Zinke to tour Bears Ears on Monday

[Straight Arrow]

Sytes, as a sportsman I am truly sorry you are expressing desire for less protection of special places on this earth versus maintaining their natural state. Whining about lack of "democratic process" is a red herring.

 

[Sytes]

Damn... I've been exposed... Where's the green decoy fund?

 

[Straight Arrow]

Just up the list fourteen clicks from the red herring fund.

 

[BuzzH]

Yep, truly is a red herring...

Sytes, the act doesn't draw any distinction on what an appropriate size is for national monuments under the Antiquities Act. There are no size limits mentioned...you're reading into the Act what you believe to be appropriate. Its not based on fact, just your opinion that the designations are too large.

Its also flawed logic to know what TR had in mind or what congress had in mind, with the antiquities act when it was passed. I could argue that the Act was more a starting point to help preserve the most imperiled areas at the time, with the idea and/or hope that future generations expand the idea of conservation. With increased awareness, perhaps TR thought it would lead to expanding protection over larger areas. This would be my guess, as the man had vision that very few had at that time, and it seems very few have even now.

You're a perfect example, you want to make the decision that the area in question is too large...why not give the next generation, or the one after that, the option of making some land management decisions in these type of areas? Its not always about what we can take from the land today, but rather what we can save for tomorrow. There is no legislation or Act that cant be repealed down the road...but once areas are developed, there is largely no going back, ever.

Try thinking about someone other than yourself.

 

[Sytes]

Buzz,
We are all here sharing our opinion. Mine differs from yours - fair enough.

The Antiquities Act is pretty specific. It has shared a line that declares the size to be as small as possible to protect the endangered area.
Originally based due to the immediate need to protect tribal artifacts from thieves. Something to be shaped quicker than the typical debates that rightfully occur with those we vote to represent our interests. This was the intent behind T.R. and Congress when originally sold to our Representatives.
They, those we vote as our voice of the majority, did not establish this act to design a means to ignore our democratic due process.

While you and others may value last minute National Monument designations such as Obama's December 28th, 2016 decision for 1.4 MILLION acres... Bears Ears, others, such as myself find this an abuse of T.R and Congress intent for the creation of the Act.

I care not for partisan b.s. I care about one person side stepping our American Republic.
Obama, as an example, abused the authority our Representatives granted him with the Antiquities Act. He was well aware the Democrats failed to represent their base and gave away their stake w/in the Legislative Branch. He, from many people's perspective, including mine, feared those whom we voted to represent us would not see it from his view, the minority representation and failed to adhere to keeping it as small as necessary to protect the endangered historical and scientific interests the tribal identified 13 areas provide.

I support the decision to protect the value described. I do not support 1.4 MILLION acres to preserve these sites.

I respect opposing views. Whether opposing considerations reciprocate, well hell... it is what it is.

 

[Straight Arrow]

The Antiquities Act is pretty specific. It has shared a line that declares the size to be as small as possible to protect the endangered area.
Originally based due to the immediate need to protect tribal artifacts from thieves. Something to be shaped quicker than the typical debates that rightfully occur with those we vote to represent our interests. This was the intent behind T.R. and Congress when originally sold to our Representatives.
They, those we vote as our voice of the majority, did not establish this act to design a means to ignore our democratic due process.

While you and others may value last minute National Monument designations such as Obama's December 28th, 2016 decision for 1.4 MILLION acres... Bears Ears, others, such as myself find this an abuse of T.R and Congress intent for the creation of the Act.

I care not for partisan b.s. I care about one person side stepping our American Republic.
Obama, as an example, abused the authority our Representatives granted him with the Antiquities Act. He was well aware the Democrats failed to represent their base and gave away their stake w/in the Legislative Branch. He, from many people's perspective, including mine, feared those whom we voted to represent us would not see it from his view, the minority representation and failed to adhere to keeping it as small as necessary to protect the endangered historical and scientific interests the tribal identified 13 areas provide.

Sytes, the problem is that your phrasing and rhetoric makes it read as though you are an expert with insight and specific understanding not available to others, when this is merely your perspective and opinion, not based on any precedent legally or historically and seemingly only on your grasp of the language ... which may be completely off base. The other problem is the redundancy in your continuously quoting phrases and language on which you have opined ... perhaps with the expectation that if you repeat it enough times, then others will be compelled to agree. As I had hoped you would suggest, let's just agree to disagree and move on. I suggest that if you are convinced of your interpretation and can produce the legal and historical evidence or other compelling arguments, then take it to your elected representation and lobby for the changes you assert.

 

[BuzzH]

Sytes, you're wrong. The act is not specific and the supreme court has ruled that preseidents have almost unfettered authority on size of designationated areas. Further the act does not specify that designations must be for only tribal concerns...read it. You're cherry picking one sentence in the act...others have tried doing the same thing...and lost at the supreme court level. President Obama did not abuse his authority...or the intent of the act. Still haven't heard your answer as to why utah and it's representatives drug their feet for 50+ years working on proactve protections for bears ear. If ever there was a failure of our representive republic...that would be the definition of failed policy.