# More Hunting Opportunity @ BRBR



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

https://deltawaterfowl.org/delta-ap...-hunting-access-on-national-wildlife-refuges/


----------



## Goshawk (Sep 7, 2007)

Same subject but from the Department of the Interior site

https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/s...hunting-and-fishing-opportunities-30-americas


----------



## goosefreak (Aug 20, 2009)

Its about time! we'll see what they actually do with the BRBR.

Hopefully its a worth while effort at the BRBR and not some extra parking or dust flat expansion of some kind...

is a step in the right direction IMO


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

Over the course of the last 5 years or so, the Utah Waterfowl Association has repeatedly submitted proposals for opening up more hunting access on the BRBR. The proposed areas include the Canadian Goose Club, the Fin&Feather Club, and Unit3. To help them out, we even mapped out where to put possible parking areas! The feds have merely given lip service to our request, but now, if they are serious, maybe they will actually ask for (and accept) some public input on allowing more hunting, fishing and birding opportunities on the BRBR. If this really happens, and I hope it does, Utah waterfowlers will really need to step up and make our voices heard in encouragement of this process. I'm hopeful!
R


----------



## Shadow Man (Feb 22, 2017)

It's good to see these kinds of things happening, usually it ends up being more closed areas and tighter restrictions, it's about time things go the way of the sportsman!


----------



## Goshawk (Sep 7, 2007)

Comment period is now open for the national proposal.. I still haven't seen any specific plan for Bear River.

https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FWS-HQ-NWRS-2018-0020

Make your voice heard.


----------



## king eider (Aug 20, 2009)

Bob Barrett has retired as the director. A new director has not been named. They are rotating in a acting director on a 3 week interval. So I'm sure the place will function by the 25 miles of red tape that they love. Fingers crossed for a director who is willing to listen and not hide behind their policy.


----------



## Longgun (Sep 7, 2007)

My fingers are crossed that the tree that has been planted-fed-and nurtured for years by the well wishing and hard working folks speaking on the behalf of us sportsmen will actually bear fruit FINALLY - BUT realistically speaking, I'm not holding my breath that anything profoundly positive will come of this. 



** THANK YOU to those that have kept their feet over the fire.


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

I think a healthy amount of skepticism is in order. Although the BRBR is on the list of refuges to open more lands, they are not asking for any input from the stakeholders that actually use the place. With this being the case, I guess we will eventually be informed by someone (but who?) on what to expect from our publicly-owned refuge. 
R


----------



## JerryH (Jun 17, 2014)

Just another boondoggle.


----------



## Clarq (Jul 21, 2011)

Here is the proposal for BRBR.

https://www.fws.gov/uploadedFiles/Bear%20River%20Hunt%20EA_PUBLIC%20REVIEW_06072018.pdf

Which alternative looks best to you?


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

Those are some nutty maps. They seem intent on including big chunks of dust in each plan. 
R


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

rjefre said:


> Those are some nutty maps. They seem intent on including big chunks of dust in each plan.
> R


Yep, Unit 10 doesn't look promising. I've not seen much out there.


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

Each option includes the southern half of unit 10 (Unit 10 is 15,000 acres). Nearly all of it is salt flat with no vegetation or water. The crappy options the feds are tossing out to us includes *approx 6000 acres of unit 10* (yay for us!!). 
Unit 4a is smaller than Unit 10, but is mostly dust and dry dirt with very little vegetation and no water...again, another chunk of lifeless land that they have included in our options.
Pintail/Lucky 7 is mostly dirt, no water, and a little bit of grass, but nothing worth hunting at all.
Overall, the options are a perfect example of laziness and possibly even some spite because they were told to come up with a plan to increase huntable area. I can't support any of these plans...and maybe that is what the goal was to begin with.
R


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

I have hunted BRBR a few times, but I wouldn't say that I "know the area". This proposal sounds like the Feds don't want to put any money in this expansion. Probably use existing roads to patrol these proposed areas, so no need to build anything new. The problem right now is if we don't take what we can get, then we may get nothing ever again. It's a tough spot to be in......


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

I think they have calculated that we will smile and eat their crap-sandwich (pick any option) and they will have "done their job". If we get stuck with any of these options, we will be STUCK...we will probably never get the chance to tweak the boundaries later on. By tossing in a few nice acres, they will have also unloaded thousands of acres of unhuntable land that they will not have to patrol or oversee. They are not dumb...years of bureaucracy have trained them in the methods and intricacies of laziness.
R


----------



## goosefreak (Aug 20, 2009)

So, what do we have to do to come up with our own proposal, and who again do we have to present this to and in what kind of manner? 
As I recall there were a few good ideas talked about this last Saturday..

How can we make our voices heard? Or can we?

Because I agree, these new options are chit!!


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

I asked the mgr today if we could submit an alternate proposal for consideration. It appears that, unless it comes from the powers in Washington, we are stuck with the 3 options presented. We can comment on the proposed options, but comments won't change the plan, they will just reflect which one you choose to accept. They are stuck with a mandate from Washington to come up with a plan in very short notice, and do impact studies on each option...They did that, and there doesn't appear to be a pathway around it. We will see if the top USFWS folks will intervene and allow additional proposals, but I just don't know if there is time for that to happen. 
I really think that if they had allowed public input, we could have reached a compromise that allows them to keep a bunch of dust-bowl lands in the mix while still allowing some decent huntable lands for the public. As it stands, they feel that they need to keep a large statistical percentage of the proposals in dry lands to reflect the historic mix of the area with water vs. dust. Statistics are great and all, but there are always nuances in the real world, and these nuances could have been hammered out with stakeholder input.
R


----------



## goosefreak (Aug 20, 2009)

What about raising hell with our congressman? who do we need to email?

would it make any difference if we could get several thousand emails sent to the appropriate Federal employee and maybe we can get him to raise an eye brow and take a second look at the outcry here in UT?


----------

