exec order to release national monuments

[kestral]

Just heard about a new executive order to return national monuments (federal lands) to state control. Opening them up for development, oil and natural gas exploration, and timber harvest. I know federal lands are harvested and grazed, but this new order will change (lessen) the procedures and probably increase the limits of use. Going from federal "interference " to allowing the individual states to decide what to do with these lands, including selling them to private energy and development corporations.

Am am I being a paranoid or is the the first step on the very slippery slope of returning federally protected lands to developers ?

I am very concerned about short term business gains overshadowing the long term management and preservation of our natural resources. (A big part of what makes America great)

not trying to be an alarmist, but so much energy has been put into preservation, just to be swept away. This has me very concerned. How much AT andPCT lands will be directly affected? Early days, but this has me deeply concerned 😳

[kestral]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-ord...123433131.html

[Sarcasm the elf]

You're not being paranoid. Most who have looked at the return of land to "state control" have determined that it is largely nothing more than a land grab and will likely have a direct impact on a number of routes and trails across the nation.
What is interesting is that there is a growing alliance of conservationists, hunters and fisherman providing considerable non-partisan opposition to the various tactics being used to divest federal lands. The folks at ammoland have done several pieces in why selling off federal lands is such a bad idea, one of them is linked below:

https://www.ammoland.com/2016/10/sta...blic-land/amp/

[DuneElliot]

Horrible idea. Most states can't afford to maintain these lands. I do understand it is only national monuments vs national parks or rec areas, but still it is the beginning of a slippery slope.

[rocketsocks]

The frackin's already begun!

[Alligator]

While the ultimate goal of the executive order may be to release or revoke the National monument status, the language of the executive order uses the word review. There is no authorization in the order to release anything. The Antiquities Act is a federal law and doesn't have any language in it to revoke National Monument status either. Congress would have to pass a law to do that. That's unlikely to happen. Some members of Congress will put up a fight beforehand to prevent designation but it's a done deal afterwards.

[Sarcasm the elf]

While the ultimate goal of the executive order may be to release or revoke the National monument status, the language of the executive order uses the word review. There is no authorization in the order to release anything. The Antiquities Act is a federal law and doesn't have any language in it to revoke National Monument status either. Congress would have to pass a law to do that. That's unlikely to happen. Some members of Congress will put up a fight beforehand to prevent designation but it's a done deal afterwards.

Appreciate the clarification and I sincerely hope you are right about congress.

[Dogwood]

You're not being paranoid. There is no mistaking what is happening. It was stated repeatedly as a major platform plank..energy independence...jobs. What wasn't said, as has been typical, is HOW this was going to be brought about. Now, we are starting to find out. This is another methodical step in softening protections for National Monuments.

By Presidential Executive Order the President sure does have the authority to amend a National Monument just as a President can declare a National Monument all by himself. He(she) doesn't need Congress. A National Monument declaration need not be nullified in order for it to lose protections.

The President even said he's doing it in context of expanding "energy independence" - oil and gas, coal, mining, fracking, water control, etc. He ran on this as part of his platform. Follow the money and string of power; follow the filling of key cabinet positions for their pro energy sector biases and for eliminating EPA, FDA, USDA, health, and conservation protections/regulations. The administration has gutted the EPA. The President has stated he's seeking to remove 75% of all regulations. WHY? Umm, maybe, so corporations don't have to be regulated assuming they will do the "right thing" regulating themselves? Well, we've seen how that has historically worked.

It's obvious where this is going despite public WH comments to the contrary there's "no predetermined outcome to this review" or "to end these abuses and return control to the people." LOL Really? Please define who are the specific people being referred to as "returning control to?" It should be obvious. It's the large business interests, the corporations, the real owners of this country. We're just along for the ride.

The "review" is being conducted behind closed doors involving industry(energy sector) input and legislators and NOT currently involving public input as the White House has phrased it. The agenda will already be set WITHOUT THE PUBLIC despite language saying otherwise well before the public starts offering input. That's why it's being conducted behind closed doors with these participants.

This is another methodical step in softening protections for National Monuments.

It's what so many companies in the Outdoor Industry and Conservation groups have known about. It's why The Outdoor Retailer Show pulled out of Salt Lake City. And, it's not being covered accurately or to a fair degree in the media. Same corporation affiliations control the flow of information.

[Venchka]

There is another side to the story. Bears Ears in particular.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.was...853_story.html
Be careful what you wish for. Publicity can lead to a fragile environment being loved to death.
Wayne


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[rafe]

Maine's gov. LePage has already said he'd testify on behalf of stripping Katahdin Woods from its Nat. Monument designation.

Yeah, right now it's just a "review" but the intention is clear. The Sagebrush Rebellion never died.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagebrush_Rebellion

[4eyedbuzzard]

Maine's gov. LePage has already said he'd testify on behalf of stripping Katahdin Woods from its Nat. Monument designation.

Yeah, right now it's just a "review" but the intention is clear. The Sagebrush Rebellion never died.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagebrush_Rebellion

I don't know the wording of the deed conveying the KW property, but I'll bet is has wording regarding future purpose, disposition, management, etc., probably similar to the Baxter conveyance but at the federal level. Would it revert back to the Burt's Bees family/heirs? They owned it and donated the land as I remember. I can't imagine NOT protecting it via proper legal wording in the deed.

[Dogwood]

Protecting, whatever it is, through proper legal wording can be amended as we've seen with SS...and as we are seeing regarding National Monuments and other public lands, U.S. waters, the Clean Power Act(in large part for fossil fuel polluters), Clean Air Act(for fossil fuel polluters), and more. We're dealing with lawyers and mega entrenched power structures.

The best attorneys in this country, concerned legislators who had upright intentions for the public, were well aware of the money and power grab that would ensue, enacted layers of specific STRONG legislation regarding how SS was to be used. That legislation was slowly eroded over the years until SS was placed into the General Fund no longer specifically ear marked to be saved only for remittance of SS benefit recipients. This is the REAL reason, the primary reason, why SS is going bankrupt. Ponzi?

With one swipe of the pen in an Executive Order many decades of hard fought for environmental conservation, public, and worker protections - EPA, OSHA, USDA, and FDA regulations - were wiped out to pave the way for corporations, particularly in the energy sector leading to ever greater consumption that is being sold to the public as their economic prosperity and their jobs. Having these protections through regulation is what constitutes abuse...to whom? Who is it that initially fought these so called "onerous" protections and regulations in fierce legal battles? It is largely who it always has been...corporations. It's being depended upon that all this will be forgotten or ignored in light of potentially having more money in the public's pockets and as we're distracted in front of the TV or computer...until it's visited upon us in our own backyards.

This saw little mass media coverage. We have the economy to better discuss.

I'm done. No more comments.

[Alligator]

Appreciate the clarification and I sincerely hope you are right about congress.

They have in the past altered National Monuments by changing designation (monument to park for instance) and transferring control to states or changing agency control. Congress could play it savvy and turn a monument into a park for instance, a much smaller park maybe.

Challenges in the courts to overturn monument status have always failed. Executive orders have been used to alter sizes but rarely. That could happen but the president does not have authority to revoke the status. It is not in the Antiquities Act. Congress gave authority to the president to designate, they did not give authority to revoke.

I certainly won't ignore what's going on. It's a positioning for future action, in my opinion only, it's limited to specific monuments. I just don't see enough support to alter the Antiquities Act. Most folks don't really understand the difference between a National Park or National Monument or a National Forest. Most people just consider them all National Parks. There would be a big groundswell against altering all the National Monuments through alteration of the Antiquities Act. It would be a slow buildup of resistance but people in the end would resist changing their National "Parks". It would be a huge environmental battle.

[Dogwood]

Once one National Monument's current level of protection status is amended or designation rescinded it sets a legal precedence that makes it easier to amend or rescind other National Monuments and public lands protection status.

The President doe not have to revoke National Monument status just amend the protections to allow greater energy sector intrusion and operations and other development. His cabinet appointees and own words tell the story of not just where he's going but what he's already achieving. It's a methodical dismantling of legal protections and regs, for certainly the energy sector, just as has occurred with SS but on a much faster trajectory.

What do we think the Executive Order review is about? It's about reducing the size of National Monuments and rescinding National Monument designations for the sake of economic development....progress for making America great again. LOL.

[Just Bill]

They have in the past altered National Monuments by changing designation (monument to park for instance) and transferring control to states or changing agency control. Congress could play it savvy and turn a monument into a park for instance, a much smaller park maybe.

Challenges in the courts to overturn monument status have always failed. Executive orders have been used to alter sizes but rarely. That could happen but the president does not have authority to revoke the status. It is not in the Antiquities Act. Congress gave authority to the president to designate, they did not give authority to revoke.

I certainly won't ignore what's going on. It's a positioning for future action, in my opinion only, it's limited to specific monuments. I just don't see enough support to alter the Antiquities Act. Most folks don't really understand the difference between a National Park or National Monument or a National Forest. Most people just consider them all National Parks. There would be a big groundswell against altering all the National Monuments through alteration of the Antiquities Act. It would be a slow buildup of resistance but people in the end would resist changing their National "Parks". It would be a huge environmental battle.

I tend to agree... or maybe I'm too optimistic generally... but I tend to see this (and trump generally) as an exercise in balance and perhaps bottoming out. Whatever exactly the aims and goals there are several pretty environmentally disturbing positions and (attempted or passed) initiatives flying around. For a long time the individual groups who lobby and support environmental protections tend to be on the edges of each respective political party, but if they ever got united under a common threat... I feel it would be one of the largest coalitions we've ever seen.

An outdoor friendly responsible hunter/fisherman/sportsman and perhaps NRA member tends to vote on the right.
An outdoor friendly thoughtful crunchy/environmentalist/outdoorsperson and perhaps Sierra Club member tends to vote on the left.

And of course the vast majority of folks don't vote at all.

Sometimes it takes a crisis to pay attention... and more and more people are paying attention than ever.
If you ignore the right and left I'm of the opinion that the NRA member has just as much passion and interest in preserving and protecting the environment as the Sierra Club member.
And the non-voting population (especially younger) population is getting very keyed in to climate change out of self-interest if nothing else. 2050 or even 2100 isn't some distant date in their life.

So I remain somewhat optimistic that with each new threat to the environment (real, proposed or imagined) will generate the groundswell of support we saw when Muir and Teddy first got this whole thing going with similar explosive and lasting results. You can't shoot if there is nowhere to shoot. You can't hunt if there is nothing to hunt. You can't hike if there are no trails. You can't breathe if there are no trees. Everyone now has skin in the game... and each game is heading towards roughly the same goal.

The pendulum always swings... two steps forward one step back... pick your favorite analogy. This feels to me like the historical social backswing necessary before the leap forward.

[4eyedbuzzard]

While I don't like the idea of the review in general, nor this administration's attitude toward nature and the environment, here are some facts found by researching a bit. The review is only for those monuments created after Jan 1, 1996 and that encompass more than 100,000 acres. That leaves Katahdin Woods, at some 87,000 acres off the list to be reviewed. There's only one Monument east of the Mississippi on the list, Northeast Canyons and Seamounts in MA. There's a good in-depth article with a map and listing of the possibly affected Monuments here at https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.680ea3b761f7

[illabelle]

...An outdoor friendly responsible hunter/fisherman/sportsman and perhaps NRA member tends to vote on the right.
An outdoor friendly thoughtful crunchy/environmentalist/outdoorsperson and perhaps Sierra Club member tends to vote on the left.

And of course the vast majority of folks don't vote at all.

Sometimes it takes a crisis to pay attention... and more and more people are paying attention than ever.
If you ignore the right and left I'm of the opinion that the NRA member has just as much passion and interest in preserving and protecting the environment as the Sierra Club member...

Bill,
Thank you for being so balanced.

[Just Bill]

Bill,
Thank you for being so balanced.

I'm looking forward to the day when I see many of the supposed "tramily" on facebook/WB or other places wake up and take the trail home with them.

Hiker who voted for Trump calling their fellow hikers libtards.
Hiker who voted for Hillary calling their fellow hikers deplorables.
Hiker who voted for Bernie dropped out of the process because he was out even though he lost a fight not a war.
Hiker who just hikes and is so proud they didn't vote.
Hiker who just hikes and hides from the real world out in "the real world".
Hiker who spends much of their free time walking the earth but fails to vote for it or understand our place in it.

We all find a way to get along on the trail... maybe because "hiker" is the only label we need... and often the only thing we truly identify with at our core.... the rest is semantics and details stripped away in the woods.
Or maybe that identity was only tied to a trail name and discarded when we leave... but for a time you were that person... and most of you were pretty happy being that person.
Many come to realize you'll get pretty heartsick and depressed when you try and throw that person away.

If you take that one step further and swap out the word hiker with outdoors person there are way more of us than many realize- more than enough if united under one common issue to remove and replace every politician in the country. I don't think we have the continued luxury of the other labels if we truly care about wearing any flavor or version of the label of "environmentalist or outdoor lover".

Swap that label out with "Earthling" and there is only one group to lump us in... but that's a few generations off.
Our job today is to keep the two legged on this rock around long enough to get there.

[One Half]

Keep in mind that the original designation as a national monument of any land is a land grab by the Feds of state lands. Obama stole 1.35 Million acres last year with the designation of Bears Ears. I do appreciate the lands that have been protected but when you see some of the western states where the feds own virtually every acre of land and the states have no say about it you realize the over reaching that Presidents have committed.

“When President Obama designated the Bears Ears monument in December, he did so ignoring the voices of Utah leaders who were united in opposition, and even more importantly, ignoring the voices of the local Utahns most affected by this massive land grab,” Hatch said last week while visiting the site.

[TX Aggie]

Thank you to all who posted the Bears Ears information. I knew this was the primary reason for the EO, but just stumbled on this thread.