Trump to Order Review of National Monuments

[Straight Arrow]

...only the last 3 presidents...

Three or thirty; still plural and the point is the same, as is the rhetorical question, "Is that really the purpose for which the executive order was authorized ... to rescind prior orders, laws, policies, decisions ... or to establish new ones intended to improve America?" Sytes previously made a great point about the importance of due process. It seems recent EO's are aimed at undoing laws, policies, and decisions which culminated from due process.

I guess they couldn't just come right out and say "we only want a review of the last 2 Democratic administrations".

No, that would be too forthright and honest.

 

[LuketheDog]

That would cover only the last 3 presidents, 8 years of Obama, 8 years of Bush Jr. and 8 years of Clinton.
I guess they couldn't just come right out and say "we only want a review of the last 2 Democratic administrations".

, if that's where the abuse of process lies, so be it...

 

[Sytes]

Autocracy over Democratic due process. While I agree with the desires of the many to preserve as much of our land as possible, not at the expense of turning a blind eye to political manipulation of Theodore Roosevelt / Congress Antiquities Act. Protect the specifics as the Act is intended, keep the area small to avoid the very abuse under review.

 

[BuzzH]

I guess 50+ years of democratic due process just wasn't quite enough to figure it out...

How long should the democratic due process take in your opinion? 100 years enough? 200? 500?

Perhaps just long enough to delay any kind of protection into perpetuity...that's my guess.

 

[Straight Arrow]

"...the limits of which in all cases shall be confined to the smallest area compatible with proper care and management of the objects to be protected." - Antiquities Act, 1906.

Although the word "small" is contained in the description "smallest area compatible", I think you are misinterpreting the language of the Act. As previously expressed, there are those who think that the Bears Ears NM nearly 1.4 million acres is too small. It is a relative term, which in this case depends on the "area compatible with proper care and management". Due to the multitude of sites and structures recognized as requiring protection, perhaps you would prefer hundreds and hundreds of "small" national monuments, each receiving the "proper care and management" of the Department of Interior. The point is that asserting that a NM should be only an acre, or a hundred acres, or a section, or whatever you feel is small enough, is not the intent of language of the Act. The fact that many monuments are comprised of thousands, if not millions, of acres attests to that interpretation.
Again, if the assertion is that the Antiquities Act has been employed in a vacuum of the Oval Office, with little or no "due process", merely on a "whim of the week" by the sitting President, I think that is naive and uninformed.
As you may recall, the Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument came after an extended period of hubbub and controversy, even including a conspiracy theory that the monument was designed to drive cattle ranching out of eastern Montana and it was perpetrated by a coalition of the President, the BLM, the American Prairie Reserve, the United Nations, the "Big Open" proponents, and others of nefarious character. I submit to you that today most Montanans are pleased with the protection and the results of this historic natural river corridor national monument and are concerned about the prospect of reducing that protection after this "review".

 

[1_pointer]

Nearly all "protections" under a monument designation could happen for those lands through the existing land use planning process...

I'm also of the opinion that if this designation was actually important to the administration making it, they'd not wait until the 11th hour to make them...

I'm generally a fan of monuments, but my enthusiasm for them is waning...

 

[mtmiller]

Nearly all "protections" under a monument designation could happen for those lands through the existing land use planning process...

LUPs have a lifespan.

 

[1_pointer]

LUPs have a lifespan.

They do. Monuments have LUPs...

 

[Sytes]

I guess 50+ years of democratic due process just wasn't quite enough to figure it out...

How long should the democratic due process take in your opinion? 100 years enough? 200? 500?

Perhaps just long enough to delay any kind of protection into perpetuity...that's my guess.

Within the past 50 years... didn't feel a need to go further.

It is a bummer the Democrat (As the party that seems to lean more public land oriented) controlled House and Senate from the 90th- 96th (1967-1981) were unable to see the need to pursue assignment of this area to the NPS or other... After that, a mix of split Congress up until recently where it has flipped to R controlled Congress.

In my opinion, I believe if the democratic due process does not find a value great enough to run the gauntlet then it does not hold the interests of those we vote to "represent" our interests. I believe if there are significant historic and (or) scientific interests that are faced with imminent danger, the Antiquities Act is the tool a President has at his/her disposal though again, as small as possible to secure these most valued interests... Not 1.4 million acres to secure a few tribal special locations that faced significant threat necessary for then President, Obama to designate Bears Ears 1.4 million acres as a "National Monument" on December 28th, 2016... Hmmm. Must have been a real danger to wait intil the last minute. :W:

 

[mtmiller]

They do. Monuments have LUPs...

...and a Proclamation.

 

[1_pointer]

That they do.

At the rate LUPs are getting through the pipeline they are nearly permanent.

 

[UTK14]

Here's a pic that should instill some confidence that everything is all good with the monument reviews. Rob Bishop in jean shorts is exactly who I want to be leading Zinke's visit to the Utah monuments.

Not that I held much hope that these weren't solely agenda-driven reviews, but this is just becoming laughable(not in a funny way). My apologies to the rest of you that my state politicians are the originators of the greatest portion of land transfer B.S.. They hear from me often but they don't seem to care. And no, I didn't vote for either of those clowns in the picture.

 

[Northwoods Labs]

Those are some nice jean shorts

 

[airlocksniffer]

Never trust a man in jorts.

 

[ErictheRed]

Open for Public Comment today!

Comments may be submitted online after May 12 at http://www.regulations.gov by entering “DOI-2017-0002” in the Search bar and clicking “Search,” or by mail to Monument Review, MS-1530, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street NW, Washington, DC 20240.

 

[Irrelevant]

Done, thanks for the link Eric.