The Antiquities Act of 1906

[Nemont]

A leader would show up, sit down and have a discussion with people who live there.

Where do you get that notion? Who exactly would have sat down with this "leader" had he shown up? Your Governor had no interest, nor Bishop, Chaffetz, Lee etc. Why do you discount the input of the Tribes? Aren't they local as well? Did your congressional delegation lift a single finger to get these lands protected or were they playing Lucy Football with the issue waiting for a new "leader" to be sworn in?

http://www.sltrib.com/news/4159848-155/utah-guv-calls-pro-bears-ears-monument

It isn't whether Utah resident are being punished, it is that Utah's congressional delegation is bent of destroying access all over the west. So by extension the people who continue to vote for these PLT proponents get painted with the same brush. I can only judge that majority people from Utah must support the idea of PLT because they continue to send these guys and gal back to DC every election. How else should anyone see it?

Nemont

 

[u1299]

Some truth to that, but Bears Ears has been looking for protection since the 1930's, and Reid has been pushing for Gold Butte for a long time as well. There is local support for both of these, and thanks to the congress of no we've had, the president has used his lawful authority to end the debate and make them monuments.

It would also ignore the conservation legacy that President Obama has carefully crafted. Sportsmen haven't had it this good for a long time, nor will they again, when it comes to public land, the management there of, citizen involvement and true multiple use management rather than simply adhering to the old adage of drill now, worry later.

Ben, Your last paragraph pretty much says it all, my sentiments exactly. I doubt you'll convince any sportsmen who don't already believe it, but it needed to be said and it couldn't have been said any better. Shorten it up a bit, it would make a great bumper sticker!

 

[cfree]

This is an interesting subject. I would have to say that for the most part, as an Arizona resident and a hunter most of the monument designations have been fine. Saguaro NM has been a disaster for the desert sheep since it tied AZGFD's hands on creating and maintaining water catchments. But generally they appear to have little impact, except for another layer of bureaucracy to overcome that forces decision making time to a near standstill.

What I don't fully understand is how they brought to the president's attention. Is it promoted by special interest lobbyists? With the likely addition of the Grand Canyon Watershed nearly the entire state of AZ north of the Grand Canyon will become a NM. In Arizona we have more national monuments than Alaska, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming combined. I love AZ and all its diversity but that seems rather odd. I think as with all federal government powers, there should be some oversight or restriction otherwise they tend to be abused. I am not sure if the original intent of the Act is what is currently taking place. It seems to have been intended to be used sparingly yet 2 of the last 3 presidents have proposed 1/3 of all the national monuments since it's inception, 45 or more and counting. I don't think it would hurt to restrict the number and/or scope that a president can propose, it might even help prioritize those areas that truly need protection over those that might look good for a "legacy". Maybe 1 per state per year, or even 5 total per term or something along those lines. It's probably time to reign in the executive branch a little bit.

 

[BuzzH]

A leader would show up, sit down and have a discussion with people who live there. Easy comment when your state is 99% privately owned.

dukes_daddy, I really appreciate the civil dialogue and I am in no way trying to discredit all of your points. I also agree that there should be plenty of local input on all kinds of management decisions. But your last post directed to NHY is one of the reasons why I hesitate to give any more weight to the locals. Just because a guy lives in Texas, doesn't mean that he doesn't care, or that he doesn't understand the issues surrounding Federal lands. He, and all other Americans, no matter their zip code, have a vested interest, and IMO, a civic duty to address these types of issues.

Another thing to consider, is that I cant tell you how many times in the last 5 or so years, that I've attended meetings of all kinds...game and fish, Forest planning meetings, RMP meetings, Travel plans, etc. where turnout was embarrassing. Turnout from the "locals" is less than stellar...by a long damn shot. I've actually been the only person at 2 of these types of meetings, and one of only a handful at many others. Its pretty damn tough for a manager to know what the locals think when the locals don't show up for anything.

Its also very apparent that many of the State and Federal Legislators simply DO NOT sit down with the FS, BLM, NPS, etc. very often or even at all. Yet, they waste no opportunity to bitch and complain about over-reach but again, they aren't even willing to sit down and talk.

Finally, something I hear many times when talking to my county commissioners, State Senators, Congressmen, secretary of state, etc. is that they greatly appreciate getting input from their constituents. Sometimes, they even listen and do the right thing.

 

[jzeck2]

And where did I say any of that or anything remotely close to that? I didn't.

If that is how you want to take comments that explain my perspective about the net long-term benefits/detriments the Gold Butte/Bears Ear actions will have on the bigger picture of landscape conservation, knock yourself out.

I very much respect your perspective that you don't believe this is in the long term interest of the AA and public lands. But what about my perspective that being if not now when? By not using the AA to protect these two pieces of land will the public lands transfer folks be appeased. I think they will use any means to dismantle the the AA as they have been trying to do since its inception and also to transfer public lands to facilitate ultimate disposal regardless of the presidential action.

Really not trying to put words into your mouth just trying to bring another perspective to the group that being mine.

 

[Big Fin]

I very much respect your perspective that you don't believe this is in the long term interest of the AA and public lands. But what about my perspective that being if not now when? By not using the AA to protect these two pieces of land will the public lands transfer folks be appeased. I think they will use any means to dismantle the the AA as they have been trying to do since its inception and also to transfer public lands to facilitate ultimate disposal regardless of the presidential action.

If you think my concerns are about tying to appease the transfer crowd, you clearly have a different comprehension of those comments when you read them than I had when I wrote them. I doubt you realize how much of my time and energy is invested in battling the transfer folks and how many attacks, financial and credibility attacks, they make on this and other platforms we produce. You likely have not read/listened to my lack of concern over the snivelers in the transfer crowd. Nothing will appease the transfer crowd. I ignore their whining, as they will always whine. Nothing I wrote is based on worry about appeasing the transfer crazies, in spite of how you want to spin it.

If you had read my comments with intent of trying to be objective, you would read something different than the words you put in my mouth with your post. You would read that in my mind this will force many moderate Republicans to move to the right on this issue or face getting removed in primaries. Those moderate Republicans are the most valuable allies we have in this effort. You would read that it weakens the elect-ability for western Democrats who are good on this issue in western states and they are dearly needed for balance on this issue in Congress. You would read that it will make the next four years a lot harder than it otherwise would, when it comes to holding the ground (as much as can be held) on public lands, conservation, and agency priority/budgets. You would read that this will make it a hell of a lot easier to junk the Antiquities Act.

If you doubt any of those as being very real possibilities to be considered when analyzing the net long-term benefit/detriment, then we likely have vastly different experiences in our respective involvement on these issues at the local, regional, and national levels. If you disagree that these are risks, I'm fine with you disagreeing. Say so and provide your rationale for debunking these risks I provided. So far, you haven't provided anything relevant to that analysis.

If people think these protections are worth the long-term damage that can be created in the time it takes for the current powerholders to get themselves unelected, that is fine also. Time will eventually show whether my concerns are unfounded, or not. My comments to Belly Deep's question were points to consider in making that analysis today, without the benefit of hindsight.

If providing some perspective that considers possible long-term impacts from these two monument decisions is "caving in," or whatever term some want to imply, then fine. Given my daily immersion in the public land issue, at many levels, I'm pretty confident in my assertion that these designations are not without some possible costs; in spite of the implications that voicing such is an effort to appease the candy asses over in the transfer movement.

Really not trying to put words into your mouth.......

Go read your post that started this exchange. That is exactly what you did.

 

[OriginalOscar]

dukes_daddy, I really appreciate the civil dialogue and I am in no way trying to discredit all of your points. I also agree that there should be plenty of local input on all kinds of management decisions. But your last post directed to NHY is one of the reasons why I hesitate to give any more weight to the locals. Just because a guy lives in Texas, doesn't mean that he doesn't care, or that he doesn't understand the issues surrounding Federal lands. He, and all other Americans, no matter their zip code, have a vested interest, and IMO, a civic duty to address these types of issues.

Another thing to consider, is that I cant tell you how many times in the last 5 or so years, that I've attended meetings of all kinds...game and fish, Forest planning meetings, RMP meetings, Travel plans, etc. where turnout was embarrassing. Turnout from the "locals" is less than stellar...by a long damn shot. I've actually been the only person at 2 of these types of meetings, and one of only a handful at many others. Its pretty damn tough for a manager to know what the locals think when the locals don't show up for anything.

Its also very apparent that many of the State and Federal Legislators simply DO NOT sit down with the FS, BLM, NPS, etc. very often or even at all. Yet, they waste no opportunity to bitch and complain about over-reach but again, they aren't even willing to sit down and talk.

Finally, something I hear many times when talking to my county commissioners, State Senators, Congressmen, secretary of state, etc. is that they greatly appreciate getting input from their constituents. Sometimes, they even listen and do the right thing.

Agreed all Americans have an interest in public lands and their management. I would challenge you to take a trip to southern Utah and ask the folks who live there if they feel involved in the process? You'd see they are not drill, rip and development minded. They simply want to have a seat at the table and they did not have one again. Same thing happened in 1995 when Clinton designated Grand Staircase.

Abuse of the Antiquities Act has been addressed in the past and hopefully Utah will be able to seek redress in the next congress similar to what Wyoming and Alaska have been given.

Presidential powers under the Act have been reduced twice. The first time followed the unpopular proclamation of Jackson Hole National Monument in 1943. The 1950 law that incorporated Jackson Hole into an enlarged Grand Teton National Park also amended the Antiquities Act, requiring Congressional consent for any future creation or enlargement of National Monuments in Wyoming.[6] The second time followed Jimmy Carter's use of the Act to create fifty-six million acres (230,000 km²) of National Monuments in Alaska. The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act requires Congressional ratification of the use of the Antiquities Act in Alaska for withdrawals of greater than 5,000 acres (20.2 km²).[7]

 

[jzeck2]

Go read your post that started this exchange. That is exactly what you did.

We are allies on this issue, and somewhere along the line I offended without intending to offend and I am sorry for that. I think there is room for objectiveness from both sides of the isle, in fact the space has pretty much been abandoned in our ever more polarized society.

Are there dangers facing our public lands, I think we both agree on that. Do these actions under the AA provide fuel to that fire, the answer we both agree on is yes. Our point of disagreement seems to be how much fuel does it add to the fire and does any amount of fuel make much of a difference.

I have no control on what the President chooses to do (though I support his right to do it) as I have no control over how idiots on the land transfer side chose to use it to their benefit.

We both believe we have a ton of work to do to protect our public lands and we have already wasted to much time and effort trying to convince one another what this action means (your original post) and if it was worth it (our point of disagreement that I injected it seems). For better or worse what is done is done as far as the AA action and we (you and I along with the rest of those who love our public lands) have to clean up the messes left by others on both sides and find a way forward. I'm looking for guidance from you and others on how to best do that.

Again I apologize for my unattended portrayal of your position in a manor that was objectionable to you, I hope you can understand my position on this matter as well.

 

[Big Fin]

We are allies on this issue, and somewhere along the line I offended without intending to offend and I am sorry for that. I think there is room for objectiveness from both sides of the isle, in fact the space has pretty much been abandoned in our ever more polarized society.

Are there dangers facing our public lands, I think we both agree on that. Do these actions under the AA provide fuel to that fire, the answer we both agree on is yes. Our point of disagreement seems to be how much fuel does it add to the fire and does any amount of fuel make much of a difference.

I have no control on what the President chooses to do (though I support his right to do it) as I have no control over how idiots on the land transfer side chose to use it to their benefit.

We both believe we have a ton of work to do to protect our public lands and we have already wasted to much time and effort trying to convince one another what this action means (your original post) and if it was worth it (our point of disagreement that I injected it seems). For better or worse what is done is done as far as the AA action and we (you and I along with the rest of those who love our public lands) have to clean up the messes left by others on both sides and find a way forward. I'm looking for guidance from you and others on how to best do that.

Again I apologize for my unattended portrayal of your position in a manor that was objectionable to you, I hope you can understand my position on this matter as well.

Agree. No apology necessary.

 

[grandejuan]

An interesting by product of the AA is the budgetary quagmire that has resulted. The park service now has to take over from the BLM/FS. Our "real" national parks (glacier,grand canyon etc), are all part of the Interior Dept budget and are all underfunded. Sooo each addition to the park service really subtracts from the real crown jewels of the park service. Even if the park service budget is increased it never is proportional. Something that should be thought about. GJ