The Bears Ears National Monument in Utah will cover 1.35 million acres in the Four Corners region. 300,000-acre Gold Butte National Monument outside Las Vegas
Obama has designated more national monuments than any of his predecessors in the 110 years.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/12/26/1612560/-Thanks-Obama-for-all-those-new-national-monuments
Río Grande del Norte (New Mexico): Established 3/25/2013—242,555 acres. Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks (New Mexico): Established 5/21/2014—496,330 acres San Gabriel Mountains: Established 10/10/2014—346,177 acres Browns Canyon (Colorado): Established 2/1/2015—21,586 acres Berryessa Snow Mountain (California): Established 7/10/2015—330,380 acres Basin and Range (Nevada): Established 7/10/2015—704,000 acres Mojave Trails (California): Established 2/12/2016—1.6 million acres Sand to Snow (California): Established 2/12/2016—154,000 acres atahdin Woods and Waters (Maine): Established 8/24/2016—87,563 acres
Saves for our grand kids and great grand kids to have access.
Good luck, Robb
National Forest lands are bound by law to ensure public input is used when revising the management plan. comment periods are mandatory. Etcccc. The plan is finalized and sent to congress for approval. Which they do.
Not so on a monument. Congress has sole management control. It's a fact. All it does is hand mandated control of our lands over to congress. People and groups lobby congress men for a reason.
I've never seen a monument pteplan that didn't state public input was still going to be used. However, just look at what's happened to mount saint helens to see that isn't the case.
BLM land is slightly different. It is owned by the government with multiple use doctrine applied. It isn't mandatory for public input in management. Even though it is used.
The problem is groups like to collaborate to designate public use land, then non hunting groups simply lobby their interest away from multiple use doctrine. With no public input to stop them, we are helpless.
Monuments often allow hunting. However, the monuments are supposed to smaller areas. Not the huge areas they are now encompassing. Look it up. I could give you the info but it is high time the American hunter wake up to the wolf in sheeps clothing.
God Bless.
But we also have to do some gas, oil, and mining too. It's got to happen somewhere. Most of these tree-huggers still put gasoline in their Priuses and their kale is still driven to their hippie grocery stores in diesel trucks. And those hippie grocery stores still need electricity to turn on the lights.
I also support wilderness areas that are left pristine, but the trend is to try and surreptitiously attain one's party's goals by gaming the system. Both parties do it and anymore, are bypassing the system which just drives us farther and farther apart and makes us more dysfunctional when the other side is never consulted. It's great while your party is in power, but that doesn't last forever.
does anyone know ?
This area has been the focus of federal protection for 80 years. Instead of asking "why now", maybe we should be asking "why wasn't something done sooner?".
Idlly got it right. But here is what most don't know. A monument does NOT interfere with mineral and resource extraction if the resource is not owned by the federal government. It cannot legally stop private entity from it's owned property. I have a letter from Mr. Thomas Tidwell stating that. For those that don't now, he is the chief of the United States Forest Service. So, believe it regardless of those that will tell you different. And, there will be those coming along here in a minute to say I'm wrong or lying. But, it ain't so. It is federal law that If the minerals or, timber are owned by someone besides the federal government, they will be extracted if the owner desires it.
These monuments have good intentions in most cases. But, there are too many chiefs in congress to to get what is best for us after we loose the guaranteed ability to have equal representation in the management of these lands. And, not one hunting group can guarantee otherwise. That's a fact.
Pointing this out makes me unpopular. I get called a lot of things. But, why would designating public land away from public ownership or, in the case of BLM land, designate it out of mandated multiple use management, be good for hunting? Especially since designation will not stop mineral and resource extraction?
In the future of these designations is where we will loose. Seriously, do YOUR own investigation. If you need help, I will point you in the right direction of where to find the facts. But, you owe it to yourself to develop your own opinion on this and, not what some organized "hunting" group tells you to think. Because if you look, many of these groups take the exact same radical funding as groups that are openly trying to stop hunting access. That too is a fact. Who do you think is going to get the funding when these radical environmentalists no longer needs the support of hunters? God Bless men
Nat'l Monument status certainly serves as stopgap protection until a congressional atmosphere is favorable for park status. However, it is in no way a guarantee that it will ever achieve that.
I'm not suggesting that will happen other places. I'm surely not suggesting it won't either. As far as a national park eventually, the same monument they are trying to pass here was originally drafted as a national park. When told NO, the same collaborators, came back with a National Monument attempt. And, they are still trying it.
Will that happen in these new monuments? I don't know Why risk it with budget constraints limiting management ability by the USFS? There is only two other major manager of monuments besides them. The biggest being the NPS! Awesome!
Gentlemen, you had better get ready. There are going to be wind farms, mining, timber cutting, drilling, etc... on land owned by the government and, land owned by the citizens being managed by the government. Well, there isn't likely to be wind farms on National Forests. But, resources development is coming. The only one of those energy or, resource sources that will not be replanted, reclaimed, and improved for wildlife after use, is the wind farmed areas. Will these monument areas have wind farms? I don't know. If congress decides they will, guess what, they will. We couldn't stop it either. That's the kicker when we give all the power to them. That sounds wonderful to me. How about you?
God Bless men
Second, this particular action is a sham. No where is it proper for local tribal governments to co-manage a monument with the federal government. If anyone should help co-manage it would be a state government. Tribal governments are the most subservient government around and in no way should have any form of jurisdictional authority outside their respective reservations. Unfortunate for Alaska, that is a different story/issue for another day.
As for the Bears Ears, it did not need monument status to protect it. USFS and BLM management could have easily done that.
Will it still be a good thing when the Utes and Navajo say you cannot hunt there anymore because it is their ancestral lands...?
Gentlemen, be aware, it has and will continue to happen when we GIVE away our rights. Fight these designations with all you have. Your local representatives must answer to you. And, while their are TWO ways to designate a Monument, there is only one that doesn't require Congressional authority. The POTUS can simply pen one up. Congress can designate them too. But, they will not of the local representatives are not in favor of it. So, be loud about it with them. God Bless men
Congress and the president can always undo a monument designation or modify it in any way they choose.
If you want to worry, worry about selling our lands to private interests, or transfers to the states which don't have the resources to manage them and would be forced to sell the best to private parties. Those are the actions that are almost impossible to reverse.
WV Mountaineer's Link
Read it for yourself t the link posted
The reason people worry so much about National Monuments is due to the reality that the people who think they are great accomplishments, rarely understand the reality of the way they work after being established. And, they very rarely know enough about them to accurately represent what is truly at stake.
I certainly hope I am wrong.
I actually live in the state where the monument is located. It is so far down the totem pole of access issues it's not really a germane issue.
Also, I'm really tired of your condescension.
In Alaska we have experience with Presidents locking up land (including closing it to hunting) by using the Antiquities Act to proclaim and "protect" land as National Monuments. In 1977, Jimmy Carter used the Act to "protect" 77 MILLION ACRES of Alaska. With one stroke of a pen, 77 million acres was closed to hunting (and a bunch of other uses we take for granted on "public" land.) Three years later, Congress passed legislation redesignating SOME of that acreage into classifications that allowed hunting. Ironically the legislation also ADDED additional acreage into parks, etc that remain to this day, closed to hunting.
And some the land that is technically "open" to hunting, is administered by government agencies and bureaucrats who are philosophically opposed to hunting (primarily USFWS and NPS.)
It is a mess. And I suspect that the situation in UT will become a mess too. In Alaska, once they had the parks, monuments, etc in place, Congress demanded that Alaska had to amend our Constitution (which did and does still, say that wildlife is to be managed for the benefit of ALL Alaskans.) When Alaskan refused to knuckle under to the discriminatory federal mandate, the feds took away the state's right to manage wildlife on federal land.
For all the well-meaning but gullible Bowsite folks who are convinced that that the feds do a better job of managing wildlife and hunting than the states..................... keep your seat belts on. You may just get a dose of reality. This time a little closer to home...
HDE's Link
Beyond elevated management responsibilities, Begaye said it's important that tribes be guaranteed continued access for important activities like wood gathering and collecting of herbs — which Goldfuss said will be central to a land management plan that will be crafted and implemented."
And so it begins...
Here's what I think. I could care less if you are tired of it, if you think it will never happen, if you are in love with the idea, and hate my opposition from afar. I don't CARE. What I do care about is people like you purposefully misrepresent the potential side effects that are possible with a monument designation. When the facts show that hunters have lost access to a BUNCH of land when areas have been designated as monuments, equal representation is no longer guaranteed, and the right to manage wildlife habitat is lost, hunting loose's another battle. That is what I care about. Not the way you feel about me personally. My whole purpose of being here is to shed light on the facts of it. All of it. I'm not representing a political side or, a special interest group. I'm representing the group that matters to me. My fellow hunters. And, you can bet your last dollar I'm going to do that in a way that gets EVERYONE'S attention. Especially those that are looking to represent them as a one sided topic.
If you look back, I've said that I cannot guarantee any of the terrible things that come from monuments, to happen here. Plainly I said that. But, I have also made it very clear that NO one can guarantee that it won't either because we no longer have ownership of the land or, a multiple use doctrine slapped on public used land. I truthfully stated why. I pointed out where LKH was incorrect in his statement how Monuments were ratified or, done away with. I did all this to make the men on this page aware that all is not what it seems in a lot of cases.
Had you or any of your fellow pro monument guys addressed these reality's to begin with, I promise that the condescending tone would not be present. I would instead of have agreed with you but, then politely asked why you think it is such a great thing. But, with the political smear already expressed here by so many, the unwillingness to express the inherent dangers a monument exhibits to land we had federal law mandated equal representation too, and you can rest assured that your opinion matters not to me. I'm concerned with fact. I'm concerned with reality. And, I'm concerned as heck that we have another area set aside that potentially becomes a play ground to the group with the biggest lobby influence.
I'll openly apologize and go away if you can guarantee none of this will happen here. A Lawful guarantee is all it will take to hush me, get me to say I have no place here, and move along. But, if you KNOW the federal laws that outline Monuments, then you know that you can't do that. NO ONE can. And by dismissing this reality with only your opinion as support, it quite frankly irritates me that you believe it is more relevant than law.
Honestly, I don't want to argue. I really don't. I just want everything to be expressed correctly. I don't know the area that has been designated. I don't have to. Because I know the law and the effects of these things in other areas. Not all are bad. But, the REALITY that we simply no longer have ownership or, equal representation might turn into a very big negative for hunting. Why should that one realty be dismissed on YOUR opinion? God Bless men
If I wanted to cherry pick, I'd use the Missouri Breaks National Monument as an example to "misrepresent" the facts. I didn't, and I fail to see one statement I made that misrepresents FACTS.
Carry on with your condescension and your hubris.
"It's my understanding that hunting won't be affected by them at all."
You did a good job explaining how your understanding equals absolutely nothing concerning what has happened in the past to other monuments and, what will potentially happen in the future of these monuments.
"Designation as a National Monument does not create any greater likelihood of it being a National Park in the future. A National Park still requires Congressional action and approval. This area has been the focus of federal protection for 80 years. Instead of asking "why now", maybe we should be asking "why wasn't something done sooner?". "
Really? With the highest budget of any managing agency and, a huge shift towards preservation instead of conservation, it wouldn't be hard or, adverse at all to expect that the NPS service would gladly add it to the already 85 million acres and 400 areas it already manages.
"WV, I actually live in the state where the monument is located. It is so far down the totem pole of access issues it's not really a germane issue."
Really? Future access for hunting is the issue in question. That's the meat and potato's of this whole thread. We no longer get input or granted multiple use management now these areas are designated National Monument's. How do you know what the future brings since public entity interest is no longer federally mandated?
"You cherry picked a monument that arguably should be a national park . I questioned that. Whatever fits your narrative I guess."
Really? You asked why it was valid. I gave you an example of a National Monument, based on your statement, of how access can be lost once designation is made. Others have given more examples where access and, hunting rights were lost.
I'm not sure what part of this is confusing you into thinking I'm continuing to be condescending or, boasting about this? It is common knowledge that these restrictions do not apply on all monuments. It is also federal law that they could it congress decides they should. I even stated that three times previously. My point is really clear. You dismissed any chance that this is going to end up being negative for hunters. Based on your beliefs. I simply am pointing out that your beliefs and, your opinions doesn't grant any sort of meaningful security to hunting's future on these new monuments. How is that being condescending? It is the facts of it.
A better question at this point is, How do you repeatedly dismiss or, avoid confronting all these reality's based on nothing more than your opinion?
Just what is a constitutional order?
It was slang basically stating that the president had no authority to over ride congress unless something in the constitution grants him the authority to do so. Concerning a president changing or, removing a monument from existence, it has been determined that's not legally possible. Because there is nothing in the constitution giving the POTUS the authority to repeal congress's decision on an established law. It really was a poor choice of words due to being in a hurry. I should have explained it better but, just put it that way to keep from typing four paragraphs of verbatim about it.
Refer to the link for reference. It explains it all. God Bless
I live in Utah and I find it interesting that Bill Clinton created the Grand Staircase National monument while campaigning for his second term after coming in 3rd, behind Ross Perot in his 1st run. I think he did this because he'd already written off Utah (rightfully so), and could gain a bunch of voters in other states that actually mattered to win. This is why I think it's important to be a swing state, so you can't be completely written off politically. I'm curious if Obama's new monuments were similar in that, "who cares, the Dems have already lost there for the foreseeable future anyway, so screw them and pick up party support elsewhere". Unfortunately, I think this is a pretty good political strategy.
I really don't know how this will affect hunting, but I do know keeping federal lands out of our greedy old boys network of local politicians is a great thing for preservation and I am in favor of that. The school state trust lands are a prime example of how little the state actually cares about public land.
"It's my understanding that hunting won't be affected by them at all."
My statement was specifically directed at these two monuments, neither of which have anything that I've read in the proclamation that would affect hunting use. If that wasn't specific, fair enough. It is now clarified for you.
"Designation as a National Monument does not create any greater likelihood of it being a National Park in the future. A National Park still requires Congressional action and approval. This area has been the focus of federal protection for 80 years. Instead of asking "why now", maybe we should be asking "why wasn't something done sooner?". "
I thought we were talking facts and not assumption or supposition? It's a fact that designation as a national monument does not in any way guarantee Congressional action that would create a park. Congressional action allows for public input, does it not? I would certainly believe that there is correlation with monument designation and future park status, but I certainly don't believe there is any causation. Congress can approve or disapprove park status regardless of the classification of land involved.
"WV, I actually live in the state where the monument is located. It is so far down the totem pole of access issues it's not really a germane issue."
You gave me no factual basis to show that you have any understanding of the access issues in this state. A 100k acre monument is insignificant, given that many understand the geological sensitivity and significance of the area, and given the fact that millions of acres of private timberlands are being closed to free public access. So, I stand behind my statement as FACT that St. Helens is not a germane access issue in Washington.
I'm not sure what realities you think I'm dodging. I have never ONCE said that monument status is any guarantee of future hunting privilege. Nor have I said that it is a guarantee that all monuments are good. I merely pointed out that these two were designated as monuments with hunting written in as current and accepted uses, and that monument status does not in any way create a higher predisposition to become a national park.
it doesn't sound good for the future of hunting
JLS what monuments do you hunt or have hunted or know that is still open to hunting? I read the responses and I get that monument = no hunting way more often than not. You seem to not agree ??? or ??
I know which monuments your responses were directed at. Mount Saint Helens NM, was simply being used as an example of what happens when we the public no longer have input into management on Monuments. Fee's to use, access routinely denied, designated only camping by permit, etc... FWIW, it probably should be a NP. But, it is not. Its just being run like one. It's really a non issue in this discussion aside from those results.
Once again, I'm not saying these new monuments are going to be a NP. I'm simply pointing out that your nor my opinion matters not one more second on this as congress is now the SOLE managers of these areas. And, will appoint the managers they approve. It might never change. NONE of us know and, there isn't one thing we can do about it either way. We are at their mercy now.
I came up with the dodging comment to get you to expose why you answered these men the way you did, when they addressed concerns of hunting access. I do admit that your stance on this being a good thing, prompted a little more accusation from me. But, in my defense, if you are going to post on a hunting forum about something being good, when it holds the potential to negatively affect hunting, you get what you get. It's easier to understand that feeling once you realize my whole stance is based on the reality that the fate of hunting on these lands, now lay's in a lobbied hand.
1.65 million acres. We have states that aren't that large. That is a big chunk of real estate we no longer have guaranteed access to in the future. Wow.
Good evening and God Bless men
It's not hard to find national monuments that allow hunting. I'm most familiar with the upper Missouri Breaks monument, as I lived close by when it was created and I have hunted there.
Among others that allow hunting are the San Juan Islands, the Grand Staircase Escalante, Newberry Crater, cascade Siskyou, Basin Monument just to name a few.
As with everything in life, there are no absolutes. Not every monument is good, but neither is every monument bad. Your ability to hunt and recreate on any federal lands is at the hands of Congress, regardless of past or current status.
I'm still not really sure what point you think you were "exposing". Simply asking a polite and direct question often yields good results for me, YMMV.
I have no hidden agendas. I've made no misrepresentations or false statements either.
1.6 million acres is big, much bigger than the monuments I'm familiar with. However, I haven't been to it and have no idea if the size is appropriate.
You and I obviously see things from different viewpoints and that's perfectly fine with me.
By the way, if you think you have "guaranteed" access to anything you don't own you're mistaken. As such, I'll continue my support for BHA and the TRCP.
I guess as I read more and more .... the difference is a monument is created by the President whenever he sees fit for whatever reasons. They can be be managed by various agencies too as I read it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_National_Monuments_of_the_United_States
I guess I still don't understand WHY Obama is creating them? They're already national lands, so what's the angle at designating them "monuments" vs leaving them alone ?
Everything I read mentions their creations to protect against mining or drilling, to protect artifacts or native places. "Protect" normally translates to "stop people from going in there to do anything but look"
The only thing I was trying to expose was to get you to explain why potentially trading 1.6 million acres of hunting, was a good thing. Which you did. Early on. The rest of it was me simply driving that point home to the readers.
I agree with that last statement. But, I surely don't agree to use it as an excuse to feel it is appropriate to possible loose more hunting land to preservation. Especially since current federal law mandates multiple use management doctrine on public and federally owned lands.
Stealthy, shoot me your email, I'll gladly send you copy of the letter from the chief of the USFS that says Monuments DO not grant any level of protection to an areas privately owned resources. In other words, it's a hoax. If Jim Bob wants to drill and owns the mineral, Jim Bob is going to drill. According to HDE, there is nothing there. I believe him as he is pretty sharp and that's his field. So, you have to wonder why at this point due to these realities. In my opinion, it is because the Monuments are quickly becoming our enemy's favorite tool to eliminate hunting. Time will tell.
God Bless men
JLS's Link
There is some good reading in the link I've provided.
The benefits can vary widely and I'm not going to try to encompass all of them here, but a few would be protecting a watershed, a gradient of ecosystems, and/or maintaining the wild and remote character of a location.
In some areas of the west, maintaining large scale tracts of land is critical to wildlife. Failure to do so can have large scale impacts, i.e. sage grouse, mule deer, etc.
I'm not anti energy development, anti grazing, or anti logging. Each of them are important facets of multiple use. However, recreational use of public land is vitally important to many of these western states' economies, and recreational use is often one of the first things to be put on the back burner when there are big bucks to be had in a boom development cycle. During the bust is when the buyer's remorse can settle in and you have to deal with the aftermath.
Monument status forces Congress and the managing agency to put forth a management plan that specifically deals with each facet of multiple use and can also have advantages in terms of funding that management plan. Failure to do so creates legal leverage to force them to follow plan. In my opinion, the time to really fear national monument status is when you weren't involved in the ground level process. Others may disagree, and that's fine. I'm not omniscient in any way.
Lawsuits are not just for anti hunting organizations. Hunting groups have already begun to use them, and I guarantee the day is quickly coming when it becomes a more widely used tool to protect hunter and angler interests.
My next door neighbor was a very active member of a grass roots organization that was driving the formation of the Missouri Breaks Monument. He was always telling me about legal action that they were taking, and none of it was done out of a vindictive sense. Rather, it was forcing the BLM to follow the management plan and policies that they had put forth. Much like the USFWS employees who had their own biases and agendas in regards to the Mexican Red Wolf, all of these employees are human are subject to viewing things from their own perspective. Accountability and legal correction are never a bad thing.
1. Obama is a lying weasel who thinks ONLY of his "legacy".
2. 90% of ANYTHING the federal government regulates/controls/ "improves" turns to doo-doo.
JLS you just don't seem to grasp the real world of National Monument designation. Pete in Fairbanks, these guys really need to pay attention to what you are saying.
One thing not mentioned much is the usually devastating affect on the many grazing lessee's and the added restrictions on their operations as well as in many instances severe enough, that these in many cases multi generation ranchers, operations cease to exist because of the over regulation. Here in New Mexico The Organ Mountain/Desert Peaks National Monument is a prime example of those ranchers being regulated out of business. The designation of the Valles Caldera into National Monument status has dramatically changed the way hunters can use that area. this important area would have been better off if the US Forest Service had taken over control. The USFS is a multiple use sustainably yielding entity and a National Monument is a more of an aesthetic bird watching, tree hugging, bunny hugging entity and has much greater government controls, which are the next steps to National Park Status. Take a look at Rocky Mountain National Park near Estes Park, Colorado to see a tremendous waste and non use of of wildlife resources. The government argues over whether to use gov. snipers or wolves to control the tremendous excesses of elk and deer. Sport hunting is not an option. How sad.
WVM - pm sent
In other words, the email I sent you will show you that while it is common to say that a monument plan takes public input into consideration, A monument plan does not REQUIRE public input be considered. That letter I sent you states that it explicitly takes that granted input out of the equation by saying the Monument plan is statutory. It explicitly says the management plan gets drafted post designation. And, it explicitly states that ALL interested parties are free to contribute management objectives. That means dim wits from the west coast can potentially influence management of a monument in the Eastern US. Or, vice verse.
What this also instills is the public has no guarantees. None. And, we have no laws to prevent this from happening once land is designated. As stated before, we hunters typically stand to loose once revision comes up. We do not have the lobby power of our enemy's. And, while our elected officials typically are scum bags, regardless of party affiliation, to alienate the American Hunter openly would be political suicide in a lot of areas these things pop up in. But, these same elected people won't always be there. And, money has a way of talking. Just like it has in the cases presented above.
No one can tell you what the future holds here. Me, JLS, no one. What I can tell you is we legally stand to loose 1.65 million more acres of hunting ground because we no longer have granted multiple use doctrine, a way to oppose the management plan drafted for this monument, and federal law that grants hunters fair input in future revisions. That is the reality of this. The facts. The way it is. Yet, speculation abounds about how beneficial and good this was?
Stay abreast of these things gentlemen. Do not trust any group or anybody that tries to paint these Monuments as a good thing. They aren't. With no additional protection of existing rights, being statutory by definition, and no way for the public to legally protest the management Congress decides to give us with a post designation plan, how in the world could any hunter think this is worth the risk?
FWIW, HDE has this NAILED. Watch and see how bad this goes. Maybe not initially. But, with the finalized plan not even drafted to go to congress yet, there is plenty of time to get screwed right out of the gate too. No matter when it happens. Because I personally do not believe is debatable that before this is over, we hunters will have lost this one. Just look at Quebec. I realize it wasn't a monument that did it. However, when Native tribes get involved, all sport hunting loose's to their gain. In EVERY instance.
God Bless gentlemen
Sorry but this will be a loss for hunters as the movement to monuments ensures a decrease in public say and especially a decrease in local control.
Ultimately when they decide to close down camping they will not care if your family has camped in that location for the last 4 generations. When they decide to make some money they will simply add a fee, etc.
When a group complains that there are too many vehicles, they will close a road. Ultimately there will nothing that can be done.
A decrease in ranching and livestock permits.
A ban on trapping.
A ban on predator hunting and a resulting decrease in game leading to a decrease in hunting opportunity.
Groups like Sierra Club and Sinapu are already making plans and a push to have this "monument" become a safe haven for large predators.
Do away with the Antiquities Act. Some may not like the sound of that, but too bad. It will cost us all in the long run. As we have seen, any and all special interest groups use this to their advantage.
I would like to see the documents you have that you are basing your assertions on. It is my understanding, through conversation with both USFS and BLM employees, that the management plan process for a monument is no different than a standard Forest Plan or Resource Management Plan. It requires the same public input, and is subject to the same objections/litigation if there is a violation of NEPA, FLPMA, FP, and/or RMP. This supports my earlier statement that it is critical to be involved at the ground level when these monuments are being considered. If protections of wildlife habitat and public access to them for hunting/angling are written in as current uses and priorities for the monument in the proclamation, then this becomes very important down the road when the management plan is being crafted. The management plan cannot conflict with the proclamation.
Congress directs the administering agency to create the management plan in accordance with all of the above, and the proclamation of the monument itself. Once the plan is completed, Congress must approve it. Are you saying that future revisions to any of these management plans are exempt from FPLMA? Are you saying that there is a lesser ability to object to/litigate against management plans for a monument when they are in conflict/violation with federal law, agency policy, etc.?
Hunters/anglers are much better served when the USFS and/or BLM are chosen as administering agencies than the NPS or USFWS.
Personally, when I look at the current political climate in regards to energy development and public land transfer, along with a very likely gutting of the Antiquities Act, I feel that WESTERN hunters face a much greater risk from what's coming in the next 2+ years of the Trump administration than they face from the creation of these monuments. I can't guarantee I will be right, nor can anyone else on this board guarantee it will be wrong. Time will tell, and I hope the right choices are made along the way.
I'll address the questions you asked about as well. I simply don't have the time right now. God Bless
Inside any NM, if resources were to be extracted, regulation guidelines will be followed. The same ones that guide any operation outside a monument. So, if the operation at hand required a environmental impact survey, then it will on the monument as well. I'm sure lawsuits would see any operation require that on any monument.
Public input is said to be used when drafting all forest plans for NM. But, with all NM plans being drafted post designation, there is no guarantee of that. And, no way to oppose a plan that has been considered finalized to be sent to Congress. No guaranteed public comment periods. No arbitration guaranteed by law. Nothing. This is what it is and, this is what you get kinda deal. In the examples above, all these areas used to have hunting. Yet hunting was left out or, revised out of the NM plan at some point. So the promise that all public input will be used for the forest plan once the designation happens is just good intentions. Intentions that our enemy's have learned means nothing when they are dealing with the right people. Once again, as examples have already shown.
None of this is in violation of the FLPMA of 1976. Because NM law is statutory. People have no laws to grant them management input. This is no longer public owned land or, government owned, managed for multiple use land. This is Government property now. So, it no longer resides under the FLPMA. Therefore, Congress is the only authority with the ability to ratify a NM forest plan. Refer to my link way back up the page.
I am unaware of any NM that the government owns the resources, where the resources were developed and/or extracted after designation. So, in a quick glance, it does add protection to government owned resources initially. Unless you are like me and, happen to feel that the government, once having the legal ability to do things without answering to the people, is potentially one of the biggest threats to any resource or, land we common folk use. The last run on sentence is pure speculation on my part. So, I'm not going to debate that with anyone.
I agree with your comment on who does the better job of managing NM for the hunter and fishermen. I'll take it even farther and say, we'd all be better served if the land we have ownership of or, federal law mandated multiple use management on, be left alone and not locked up and given to Congress to manage.
For the life of me, I will never understand why responsible resource development is considered a bad thing by anyone. Any party. And, certainly any hunter or fishermen. I've spent 20 years working for private and, government agency's taxed with extracting, managing, and regulating resources. From those in the ground, to those that grow on the ground. It makes no earthly sense to me that anyone with a non biased brain cell can't see that this can be done in a responsible manner that BENEFITS every entity. Timber out west gets replanted, timber here sprouts and, grows back. Mines get reclaimed. Roads get reclaimed. In wildlife beneficial grasses and forge. With the lack of young succession plaguing nearly every big game species in this country, how could this be bad if done in a way where the environment isn't hurt. We aren't talking about the turn of the 20th century here. This is modern industry where regulation cost usually exceeds any other over head cost a company has. For good reason too.
NM's are quickly becoming the preferred tool of radical environmentalists and, anti hunting groups for a reason. They lock out public input and, open the door for special interest lobbying. It is the quickest way to do away with the public mandates that give us equal representation. Just like has been pointed out above, no one knows the results of this now. No ONE. But, we've seen enough to start to get a idea of what to expect.
The scary thing about this is most people simply do not know nor, care to entertain the possibility of how bad this could be for us hunters in the future. And, they are using us to do IT! I've talked with USFS people that didn't know this about monuments. If you really want to get educated fast, get a hold of a NWTF biologist. We have one here spear heading our opposition to a NM they are trying to impose on us. This cat is sharp and up to date on these monuments. It's how I learned about all this. He's not the only one with the NWTF on top of their game either.
Whatever you do, Get involved guys. For the Future of hunting. From wolf introduction, to designating land away from ungulate management practices, to an all assault on the ballot boxes every election, we are in a war here for our way of life. Don't be fooled or complacent.
God Bless men
In reading the letter you sent, it would appear that it contradicts statements that you have made. For instance, Chief Tidwell speaks to the management plan process, which would be developed in accord with all public outreach, public input, and public notice required of any National Forest Management Plan. Are you suggesting then, that this development process was only being offered, but not formally required?
Under NEPA, and EIS should be required for something as significant as a management plan. EIS are required to be open for public input.
WV Mountaineer's explanation makes the most sense and it accurate from everything I'm reading.
Creating these monuments vs leaving them as they are insures someone in DC makes the decisions on management with no state or public input really. That's not good for sportsman and makes the most sense in Obama doing this. That control falls right in line with what this administration has pushed IMO
I could go back and pull quotes from my posts, stating what you just incorrectly insinuated, concerning what I have said about the laws defining these monuments. Instead, let's do this. Here is the REAL issue. There is no LAW mandating public input be used when drafting a NM plan. None. All we have are statements from people like you and, Mr. Tidwell saying it will be used. Well, as examples have previously shown, that is not the case. Because there is no law ensuring that is the case. It is simply a good intent with no guaranteed backing.
In all of life, good intentions are not always best or, even good serving. As these previously mentioned Monuments prove. I'm not sure what part of that keeps eluding you. Had this not been the case, I could see skepticism. I'd even present it. But, REALTY has not shown this to be the case. REALITY has shown what the facts say. That public input is not always considered when drafting a NM plan. If that weren't the case, these Monuments that currently do not allow hunting, would have never allowed pre-designation hunting. There is NO denying that. No matter how you twist it.
The following are the facts:
1. NM plans are drafted post designation. The paper I sent you says that.
2. NM plans are statutory by definition. No other laws interfere with that. It stands ALONE in it's own regulation. The paper I sent you says that.
3. NM plans are said to drafted with public input by people that promote them. In some instances that is true. In other, more painful instances, that has proven to be untrue. So, with no law mandating that a NM plans to be drafted with public input, with no public input required at anytime during management of the NM, and no arbitration process granted during the management or drafting of the plan, We simply do not know what we are going to get stuck with.
4. With no lawfully granted way to ensure pubic input be considered in drafting or revising a NM plan, we get what congress decides we get. As examples have shown. Sometimes that is acceptable for now. Sometimes it is not. The big thing is that can change with the stroke of a Congress PEN. And, we are stuck with it.
5. No matter how you try to legally justify hunters right to defend themselves against these established monuments, there is NO law that will grant us that. NONE. NM laws are statutory. Remember?
6. Congress and the POTUS can both designate Monuments. Only one of them can revise a NM plan. That is Congress. They are the managers. No one else. They answer to only themselves. The dangers of that have been covered and, are more than apparent in this thread. There are more examples too. Why the importance of that is being ignored by you is beyond me.
All six of those points are the REALITY of this. All six of those points present in numerous examples above. No one is saying there isn't hunting allowed on some monuments. They are simply saying there is no way to guarantee that once designated. And, there is nothing stopping a current monument that allows hunting from, being revised to not allow hunting in the future. That's as plain as it gets. The meat and potatoes of it. And, there is no denting any of this.
It's not confusing. It's not hard to understand. It's the facts. What you do with that is your business. I haven't misrepresented this in any way. Not once.
Stay alert men. Some in both parties would love to take our land from us. And, some people are falling right in line working to make it happen unknowingly. You can't do anything about a president doing this. But, you can sure let your local senators and congress men know about how you feel when you get word one of these things are being proposed. The future hunters fate likely hinges on it in a lot of these monuments. Anti hunting groups like them for a reason fellas. God Bless men
I am on the road. I will address each one of your points when I have time. Until then, this article is worthy of reading.
I am neither lying or blinded. I'm sorry you would feel the need to accuse me of either. Nor did I "insinuate" anything. I asked you a very simple and direct question.
https://cronkitenews.azpbs.org/2016/01/29/plan-allowing-shooting-in-sonoran-desert-national-monument-moves-ahead/
Personally, I think that is awesome. A real win. A NM plan that did what it was supposed to by taking into account public input upon revision. I wander what happened initially? Ian Dowdy seemed to have that figured out when questioning if public input was even considered initially. And, reality says he was right because public shooters initially received a whopping .017% of total land for their use. Anyways, if it gets passed to where they get equal representation, we will both celebrate. If it stays passed, we will even dance. Here's hoping for a dance. Time will tell. God Bless
The fact that POTUS is ramrodding this through in his final days and large anti-hunting groups are applauding the designation as NM should be cause enough for worry.
HDE's Link
I don't want someone in DC to sign a paper banning all hunting on monuments and it taking millions and years to get that back do you ?
Time will tell. I just know how the Valles Caldera changed once it reached a different status. Some of it good, some of it not...
That would cause a huge sign of relief, would it not?
I trust Obama about as far as I could throw him with cement blocks on his shoes, upwind, in a prairie blizzard.....with my bad arm!
Unless the new Congress can do it with a simple majority, they'll have a hard time doing it.
The best thing would be for the land to be transferred to the states and then a super duper rich hunting guy buys it all up, sets up a trust, and allow's all hunters to use it for free forever . But then, who would fight the forest fires, fix the roads, and manage the game...?
I'm a big supporter of public lands, I cannot believe the Fed Govt would sell them and don't even know how they could because Federal = public or damn sure should. I hope that never happens because if it does, hunting will die for 99% of the people in the US.
If land got transferred, states would find out real quick they could not afford to run them. That's why the scare of them being sold off.
I apologize for my delay in getting back to this, I was waiting to hear back from a retired federal LEO who worked for a number or agencies that have been discussed. I posed a number of questions to him, responses are as follows:
"Here is the REAL issue. There is no LAW mandating public input be used when drafting a NM plan. None. All we have are statements from people like you and, Mr. Tidwell saying it will be used. Well, as examples have previously shown, that is not the case. Because there is no law ensuring that is the case. It is simply a good intent with no guaranteed backing. "
Again, this is false. A National Monument plan is subject to the same NEPA/FPLMA rules on public input as any other forest plan or resource management plan.
"REALITY has shown what the facts say. That public input is not always considered when drafting a NM plan. If that weren't the case, these Monuments that currently do not allow hunting, would have never allowed pre-designation hunting. There is NO denying that. No matter how you twist it."
I'm not even sure exactly what you are trying to say here, so I'm not going to address this further other than to say this. Just because the Record of Decision doesn't jive with what someone wanted doesn't mean public input wasn't considered.
"1. NM plans are drafted post designation. The paper I sent you says that. "
I have never debated this.
"2. NM plans are statutory by definition. No other laws interfere with that. It stands ALONE in it's own regulation. The paper I sent you says that. "
I have never argued that a National Monument plan is codified into law.
"3. NM plans are said to drafted with public input by people that promote them. In some instances that is true. In other, more painful instances, that has proven to be untrue. So, with no law mandating that a NM plans to be drafted with public input, with no public input required at anytime during management of the NM, and no arbitration process granted during the management or drafting of the plan, We simply do not know what we are going to get stuck with. "
Again, this is false. There are laws on the books that govern the public input process. These laws apply to the formation and development of a National Monument plan just as they do any other Forest Management Plan or BLM Resource Management Plan. The plan is subject to objections and lawsuits just as any other plan.
"4. With no lawfully granted way to ensure pubic input be considered in drafting or revising a NM plan, we get what congress decides we get. As examples have shown. Sometimes that is acceptable for now. Sometimes it is not. The big thing is that can change with the stroke of a Congress PEN. And, we are stuck with it."
That is a double edged sword. Congress can just as easily transfer a national monument from the Park Service to the BLM, and they can just as easily void a ROD and send it back to the agency to re-evaluate and re-develop it. All of these steps provide for and allow public input. I call and write my Congressional Representatives regularly on public land issues and hopefully many others on Bowsite do also.
"5. No matter how you try to legally justify hunters right to defend themselves against these established monuments, there is NO law that will grant us that. NONE. NM laws are statutory. Remember? "
A law is a statute, so yes, I fully understand that laws are "statutory". I'm not really sure what you are arguing in the preceding sentence. If you are trying to say there is no statutory protection for hunters during the formation of a management plan, you would be completely correct.
"6. Congress and the POTUS can both designate Monuments. Only one of them can revise a NM plan. That is Congress. They are the managers. No one else. They answer to only themselves. The dangers of that have been covered and, are more than apparent in this thread. There are more examples too. Why the importance of that is being ignored by you is beyond me."
I'm not ignoring the fact, I just view it differently than you.
I have never once went on record as saying monuments are unilaterally a good thing for hunters. I feel they CAN be, but I also feel they can be a bad thing. I choose to judge each one on its individual merits.
As a side note, public input on multiple use is just that. It is public, not local input. We all have a say in developing management plans. I've commented on management plans in states that I don't live in, but I hunt there. Just because someone is from out of state does not invalidate their input when public comment is taken.
You can discount the above information I've provided and rely on what you are being told by the NWTF bio. However, there may be a very good reason he has told you stuff that even USFS personnel didn't know about. I may very well write to the local Regional Forest Supervisor and ask them the same questions so that we can put an end to this. I could care less about being right, but I really dislike the fact that you are clouding the issue of this process. It is confusing enough, but to falsely portray it does not lend any benefit to hunters as a whole.
Edit: I just confirmed this with a retired USFS employee who worked at a fairly high level. Outside of what the President put in the proclamation, everything else is exactly the same throughout the process. Everything is subject to objection, appeal, and litigation before Congress can accept the ROD.
I'm not sure why you think it's a bad example? What specifically was I trying to use it as an example of? I was using it as an example that Management Plans ARE subject to public input and that there is no point of no return where they can't be remanded and amended.
Don't discount the significance of this article. Recreational shooting is a huge issue for the BLM in terms of fire danger, litter, lead accumulation, safety, conflicts with other users, etc. Both the BLM and state DNR (through county ordinance) have greatly reduced the amount of public shooting areas where I live. I was very surprised to see this accommodation made in a National Monument.
BOHNTR's Link