The Monuments Men

Ben Lamb · Sep 18, 2017

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...1076f6d6152_story.html?utm_term=.507d33667b13

Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke has recommended that President Trump modify 10 national monuments created by his immediate predecessors, including shrinking the boundaries of at least four western sites, according to a copy of the report obtained by The Washington Post.

The memorandum, which the White House has refused to release since Zinke submitted it late last month, does not specify exact reductions for the four protected areas Zinke would have Trump narrow — Utah’s Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante, Nevada’s Gold Butte, and Oregon’s Cascade-Siskiyou — or the two marine national monuments — the Pacific Remote Islands and Rose Atoll — for which he raised the same prospect. The two Utah sites encompass a total of more than 3.2 million acres, part of the reason they have aroused such intense emotions since their designation.

We have to be great stewards of this land. This is magnificent land. And we have to be great stewards of this land.

98% of respondents to the public comment period on monuments were opposed to this tract.

We now have an administration that has advocated eliminating protections on wildlife refuges & monuments, recommended cutting budgets by over 30%, taken money from management and put it towards permit processing and removed significant protections for wildlife and wildlife habitat on multiple use public lands, and they're not done. The Sage Grouse Plans are up for cutting as well. Those plans, opposed by industry, Utah and a couple of state electeds, represent a change in how we manage our public lands in that it places wildlife and the outdoor economy on the same level playing field as oil, gas & mining. In fact, the DOI just auctioned off leases in core sage-grouse habitat for $15K. Rock-bottom prices.

The move to amend or change those plans is opposed by Western Game & Fish agencies, the Governors of Montana, Wyoming, Nevada and Colorado, and a vast coalition of organizations who worked for over 10 years to develop these plans.

Sad state of affairs for public lands & public wildlife.

rtraverdavis · Sep 18, 2017

How do they justify this when 98% of the public who commented on it (comments they sought) were opposed to it? How can they claim to represent all Americans if the wishes of the vast majority are ignored? Seems like a recipe for failed reelection. I guess it shows the power of the opposing special interest groups, and our need to stay vigilant.

Ben Lamb · Sep 18, 2017

rtraverdavis said:
How do they justify this when 98% of the public who commented on it (comments they sought) were opposed to it? How can they claim to represent all Americans if the wishes of the vast majority are ignored? Seems like a recipe for failed reelection. I guess it shows the power of the opposing special interest groups, and our need to stay vigilant.

Washington D.C. knows better than the people.

Nameless Range · Sep 18, 2017

Could be unwarranted cynicism, but certain events at both the state and federal levels in the past few years have made me think that public comments are nothing but a formality, with no actual utility outside of catharsis for the masses.

I still send em in though.

Sort of a bleak rundown Ben. We're not a year in to this experiment yet.

Ben Lamb · Sep 18, 2017

Nameless Range said:
Could be unwarranted cynicism, but certain events at both the state and federal levels in the past few years have made me think that public comments are nothing but a formality, with no actual utility outside of catharsis for the masses.

I still send em in though.

Sort of a bleak rundown Ben. We're not a year in to this experiment yet.

Reality bites in 2017.

Comments, petitions, etc matter in that it gives organizations a list of activists to call on. Clearly, the trend on comments has been to disregard them, especially form letter comments. This administration has made public input very difficult on a number of fronts, and their disregard for those comments on monuments isn't surprising, since those comments didn't back up their narrative.

Montana made some changes a few sessions ago regarding public comment & the MEPA process. Hunters picked up on this fairly quickly as they see their comments acknowledged,but ultimately, not acted upon. Those changes to MEPA enable our agencies to ignore public comment.

Which is why I am even more reluctant to sign on to efforts to "reform" EAJA. We simply hand our government more power when we eliminate our ability to seek redress against the gov't.

VikingsGuy · Sep 18, 2017

rtraverdavis said:
How do they justify this when 98% of the public who commented on it (comments they sought) were opposed to it? How can they claim to represent all Americans if the wishes of the vast majority are ignored? Seems like a recipe for failed reelection. I guess it shows the power of the opposing special interest groups, and our need to stay vigilant.

I am not taking sides on this issue. But across most issues formal public comments are very rarely reflective of actual public opinion, rather they are the orchestrated result of highly politicized special interest groups. 98% of an average population doesn't agree on anything.

elkduds · Sep 18, 2017

Corporations such as big oil and mining don't send emails to candidates or government officials. They express their concerns in person, then hand over HUGE checks.

Ben Lamb · Sep 18, 2017

VikingsGuy said:
I am not taking sides on this issue. But across most issues formal public comments are very rarely reflective of actual public opinion, rather they are the orchestrated result of highly politicized special interest groups. 98% of an average population doesn't agree on anything.

I tend to agree. Comments used to matter, and it still shows that people care about an issue, etc. I've never been a fan of form letters, as they are simply too easy to ignore, and under Bush (43) the decision was made to treat form letters as 1 comment submitted X number of times. I agree w/ that approach as it really on represents one position supported by many. Personal comments written by individuals do carry much more weight with decision makers, in my experience.

With the elimination of the RAC's, reduced opportunity for comment on these "reviews," and the prioritization of mineral development over all other uses, this administration is making it incredibly difficult to be an advocate for public lands and wildlife.

jabber · Sep 18, 2017

Where did the 98% number come from??? Hard to believe that almost everyone who commented took one side. Who tracks that information and how accurate are they?

Southern Elk · Sep 18, 2017

Looks like Utah got what they wanted. No surprise there.

pointingdogsrule · Sep 18, 2017

jabber said:
Where did the 98% number come from??? Hard to believe that almost everyone who commented took one side. Who tracks that information and how accurate are they?

Jabber, I don't doubt that this number is close to correct. Think of it: when something "good" happens you don't call and write..... when something that you are "opposed" to happens then people call and write. As stated previously... when did 98% of America agree on anything

good luck to all
the dog

rtraverdavis · Sep 18, 2017

Ben Lamb said:
I've never been a fan of form letters, as they are simply too easy to ignore, and under Bush (43) the decision was made to treat form letters as 1 comment submitted X number of times. I agree w/ that approach as it really on represents one position supported by many. Personal comments written by individuals do carry much more weight with decision makers, in my experience.

Ben, with that in mind do you recommend that folks use the sorts of "Take Action" links to issues that organizations like BHA and TRCP send out in their email flyers for information, and then take that information and send their own personal letter? Is that more effective than clicking on the "Take Action" link and using the provided form letter?

I usually add my own comments to those sort of form letters TRCP sends out, but I'll start writing my own if that tends to hold more weight.

Ben Lamb · Sep 18, 2017

jabber said:
Where did the 98% number come from??? Hard to believe that almost everyone who commented took one side. Who tracks that information and how accurate are they?

https://medium.com/westwise/america-to-trump-and-zinke-dont-touch-national-monuments-8f4b40c43599

I don't think it's hard to believe. This was a heavily promoted and coordinated effort to push back against erosions by the largest conservation & environmental groups in the United States. NWF for example has 1 million members. If 1 % of those responded, that helps inflate the numbers. Add The Wilderness Society, Defenders of Wildlife, etc and those numbers are quickly achievable. The opposition to the monuments is primarily locally driven and not nearly as well organized, or it comes from Industry, which tends to use lobbyists and gifts to influence rather than public pressure. Hitting send on a form letter is super easy, and it helps a lot of people feel like they are making a difference while not putting down their pumpkin spice latte.

Ben, with that in mind do you recommend that folks use the sorts of "Take Action" links to issues that organizations like BHA and TRCP send out in their email flyers for information, and then take that information and send their own personal letter? Is that more effective than clicking on the "Take Action" link and using the provided form letter?

I usually add my own comments to those sort of form letters TRCP sends out, but I'll start writing my own if that tends to hold more weight.

I do recommend that they take action through organizations links, but like you do - add a personal touch, change subject lines, etc - or use the provided template as a start. But most importantly - call. Call your local offices, not just the D.C. office. Those emails help organizations tailor their message and collect names for future action, which is important for building an organization and developing a list of people you know will always take action (kind of like the special ops of the advocate world).

Rainer · Sep 18, 2017

I don't understand how some people are surprised at this. Do you wear horse blinders and drink the Republican koolaid? You mean nothing to your "elected" officials. They have been screwing you over for years and you just allow them to. Why are people so afraid of change? you've voted in the same candidate time and time again with the same outcome. Money is all these people care about not your vote. They can gerrymander another win if they like, until you get money out of your politics you're going to have to keep dealing with this. Having worked with/for lobbyist in DC. Your Senators and Congress will do anything for "donations". You voted for these people, now your going to have to deal with the consequences.

VikingsGuy · Sep 18, 2017

Ben Lamb said:
https://medium.com/westwise/america-to-trump-and-zinke-dont-touch-national-monuments-8f4b40c43599
add a personal touch, change subject lines, etc .

Adding a personal connection to the issue can be very powerful to some legislators. If a person was born and lived in NYC and never travelled west of Philadelphia and is clicking on a link to show their social group that they "care" about the "right" issues, this doesn't count for much to many legislators - whereas pointing out you live in the effected region, frequently travel to the region or have your economic interests at stake in the issue your note may get a second look.

Gr8bawana · Sep 18, 2017

rtraverdavis said:
How do they justify this when 98% of the public who commented on it (comments they sought) were opposed to it? How can they claim to represent all Americans if the wishes of the vast majority are ignored? Seems like a recipe for failed reelection. I guess it shows the power of the opposing special interest groups, and our need to stay vigilant.

I wonder just how many of those that drink the republican kool-aid think this is a good idea simply because it is being put forward by republicans and not bother to find out the harm that will be done.

jabber · Sep 18, 2017

Ben Lamb said:
https://medium.com/westwise/america-to-trump-and-zinke-dont-touch-national-monuments-8f4b40c43599

I don't think it's hard to believe. This was a heavily promoted and coordinated effort to push back against erosions by the largest conservation & environmental groups in the United States. NWF for example has 1 million members. If 1 % of those responded, that helps inflate the numbers. Add The Wilderness Society, Defenders of Wildlife, etc and those numbers are quickly achievable. The opposition to the monuments is primarily locally driven and not nearly as well organized, or it comes from Industry, which tends to use lobbyists and gifts to influence rather than public pressure. Hitting send on a form letter is super easy, and it helps a lot of people feel like they are making a difference while not putting down their pumpkin spice latte.

Thanks for the reply Ben, I understand your response.

rtraverdavis · Sep 18, 2017

I do recommend that they take action through organizations links, but like you do - add a personal touch, change subject lines, etc - or use the provided template as a start. But most importantly - call. Call your local offices, not just the D.C. office. Those emails help organizations tailor their message and collect names for future action, which is important for building an organization and developing a list of people you know will always take action (kind of like the special ops of the advocate world).

Thanks Ben. That's what I was thinking.

Ben Lamb · Sep 18, 2017

VikingsGuy said:
Adding a personal connection to the issue can be very powerful to some legislators. If a person was born and lived in NYC and never travelled west of Philadelphia and is clicking on a link to show their social group that they "care" about the "right" issues, this doesn't count for much to many legislators - whereas pointing out you live in the effected region, frequently travel to the region or have your economic interests at stake in the issue your note may get a second look.

Absolutely. Personal stories help Legislators understand better why an esoteric issue like public lands matters to constituents.

And it should be said: Be nice.

You'll get farther with your criticism if you don't call your rep or senator a pig f#$%er.

VikingsGuy · Sep 18, 2017

Ben Lamb said:
And it should be said: Be nice.

You'll get farther with your criticism if you don't call your rep or senator a pig f#$%er.

Good advice for this forum as well

The Monuments Men

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads

Forum statistics

Share this page