If you voted for Trump with on the basis of public access.....you were dead WRONG!!

[fwagner]

It all started with field and stream interviewing one of the Trumps and him talking about how he is one of us and he will protect our public lands.....and the republicans ate it up. With just a little objectivity you could see this was BS but objectivity isn't something many voters have these days. Trump and his administration are now and will forever be ANTI-PUBLIC LAND!!!!


http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/04/politics/utah-monuments-trump-weir/index.html

 

[baz77]

Is the land that’s not part of the monument no longer public??

 

[Ben Lamb]

Is the land that’s not part of the monument no longer public??

The lands that were carved out of the Monuments no longer have:

1.) Vital wildlife habitat protection against poorly planned development
2.) Guaranteed access for hunters and livestock producers (meaning that if development of a mine or gas field happens, you have no right to expect to be able to use this land for your endeavors)
3.) Ignores the will of most of the regional's tribal gov'ts
4.) ignores the voices of almost 3 million people who commented against this effort.
5.) Puts oil, gas and mining ahead of all other uses, per the Secretaries Executive order on energy dominance.

But yes, it's still public land. It's just not public land that has conservation principles or stipulations applied in order to appease a subset of politicians and lobbyists who have spent decades trying to either eliminate public land entirely, or just put themselves in charge so they don't have to worry about the public.

Big win for the Land transfer crowd today.

 

[Oak]

Does Trump even realize it's still federal land? He doesn't much sound like an opponent of PLT.

https://twitter.com/i/moments/937773523539505152

 

[u1299]

Yep, the pro transfer crowd are loving this shit, question is, are the pro public land advocates who may be responsible for this Administration having buyers remorse? I watched this shit show today and didn’t realize as a Montanan I don’t own any land in Utah, it just belongs to the folks in Utah...Trump said so, believe me...

 

[tim629]

i didn't read the Field & Stream article and didn't vote for POTUS based upon public land transfer status

but would venture to guess 2 things:
-we need to lean on those in the voting chairs a bit harder on the local/state/national level
-most east of the mississippi and possibly quite a few others have NO clue about the harms of public land transfer. I will be 100% honest if it wasn't for Randy explaining it so well in podcasts I sitting here in NY growing up in PA would think "our states do great with public land, let more get managed on a local level instead of a national level" so those on the east coast that may have used it as a bargaining point probably didn't really understand it

 

[LuketheDog]

If they (the previous administration) had used a different, or more correct method to protect those areas, we wouldn't be having this conversation...

 

[375H&H]

You can't hunt in a monument, but you can on standard public land, this sounds like a win for hunters to me. Jobs, and royalties on resources is what makes the west financially possible. Yes, we all have a dream of having the entire west being public lands only for hunting, but that isn't reality. Conservation is developing resources and then setting other land aside to balance the development. Wyoming, who mines and drills the chit out of some of their public lands, has blue ribbon schools and INCREDIBLE hunting, and no income tax due to those mineral royalties.

So Hillary was the better option? Wait...

 

[Ben Lamb]

If they (the previous administration) had used a different, or more correct method to protect those areas, we wouldn't be having this conversation...

I totally agree that congress did fail to do their job in both cases so, using a 100 year old law as it was designed doesn't really seem out of the ordinary, nor is it outside the law. If Congress had acted appropriately, then the use of the Antiquities Act wouldn't have been necessary. However, since congress failed to act, or better yet, refused to act, the President had every right, as granted to him by congress, to conserve lands under the AA as he saw fit.

As has every president since Theodore Roosevelt, who championed this law, and saw it's passage in congress, used it to create the Grand Canyon National Monument while local electeds cried that it would hurt the local economy and that locals didn't want it.

This is a long, century old dance between those who would steal your land, and those who want to protect for future generations.

 

[Ben Lamb]

You can't hunt in a monument, but you can on standard public land, this sounds like a win for hunters to me. Jobs, and royalties on resources is what makes the west financially possible. Yes, we all have a dream of having the entire west being public lands only for hunting, but that isn't reality. Conservation is developing resources and then setting other land aside to balance the development. Wyoming, who mines and drills the chit out of some of their public lands, has blue ribbon schools and INCREDIBLE hunting, and no income tax due to those mineral royalties.

So Hillary was the better option? Wait...

You can hunt in monuments. Most monuments have it in their proclamation that you can hunt in them. Only 1 or 2 in the west that I am aware of where hunting isn't allowed. Many in more populous states do not allow hunting, but then again, seems kind of inappropriate to hunt at the Harriet Tubmann NM, or Stonewall NM.

And yes, for public lands and hunting, Hillary would have been so very much better than this crew.

Here's a good article on why Monuments matter to hunters & anglers: https://www.fieldandstream.com/sportsmans-view-national-monuments

 

[elkduds]

Zinke knew when he took the job that he would be required to make these "recommendations" by his overlord. They are payment by Trump to his funders in gas/oil/mining, and the PLT crowd in UT. This will be in court for years. Hopefully the day after the voters' hand flushes the Trump antienvironment toilet, these and other Monuments will be restored; the EPA will resume actual functioning by listing sage grouse as endangered on the heels of Trump's puppet Zinke obliterating their current bipartisan protection plan. I take action every day to halt Trump's agenda against healthy public lands. I encourage you to do likewise.

 

[Schaaf]

You can't hunt in a monument, but you can on standard public land, this sounds like a win for hunters to me.

That’s odd considering the hardest tag to draw in America consists of almost entirely National Monument land.

 

[375H&H]

I didn't know you could hunt in National Monuments because in Devils Tower you sure can't.

 

[onpoint]

You can't hunt in a monument, but you can on standard public land

These are the type of misinformed, nonspecific, simplistic generalizations that I really appreciate.
Missouri Breaks Nat'l Monument.
Define "standard public land".

 

[Ben Lamb]

I didn't know you could hunt in National Monuments because in Devils Tower you sure can't.

I had forgotten about Devil's Tower. At just over 1,300 acres, I can see why it would not be a good idea to allow hunting in such a heavily trafficked area.

 

[Irrelevant]

On a slightly better note the badger two medicine might get some deserved protections. http://missoulian.com/news/local/zi...cle_379c6778-e01f-5c23-9318-00ecaf4cde95.html

 

[onpoint]

The Badger Two Med had a diverse bunch of folks come together as a group to find common ground which included large conservation and preservation components.
Doesn't look like a groundswell for for these two areas in Utah ever happened that way.
This pains me to say this - maybe I'm getting stupid -
Our Man at the Interior Dept. may be "governing" in Utah differently than Montana according to these differences.
Maybe "Public Lands" really need the citizenry to be engaged, what a thought.......
Or maybe that's not it...................

 

[OriginalOscar]

The lands that were carved out of the Monuments no longer have:

1.) Vital wildlife habitat protection against poorly planned development - Utah has done fine with BLM-FS management. More critters now than 20 years ago.
2.) Guaranteed access for hunters and livestock producers (meaning that if development of a mine or gas field happens, you have no right to expect to be able to use this land for your endeavors) Worst case small areas for limited periods. I've hunted near lots of mines and wells over the years.
3.) Ignores the will of most of the regional's tribal gov'ts Local counties and town officials are against? Native Americans are Americans and have right to vote in county and municipal elections.
4.) ignores the voices of almost 3 million people who commented against this effort. Founding fathers had wisdom to create a republic. If we did things based on opinion polls you'd probably have lost Second Amendment and opportunity to hunt.
5.) Puts oil, gas and mining ahead of all other uses, per the Secretaries Executive order on energy dominance. I'm sure you use the resources God Blessed us with?

But yes, it's still public land. It's just not public land that has conservation principles or stipulations applied in order to appease a subset of politicians and lobbyists who have spent decades trying to either eliminate public land entirely, or just put themselves in charge so they don't have to worry about the public.

Big win for the Land transfer crowd today.

What Trump did today was correct abuse of the Antiquities Act by the last two Provincial Progressive Presidents.

 

[onpoint]

'nuff said. This issue is closed!

 

[Whiptail]

Is hunting on allowed on Colorado National Monument outside of Grand Junction? At just over 20K acres with a bighorn population it seems reasonable but I don't think it's allowed.