Trump to Order Review of National Monuments

[BuzzH]

Sytes,

You're asking the wrong questions...the only one of any value is to ask yourself why the delegation in Utah has kicked the can down the road for at least 5 decades on deciding what to do with this area.

BTW, for the record, how much time have you spent down there to make the determination about how much should have been put under the Monument designation?

 

[BuzzH]

So, I believe it is prudent to review and assess the depth of interest and whether something of this sort would better suit our Representatives review

They had 50+ years to do that very thing...bust the balls that need busting.

 

[Sytes]

Sytes,

You're asking the wrong questions...the only one of any value is to ask yourself why the delegation in Utah has kicked the can down the road for at least 5 decades on deciding what to do with this area.

BTW, for the record, how much time have you spent down there to make the determination about how much should have been put under the Monument designation?

Buzz, I certainly respect the value you have brought and still bring to outdoor enthusiasts though please, debate the topic, not the person. I know you can throw some wicked keyboard punches at a person. You're not there yet with your simple query, though we know you have a strong angle to go there. With respect to my personal touch of the dirt for each area our Antiquities Act has been used to question the use of such Act, specific to Utah, my relatives have an extremely long history within Utah. In fact, my family is key marked within the history museums. Extensive settler livestock history and large land owner legally purchased from a certain tribe. I am not interested in publicly sharing my personal information so partisan extremists may take personal pot shots at myself and my family... thus the reason I am staying on topic and not inquiring of everyone's personal touch of ground for each Antiquities Action within our great country.

 

[BuzzH]

Sytes, if you're going to make the claim that the BE was an over-reach and protected too much...you have to provide proof of that.

I haven't seen anything that makes a clear cut case for the designation being too broad in scope area wise.

The reason I was asking how much time you've spent down there is to help me possibly understand why, specifically you feel there was an "over-reach".

Typically, when I take a position on something I usually have a pretty good grasp on the subject other than just a few straws to cling to.

IMO, and from what you've provided, or more importantly not provided, I see nothing that would change my mind that this designation was in deed an "over-reach". Having spent a bit of time working down that way, and seeing that country, I believe some sort of protections should be afforded the area. While I have no desire to ever live in Utah, I certainly can appreciate the value many put on that area.

I would also ask that you reconsider who's balls you need to bust on this issue...why has Utah, and their Representatives, made the conscious decision to do nothing for 50+ years, and then cry when the decision is made for them?

Is that acceptable behavior to you?

 

[Straight Arrow]

...why has Utah, and their Representatives, made the conscious decision to do nothing for 50+ years, and then cry when the decision is made for them?

My unsubstantiated highly suspicious theory is that those representatives wish to hold out in the hopes of acquiring that land for the state, then selling or exploiting on behalf of their real constituents, the ultra wealthy truly land-grab advocates. That is clearly merely my opinionated conjecture.

The solid point is that this protection and disposition of those critical landscapes is a longstanding topic of debate with input and argument from a large array of stakeholders and others, which warranted some sort of action. This scenario is typical of the many that ultimately culminated in a National Monument designation. It exemplifies one reason for the congressional authority being given to the executive desk where the buck stops.

 

[BuzzH]

My unsubstantiated highly suspicious theory is that those representatives wish to hold out in the hopes of acquiring that land for the state, then selling or exploiting on behalf of their real constituents, the ultra wealthy truly land-grab advocates. That is clearly merely my opinionated conjecture.

The solid point is that this protection and disposition of those critical landscapes is a longstanding topic of debate with input and argument from a large array of stakeholders and others, which warranted some sort of action. This scenario is typical of the many that ultimately culminated in a National Monument designation. It exemplifies one reason for the congressional authority being given to the executive desk where the buck stops.

Pretty solid theory, and one I agree with...in particular when Utah's last State land sale netted over 5 million, the most valuable being those pieces near BE's, Arches, and Zion.

 

[Sytes]

Sytes, if you're going to make the claim that the BE was an over-reach and protected too much...you have to provide proof of that.

I haven't seen anything that makes a clear cut case for the designation being too broad in scope area wise.

The reason I was asking how much time you've spent down there is to help me possibly understand why, specifically you feel there was an "over-reach".

Typically, when I take a position on something I usually have a pretty good grasp on the subject other than just a few straws to cling to.

IMO, and from what you've provided, or more importantly not provided, I see nothing that would change my mind that this designation was in deed an "over-reach". Having spent a bit of time working down that way, and seeing that country, I believe some sort of protections should be afforded the area. While I have no desire to ever live in Utah, I certainly can appreciate the value many put on that area.

I would also ask that you reconsider who's balls you need to bust on this issue...why has Utah, and their Representatives, made the conscious decision to do nothing for 50+ years, and then cry when the decision is made for them?

Is that acceptable behavior to you?

Acceptable. Thanks.

Re: my stake in this. It is simple... As an American;

1. I would rather see our Democratic due process take lead on issues such as this - due to the size.

2. The size to protect valuable tribal, "sacred" areas without the need to encompass 1.7 million acres as a monument fits my opinion of quality Antiquities Act use.

I support a President's use of the Antiquities Act. I support the Antiquities Act use for Bears Ears to "...the limits of which in all cases shall be confined to the smallest area compatible..." I care not for what side of the aisle to stand on to squish the opposition's, balls. I'm neither an R nor D. I support public lands. I support public access. I support our Democratic due process. I do not need to hold the dirt in my hand to say 1.7 million acres is an over-reach for the Antiquities Act to protect the select vital interests that may be lost if not acted immediately to protect.

Edit to add:

My focus would be to protect the specific areas that hold historic value such as the sacred tribal areas. It does not require 1.7 million acres simply to throw a wide net over the general area. I believe that defeats the purpose of the Act trying to keep it as small as possible. Their issue with a lack of enforcement over ATV use is simply a lack of federal enforcement, not a concern over loss of significant historical value, as an example.

 

[Schaaf]

The Department of Interior will be accepting public comment on the Monuments under review after May 12th.

https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/interior-department-releases-list-monuments-under-review-announces-first-ever-formal

I will be very surprised if we get to see the total number of letters opposed vs. for the monuments.

 

[noharleyyet]

Didn't we have this conversation back in December when some posters pointed out that lame duck eye jabs would bring consequences. Why the wailing and snot bubbles now?

The chosen one 'was' good at lines in the sand....lets give him another pass on this one.

 

[tjones]

Ya it is hard to believe folks in western states would want to protect public land.

 

[noharleyyet]

No need to edit...we both know whom you were being 'gentle' with .

 

[jryoung]

I love that Berryessa Snow Mountain is under review. It had support from all 5 county's Board of Supervisors, over 300 local businesses and organizations, and every outdoor group imaginable from tree huggers, hook and bullet, to Blue Ribbon Coalition. Descent at the public hearings was like 1:25.

 

[Sytes]

I love that Berryessa Snow Mountain is under review. It had support from all 5 county's Board of Supervisors, over 300 local businesses and organizations, and every outdoor group imaginable from tree huggers, hook and bullet, to Blue Ribbon Coalition. Descent at the public hearings was like 1:25.

I believe it is, "under review" simply because it is over 100,000 acres and within the last couple decades.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-pres...der-review-designations-under-antiquities-act

Sec. 2. Review of National Monument Designations. (a) The Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) shall conduct a review of all Presidential designations or expansions of designations under the Antiquities Act made since January 1, 1996, where the designation covers more than 100,000 acres, where the designation after expansion covers more than 100,000 acres, or where the Secretary determines that the designation or expansion was made without adequate public outreach and coordination with relevant stakeholders, to determine whether each designation or expansion conforms to the policy set forth in section 1 of this order.

 

[Nameless Range]

I believe it is, "under review" simply because it is over 100,000 acres and within the last decade.

There are 21 year old monuments under review. The Upper Missouri Breaks Monument is 16 years old....

 

[Schaaf]

There are 21 year old monuments under review. The Upper Missouri Breaks Monument is 16 years old....

It had to go back 21 years for Grand Staircase-Escalante. You know, for their "review".

 

[Straight Arrow]

Trump's EO to review monuments will be yet another huge waste of time, efforts, and taxpayer money. Consider the possible options for Zinke and Trump if the review concludes that the monument(s) should be abolished, reduced, or somehow otherwise modified.
1. History to date shows analysis of abolishing or reducing a monument by a sitting President in disagreement with a prior President's monument designation is not authorized by the Act. So either Congress will have to spend an inordinate amount of legislative time and effort in revising the Act or Trump can take it to the Supreme Court. Either case is wasted time, effort and taxpayer dollars ... and may not ultimately affect those already established National Monuments.
2. The Utah congressional crowd may persuade Trump to ask Congress to repeal the Act or a congressional representative may introduce a bill to do such. In view of the difficulty in repealing Obama's ACA when it was such a widespread Republican vow and goal, it seems it would be much more difficult to repeal and disrespect ... and actually destroy the legacy of a well-thought-of former President like Teddy Roosevelt.
3. Another more longshot option is that, as the "fact check" article points out, the Bears Ears Monument may actually be too small and thus be recommended for expansion. Wouldn't that be a reason for celebration in Indian country, with a powwow sponsored by Patagonia?
As I see it, this "review" will become another debacle to further generate entertainment and disdain from the rest of the world. Europeans and Asians who flock to the US as tourists to behold the natural wonders, sacred places, and beautiful federal public lands will be convinced that our legislative and executive branches of government are completely out of touch and expending valuable focus on the wrong issues. The rest of the world views American protection of those special places as wise and with the forethought they wish their ancestors would have had.

 

[Sytes]

There are 21 year old monuments under review. The Upper Missouri Breaks Monument is 16 years old....

Ya. My edit bumped in a minute before your post. My bad.

 

[efw]

Damn, Trump loves those executive orders he used to detest when Obama signed them. TR must be spinning in his grave.

It's my understanding that most Reps had issues with over reaching exec orders made to sidestep legislative action and judicial review.

This one asks people under his command to review policies to bring clarity to an issue. This is what exec orders are meant for.

Sounds like we need to be sure to write the correct admin and let them know what we think.

 

[Straight Arrow]

This is what exec orders are meant for.

Are they meant to reach back twenty years (five Presidential terms) and question the Antiquities Act decisions of those prior Presidents and administrations? 'Seems like an order that is narrowly agenda-driven or merely says, "I know better than my predecessors, as I'm much smarter than those Presidents."

 

[Gr8bawana]

Are they meant to reach back twenty years (five Presidential terms) and question the Antiquities Act decisions of those prior Presidents and administrations? 'Seems like an order that is narrowly agenda-driven or merely says, "I know better than my predecessors, as I'm much smarter than those Presidents."

That would cover only the last 3 presidents, 8 years of Obama, 8 years of Bush Jr. and 8 years of Clinton.
I guess they couldn't just come right out and say "we only want a review of the last 2 Democratic administrations".