The people who want smaller government will support this.
The people who want larger government will oppose this.
That's about all that's going on in this thread IMO.
The people who want smaller government will support this.
The people who want larger government will oppose this.
That's about all that's going on in this thread IMO.
It may be instructive for everyone interested to read the full EO, which is quite short:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press...ntiquities-act
Pres. TR tricked Congress in 1906 into giving him the authority to designate lands as National Monuments. He wanted the authority b/c many archeological sites in the undeveloped West were being looted & otherwise damaged. It wasn't until FDR's 1933 reorganization of the National Park Service did most Nat'l Monuments come under the NPS umbrella. That's also when many battlefields were transferred from the War Dep't to the NPS as well.
Early on, Presidents designated relatively small areas as national monuments; as in a few hundred or few thousand acres. Starting with Carter however, and then with Clinton & all after, Presidents have been designating millions of acres at a time, and thus effectively circumventing Congress, for better or worse. This EO orders a review of all sites created after 1-1-1996 that are EITHER > 100,000 or were created "where the Secretary determines that the designation or expansion was made without adequate public outreach and coordination with relevant stakeholders"
Be Prepared
Be Prepared
No its not a land grab. National monuments are created from federal lands. Federal lands belong to all the states and all the people, not a single state or its citizens.
American Antiquities Act of 1906
16 USC 431-433
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any person who shall appropriate, excavate, injure, or destroy any historic or prehistoric ruin or monument, or any object of antiquity, situated on lands owned or controlled by the Government of the United States, without the permission of the Secretary of the Department of the Government having jurisdiction over the lands on which said antiquities are situated, shall, upon conviction, be fined in a sum of not more than five hundred dollars or be imprisoned for a period of not more than ninety days, or shall suffer both fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the court.
Sec. 2. 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, and may reserve as a part thereof parcels of land, the limits of which in all cases shall be confined to the smallest area compatible with proper care and management of the objects to be protected: Provided, That when such objects are situated upon a tract covered by a bona fied unperfected claim or held in private ownership, the tract, or so much thereof as may be necessary for the proper care and management of the object, may be relinquished to the Government, and the Secretary of the Interior is hereby authorized to accept the relinquishment of such tracts in behalf of the Government of the United States.
Sec. 3. That permits for the examination of ruins, the excavation of archaeological sites, and the gathering of objects of antiquity upon the lands under their respective jurisdictions may be granted by the Secretaries of the Interior, Agriculture, and War to institutions which the may deem properly qualified to conduct such examination, excavation, or gathering, subject to such rules and regulation as they may prescribe: Provided, That the examinations, excavations, and gatherings are undertaken for the benefit of reputable museums, universities, colleges, or other recognized scientific or educational institutions, with a view to increasing the knowledge of such objects, and that the gatherings shall be made for permanent preservation in public museums.
Sec. 4. That the Secretaries of the Departments aforesaid shall make and publish from time to time uniform rules and regulations for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this Act.
Approved, June 8, 1906
"Sleepy alligator in the noonday sun
Sleepin by the river just like he usually done
Call for his whisky
He can call for his tea
Call all he wanta but he can't call me..."
Robert Hunter & Ron McKernan
Whiteblaze.net User Agreement.
He wants a review of the federal governments ie the presidents ability to land grab from a state and local governments. Creating a national monument in a state should first be approved by that state wouldn't one think? It would not reverse any existing monuments.
Hiking the AT is “pointless.” What life is not “pointless”? Is it not pointless to work paycheck to paycheck just to conform?.....I want to make my life less ordinary. AWOL
Your statement is false. The lands were not state lands. The land was owned by the United States (as a result of the treaty ending the Mexican-American War). It was administered by the USDA Forest Service and/or the Dept. of Interior Bureau of Land Management. No president stole any lands to create Bears Ears or any other national monument. The State of Utah did not even exist until well after the land within its boundaries was ceded in 1846. What the State of Utah and other western states with large tracts of federally-owned lands within their borders want to do is to gain control of those lands so their politicians can benefit from their development.
Handlebar
GA-ME 06; PCT 08; CDT 10,11,12; ALT 11; MSPA 12; CT 13; Sheltowee 14; AZT 14, 15; LT 15;FT 16;NCT-NY&PA 16; GET 17-18
These National Monument acreage numbers don't tell the full story off how involved various Presidents including President Roosevelt were in conservation and protection. TR is actually responsible for federal protection of almost 230 MILLION ACRES. In TR's day it was commercial biz interests, selfish greedy resource grabbers, who were powerfully politically connected, just as is happening now but with MUCH MUCH more desperate and powerfully entrenched players, that fought National Park designation for a wide variety of obvious selfish reasons and hence the circumnavigation of Congress to conserve and protect by issuing easier to designate National Monuments.
President Teddy Roosevelt courageously summed it by saying, “Here is your country. Cherish these natural wonders, cherish the natural resources, cherish the history and romance as a sacred heritage, for your children and your children's children. Do not let selfish men or greedy interests skin your country of its beauty, its riches or its romance.”
-- Theodore Roosevelt
“I do not dislike but I certainly have no especial respect or admiration for and no trust in, the typical big moneyed men of my country. I do not regard them as furnishing sound opinion as respects either foreign or domestic business.”
-- Theodore Roosevelt
TR was a wise man seeing through the pretentiousness and greed.
http://www.theodoreroosevelt.org/sit...rvationist.htm
The question of National Monument status, whether being rescinded or amended, in the context of President Trump's EO is NOT aimed at conservation or protection... no matter the WH rhetoric. It is aimed at methodically paving the way for commercial biz interests - fossil fuel interests in the energy sector, mining and other developments - gaining access to natural resources whether through state or federal ownership and/or management. If it's a more forthright path to commercially capitalize through privatization under state ownership and/or control so be the path that will be taken.
Don't lose sight of this as the primary objective no matter how it's facilitated or language used to define it or how this being the main issue will be attempted to be diverted into other talking points.
Let us be reminded of another President Trump EO that also circumnavigated laws and regs aimed at conservation and protection by rescinding them claiming it was done to reduce costs. Really? Always? Across the board? Costs to whom? Could it be primarily costs and inconveniences and limiting land and resource access that hindered greater profitability in the natural gas, oil, coal(no such thing as clean coal!), mining, lumber, water rights/clean water rights, etc industries?
It's about getting at the resources to exploit the land, water, oil, natural gas, mined elements, forests, etc through easing EPA and other regs to allow greater energy sector and development profitability. It's what the current Prez does. He goes in methodically lining up his troops as a bull. He is known for this. He's a billionaire BIG BIZ man known for "lawyering up." He is a pro fossil fuel President. He is a pro mining President. It's what he's said repeatedly. Look at who he has placed into key cabinet positions - Sec of State, Sec of Interior, EPA Commissioner, DOJ head, DOE head, ...
YES, read the EO. It is stated in the opening paragraph the objective of the EO "...in recognition of the importance of the Nation's wealth of natural resources to American workers and the American economy,.."
That's about getting at the resources! That's about money folks. That's about development of National Monuments land for commercialized capital gain. That's it. The rest are details about how it's going to be facilitated and superfluous fluff.
How about we keep an eye on it, and IF they actually make a proposal to divest of all these lands for commercial interest, then we can bring out the long knives. For now, can't we keep them sheathed and ready while working within the process in a civilized manner instead of half-cocked allegations?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Just depends where you draw your line. Is this the opening move in a chess game or one away from checkmate?
Patagonia is ready to sue:
https://www.google.com/search?client...w=1024&bih=672
I didn't pick a story to paste on purpose...people get sensitive about the outlet selected.
it is hard to tell still. Are these various actions just heavy handed and fairly inept blundering or some thoughtful plan of putting pieces into place? Are some of these clumsy moves headline grabbers while other things quietly slip by? What will get passed at two am or via obscure law or simply while we stare at a bomb drop somewhere.
Lotta things moving fast and a lotta things moving very bigly to no purpose. Lotta folks busy with social and religious fighting, various wing speakers speaking for no purpose but reactions, and lotta folks pretty interested simply in being mad or blindly cheering on their team. Lotta folks turned off and tuned out. Lotta things quietly passing through piece by piece, one regulation, order, policy, or motion at a time underneath all the headlines. At least once a week it seems; so that any given serious issue proposed today is lost in the glare of the next oncoming trainwreck proposed tomorrow.
It's all very difficult to focus and even harder to tell what lines have been drawn, crossed, or even matter to be blunt.
And all the government positions whose job it remains to watch all the lines remain largely unappointed and/or filled with straw men. Budgets, staffing, and regulatory powers in critical checks and balances evaporate continuously.
Once some deal gets cut...takes more than long knives to uncut it.
More often than not, I find reactions to anything political come not from learning of actual events, but rather from hearing what others' opinions are of it. We've become so reactionary and only listen to part of the story, of which we hear from storytellers we tend to agree with, rather than using our own critical thinking skills.
It doesn't help that not a single news agency will actually give an honest account of what's happening, or at least just a recount of events without commentary.
I'm keeping an open mind on this one. The EO gives much of the oversight to the Sec of Interior, who in this case is Ryan Zenke, a former SEAL and avid outdoorsman. He also broke with Republicans while in the Senate over proposals to transfer Federal lands to the States calling the proposals extreme, and that better federal management was the better choice.
I always know where I am. I'm right here.
Here's another side:
Trump is speaking at the NRA convention today. Both of his sons are hunters. Hunters are just as much against this land being transferred to the states as the hiking community is, for basically the same reasons. Trump's win was in no small part due to support from the hunting community.
I always hate to confuse the issue with the facts, but many of the newest national monuments were NOT previously federally owned land, but voluntarily relinquished as permitted by the Antiquities Act:
1.Waco Mammoth
2.Stonewall
3.Freedom Riders
4.Birmingham Civil Rights
5. Reconstruction Era
6. North Maine Woods
7. and the list goes on.....
Be Prepared
So...only being familiar with the Katahdin Woods (#6 correct?) which was donated... is that what you mean by voluntarily relinquished?
not being argumentative... but a state voluntarily turning over (elevating?) land to federal protection or a private grant of the same doesn't sound as insidious. I could easily be reading your post through my own filter but these are not seizures or some sort of emminant domain move? More like when a city turns over a park to the state for better preservation/management/budget reasons? Or even interest in historical preservation stronger than they can provide locally?
One conflicting narrative to get at the resources is that the state lands were stolen by the federal gov't a good ploy to voice in states that have historically been leery of back east Washington intervention. This is not true. But it depends on who's story you're limiting yourself.
YES. TU Black Cloud for sharing this. It's being said by the WH that local state people and local state legislators should have a say, and didn't have it, when these National Monuments were designated. This is not true. This is a false narrative to politicize the designations along party lines and increase friction between state verse federal gov't factions to distort and amend protections status. WHY?... to confuse the issue AND, to push protections, National Monument designations, and management down to the state level to states that have pro fossil fuel, mining, and development interests. This means the fight has to be then refought to protect these National Monuments. Another fight in this pro fossil fuel industry and mining administration means a greater possibility of gaining access to these resources.
Oh the drooling going on by pro fossil fuel interests and sympathetic energy industry state legislators with the greater potential of finally developing Escalante -Grand Staircase for energy profits. Is it all about the jobs? http://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?...ismic.html.csp Lots of oil shale, natural gas, oil, and coal in some National Monuments such as Grand Staircase Escalate National Monument which is one of those currently under review.
It's about getting at the resources with the various explanations being it's about the jobs, furthering the economy, rights of states, etc. It's about getting at the resources. It's about energy development... of one type - fossil fuels. It's about more encroachment upon these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._United_States
Do you think these places are worth protecting? Some of us think so.
Here is what's at stake:
The largest protected place on earth. Designated by George W. Bush, NOT President Obama. This designation received so little mainstream media attention despite President Bush being labeled in absolute terms of being unfriendly to environmental concerns. More partisan politics "news" to define issues by employing stereotyping labels? http://www.papahanaumokuakea.gov/wheritage/climate.html
Giant Sequoia National Monument - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_...ional_Monument
https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/sequo...telprdb5394941 http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/201...onal-monument/
Basin and Range National Monument - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basin_...ional_Monument http://www.latimes.com/travel/califo...htmlstory.html
Rio Grande del Norte National Monument - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rio_Gr...ional_Monument
https://www.google.com/maps/uv?hl=en...bjBgsQoioIdTAK
Katahdin Woods and Waters National Monument - https://www.nps.gov/kaww/index.htm What might have happened here was this area would be added to other acreage making for another National Park.
Remember what President Teddy Roosevelt said “Here is your country. Cherish these natural wonders, cherish the natural resources, cherish the history and romance as a sacred heritage, for your children and your children's children. Do not let selfish men or greedy interests skin your country of its beauty, its riches or its romance.”
And consider Teddy Roosevelt's position at the time, who he was saying that to, who he was well connected, and in what country with what economic system.