The Antiquities Act of 1906

[Ben Lamb]

One of Theodore Roosevelt's most defining pieces of legislation, and a source of constant irritation for some lawmakers since inception, the Antiquities Act was passed in 1906 and gave broad power in conservation to a sitting President. Given the likelihood of repeal in the next congress (at least in the House), and the conversation related to Bears Ear & Gold Butte, it seemed like an opportune time to put some information out about the act, and most importantly, why TR thought we needed to have it:

The National Park Service has a very good website on the act which is well referenced and contains some good historical information:
https://www.nps.gov/archeology/sites/antiquities/about.htm

The Antiquities Act stands as an important achievement in the progress of conservation and preservation efforts in the United States. Its effects are still felt. The Act created the basis for the federal government’s efforts to protect archeological sites from looting and vandalism. It provided a foundation of public policy from which more specific public attention to and preservation of historic places and structures, cultural landscapes, and other cultural resources developed during the course of the 20th century. Today, many different organizations cooperate in diverse partnerships, including governments at the Federal, state, tribal and local levels; professional and scholarly groups; and communities. In shaping public policy to protect a broad array of cultural and natural resources, the impact of the Antiquities Act is unmatched.

From the Theodore Roosevelt Center at Dickinson State University:
http://www.theodorerooseveltcenter....Conservation/The-Antiquities-Act-of-1906.aspx

The Antiquities Act of 1906 was deemed necessary after two decades of looting, desecration, and destruction of Native American sites in the Southwest such as Chaco Canyon and Cliff Palace. The bill was the result of several years’ work by, among others, Representative John F. Lacey and Senator Jonathan P. Dolliver of Iowa (the latter a friend of Theodore Roosevelt) and Representative John F. Shafroth and Senator Thomas M. Patterson of Colorado. On June 8, 1906, President Theodore Roosevelt signed the bill, which had been finally sponsored by Patterson in the Senate and Lacey in the House. The Act for the Preservation of Antiquities (also called the Lacey Act) was an intentionally broad piece of legislation to set aside "historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest" in order to stop their destruction. As it was worded, either the President or Congress could establish national monuments under the Antiquities Act. Roosevelt quickly took advantage of the authority given him and the wide variety of sites allowed by the bill.

Here is a somewhat dated list of National Monuments protected by the Antiquities Act:
https://www.npca.org/resources/2658...iquities-act#sm.0001852axu4zqeebzdw2hw9yhn2j1

 

[JoseCuervo]

Fun Fact: The law allows a President to create a monument, but there is no provision to allow a monument to be repealed by a president.

The Antiquities Act simply states "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.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Very correct. An AG opinion has set the precedent as well, so we'd need a new AG opinion or an act of congress to remove the designation.

Our incoming Secretary of the Interior, who bills himself as a TR republican, has voted to gut this TR signature Act.

 

[OriginalOscar]

Didn't need 1.3M acres https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41330.pdf

Page 7.

Monument Size
In establishing a national monument, the President is required by the Antiquities Act to reserve
“the smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of the objects to be
protected.”25

 

[belly-deep]

So the question I have is was the Gold Butte/Bears Ears thing a good move in the long term?

 

[BuzzH]

So the question I have is was the Gold Butte/Bears Ears thing a good move in the long term?

With Utah and its wonderful delegation of land transfer cheerleaders, combined with the pending lawsuit...and legislation to transfer public lands in Nevada, there is no doubt it was a good move.

Utah has been rewarded justly in my opinion. The people that live there keep buying the snake oil that Lee, Bishop, Chaffetz, etc. are selling. Mainly that every last acre of Federal and State land in Utah should be mined, logged, grazed, have an ATV trail on it, and then eventually sold for housing, malls, etc.

 

[noharleyyet]

so we'd need a new AG opinion or an act of congress to remove the designation.

...and what better way to motivate a new administration and congress than tapping the glass with an 11th hour middle finger salute. "If you want to influence policy, win an election"...who said that...

 

[mottlet]

...and what better way to motivate a new administration and congress than tapping the glass with an 11th hour middle finger salute. "If you want to influence policy, win an election"...who said that...

So in order to protect it, we should not protect it in order to avoid making them angry so that they don't undo the protections we didn't put in place? Mighty fine straw man you've built there. Granted, I've assumed that protecting public lands is a shared starting point...

 

[OriginalOscar]

With Utah and its wonderful delegation of land transfer cheerleaders, combined with the pending lawsuit...and legislation to transfer public lands in Nevada, there is no doubt it was a good move.

Utah has been rewarded justly in my opinion. The people that live there keep buying the snake oil that Lee, Bishop, Chaffetz, etc. are selling. Mainly that every last acre of Federal and State land in Utah should be mined, logged, grazed, have an ATV trail on it, and then eventually sold for housing, malls, etc.

That's thoughtful and positive! The majority of Utahn's approve of some form of protection for areas that are worthy. The issue with this monument is scope (1.3M acres) and the process. The counties affected are over 90% public lands

Private Ownership - San Juan County 8%, Garfield County 5%, Grand County 4%, Wayne County 4%

with existing federal rules and regulations. The process followed the same disregard for rural America which the progressive agenda follows. Not a single elected official at the city, county, or state level supported another monument.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Not a single elected official at the city, county, or state level supported another monument.

Are you certain about that assertion, Dukes? According to a late December 2016 news release,

U.S. Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell and U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack today joined tribes, members of Congress, state and local officials, and local business and community leaders in applauding the President’s designation of the Bears Ears National Monument in southeastern Utah and the Gold Butte National Monument ...

 

[Ben Lamb]

Didn't need 1.3M acres https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41330.pdf

Page 7.

The Tribal proposal had a larger footprint. This one made concessions to opposition and reduced the size. Which archaeological feature or cultural landscape didn't belong in there?

 

[noharleyyet]

So in order to protect it, we should not protect it in order to avoid making them angry so that they don't undo the protections we didn't put in place? Mighty fine straw man you've built there. Granted, I've assumed that protecting public lands is a shared starting point...

You'd assume wrong but don't let that keep you from picking low fruit from a high horse.

 

[Big Fin]

So the question I have is was the Gold Butte/Bears Ears thing a good move in the long term?

To me, this is the most relevant question, but in today's two-year election cycle mindset nobody looks at what we would consider the "long-term." In my opinion, the answer to your question is "NO."

That doesn't mean the lands involved in these designations did not warrant some sort of protection. Yet, when one looks at the long-term view, combined with the current political climate in the west, adding in who controls all three houses in DC, it is hard to see a future where this action does not result in a net loss of protections over the long-term.

Is the Gold Butte/Bears Ears worth losing the powers of the Antiquities Act that can be very beneficial when used with consideration and discretion?

Is it worth pissing off the entire Republican side of the western Congressional delegation and making them more anti-public land, in the process and making the moderates among their group prime targets for primary losses if they don't jump on the anti-(insert anything public land here) wagon?

Is it worth placing moderate Democrats of the western Congressional delegation in a corner where they become even more vulnerable?

Is it worth making new Administrative appointees targets for the anti-(anything public land) zealots and making their very difficult jobs even harder with the composition of the current Congress and the policy direction and budget discretion that will be imposed?​

Has it accomplished enough benefit to offset the items I mention above? Not in my mind. The ability to protect critical areas in the future has placed in jeopardy for the short-term gains some find in these two monument designations.

If the President continues down this path between now and his last day in office, there is a very good chance I will be standing among those asking for repeal of the Antiquities Act. Before him is a proposal for the Grand Canyon Watershed NM, which if any hunter understands that landscape and has hunted there and seen how dependent wildlife (feral burros not being wildlife) has become on man-made water sources and how low the animal densities are, I seriously doubt they would see any net benefit in the Grand Canyon NM proposal.

Congress granted the Executive office the powers when they passed the Antiquities Act. They can surely take that power back. Within the next month we will see if the current administration is willing to push this game even further.

As much as the Utah delegation had their chance to find solutions other than the Antiquities Act, so did the President when he had a Democratic Congress led by Harry Reid, a retiring Senator from the state where Gold Butte is located who has a long track record of selling BLM lands to his pals so they can build more homes in the Vegas metroplex. To get to a point where both sides had opportunity to complete large landscape designations in a different manner shows just how eff'd up our political process has become.

The eye-for-an-eye manner of governance benefits nobody, other than they guy holding the sharp stick and doing the eye-poking. Both sides are equally guilty. If the Antiquities Act is repealed, there will be enough blame for both sides.

 

[BuzzH]

That's thoughtful and positive!

That's reality. Actions matter, and if you can find an example of Lee, Bishop, Chaffetz, or your good Governor Herbie backing off on the PLT, or that Utah has dropped its lawsuit, I'm willing to listen. Funny too that you give all the political turds in Utah a pass when they've had DECADES to address further protections that could have avoided Monument status. Bishop sure did a great job with his public lands "initiative"...what a joke!

The majority of Utahn's approve of some form of protection for areas that are worthy. The issue with this monument is scope (1.3M acres) and the process.

The process has been the same since 1906...deal with it.

The counties affected are over 90% public lands with existing federal rules and regulations. The process followed the same disregard for rural America which the progressive agenda follows. Not a single elected official at the city, county, or state level supported another monument.

Yes, no doubt there are federal rules. But, again, when the Utah delegation of idiots is trying to seize Federal lands for the State...how would those "regulations and rules" apply? Also, if the Utah delegation was at all serious about enforcing those "federal rules and regulations" on federal lands, why are they also hell bent on DEFUNDING the very agencies charged with enforcing those rules and regulations?

Enforcement, like management, costs money and YOUR Congressmen and Senators have no interest in funding either management or law enforcement. For Christ sake...Chaffetz tried to strip Federal Law enforcement authority on federal lands!!!

You can complain all you want, but Utah had this coming and in a big way.

Oh, and NHY, what about the middle finger that Utah has sent to the "Feds"? They had every opportunity to get this right, instead they kept poking the "bear(s) ear"...and now are pouting that they got bit in the ass. Maybe Utah is just mad their middle finger isn't quite as big...

 

[roknHS]

I have a general opinion on the addition of more millions of acres locked up in the West by Washington DC idiots, grandstanding on the backs of states and local populations. If the millions and millions of acres have met the stringent criteria for Wilderness, Primitive or Monument designation, it means the Western states have done a pretty good job of taking care of it. Locking it up with more layers of federal regulations and relying on some federal agency to manage it seems counter productive to me. In many instances, access to these areas becomes more difficult if not impossible for the average person, not to mention the aged and handicapped. I see no advantage to more federal interference for these wild places. I think the feds should designate a 50 block square area in the New York City business center a national monument, limit the access to 4 designated entry points, not allow any new building or renovation, make it foot traffic only, limit the number of people allowed in the area at any one time, make it mandatory to pack out your garbage in a backpack, limit the length of time a person can stay in the area...........let's lock it up and make it better by federal regulation. Let's preserve it for future generations. Don't allow anything to change in that area.........no matter what the State or local population wants........I may decide to go and look at that monument someday and I want to see it just as it is.

 

[noharleyyet]

Oh, and NHY, what about the middle finger that Utah has sent to the "Feds"?

Utah didn't consult me Buzz...you?

 

[Ben Lamb]

Randy,

I understand your perspective, but respectfully disagree. The Antiquities Act was in the crosshairs long before this, and will be long after. They've been attemping to erode or repeal it since 1906.

To your points:

1.) The power shift represented the greatest threat to the Antiquities Act, not the implementation of it. People in EMont are still making hay out of the Breaks Monument, which has been proven to be a good thing for Montanans and for public lands. GSENM is still a flash point, 20 years later. The controversy surrounding the Antiquities Act is much larger than this President or any other. It's about control of public lands, and who gets to make the decisions. Certainly these monuments will cause the House to act irrationally and punitively, but that doesn't mean that the attacks wouldn't have been as fervored or as frequent if the President hadn't used them to protect those lands. Look at the Grand Canyon for example - when Roosevelt made it a Monument, all of the same arguments against it are being used 100 years later. Was the designation of the Grand Canyon a bad thing? The Breaks?

2.) Over the last couple of congresses, the attempts at eliminating, transferring, weakening and selling public lands have escalated significantly. The same bills that we've beaten back in the last 6 years will be coming back not due to the use of the Antiquities Act, but because the votes now exist to pass them along with a president elect who would likely sign them (Although I'm not sure Trump would sign something making him less authoritarian). Much like the spotted owl was an excuse to go after the ESA, Monuments are simply the excuse, not the cause, of the attacks against conservation measures.

3.) Moderate Dems can navigate this fairly easily. Especially against a crew that has claimed to be "TR Republicans." If Congress votes to eliminate TR's signature bill, I can personally see millions being pumped in to western states to push back against that legacy revocation. Politically, the Antiquities Act is a windmill of wonkishness. People won't want to have a loss of conservation authority according to most polling from respected firms and tracks with the long term average in polls like the Colorado College Conservation in the West Series. While it may be easy pickings in rural areas, elimination of the act won't play well in metropolitan centers where most of the votes exist. Our Gubernatorial election showed that in a limited scope.

4.) Yes, it is worth making the new administration stand up and make a decision about whether or not they'll live up to their rhetoric and defend the signature Theodore Roosevelt legislation. If they can't do that, then they shouldn't lay claim to the title of conservationist. Life it tough, it's tougher when you're in power. Bishop and company were emboldened by the election. This use of the AA is simply more fodder for them to use in Washington D.C. to push a radical, anti-sportsman agenda. It's not the straw that broke the camel's back - it's just the latest PR tool for them to use.

While I agree that the Grand Canyon NM is a bad idea and certainly not fully-baked (and have told the current administration this), I don't see it being enacted. Last report I heard is that the monument backers are disappointed that they'll have to wait until such time as a friendly administration is in place.

Not doing something worthwhile because you will face backlash is bad precedent to begin. It means nothing will ever happen. If it's a good idea, and I think both of these are, then it's worth fighting for. We're going to have these fights regardless of any action that the President would have taken. Just as Bishop & Co. will use these are PR spin to speak of the injustice of one of America's flagship conservation laws, we can use it to highlight a 110 year record of conserving some of America's crown jewels - Bears Ear included.

Lizard hunting outside of Canyonlands, in what is now a piece of Bears Ears:

 

[Big Fin]

In addition to the comments I provided in the long-term perspective, the Utah delegation is standing on the table shouting to have State Rep. Noel appointed as the BLM Director. That worry might be a short-term view, given he would only be there for four years, eight years at the max. If you read and study his positions on public land management and ownership, most public land advocates would rather have Dracula running the BLM.

Is this monument effort going to be the push that gets Noel across the goal line for BLM Director? I don't know, but phone calls and emails since yesterday afternoon seem to say that it has given Noel a much greater chance than he had before. Just that, in my mind, would be an expensive price to pay for protecting Gold Butte/Bears Ear with the Antiquities Act.

 

[JoseCuervo]

I have a general opinion on the addition of more millions of acres locked up in the West by Washington DC idiots, grandstanding on the backs of states and local populations. If the millions and millions of acres have met the stringent criteria for Wilderness, Primitive or Monument designation, it means the Western states have done a pretty good job of taking care of it. Locking it up with more layers of federal regulations and relying on some federal agency to manage it seems counter productive to me. In many instances, access to these areas becomes more difficult if not impossible for the average person, not to mention the aged and handicapped. I see no advantage to more federal interference for these wild places. I think the feds should designate a 50 block square area in the New York City business center a national monument, limit the access to 4 designated entry points, not allow any new building or renovation, make it foot traffic only, limit the number of people allowed in the area at any one time, make it mandatory to pack out your garbage in a backpack, limit the length of time a person can stay in the area...........let's lock it up and make it better by federal regulation. Let's preserve it for future generations. Don't allow anything to change in that area.........no matter what the State or local population wants........I may decide to go and look at that monument someday and I want to see it just as it is.

It appears you don't know much about what you speak.

Two points:

First, many of the lands are not being "locked up" because they are pristine and they have been managed properly, but they are threatened and they special and unique qualities.


And second, you don't know anything about New York City and all the National Parks already there. Of the 22 national parks in New York State, 10 are in New York City. Every year 12 million people visit these parks, monuments, and historic sites, more than 27,000 acres of protected land and preserved past.

So, while you might have thought you and the guy on the barstool next to you had came up with some witty response to those who like to hunt and fish on public lands, you really just exposed the lack of oxygen that resides in a smokey bar during daylight hours.

 

[Straight Arrow]

If the Antiquities Act is repealed, there will be enough blame for both sides.

Big Fin, although there is likely wide agreement with that, still there is a converse argument that this is short-term. Even if the Republican Congress can uncharacteristically unite to pass such a controversial repeal bill (recently Congress has difficulty passing legislation even widely agreed as needed), long term ramifications may result in future enactment of even stronger land protection authority passed by a Democratic Congress, which is likely as the pendulum swings in opposition to what many predict to be eventually highly unpopular Republican decisions and adverse national impacts.