That which can be done by Executive Order can also be undone by Executive Order.
I cringe too. There seems to be a lot of misconceptions and fake news about national monuments WRT sportsman's opportunities. Some people actually think you can't hunt or fish on these lands, as we saw on the other thread.
Hopefully we can dispel some of that ignorance, here.
"That the President of the United States is hereby authorized, in his discretion, to declare by public proclamation historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest that are situated upon the lands owned or controlled by the Government of the United States to be national monuments, and may reserve as a part thereof parcels of land, 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"
The Antiquities Act says nothing about whether presidents have the power to revoke national monument designations of their predecessors.
Correct me if I am wrong but how did he steal our land? Isn’t it still BLM and National Forest land? That is our land as well.
What were Obama’s intentions? Would the land eventually end up being a national park?
While I sympathize with your struggles to repair the "drinker" on monument lands, do you think your efforts would be any easier if there was an oil drilling operation on those lands, for example? Would the drinker even be necessary?
This year, I spent the better part of August and September scouting and hunting mountain goats in a designated national wilderness area. The complete lack of development, roads, vehicles, and people in that area is what made that hunt so very special for me. I'm sure you've felt the same way on some of your adventures.
Rolling back protections on public lands does nothing to secure those type experiences for any of us, or for future generations.
Not surprised the bowlibs and closet democrat are whining ....
It's Patagonia, one of the suppliers to the self-anointed elitist bunny hugger crowd.
Exactly where did Trump do that, Slade? Perhaps you should do a little reading on the subject before making such claims.
OK, then let me put it this way:
That which can be done by 'Presidential Proclamation' can also be undone by Presidential Proclamation.
Unless you believe that some Presidents are more equal than other Presidents and therefore have more Constitutional powers than other Presidents, that is.
To believe otherwise would be equivalent to believing the laughable BS posted on the "Dick" thread which claimed Congress could not repeal a law a previous Congress had passed.
You conveniently ignored the point of my question, didn't you?
Do you or do you not believe some Presidents are more equal than others and therefore can make policy which subsequent Presidents do not have the power to overturn?
It's certainly not sportsmen who will benefit.
For deer 1 tag is given for NR Archery buck deer. That tag was a random tag that went to a 13 point holder.
That was for the 2016 season.
1. Sportsmen do NOT benefit from the creation of national monument designations.
2. These lands are owned by ALL Americans, not just the Patagonia and North Face elitists.
When you discuss designated wilderness areas, you're also talking about an incredibly difficult challenge state wildlife agencies are faced with in managing wildlife on their states' properties in those areas.
It's nice that the folks with the Guicci backpacks and Patagonia and North Face gear can go into the wilderness and never see any sign of man.
But that also means state agencies and NGOs are therefore not allowed to access drinkers for maintenence which were built in those areas years before they became wilderness and as a result, wildlife which are dependent on those drinkers DIE!
Nor are they allowed to use 'mechainized equipment,' esp. helicopters, to fly into the wilderness to protect and save wildlife in the event of a disease outbreak, fire, etc.
We need to raise the state agencies' ability to manage wildlife in wilderness and on all public lands to the same level of importance as your ability to wander through wilderness while seeing no sign man has ever been there.
They can suspend hunting or any activity, just as it is in many National Parks, with the wave of a Patagonian hand. Just like that.
It is a method used to gain total unfettered federal control over public land, used to bypass any (especially local) objections or preferences to public land management. The land given that status in this case far exceeded what was needed for protections of these "monuments". It was a federal land/power/control grab of grand proportions, a progressive anti-everything wet dream.
Without the Monument designation you end up with situations like the Roan Plateau/Piceance Basin in Colorado or the Powder River Basin in Wyoming when a extraction boom hits. Kiss the herds goodbye.
Regardless of who owns property (private, state, federal), I think that managing a State's wildlife should be handled by that State's DOW with no exceptions. Right now, state DOWs handle FS and BLM including most monuments and recreation areas and all Wilderness areas. The Feds control the National Parks, some monuments and some wildlife areas. State DOWs should manage all wildlife.
You know not of what you post.
But then, we aleady knew that.
We need to raise the state agencies ability to manage wildlife in wilderness and all public lands to the same level of importance as your ability to wander through wilderness while seeing no sign man has ever been there.
We agree there. At least to the extent that the native wildlife truly needs the management efforts. In my ideal wilderness, the animals don't need man-made "drinkers" that require human maintenance, nor do they need roads to those drinkers, or to any other man-made structure for that matter. In true wilderness areas, the animals do pretty well on their own, from my experience.
I still don't see how that relates to Trumps monument roll-backs in Utah. Wildlife management and regulation don't change in this deal. The only thing that changes is way the land can be used for commercial purposes. Most of which will not benefit wildlife or sportsmen.
Like most on here, I have never been to either Monument (though I have applied for sheep tags in the Grand Staircase-Escalante) and I know nothing of the real extractive potential of the resources on the land. As I see it, this move has really served only to open up the Monuments to development, which is why I don’t support the move — but that’s because my initial inclination is to leave wild places wild.
Can someone tell me how this move benefits sportsmen?
I know exactly what I'm talking about. What do you think happened to the RP, PB, and PRB herds? You don't like hunting a wilderness area on a horse? You think the feebs should manage wildlife?
I know the problem. You're a shooter that only hunts artificial water holes.
Stop being a clown. You'll feel a lot better about yourself.
Although the Antiquities Act doesn't say a President has the right to reduce or rescind, it doesn't say they can't do it either. This will go to the SCOTUS. A little federal judge won't have much to do with it long term.
I still have to wonder why pump units, production tanks, and separators are not currently scattered all over the BE's monumemt area before it was designated?
This is what happens when interest groups try to backdoor special privilege and don't use the channels everyone else does...
As my post above pointed out. For those that don’t know Bears Ear is in the San Juan unit. 380+ bulls can come out of there. 1.3 mil acres is a pretty good size chunk of land.
If the Bears Ear NM turned into a National Park how would that benefit sportsman with a dream of shooting an elk that big.
Did Trump have sportsman in mind when he reversed this? Time will tell.
Why the panic NOW over some perceived lack of protections on these lands, when you didn't have those same fears for your entire adult lives PRIOR TO the Obama change in Dec 2016?? A year ago you this didn't seem to bother anyone at all. But just going back to the way they always were is suddenly an egregious environmental disaster??
The tribal coalition should've left well enough alone. They caused this mess more than they realize...
bk, I’m asking specifically with respect to these two monuments, not generally speaking. I understand Kyle’s point and largely agree with it - but it only holds water if there are specific challenges related to managing the wildlife on these two monuments that are being addressed. Are, for example, there specific drinkers on these two monuments that are now accessible? How have the wildlife herds done in the area? The link to the Utah DWR report on the San Juan indicates that they believe rolling back protections and changing ownership/management could impact habitat and prevent the reaching of population objectives.
And how do you think your chances of hunting that land changed with this decision? Did hunting regulations change? Will they offer more tags? Will more ground be accessible for the average DIY hunters?
''We agree there. At least to the extent that the native wildlife truly needs the management efforts. In my ideal wilderness, the animals don't need man-made "drinkers" that require human maintenance, nor do they need roads to those drinkers, or to any other man-made structure for that matter. In true wilderness areas, the animals do pretty well on their own, from my experience. "
That's incedibly uninformed nonsense!
With 25+ MILLION people living in SoCal, the water table has been sucked down to the point where the ground water in the CA Desert which used to feed natural seeps and springs no longer exists!
Were it not for the drinkers NGOs build, there would be precious little water, if any, available for wildlife.
Give it up, my friend, because you clearly have no clue about the facts.
I don't know where you live, but I can't imagine you'd think it right nor fair to have your say in how your public lands were managed taken away from you. And taken away by people who have a history of screwing over residents around those lands.
Never ceases to amaze me how differently people view the way things should work where they live..... then go on to tell others how things should be where others live. Things that greatly effect those who live and work there for generations and have little to no effect on those who do not.
“And how do you think your chances of hunting that land changed with this decision? Did hunting regulations change? Will they offer more tags? Will more ground be accessible for the average DIY hunters?”
My chances are slim to none per the attached photo. I think it would be a fun hunt to do a spike hunt to just be there. However I doubt I would ever do that.
I don’t have 2017 numbers but you can see tag numbers prior to being a NM.
It is my understanding that the NM lands were BLM and National Forest land prior to being a NM. So I don’t see any public lands added or loss.
Being a NM under BLM watch can be beneficial to sportsman. Under National parks not so much. Like TD said. Being a NM puts it one step closer to being a National Park.
Did Trump help sportsman yesterday? I believe time will tell. If these lands are not sold off I can’t see how it hurts sportsman.
No, VC became NP status a year or so ago. It is no longer a preserve.
These lands are just as safe today as they were yesterday. As a NM, I question just how long it would've stayed in a state of use the way we know it today.
Both were created politically, nothing more. One because of coal reserves and an energy hating administration. The other was pushed by a coalition of 5 tribes and then 'earth first' groups jumped on board.
Valles Calderas is a National Preserve. The management changed a few years ago - moving from the Valles Calderas Trust to the National Park Service, but its designation did not change. It remained a Preserve. The NPS manages most NM as well.
The trust was created as 'an experiment on public land management' to see if it could be self sustaining.
With all due respect, can we please get away from your pet "drinker" issue? if the desert has become so dry that it no longer supports the wildlife naturally, without man's intervention, then I don't consider that true wilderness. When I hear about man-made "drinkers", I think of cattle, not wildlife. And I consider your efforts more of a mercy mission than wildlife management.
And, again, I fail to see how your "drinker" anecdote relates to the topic. I'm pretty sure the land in question doesn't suffer from over-development like So Cal. Nor does the wildlife need the level of human support that you are talking about.
Drinkers restore what man had taken away.
Yet you have a problem with that?
I have no problem with that, and I admire your efforts.
But, when man has to provide a basic necessity like water in order for animals to survive, those animals are no longer wildlife, but rather livestock, IMO. It's sad that it's come down to that for sheep in the deserts of CA, but that's not the normal level of wildlife management that we see elsewhere in the country, especially in wilderness areas.
The enviros joined knowing they could reduce human impact and keep some activity out, more activity long term. They would get what they wanted - earth first.
It was a very political ambition for special use by one group one day...
It's not 'normal' in states that have adequate natural water. But states in the Desert Southwest have very little natural water and man has eliminated much of what was originally there.
To claim wildlife which dares to drink water that man has taken away with water other men have restored somehow makes them 'not wild' is beyond the absurd.
To me, what's absurd is the notion that animals who rely on man's support for basic necessities, like water, are somehow "wild".
Its equally absurd to me that someone who recognizes that that support is necessary due to man's development and consumption of natural resources, but supports decisions that make human development/consumption easier on millions of acres of land.
Read this carefully.... Genesis 1:28 --- God blessed them (that's us) and said to them (us again), "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground."
If you don't get that, then I'd have to say that it explains a lot about some of your perspectives.
Thanks for the religious perspective.
For me, "ruling over every creature", as the bible commands, includes providing land where they can live without man's intervention. Trump's decision does nothing to promote that.
You've never seen me supporting 'evil development' on public land and you never will.
We give them water where needed because we love them. And what you're really saying here by proclaiming your 'wild animal' classification, is that we should maintain access to these lands to help these creatures.
Call it 'religious' all you want to. It ain't 'religious'. It's simply reality. Some people 'get it' sooner and some later. And some never do.
I know that about you, Kyle, and I respect it. That's why I question you when you don't exhibit that behavior.
You may not care about my opinion. That's certainly your prerogative, but not my wish.
No, that's not what that means. Not at all.
Honestly, I think you and I are arguing the same side of this topic. If not, my apologies for not understanding your point.
Annony Mouse's Link
People wont notice or care until it is way too late.
Trump's decision really didn't change who manages the land in question. A combination of federal departments still have that authority.
What changed is the how the land can be used, mostly for commercial purposes. I still maintain that was not in the best interest of the wildlife, or sportsmen.
"That's why I question you when you don't exhibit that behavior.".
I do and that's your problem.
You believe your being able to trek through the wilderness in pristine solitude is more important than having the abundant and healthy herds of wildlife that lived in those areas before man came on the scene return to their former abundance.
Still waiting for an explanation as to why drilling and production, mining, and logging has not been done before on a large scale...
I believe in beneficial use of our public land and a big tent idea. I believe it is there for bird watcher, hunters, fishermen, ghost hunters, storm chasers and God forbid.....industry. I heard Ryan Callaghan speaking about this today on a BowJunky podcast. He was trying to walk the fence but was obviously troubled by this action. He mentioned that 2.8 million people chimed in (I assume it was public comment) and they were opposed to this. That sounds like a lot but that is less than 1% of the US population. This means that >99% of the US population is completely indifferent or ignorant of this action.
I don't care either way as right now it is going to be mostly BLM and NF so until something changes, we have access to hunt it STILL. Remember....elections have consequences and all of you lefties need to get used to it for the next 8 years. I know I choked on every Obama directive and stroke of the pen for 8 years and the reason was because he WON.
December 7, 2017 Utah 'Monument' Was a Reward to a Clinton Donor By Daniel John Sobieski
The shrinking in size of two national monuments in Utah by President Trump through executive order was a long overdue rebuke to federal land grabs that have enabled federal control of vast swaths of American land, particularly in the West. As the New York Times noted in 2016:
The United States government owns 47 percent of all land in the West. In some states, including Oregon, Utah and Nevada, the majority of land is owned by the federal government. Of course, it used to own nearly all of it….
East of the Mississippi… the federal government owns only 4 percent of land.
Part of that discrepancy is due to the vagaries of the Western expansion into the sparely populated frontier. Part of it is due to the desires of environmentalists to turn America into a save-the-earth postcard -- take pictures and don’t touch. President Trump, who has unlocked much of America’s resources that were formerly held hostage by greenies and others, has decided to return to the people of Utah control of and decision-making power over the land of Utah, so you no longer need permission from a Beltway bureaucrat to pick up a rock and move it one foot to the left:
President Trump signed two proclamations Monday that shrink federally protected lands in Utah by about 2 million acres -- the largest rollback of national monument designations in history.
The Bears Ears National Monument will shrink 85% to 201,876 acres, and the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument will be cut by 39% to 1 million acres…
Trump said previous presidents overstepped their authority in declaring vast tracts of western lands off-limits, abusing the "purpose, spirit and intent" of a 1906 law known as the Antiquities Act. That law requires presidents to limit the monument designation to "the smallest area compatible with proper care and management of the objects to be protected."
"These abuses of the Antiquities Act give enormous power to faraway bureaucrats at the expense of the people who actually live here, work here, and make this place their home," Trump said in Salt Lake City Monday.
One of those presidents was one William Jefferson Clinton. Although the Trump orders only refer to lifting restrictions on motorized vehicles and grazing rights, much of the land involved is energy-rich and was put off limits by President Clinton to deprive Americans access to those resources and to reward a political donor.
A large part of America’s energy dependence on foreign sources can be traced back to September 18, 1996, when Hillary's co-president hubby Bill Clinton stood on the edge of the Grand Canyon on the Arizona side and signed an executive proclamation making 1.7 million acres of Utah a new national monument, the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument:
President Clinton officially set aside 1.7 million acres of Utah canyon lands Wednesday as a national monument, with some concessions to Utah authorities who complained the move would stunt the local economy and block a job-generating coal mine.
Standing against the sweeping backdrop of the Grand Canyon, Clinton declared that in creating the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument "we are keeping faith with the future... On this remarkable site, God's handiwork is everywhere."
But officials trod carefully around the issue of the planned coal mine, which was to be dug by Andalex Resources, a Dutch company, on a leased site on the Kaiparowits Plateau, considered one of the new monument's most remote and valuable sites. Under current plans, 50% of the coal mined from the plateau would be exported from the Port of Los Angeles.
In his remarks, Clinton implied that he intended to block the mine, which some have said could produce high quality coal with a value of $1 trillion.
So why would he dedicate a Utah monument while standing in Arizona? Well, this federal land grab was done without any consultation with the governor of Utah or any member of the Utah congressional delegation or any elected official in the state. The state already had six national monuments, two national recreation areas, and all or part of five national forests. Three-quarters of Utah was in already in federal hands.
It was sold as a move to protect the environment. At the time the Clintons were worried that Ralph Nader’s presence on the ballot in a few Western states would draw green votes from Clinton in a race that promised to be close after the GOP retook Congress two years earlier.
Bill Clinton's unilateral land grab in Utah declaring 1.7 million acres a national monument and placing off-limits to an energy starved United States up to 62 billion tons of environmentally safe low sulfur coal worth $1.2 trillion that could have been mined with minimal surface impact was in fact a political payoff to the family of James Riady.
James Riady was the son of Lippo Group owner Mochtar Riady. Young James was found guilty of and paid a multi-million dollar fine for funneling more than $1 million in illegal political contributions through Lippo Bank into various American political campaigns, including Bill Clinton's 1992 presidential run. Connect the dots. Riady’s relationship between the Clintons, would be long and corrupt, even extending to donations to the Clinton Foundation.
Clinton took off the world market the largest known deposit of clean-burning coal. Who owned and controlled the second-largest deposit in the world? The Indonesian Lippo Group of James Riady. It is found and strip-mined on the Indonesian island of Kalamantan.
The Utah reserve contains the kind of low-sulfur, low-ash, and therefore low-polluting coal the likes of which can be found in only a couple of places in the world. It burns so cleanly that it meets the requirements of the Clean Air Act without additional technology.
“The mother of all land grabs,” Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) said at the time. Hatch has called what was designated as the Grande Staircase of the Escalante National Monument the “Saudi Arabia of coal.”
When Clinton signed the proclamation, he promised to exchange other federal lands for the land that was taken. Hatch said a fair exchange was impossible, since no other land in Utah had a trillion dollars worth of clean coal.
Rep. James Hansen (R-UT) pointed out that a large portion of the coal-rich Kaiparowits plateau within the monument belonged to the schoolchildren of Utah. When Utah became a state in 1896, about 220,000 acres were set aside to benefit the schools of Utah. Upon the state's founding, a trust fund was created to collect and hold directly for the benefit of the state schools all the revenues generated from developing this land.
Margaret Bird, trust officer for the fund, said that because the land will not be developed, the schoolchildren of Utah stood to lose as much as $1 billion over the next 50 years. Phyllis Sorensen, head of the Utah chapter of the National Education Association, called Clinton's action "felonious assault," charging that "they are stealing from the schoolchildren of Utah." Stealing from children to reward Indonesian billionaire donors is a move typical of the Clintons.
Before there was the pay-for-play Clinton Foundation, and the putting up of American national security for sale in the Uranium One deal with Russia, there was Bill Clinton creating the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, a monument to Bill and Hillary’s monumental corruption.
Daniel John Sobieski is a freelance writer whose pieces
Typical democrats- let them eat cake.
The pristine solitude I trekked thru for almost 2 months last fall didn't need "drinkers" for healthy herds of wildlife. The wildlife was doing fine without any support from man...other than undisturbed land.
And I'd bet the farm you were not hiking in the arid Desert Southwest.
Nor do you know what to compare the wildlife you saw to what existed prior to the wilderness designations.
I spent all day today at the CA WSF 'Sheep Summit,' which I started in 2006. Today was the 22nd time we've met.
Present were two dozen wildlife professionals from CA DFW, the BLM, the USFS and the NPS. These professionals ALL agreed there were serious problems with the stance you take. Every one of them!
Also present were a dozen or more 'boots on the ground' volunteers who survey sheep, build and maintain big game drinkers and more often than not, understand the desert better than the professionals do, to which the professionals agreed!
When you gain anything close to that level of insight and understanding, get back to me!
Are you capable of not making a discussion about you? Your pet sheep project in the desert isn't the only wildlife management game in town. Comparing it to the situation in Utah is apples and oranges.
This is a problem ALL ACROSS THE WEST, not just in CA.
By your own admission, human development and resource consumption has caused the need for additional wildlife management efforts (like man-made drinkers) in the desert of CA. I agree. So, my question to you is, why wouldn’t lifting development/consumption restrictions on land in Utah eventually lead to the same problem?
As Michael eluded to earlier, this Utah land currently holds some of the largest and healthiest herds of wildlife in the country, especially elk. Those herds are thriving with minimal management efforts, largely because they have vast amounts of undeveloped/unconsumed land to live on.
Rolling back the monument status of this land merely exposes it to more development. In fact, the oil, gas, and coal interests were the strongest opposition to the monument designation to begin with. And they were the strongest lobbyist to have the designation lifted. That should clue you to what direction this land his heading, and that direction is not good for the wildlife or sportsman.
Address the point of the thread, which you are repetitively refusing to do!
Does the monument re-desigantion expose this land to more development? Yes or no? Who has the largest development interests on this land? Are those development interests in the best interests of the wildlife and sportsmen?
Those questions are the topic, my friend. Now, care to participate? If so, answer the questions.
Shame on YOU!
My references to the issues in CA are no more than indicative re. what the problem is in ALL the states in the West. So shame on you for refusing to acknowledge that!
EVERY single state DFG/GFP/DFW agency in the Western US has repetitively had to deal with exactly the same kind of unfathomable crap I noted in CA.
I talk with the biologists and managers in every one of these states on a regular basis, and to a person, they ALL agree the concerns I have are valid and that they have had to deal with exactly the same sort of crap from the BLM and USFS that I have mentioned on this thread.
YOU, OTOH, have never, ever, not even once, talked to any of these people re. the BS they have to deal with on a never-ending basis when it comes to the Feds telling them they can't access Federal lands to manage wildlife.
Please share the stories of the wildlife management struggles your associates have had on the land in question. Otherwise, quit blowing smoke.
by Newt Gingrich
USA – -(Ammoland.com)- Once again, President Donald Trump is taking a reasonable action to correct enormous overreach from previous administrations, and once again, the media and the Left are going berserk.
The Trump Administration decision this week to reduce the size of the Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante national monuments in Utah was neither unique nor even out of the ordinary. Similar actions have been taken at various federal monument sites nearly 20 times before by presidents such as John F. Kennedy, Woodrow Wilson, and Dwight D. Eisenhower.
Yet, there are already lawsuits filed seeking to halt the President’s actions, and the media is gleefully repeating erroneous allegations that the Administration may have done something illegal.
As a historian and a life-long conservationist, I spent much of my career working to protect our nation’s history and important sites – as well as our natural resources. My concern for the health of our planet and environment led me to co-author A Contract with The Earth with Terry L. Maple.
So, allow me to set something straight: Despite what the Administration’s critics might say, redefining the boundaries of these monuments will not harm the environment, open the flood gates for dangerous mining or natural resource exploitation, or endanger Native American artifacts or historic locations.
The land around the monuments will continue to be federally protected and managed by one of our several highly-qualified federal land management agencies – which are the same agencies that manage national monuments. These surrounding public lands will be reclassified and will become national forests, wilderness areas, or other federally-controlled, cherished natural sites.
Here’s the difference: The regulatory regime for a national monument is focused entirely around protecting specific objects, so federal regulators have more control over what activities can and cannot happen on the designated land. A regulator, for example, could decide to prohibit activities which would otherwise be allowed in a federal wilderness area or forest.
This reclassification may change which federal agency manages a particular portion of the surrounding land, but the notion that land around these national monuments will somehow be endangered because it might be managed by the Bureau of Land Management instead of the National Park Service, or by U.S. Fish and Wildlife instead of the U.S. Forest Service is simply absurd.
What the changes mean is that the people of Utah will have increased access to the land for grazing cattle, hunting, fishing, harvesting timber, and other traditional uses.
In fact, both of these monuments were designated by politically motivated presidents who were looking to overrule officials from a largely Republican-led state. In 2016, despite opposition from local and federal public officials who actually live in Utah, Obama designated nearly 1.35 million acres of land in the state to create Bears Ears National Monument. The designation just happened to mirror legislation that had previously failed in Congress.
Similarly, Bill Clinton, who was looking for a re-election in 1996, designated Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument against the wishes of the entire Utah congressional delegation.
Obama and Clinton both also completely ignored parts of the Antiquities Act of 1906 (the law that provides presidents with the authority to designate national monuments) when they made these designations.
The act stipulates the designated land must be “confined to the smallest area compatible with proper care and management of the objects to be protected.”
Bears Ears is named for two buttes which rise out of the ground in Southern Utah. They are beautiful and historically significant to many Native Americans in the area. However, it is unlikely that they require 1.35 million acres – an area slightly larger than the State of Delaware (1.25 million acres) – to be properly managed and protected. Similarly, Clinton designated 1.8 million acres for Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, creating the largest national monument in existence. President Trump’s actions correctly divide this into three distinct monuments, with a combined area of 1,003,863 acres.
President Trump, along with Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke, are well within the law – and are, in fact, working to correct past illegal behavior which deprived the people of Utah any say over how land in their state could be used.
You embarrass yourself every time to post here.
Over the past few years, and esp. over the past year, I've raised this issue to the top wildlife management people in every state in the West.
Wihout exception, they ALL say, "Spot On!" or, "You don't know the half of it!"
Many of these conversations have been face-to-face. In other words, conversations you've never had with people you've never met, let alone talked to.
"There are none so blind as those who will not see."
It's worse than I could have imagined, Matt.
I talk with wildlife biologists all over the West on conservation issues on an ongoing basis.
You don't even know who they are, let alone have a clue about the issues and obstacles they deal with at every turn.
So SHAME ON YOU!
You just don't want to deal with it, so you keep denying it.
Again, SHAME ON YOU!
Does lifting the monument designation expose this land to more development?
Who has the strongest development interests in this land?
Are those development interests in the best interests of the wildlife and sportsmen?
Yes, much of the land was exposed to development prior to the monument designation. That's why the oil, gas and coal interests fought so hard against the designation, and why those same interests are cheering now.
Prior to the monument designation, the land was also exposed to much more motorized vehicle traffic, which resulted in looters stealing many of the ancient Indian artifacts that the monument status protected.
Look, I understand the argument that wildlife management needs proper authority and access to do their jobs effectively, even on monument land. To me, that's an administrative/procedural problem between federal and state offices. I have found no information that states removing the monument designation changes anything in regard to wildlife management. The land is still controlled by the feds, and the wildlife by the state.
The 5 tribes are not the only ones with some kind of tie to the land. When they arrived, the place was abandoned of inhabitants with only the structures we see today.
Federal law already protects antiquities. A monument designation itself really doesn't...
Sometimes we screw things up and we should fix it as best we can. I am a HUGE proponent and user of wilderness, but sometimes we need to fix what we've broken.
Please explain how this re-designation does any of those things, or even remotely close.
Thank you as well, Anony, for that excellent article. The extensive and unConstitutional (read ILLEGAL) over reach by government is being exposed and understood by more and more people every day. God bless those who help.