Irrelevant
Well-known member
Just so everyone remembers Grand Canyon NP started as a NM with the same level of opposition. I would think very few look at it's designation as a bad idea.
Trump to Order Review of National Monuments
- Thread starter Schaaf
- Start date
LuketheDog
Well-known member
Wow, Trump orders review to make sure Obama and dems (most of whom don't hold a candle to Roosevelt on ACTUAL vision for conservation) weren't just creating monuments as ego-boosters...is the sky falling? I'd better go out and check...
With this "Monument Review" we now get to see what Secretary of the Interior, Ryan Zinke is really made of
Here is what he said in USA Today:
"Here’s what the executive order does not do: The executive order does not strip any monument of a designation. The executive order does not loosen any environmental or conservation regulation on any land or marine areas," he said. "It is a review of the last 20 years."
"The local community, the loggers, the fishermen, those areas that are affected should have a say and a voice,"
"There's no doubt the president has the authority to amend a monument," Zinke said at his confirmation hearing. "It will be interesting to see whether the president has the authority to nullify a monument. Legally, it's untested. I would think that (if) the president would nullify a monument, it would be challenged and then the court would determine whether or not the legal framework allows it or not."
We will soon find out if Zinke is a true Public Land advocate or is he going to be just another Trump billionaire swap creature..........
Action Item - Call or write your Congressional representatives and let them know you support Public Lands.
Mark
Here is what he said in USA Today:
"Here’s what the executive order does not do: The executive order does not strip any monument of a designation. The executive order does not loosen any environmental or conservation regulation on any land or marine areas," he said. "It is a review of the last 20 years."
"The local community, the loggers, the fishermen, those areas that are affected should have a say and a voice,"
"There's no doubt the president has the authority to amend a monument," Zinke said at his confirmation hearing. "It will be interesting to see whether the president has the authority to nullify a monument. Legally, it's untested. I would think that (if) the president would nullify a monument, it would be challenged and then the court would determine whether or not the legal framework allows it or not."
We will soon find out if Zinke is a true Public Land advocate or is he going to be just another Trump billionaire swap creature..........
Action Item - Call or write your Congressional representatives and let them know you support Public Lands.
Mark
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
For clarification, is that "swap" or "swamp"?
fify
I'm sure tump had this idea on his own, yeah right. He's not smart enough to care or even know about our national monuments. He probably wants to expand our national monuments to further protect them. It couldn't possibly to to further pilage the natural resources so his appointed cronies can make a buck.
Last edited:
Agreed. I doubt Trump even knew there were National Monuments or what the hell they were, much less ever step foot in one. Just don't think getting out in nature has ever been a high or even a low priority for that guy, which is fine I guess, some people just aren't wired that way, doesn't mean they can't care or make decisions for the benefit of N Monuments, I just don't believe Trump will, I don't think he has it in him. Hotels, golf courses, and $money are more his style in my opinion.
jryoung
Well-known member
Does anyone have a link to the document which shows the replies/thank young from the Utah delegation to the DOI (I believe) regarding their meetings? I thought it was the Center for Western Priorities that posted it, but I can't seem to locate it.
F
fwagner
Guest
Yeah!!! How dare a President secure our most beautiful and bountiful lands for the future generations to enjoy. How dare he reserve the right to protect the rights of many while keeping the few from accessing them and getting rich. You Trump supporters who bought his rhetoric hook line and sinker make me laugh....
Hunting Wife
Well-known member
Not sure which meetings you were referring to, but came across this and found it interesting even if it isn't what you had in mind.
https://democrats-oversight.house.gov/news/press-releases/documents-obtained-by-oversight-committee-refute-republican-claims-that-obama
The so called Monument review is not really about making sure the everyday citizen has a voice in how their rural lands will be used. That is the "Smoke Screen" that the one percenter's use to hide what is really going on. This is about MONEY, money that could be made by big mining and oil companies who get access to those monument lands. Federal lands are the cats meow to them. File a mining claim, submit a plan of operations and start digging. Mining and Oil drilling on private land is way, way more expensive, they have to buy that land. Using OUR federal lands is much cheaper for them.
Resist any tendency to believe that this administration has some benevolent intent in what they are doing - they do not.
If you want YOUR federal lands to remain open to you, you must be informed, vocal, and persistent.
Call and write your Congressional leaders and tell them HANDS OFF OUR PUBLIC LANDS.
This is the Congressional switchboard number, (202) 224-3121 call and tell them where you live and they will connect you with your Congressperson
Mark
Resist any tendency to believe that this administration has some benevolent intent in what they are doing - they do not.
If you want YOUR federal lands to remain open to you, you must be informed, vocal, and persistent.
Call and write your Congressional leaders and tell them HANDS OFF OUR PUBLIC LANDS.
This is the Congressional switchboard number, (202) 224-3121 call and tell them where you live and they will connect you with your Congressperson
Mark
Patagonia company going to bat for your Public Lands:
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/330788-patagonia-threatens-to-sue-trump-over-national-monuments
Mark
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/330788-patagonia-threatens-to-sue-trump-over-national-monuments
Mark
beginnerhunter
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2016
- Messages
- 1,320
We're going to bring coal back. Okay? We're gonna have so much coal, you're gonna say "Where did all this coal come from?".
Why do you people want nobody to have coal or coal jobs??
Why do you people want nobody to have coal or coal jobs??
beginnerhunter
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2016
- Messages
- 1,320
http://www.hcn.org/articles/fact-checking-hatch-trump-on-bears-ears-national-monument
If accurate, this article provides a good rundown of the bears ears issue.
The more I learn about this, the more it seems like they are just looking for something, anything really, they can undo that was done by Obama. If Obama did it, it was bad. End of story.
If accurate, this article provides a good rundown of the bears ears issue.
The more I learn about this, the more it seems like they are just looking for something, anything really, they can undo that was done by Obama. If Obama did it, it was bad. End of story.
And there you have it. It has nothing to do with the merits of the designation and everything to do with the pettiness of a child-president and his cabinet of sycophants.
Thank god we'll get Gianforte in congress to help dismantle the last vestiges of Roosevelt's legacy.
Mr. Newberg made a pretty good prediction/analysis.
"To me, this is the most relevant question, but in today's two-year election cycle mindset nobody looks at what we would consider the "long-term." In my opinion, the answer to your question is "NO."
That doesn't mean the lands involved in these designations did not warrant some sort of protection. Yet, when one looks at the long-term view, combined with the current political climate in the west, adding in who controls all three houses in DC, it is hard to see a future where this action does not result in a net loss of protections over the long-term.
Is the Gold Butte/Bears Ears worth losing the powers of the Antiquities Act that can be very beneficial when used with consideration and discretion?
Is it worth pissing off the entire Republican side of the western Congressional delegation and making them more anti-public land, in the process and making the moderates among their group prime targets for primary losses if they don't jump on the anti-(insert anything public land here) wagon?
Is it worth placing moderate Democrats of the western Congressional delegation in a corner where they become even more vulnerable?
Is it worth making new Administrative appointees targets for the anti-(anything public land) zealots and making their very difficult jobs even harder with the composition of the current Congress and the policy direction and budget discretion that will be imposed?
Has it accomplished enough benefit to offset the items I mention above? Not in my mind. The ability to protect critical areas in the future has placed in jeopardy for the short-term gains some find in these two monument designations.
If the President continues down this path between now and his last day in office, there is a very good chance I will be standing among those asking for repeal of the Antiquities Act. Before him is a proposal for the Grand Canyon Watershed NM, which if any hunter understands that landscape and has hunted there and seen how dependent wildlife (feral burros not being wildlife) has become on man-made water sources and how low the animal densities are, I seriously doubt they would see any net benefit in the Grand Canyon NM proposal.
Congress granted the Executive office the powers when they passed the Antiquities Act. They can surely take that power back. Within the next month we will see if the current administration is willing to push this game even further.
As much as the Utah delegation had their chance to find solutions other than the Antiquities Act, so did the President when he had a Democratic Congress led by Harry Reid, a retiring Senator from the state where Gold Butte is located who has a long track record of selling BLM lands to his pals so they can build more homes in the Vegas metroplex. To get to a point where both sides had opportunity to complete large landscape designations in a different manner shows just how eff'd up our political process has become.
The eye-for-an-eye manner of governance benefits nobody, other than they guy holding the sharp stick and doing the eye-poking. Both sides are equally guilty. If the Antiquities Act is repealed, there will be enough blame for both sides."
https://onyourownadventures.com/hun...-Antiquities-Act-of-1906&highlight=bears+ears Post 13
"To me, this is the most relevant question, but in today's two-year election cycle mindset nobody looks at what we would consider the "long-term." In my opinion, the answer to your question is "NO."
That doesn't mean the lands involved in these designations did not warrant some sort of protection. Yet, when one looks at the long-term view, combined with the current political climate in the west, adding in who controls all three houses in DC, it is hard to see a future where this action does not result in a net loss of protections over the long-term.
Is the Gold Butte/Bears Ears worth losing the powers of the Antiquities Act that can be very beneficial when used with consideration and discretion?
Is it worth pissing off the entire Republican side of the western Congressional delegation and making them more anti-public land, in the process and making the moderates among their group prime targets for primary losses if they don't jump on the anti-(insert anything public land here) wagon?
Is it worth placing moderate Democrats of the western Congressional delegation in a corner where they become even more vulnerable?
Is it worth making new Administrative appointees targets for the anti-(anything public land) zealots and making their very difficult jobs even harder with the composition of the current Congress and the policy direction and budget discretion that will be imposed?
Has it accomplished enough benefit to offset the items I mention above? Not in my mind. The ability to protect critical areas in the future has placed in jeopardy for the short-term gains some find in these two monument designations.
If the President continues down this path between now and his last day in office, there is a very good chance I will be standing among those asking for repeal of the Antiquities Act. Before him is a proposal for the Grand Canyon Watershed NM, which if any hunter understands that landscape and has hunted there and seen how dependent wildlife (feral burros not being wildlife) has become on man-made water sources and how low the animal densities are, I seriously doubt they would see any net benefit in the Grand Canyon NM proposal.
Congress granted the Executive office the powers when they passed the Antiquities Act. They can surely take that power back. Within the next month we will see if the current administration is willing to push this game even further.
As much as the Utah delegation had their chance to find solutions other than the Antiquities Act, so did the President when he had a Democratic Congress led by Harry Reid, a retiring Senator from the state where Gold Butte is located who has a long track record of selling BLM lands to his pals so they can build more homes in the Vegas metroplex. To get to a point where both sides had opportunity to complete large landscape designations in a different manner shows just how eff'd up our political process has become.
The eye-for-an-eye manner of governance benefits nobody, other than they guy holding the sharp stick and doing the eye-poking. Both sides are equally guilty. If the Antiquities Act is repealed, there will be enough blame for both sides."
https://onyourownadventures.com/hun...-Antiquities-Act-of-1906&highlight=bears+ears Post 13
Gomer,
Anti-conservationists have been gunning for the Antiquities Act since it was passed in 1906. The recent fires on this from Bishop and company are roughly 20 years old, and only die down when one party is in charge of the DOI and don't conserve much land. With a real estate developer as POTUS, and the worst conservation congress in our history, I don't think the AA would have been safe even if Obama didn't designate Bears Ears.
This order, and the people championing it, do not have the best interests of public lands or wildlife at heart. They simply seek to do the job that JP Morgan once asked the lions of Africa to do - and eat TR's legacy.
Anti-conservationists have been gunning for the Antiquities Act since it was passed in 1906. The recent fires on this from Bishop and company are roughly 20 years old, and only die down when one party is in charge of the DOI and don't conserve much land. With a real estate developer as POTUS, and the worst conservation congress in our history, I don't think the AA would have been safe even if Obama didn't designate Bears Ears.
This order, and the people championing it, do not have the best interests of public lands or wildlife at heart. They simply seek to do the job that JP Morgan once asked the lions of Africa to do - and eat TR's legacy.
Another good article in a leading Political magazine.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/04/27/trump-executive-order-national-monuments-215078
It is encouraging that this issue is getting national coverage.
Keep those calls going to Congress......
Mark
Comment on Coal. Coal was an important energy source that helped to power the industrial revolution. But those days are behind us. There are cheaper and cleaner methods of energy that do not require strip mining and mountain top removal of Public Lands. "Saving Coal Jobs" is a fantasy. The real reason those jobs are gone and continue to decline is cheap Natural Gas (from the fracking revolution), along with Solar and Wind energy. Right now, Solar and Wind are just about even with fossil in energy production costs. In a very short time they will be cheaper. Think about it, an energy company makes the initial investment in Solar or Wind and after that, they have ZERO cost for fuel. The only thing fossil has going for it is that it is still the best source for energy needs in periods of no wind or no sun. That problem will someday be solved and fossil will diminish further.
I think most folks out of work because of loss of a coal mining job would be just has happy taking a job in Solar, Wind, high-tech, medical etc. They just need help with the training and an opportunity. That is were the focus should be on "Coal Jobs", not on digging up Public Lands.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/04/27/trump-executive-order-national-monuments-215078
It is encouraging that this issue is getting national coverage.
Keep those calls going to Congress......
Mark
Comment on Coal. Coal was an important energy source that helped to power the industrial revolution. But those days are behind us. There are cheaper and cleaner methods of energy that do not require strip mining and mountain top removal of Public Lands. "Saving Coal Jobs" is a fantasy. The real reason those jobs are gone and continue to decline is cheap Natural Gas (from the fracking revolution), along with Solar and Wind energy. Right now, Solar and Wind are just about even with fossil in energy production costs. In a very short time they will be cheaper. Think about it, an energy company makes the initial investment in Solar or Wind and after that, they have ZERO cost for fuel. The only thing fossil has going for it is that it is still the best source for energy needs in periods of no wind or no sun. That problem will someday be solved and fossil will diminish further.
I think most folks out of work because of loss of a coal mining job would be just has happy taking a job in Solar, Wind, high-tech, medical etc. They just need help with the training and an opportunity. That is were the focus should be on "Coal Jobs", not on digging up Public Lands.
Agreed. IMO, Bears Ears has also brought more people/users to the table to support keeping lands in public ownership.
Similar threads
