The Monuments Men
- Thread starter Ben Lamb
- Start date
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
Not sure if you feel Americans no longer support children or if you're buying into the "jobs, jobs, jobs" slogan when the unemployment rate is actually low. "Employed logging families" phrase seems to reflect the myth that one in four western states families worked in the woods or the mills, so now forested states are in depression. The fact is that the numbers were relatively low except in certain areas. You do have to sympathize with communities such as Libby, which suffered from the closure and health effects of the mine and the downturn in the timber industry. But as you realistically view the era since, many small formerly logging towns turned to other money-making ideas and actually thrived.
Personally, I want to see more timber harvest projects, especially in certain areas where they really make sense and would mitigate risks from wildfire. But likely trade agreements affecting lumber prices will need to change first. Even in that event and if NM's and other public lands were opened (without the stifling litigation) the logging industry would not increase enough to even make a difference to the employment rate or the economy. It's an overstated myth.
pointingdogsrule
Well-known member
OriginalOscar
Active member
Ben, My take
#1 - The Antiquities Act - Specifically states "smallest area" not 1.2M acres of Southeast Utah for Bears Ears based on no credible inventory -https://www.nps.gov/history/local-law/anti1906.htm
#2 - Zinke reviewed 27 monuments established since 1996, 10 are recommended for modification. 37% modified, 63% no change. Doesn't demonstrate unilateral rollback. Monuments designated by Clinton, GW Bush and Obama all identified for modification.
#3 - Nobody pointed out he is recommending three new monuments - Camp Nelson in KY where black soldiers trained during Civil War, home of Medgar Evers in Jackson MS, and Two Medicine Butte in MT considered sacred by the Blackfeet - http://www.sltrib.com/news/environm...ears-ears-grand-staircase-national-monuments/
#4 - Monument management plans don't guarantee established and proven wildlife and land management practice to propagate wildlife and improve habitat will be allowed. B&C, Wild Sheep, Wild Turkey were recently roasted because they called into question what impact designating vast areas as National Monuments could have on sportsmen and our recreational opportunities. Large swaths of what was designated in Bears Ears is marginal habitat which land managers have been working to improve over the decades. Burns, chaining, water development, reseeding have all been used to improve habitat.
Fact is the Antiquities Act has been abused for decades to designate vast areas as National Monuments usually at the end of the outgoing presidents term. Monuments to self and political rewards. I support keeping Antiquities Act if any recommended monuments over 5,000 acres require congressional review. Just like AK received after Carters designated 10M acres on his way out and WY received after FDR established Teton. All states deserve the same reasonable scope and legislative process.
Good for Zinke to make a thoughtful review and reasonable recommendation.
Troy Rushton
p.s Did the people who polled the 2016 election give the 98%? Glad we live in a republic because I'm apparently in the 2% and still got what I hoped would happen.
#1 - The Antiquities Act - Specifically states "smallest area" not 1.2M acres of Southeast Utah for Bears Ears based on no credible inventory -https://www.nps.gov/history/local-law/anti1906.htm
#2 - Zinke reviewed 27 monuments established since 1996, 10 are recommended for modification. 37% modified, 63% no change. Doesn't demonstrate unilateral rollback. Monuments designated by Clinton, GW Bush and Obama all identified for modification.
#3 - Nobody pointed out he is recommending three new monuments - Camp Nelson in KY where black soldiers trained during Civil War, home of Medgar Evers in Jackson MS, and Two Medicine Butte in MT considered sacred by the Blackfeet - http://www.sltrib.com/news/environm...ears-ears-grand-staircase-national-monuments/
#4 - Monument management plans don't guarantee established and proven wildlife and land management practice to propagate wildlife and improve habitat will be allowed. B&C, Wild Sheep, Wild Turkey were recently roasted because they called into question what impact designating vast areas as National Monuments could have on sportsmen and our recreational opportunities. Large swaths of what was designated in Bears Ears is marginal habitat which land managers have been working to improve over the decades. Burns, chaining, water development, reseeding have all been used to improve habitat.
Fact is the Antiquities Act has been abused for decades to designate vast areas as National Monuments usually at the end of the outgoing presidents term. Monuments to self and political rewards. I support keeping Antiquities Act if any recommended monuments over 5,000 acres require congressional review. Just like AK received after Carters designated 10M acres on his way out and WY received after FDR established Teton. All states deserve the same reasonable scope and legislative process.
Good for Zinke to make a thoughtful review and reasonable recommendation.
Troy Rushton
p.s Did the people who polled the 2016 election give the 98%? Glad we live in a republic because I'm apparently in the 2% and still got what I hoped would happen.
Last edited by a moderator:
jryoung
Well-known member
They'll still be public, I'm sure you know that. But, the unknown is what happens from here. What precedence does this set? Why is Zinke bending over for the Utah delegation? Why has he removed public input?
The good he appears to be attempting has thus far been lip service with little details, the tangible actions should be concern to anyone that enjoys the outdoors.
All that said, I still would like to see the demand side of the equation. Timber, oil & gas, and coal....where are prices currently, what do the analysts say for future demand.
noharleyyet
Well-known member
Subscribed...pure common sense.
BigHornRam
Well-known member
A lot of money has been wasted trying to turn this mole hill into a mountain. Money spenders are slow to come to terms with the fact that their campaign is failing.
joelhunter
Member
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2015
- Messages
- 96
Well its that 98% of people who give a crap enough to comment agree. And you can frame it as "highly politicized special interest groups" which are also known as "organized invested stake holders" from another perspective. I suppose it's all about perspective when it comes down to it. Just as someone saying "Freedom is NOT Free" could mean people have to be engaged and press for what they believe is right to protect freedom, even in the political realm.
onpoint
Well-known member
Yup. Perception.....
"organized invested stake holders" - you mean like these kinds of "highly politicized special interest groups"???
![IMG_3837[1].jpg](https://www.hunttalk.com/data/attachments/43/43527-de71d742dface9aae0b80cee53032d7b.jpg "IMG_3837[1].jpg")
Nameless Range
Well-known member
Ben's rundown from the OP
I think Zinke is in a tough spot. He works for a moron, who very well may turn on him if during his morning dookie he reads an article he doesn't like. Zinke has shown himself to be somewhat of a tool, but I could imagine someone who agrees with most of the HuntTalk crowd being in his position, and acting in nearly the same way. Knowing that if he crosses his overlords too much, they'll just replace him with someone worse - a distinct possibility we know to be true. Could Zinke do any better? Insofar if that he acted more in line with the desired positions of many on this forum, would he keep his job?
As Sytes has shown, you can be perfectly reasonable and feel the Antiquities Act needs curtailing. I think he has some excellent points, and it is fallacious to say that just because someone believes that the Antiquities Act has been abused that individual is anti-public lands. Don't succumb to that logic because it will just result in the loss of allies, and it's not true. I think it's complicated though, as when TR created the midnight forests an argument could be made that he abused his power. Thank God he did. How will history view past uses of the Antiquities Act? I can't help but feel future Americans will be greatful - abuse or not.
That said, 98% of respondents don't want a change. Come on, asking for public input and ignoring it doesn't bring any order about, and I predict will just amplify the "political footballness" of the Antiquities Act. The next administration will reverse this, the next that, and so on. Like two kids on the playground they will argue ad nauseum over "who started it".
Serious question: They, (The Utah Delegation), has the favorable ear of the House, Senate, and Executive Office. Is there a better way?
Last edited:
Southern Elk
Well-known member
You are just making too much sense...
Anyone working for Trump is in a tough spot for sure. Zinke is not his own boss like many seem to think.
Troy,
I appreciate your post. I don't agree, which is no surprise.
1.) The antiquities act has been used to conserve large-scale landscapes since day 1. Theodore Roosevelt sought this out as a means to give the executive power to protect landscapes as well as cultural antiquities. The current thought espoused by the anti-public land groups like the Sutherland Institute, PERC, etc is to say that the AA is only to be used to protect cultural antiquities is based on a flawed interpretation of the law, and it's clearly politicized by their bias against public land conservation and in favor of the activities they perceive as being beneficial. This is the same line of reasoning that Zinke is using in his memo, and reads just like their talking points. We've been over Bear's Ear time and time again, and while the side of the issue who doesn't believe it was necessary to create such a large monument has their side, and the side that thought it could be larger (500,000 acres of land that has been drilled was left out) didn't get what they wanted, but were happy w/ the designation has their side - the fight now will be in the courts to determine the ultimate say in what the AA means in this regard. My money is on the 100 year history of the application of the act. Yours is elsewhere, and I respect that.
2.) Zinke's review is a political game. It's purposely designed to look moderate when in fact it is not. The possible elimination of protection for over 20 million acres is anything but reasonable, and while we tend to focus on the terrestrial issues, the martime issue here is huge in terms of healthy, sustainable fisheries in both the Atlantic and the Pacific. The review also is clearly partisan in that it attacks only democratic additions while giving lip service to how "Bush abused the act." He didn't. He used it less than previous presidents. HIs declaration of the marine monuments was in direct relation to declining fish stocks and the need to preserve nurseries for tuna and other valuable commercial fish. Opening these monuments up to commercial fishing is ludicrous from a conservation perspective. Calling on logging on Katydin is also political. The family that donated the land has not allowed logging for generations, and their desire was to give the nation a gift of what Maine looked like 2 centuries ago. That kind of primitive forest is all but gone on the east coast, and now the Secretary of the Interior is suggesting we ignore the landowners who donated their land and force commercial logging for no real reason. If your only metric was "he didn't unilaterally roll back protection on all monuments," then I can see how only a 20 million plus reduction in conservation lands would seem reasonable. To many, that smacks of elitism and DC-centric, top down reasoning. It also ignores the will of the people, and it ignores the realities of each monument. It certainly ignores conditions on the ground for many of these spots.
3.) The three new monuments suggested are tiny in comparison. It's like taking away my rib eye and offering me a hot dog as compensation. Plus, on the Badger- Two Medicine, there is a collaborative working to secure conservation legislation here, and this recommendation ignores years of hard work by people who live in the area. It's a distraction that, to my understanding, isn't entirely welcome by the Tribe, or by the Badger-Two Medicine Alliance who has spent over 20 years working on permanent protection for the area.
4.) Monument designations put wildlife management on the state, where it belongs. It is mind boggling that a republican SOI is now trying to federalize wildlife management under the USFWS & BLM. Traditionally, these proclamations are clear that wildlife management is largely left up to the state, while the openness of the lands is never in doubt. Yes, managers can make changes to how those areas are managed for hunting access, etc, but for the vast majority of monuments, they are open for hunting, and the proclamations guarantee state management of wildlife. Do we really want the fed to handle more of our hunting than they already do? B&C, WSF< & NWTF op-ed was political cover and not a reasonable position, in my opinion. That doesn't mean I don't respect them, I just disagree on this issue. However, the memo, while prioritizing recreational access, also prioritizes mining, timber and grazing. That effectively says - no protections for these lands. They would be monuments in name only.
I support congress doing their job when it comes to making these designations as well. But for 40 years, they've made conservation of public land a highly politicized issue. Under Watt & Reagan, it began. It continued through Clinton & BUsh and certainly so under Obama. Peel back the layers here and you'll see the same folks who have been trying to eliminate public land for the same time right smack-dab in the center of this issue.
Cheers, and as always, thanks for the robust discussion.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
Choose whatever label you like, anyone who suggests regulatory comments (on many issues, not just this one) fairly reflect the average citizen's input or reflect broader public sentiment is either disingenuous or not paying attention.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
For clarity's sake, when I say Freedom is NOT Free I am referring to a price much great than a 49 cent stamp or 3 minutes of a person's coffee break writing something on a web forum . . I trying, in a very small way, to honor those who have paid with their lives to preserve our basic liberties.
(And save your fingers, I get that those liberties they sacrificed for include highly organized groups papering regulatory comment windows - I just value their contribution more than those of the zero personal risk sheep that the big money politicos on both sides of these issues lead around by the nose)
Last edited:
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
But would it sound more reasonable if you said, <4% of Obama's recent additions and ~2.5% of the total? We now have upwards of 800,000,000 acres under this program with 95% of that being added by the last two presidents -- maybe if the program is going to grow at that type of rate congress and the public should take a closer look.
I am pro-wilderness, pro-public access, pro-hunting/fishing, but I am very skeptical of the big east/left coast special interest groups that "are here to help us", and I believe all issues need balance over idealism.
Can't tell if that last sentence is a Red Strawman or a Straw Herring...
Informed opinion.
noharleyyet
Well-known member
Ben, I always appreciate your take even though we seldom agree, but I hope you get that we are all polishing the same turd no matter which end the shine cloth is popping...
TRCP has offices and most of their staff in the west. Understandably, they have offices in DC since they lobby (effectively, I might add).
BHA is headquartered in Missoula, MT, right next to Draught Works brewery.
NWF headquarters are in DC, and they have field offices w/ most of their staff across the country, as well as 49 or 50 affiliates in every state except Utah who inform the decision making of these groups.
TWS is the same.
These are not coastal elites telling you what to do, these are conservation professionals who in many cases have more hours in the backcountry, rivers, lakes and streams than people here.
As to your point of 800 million acres being monuments, there are only 640 million acres of public land in the United States. The Marine monuments are larger in size due to the need to protect fisheries and ecologically critical areas, which in a place like the pacific, means sometimes those are 37 million acres.
When you couple the recommendation to open those marine monuments to commercial fishing, you effectively end the monument designation effectiveness from a conservation perspective.
D
Deleted member 20812
Guest
Green Decoys
Similar threads
