I agree with your post.
If you voted for Trump with on the basis of public access.....you were dead WRONG!!
I agree with your post.
el unit
Well-known member
I agree.
pdq_wizzard
Member
Does this mean I can go camping and hunting this year and not have a gate with a "forest closed" sign to stop me?
onpoint
Well-known member
In regards to the above and the post the above replied to:
The tragedy of the commons affects an awful lot of public land. Lotsa' places which "used to be great" are being loved to death after more folks found out about them.
I, and probably everyone old enough and/or experienced enough to have seen this happen to favorite places, have struggled with this.
So, because the rock hippies have over run Bear's Ears and The Dunes aren't as little visited as they used to be, does that mean "screw 'em", as a piece of ground -ain't worth me caring about it anymore..... frac it?
I happen to like Eastern MT quite a bit. It's a lot more crowded than it used to be during the time I want to be there. Do I not care about it anymore because it ain't the same as it was? No.
I hope I am not in the minority on this, but if so - coming from one who has spent a lifetime doing what people on this forum talk about and the majority of my lifetime trying to take care of this stuff - that is really a shitty deal.
Go ahead and try to make this a partisan libtard thing. However, I voted for neither the current presidential moron nor his opponent. I actually possess the ability to think for myself.......
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
'Don't know what state or national forest you may be alluding to, but in Montana even when the public forests are tinder dry and you really should stay away, with smoking and campfire restrictions, the forests are open for camping and hunting. Specific trails and areas are closed for safety reasons which are warranted at times when those trails and areas are on fire, but otherwise there have never been "forest closed" signs!
Irrelevant
Well-known member
The same people saying Trump is "righting a wrong" are the same people that 100+ years ago were fighting against the creation of the FS. In another 100 years their descendants will look back on them as the bad guys.
Irrelevant
Well-known member
Unfortunately there's a lot of truth in that. While we may make the case that some areas the wildlife is in the good ole days, in terms of just land, there's very few places that are getting "better".
You’re not in the minority on this but hell, I like being in the minority myself, it makes me different and I think I’m usually correct, not always, but most of the time. I’m not a ”libtard” but I lean a lot more left than a lot of the folks on this forum and I don’t give a chit what they call me or think about me..
JWP58
Banned
Oh its still public land, but a certain group wont tell you that. They want you to assume without the monument designation its all being given away to the Wilkes or some other millionaire (who knows maybe Uncle Bernie needs another vacation home?)
Last edited:
pdq_wizzard
Member
so you don't remember Oct 2013 ?
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/10/131003-national-park-closures-government-shutdown/
https://www.ksl.com/?sid=46211347
Maybe it's not going to be sold in the short-term. But those who were pushing for these changes from my home state very much intend to open it for extraction, and hell, while they're at it, let's turn part of what is currently open to hunting into a National Park. Monuments may or may not allow hunting based on the circumstances, but NP's sure as hell don't.
This isn't a win in any way for those who value holding on to all the public land we currently have and ensuring future generations can hunt, camp, fish, hike, watch birds, and hug trees if they so desire.
I do. Public lands remained open although some services like campgrounds, vault toilets, etc were shut down. The GOP's efforts to shut down gov't did impact public land users, but you could still hunt.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
I certainly do. Not a good example or reference. National Forests were not shut down. In national parks you could not hunt before, during, or after the National Park fiscal shutdown debacle. There were no "forest closed signs" you just could not enter through the NPS portals at entrances for park personnel shortage reasons. You could still drive through the HWY 191 portion of YNP adjacent to National Forest where you could hunt and camp. Like I said, in Montana there were no "forest closed" signs.
onpoint
Well-known member
Beavertrapper
New member
I'm with you on this one just because more people are visiting our public lands doesn't mean we give up or walk away when someone try's to remove some of the protections given to those lands Aldo Leopold said it best "all conservation of wildness is self-defeating, for to cherish we must see and fondle, and when enough have seen and fondled, there is no wilderness left to cherish.” it's a very very delicate balancing act preserving these lands for future generations most people won't fight to save some place unless the have been there, seen and connected with the place, however the increase of people also reduces the value or wonder of these places in the eyes of others. So what do we do? What is the right thing to do? Are we to sit back and allow extra protections on these lands to be rolled back and have the chance of more road and extractive resource development that might or might not change the landscape; or do we fight to keep these protections in place and allowing the lands to remain a bit more wild but still run the risk of the more outdoor engaged public visiting the land to the point were there are so many tourists that the lands still become altered and lose some of there wonder and wildness and people stop caring.
I like you. It takes massive amounts of evidence/data to get my wife to admit that I'm right.
My dog almost always thinks I'm right!
onpoint
Well-known member
Don't go getting all man bun-ny
I'm hanging out with a recuperating dog - passing time on the WWW.
after near 30 years of attempting to not believe it - data/evidence is an absolute, soul crushing, and mind numbing waste of time.............................
I'm hanging out with a recuperating dog - passing time on the WWW.
after near 30 years of attempting to not believe it - data/evidence is an absolute, soul crushing, and mind numbing waste of time.............................
idelkslayer
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2013
- Messages
- 268
I realize I'm in the minority here but I agree with the reductions in these national monuments.
This is directly from the antiquities act.
"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"
I would say that while designation as a National Monument was warranted for parts of the Bears Ears and Escalante the authority to designate a National Monument was abused in this case. Far more than "the smallest area" compatible with protection was designated.
If we want the remainder of the area that has now been reduced to be permanently protected from development then Wilderness designation seems the more appropriate route.
This is directly from the antiquities act.
"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"
I would say that while designation as a National Monument was warranted for parts of the Bears Ears and Escalante the authority to designate a National Monument was abused in this case. Far more than "the smallest area" compatible with protection was designated.
If we want the remainder of the area that has now been reduced to be permanently protected from development then Wilderness designation seems the more appropriate route.
onpoint
Well-known member
"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"
Exactly who makes the determination of this parameter and how do/does they/he/she arrive at this value? And conversely - the same goes for a party attempting to reverse this designation.
Exactly who makes the determination of this parameter and how do/does they/he/she arrive at this value? And conversely - the same goes for a party attempting to reverse this designation.
Similar threads
- Locked
