updates, the Draft CCP and the Final CCP.
As to Alternative B (the current preferred alternative): I support the restoration and enhancement of existing managed habitats on the Refuge. I also support permitting cooperative farming on the portions of the Refuge designated as foraging areas for wintering geese provided (i) such farming includes only crops of high food value to geese; (ii) such farming does not include livestock of any kind; and (iii) there is no difference in the type or intensity of farming between those areas of the Refuge that are hunted and those areas that are not. With respect to (iii), the hunting community has consistently noticed that those areas of the refuge that are not hunted (e.g. Unit 1) are managed much better than those areas of the refuge that are hunted (e.g. Union Tract) resulting in the non-hunting areas producing habitat with abundant food and cover whereas the hunting areas have sparse food and are generally not particularly attractive to geese. I think the management plan should state that except where soil or other objective factors prevent it, the hunting and non-hunting areas should be subject to identical farming practices.
In addition, I strongly oppose the proposal to close Union Tract to hunting on Wednesdays. Such an action would be in contradiction to Executive Order 13443. In addition, I suspect a large portion of the funding for the Refuge comes from hunters (through federal waterfowl stamp sales and Pittman-Robertson funds I have never seen a birder or other non-hunter pay a day use fee at any waterfowl area whereas I paid $146.62 for my Type A Season Pass last year). It stands to reason, therefore, that the management of the Refuge should particularly favor hunters and game species.
Finally, I strongly support the addition of a fifth waterfowl blind in Union Tract (for use on Wednesdays, Saturdays and Sundays along with the other four blinds). Such an action would be in accordance with Executive Order 13443 and would be appropriate recognition of hunters significant contribution to the funding of the Refuge.
As to Alternative C: As discussed above, I support allowing third-parties to farm those portions of the refuge used by foraging geese subject to points (i)-(iii) discussed above. I also strongly support opening a hunting area in Unit 1. Such an action would be in accordance with Executive Order 13443 and would be appropriate recognition of hunters significant contribution to the funding of the Refuge.
Finally, I would like to see recognition of Executive Order 13443 and the fact that hunters provide a significant contribution to the funding of the Refuge in the final CCP. I have in mind including a statement such as A primary goal of the management of the Refuge shall be to facilitate the expansion and enhancement of hunting opportunities and the management of game species and their habitat.
Thank you very much for taking the time to read and consider my comments. If you have any questions or wish to discuss any of my comments, please feel free to contact me.
THIS PLAN GOVERNS THE REFUGE FOR THE NEXT 15 YEARS. GET INVOLVED AND LET YOUR VOICE BE HEARD!!!!
