Biden Admin and CBD recently jointly filed

[cuerro viejo]

What’s the left leaning spin going to be to justify this… it’s a minuscule amount of land….

New joint filing could disrupt hunting opportunities in national wildlife refuges

Sportsmen’s Alliance calls on hunters to voice their concerns

www.gohunt.com

Something to watch…..

 

[Rick M.]

Hopefully they are just making sure it gets through the "proper environmental review" as stated in the article, and not simply hamstringing out the hunting and fishing opportunities. I don't feel like any non-profit organization should be able to supersede the US Fish and Wildlife Service, good intentions or not. These people / organizations seem to be confused about conservation vs. preservation. I have no patience for the "never allow the killing of any animals" crowd, it's just not sustainable or in tune with nature. Let the experts make these decisions.

Edit - Just read up on CBD a bit. Yeah... they are out of touch grifters. They lobbied against nuclear energy (claiming it to be "dirty"). It's another non-profit that wants to have a say in everything whilst having zero formal education or domain knowledge. Something needs to be done about non-experts having such an impact in hampering the decisions made by domain experts.

 

[cuerro viejo]

Hopefully they are just making sure it gets through the "proper environmental review" as stated in the article, and not simply hamstringing out the hunting and fishing opportunities. I don't feel like any non-profit organization should be able to supersede the US Fish and Wildlife Service, good intentions or not. These people / organizations seem to be confused about conservation vs. preservation. I have no patience for the "never allow the killing of any animals" crowd, it's just not sustainable or in tune with nature. Let the experts make these decisions.

It’s something to watch that’s for sure.

 

[ODB]

Hopefully they are just making sure it gets through the "proper environmental review" as stated in the article, and not simply hamstringing out the hunting and fishing opportunities. I don't feel like any non-profit organization should be able to supersede the US Fish and Wildlife Service, good intentions or not. These people / organizations seem to be confused about conservation vs. preservation. I have no patience for the "never allow the killing of any animals" crowd, it's just not sustainable or in tune with nature. Let the experts make these decisions.

Edit - Just read up on CBD a bit. Yeah... they are out of touch grifters. They lobbied against nuclear energy (claiming it to be "dirty"). It's another non-profit that wants to have a say in everything whilst having zero formal education or domain knowledge. Something needs to be done about non-experts having such an impact in hampering the decisions made by domain experts.

Eh, In Washington an uneducated, unelected, uninformed populous stopped sales (even of items already in possession) of certain animal parts.

Just wait, when this fails, an initiative will magically appear calling for a halt to hunting in these areas while environmental impacts are “reviewed.”

 

[Rick M.]

It’s something to watch that’s for sure.

Honestly I don't get how this isn't regarded as frivolous. You have a non-profit that has zero domain knowledge and brings nothing to the board other than a bleeding heart, and yet they can drag the FWS into a "settlement". This shouldn't be happening. The FWS or any other federal entity shouldn't have to play ball with these outfits just because they have the money to make a fuss. Maybe someone can explain the process to me.

I can understand Biden giving back the land in Utah to the tribal owners of it (Trump basically stole redesignated it for resource extraction companies to pillage) because that was a gross overstepping of the president. However, this kind of stuff - intervening with the FWS and their resource management just seems like a pointless waste of time.

Edit - changed a word to be less offensive.

 

[cuerro viejo]

Honestly I don't get how this isn't regarded as frivolous. You have a non-profit that has zero domain knowledge and brings nothing to the board other than a bleeding heart, and yet they can drag the FWS into a "settlement". This shouldn't be happening. The FWS or any other federal entity shouldn't have to play ball with these outfits just because they have the money to make a fuss. Maybe someone can explain the process to me.

I can understand Biden giving back the land in Utah to the tribal owners of it (Trump basically stole it for resource extraction companies to pillage) because that was a gross overstepping of the president. However, this kind of stuff - intervening with the FWS and their resource management just seems like a pointless waste of time.

Trump stole federal land in Utah and didn’t return it to federal land?

Trump stole no land from anyone. He didn’t effect the size of any reservation. He simply returned part of the NM land back to public land management of the BLM and NFS. Both are Federal agencies that manage the land before NM status.

What was federal land before national monument is still Federal land now, owned in trust by the people of the us.

If you want to argue multi-use doctrine that’s another topic all together. But trump stole no land. All he did was return some of the federal land management back to a less restricted use federal land agency management jurisdiction. Huge difference

 

[Rich M]

Most socialists want the land to be federally owned and not open for use.

Funny how they say that public use of land hurts birds.

 

[Huntindog45]

There is something to be said for making sure it is done correctly the first time. If legislations like this was just slammed through roughshod (like it was) it would be easy for groups to get it halted in court. Hopefully this is an exercise in making sure it is solid legislation and not get overturned.

 

[Rick M.]

Trump stole federal land in Utah and didn’t return it to federal land?

Trump stole no land from anyone. He didn’t effect the size of any reservation. He simply returned part of the NM land back to public land management of the BLM and NFS. Both are Federal agencies that manage the land before NM status.

What was federal land before national monument is still Federal land now, owned in trust by the people of the us.

If you want to argue multi-use doctrine that’s another topic all together. But trump stole no land. All he did was return some of the federal land management back to a less restricted use federal land agency management jurisdiction. Huge difference

The Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante monuments were 3+ million acres of national monument land sacred to and created at the request of Native American tribes. There were petroglyphs, cliff dwellings and other anthropological and cultural reasons (aside from the geological reasons) for keeping the area protected.

Trump deliberately delisted them from monument status so that the federal protections could be dropped and the area could be utilized for mining. It was "let me take this sacred Native American land and strip it of national monument status so that my corporate lobbyists can exploit the area". This came during a time where Utah was already attempting to "give land back to Utahns" in order to exploit federal land for private use under the guise of handing it over to the "people" of Utah. The whole thing was grossly transparent and pathetic. You can dress it up in a way that makes Trump look like less of a kowtower to corporate interests if it makes you feel better, but it doesn't change the fact that Biden righted a wrong (in this instance).

I get it, this is a hunting forum and we will have our majority share of Trump worshippers, but to say that deslisting that land wasn't cultural / spiritual theft is disingenuous at best. I wasn't trying to derail the thread, I was simply pointing out an occasion where presidential intervention was a good thing. I should've known anything violating the "Trump good, Biden bad" attitude would be met with hostility. Not everything is black and white.

To the "Let's go Brandon" crowd. Grow up. The idea of grown men running around parroting some adolescent punch line and feeling cool about it is just weird. This is coming from someone that can't stand Joe Biden.

 

[Rick M.]

There is something to be said for making sure it is done correctly the first time. If legislations like this was just slammed through roughshod (like it was) it would be easy for groups to get it halted in court. Hopefully this is an exercise in making sure it is solid legislation and not get overturned.

I agree, and hopefully that's what's happening here.

 

[cuerro viejo]

The Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante monuments were 3+ million acres of national monument land sacred to and created at the request of Native American tribes. There were petroglyphs, cliff dwellings and other anthropological and cultural reasons (aside from the geological reasons) for keeping the area protected.

Trump deliberately delisted them from monument status so that the federal protections could be dropped and the area could be utilized for mining. It was "let me take this sacred Native American land and strip it of national monument status so that my corporate lobbyists can exploit the area". This came during a time where Utah was already attempting to "give land back to Utahns" in order to exploit federal land for private use under the guise of handing it over to the "people" of Utah. The whole thing was grossly transparent and pathetic. You can dress it up in a way that makes Trump look like less of a kowtower to corporate interests if it makes you feel better, but it doesn't change the fact that Biden righted a wrong (in this instance).

I get it, this is a hunting forum and we will have our majority share of Trump worshippers, but to say that deslisting that land wasn't cultural / spiritual theft is disingenuous at best. I wasn't trying to derail the thread, I was simply pointing out an occasion where presidential intervention was a good thing. I should've known anything violating the "Trump good, Biden bad" attitude would be met with hostility. Not everything is black and white.

To the "Let's go Brandon" crowd. Grow up. The idea of grown men running around parroting some adolescent punch line and feeling cool about it is just weird. This is coming from someone that can't stand Joe Biden.

Again he didn’t delist anything, nor did he give away one acre of land. Both Monuments still exist. PERIOD. Your argument is fundamentally based on a lie.

It’s really that simple. He took some of the federal land and move it from under Nation Park jurisdiction and put it back under National Forest Service and Federal Bureau of Land Management jurisdiction. It’s still public land held in public trust. That has yet to change.

As far as Trump taking it from Utah, I’m not real sure you want any national monument in Utah to go to a state vote.

I don’t think you understand what you are arguing.

I think Obama and Trump both did good things. One Offered some additional protections on access, while the other found compromise (from what many thought was over reach) for potential loss of multi use/access for all. I think Trump administration did a good job with balance.

If you wanted more restrictive covenants then you need to push congress to make it wilderness!!!

 

[brocksw]

Trump deliberately delisted them from monument status

Been a while since I was paying attention to this, but I believe (and I could be mistaken) the Trump decision just resulted in less acreage being listed under the National Monuments. No federal land switched ownership. It was just shrinking the monumentsacres from the Obama admin's designation.

 

[mmw194287]

Federal agencies are legally required to consider settlement agreements when they are being sued. The Center for Biological Diversity submitted a proposed settlement agreement. The agency has no choice but to review it, no matter who is in office. They can't do both at once (give the proposal consideration in good faith and also argue the case in court), so they are tied up with this settlement proposal until they can give it due diligence.

The story here is that an organization released an inflammatory press release that misrepresented the facts and content aggregators like MeatEater and goHUNT took the bait.

 

[Rick M.]

Again he didn’t delist anything, nor did he give away one acre of land. Both Monuments still exist. PERIOD. Your argument is fundamentally based on a lie.

It’s really that simple. He took some of the federal land and move it from under Nation Park jurisdiction and put it back under National Forest Service and Federal Bureau of Land Management jurisdiction. It’s still public land held in public trust. That has yet to change.

As far as Trump taking it from Utah, I’m not real sure you want any national monument in Utah to go to a state vote.

I don’t think you understand what you are arguing.

I think Obama and Trump both did good things. One Offered some additional protections on access, while the other found compromise (from what many thought was over reach) for potential loss of multi use/access for all. I think Trump administration did a good job with balance.

If you wanted more restrictive covenants then you need to push congress to make it wilderness!!!

Again, you're being disingenuous. Delisting, reducing, relabeling, undesignating... whatever you want to call it.

"The Trump administration’s reductions to Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante paved the way for potential coal mining and oil and gas drilling on lands that were previously off-limits."

He did this for two reasons - to spite something that Obama did, and to show Native Americans that white Americans can do whatever they please to their ancestral land, whether it's sacred or not. You act like he simply relabeled them with no intentions whatsoever. At least make an attempt at honest dialogue here.

I think you may be the one who doesn't understand, and I don't know of another form of English to communicate it to you.

Perhaps if you read about it you'll have a better grasp of it (unless of course your understanding of it is intentionally wrong). Here are two links that cover both actions. It's not Fox News, but the AP is pretty unbiased as far as mass media goes:

Trump takes rare step to reduce 2 national monuments in Utah

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — President Donald Trump on Monday took the rare step of scaling back two sprawling national monuments in Utah, declaring that "public lands will once again be for public use" in a move cheered by Republican leaders who lobbied him to undo protections they considered overly broad

bit.ly

Biden restores Bears Ears, other monuments cut by Trump

President Joe Biden has restored two sprawling national monuments in Utah, reversing a decision by President Donald Trump that had opened some lands for mining and development.

bit.ly

Edit: Randy Newberg even did a segment of the "giving land back to the public" trickery. More food for thought for those of you that have been duped.

 

[Rick M.]

Been a while since I was paying attention to this, but I believe (and I could be mistaken) the Trump decision just resulted in less acreage being listed under the National Monuments. No federal land switched ownership. It was just shrinking the monumentsacres from the Obama admin's designation.

The change of designation opened the land up for natural resource exploitation of an area considered sacred to many Native American tribes. It wasn't just Trump saying that Obama overstepped his boundaries, and fixing it. Several Native American tribes requested the designation by Obama in order to protect the lands into posterity.

 

[brocksw]

The change of designation opened the land up for natural resource exploitation of an area considered sacred to many Native American tribes. It wasn't just Trump saying that Obama overstepped his boundaries, and fixing it. Several Native American tribes requested the designation by Obama in order to protect the lands into posterity.

That is basically my understanding as well, but Trump didn't delist the whole NM. He just reduced the acreage. Although, I'm not sure how much the land that fell within the reduced area was actually of interest to the extraction industry. I believe the state of utah (or perhaps their federal representatives) were against Obama's designation of Bears ears and expansion of GSE. There was no "stealing" of land though. Just a typical and somewhat predictable disagreement on what lands should or should not be included under the NM designation.

 

[Rick M.]

That is basically my understanding as well, but Trump didn't delist the whole NM. He just reduced the acreage. Although, I'm not sure how much the land that fell within the reduced area was actually of interest to the extraction industry. I believe the state of utah (or perhaps their federal representatives) were against Obama's designation of Bears ears and expansion of GSE. There was no "stealing" of land though. Just a typical and somewhat predictable disagreement on what lands should or should not be included under the NM designation.

As far as how much of the land area was reduced (this is from one of the articles I posted above):

"Bears Ears, created last December by President Barack Obama, will be reduced by about 85 percent, to 201,876 acres (315 square miles). Grand Staircase-Escalante, designated in 1996 by President Bill Clinton, will be reduced from nearly 1.9 million acres (nearly 3,000 square miles) to 1,003,863 acres (1,569 square miles)."

It was a significant, egregious amount of land. I agree with you that "stealing" probably wasn't the best word for me to use, and was just me rattling off my thoughts into the keyboard. I should have chosen a less inflammatory word there.

 

[Rick M.]

Most socialists want the land to be federally owned and not open for use.

Funny how they say that public use of land hurts birds.

"Federally owned" and "not open for use" is an oxymoron. Unless by "not open for use" you mean "not open for natural resource exploration and extraction by privately owned corporations". Federal lands are owned by and open to the public. Full stop.

 

[cuerro viejo]

The change of designation opened the land up for natural resource exploitation of an area considered sacred to many Native American tribes. It wasn't just Trump saying that Obama overstepped his boundaries, and e are fixing it. Several Native American tribes requested the designation by Obama in order to protect the lands into posterity.r

Again the monuments still stood, and the withdrawn land was still Federal land, held in Trust for the Citizens of the US. That is the truth. Nothing was stolen as you alluded. In fact trump added a new area of 11k acres that wasn’t previously part of it.

With one Exec order all public land multi use leases are stopped. Nation wide

You are arguing semantics of multi use doctrine while trying to give the appearance that public land was sold or given away. It was not. It’s really that simple.

If you want multi-use doctrine stopped, and it truly protected then push for congress to relist it as wilderness, that way trees are protect, ground is roadless and etc. NFS has a different management goal then NPS. National park service has a completely different use ideology then BLM/NFS.

Wildness won’t happen even though I would now like to see it that way. Foot or horseback only. It’s not about truly protecting it

 

[cuerro viejo]

"Federally owned" and "not open for use" is an oxymoron. Unless by "not open for use" you mean "not open for natural resource exploration and extraction by privately owned corporations". Federal lands are owned by and open to the public. Full stop.

Wrong every governing body has a use mandate. NPS is completely different then NFS or BLM. It’s not just minerals, it’s timber, water, access, hunting, maintenance, people etc.

If you think all public land is open to the people, have fun at a national park. Let me know how the access in its entirety works out….