Trump - shrinking bears ear and escalante

[mtwarden]

^ that was tongue in cheek (well unless you happen to be a multi-millionaire ) agreed- stinky

 

[Matt Cashell]

The Antiquities Act gives the president authority to establish National Monuments. There is no text in the law that says they can be rescinded in whole or part by subsequent presidents.

If the courts uphold this action, it would make for a pretty uncertain future for those areas given the back-and-forth swing of the political pendulum.

 

[gbflyer]

Not from Utah, live in a National Park gateway community. It was an NP long before I moved here. It would be tough here without it.

I know families that were here when it was a Monument. The restrictions and costs that come with a NP in a remote location are not worth it, in the opinion of most of those old timers. Might be different in a populated area. Monuments turn into National Parks. I believe there are plenty in Utah already.

 

[OG DramaLlama]

Good write up from TCRP.

Executive Actions to Alter Monuments Set Bad Precedent for Public Lands Valued by Sportsmen | Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership

The courts have repeatedly supported presidents on breadth and scope of the Antiquities Act, Grand Canyon and Devils Hole are examples where the courts upheld the Act against private interests.

Lawsuits have already started to file.

Will be interesting to follow and I recommend folks open dialogue to encourage a thoughtful process that considers all stakeholders.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[fulldraw1972]

Patagonia is leading the charge on filing a lawsuit.

I have a hard time believing Obama had sportsman best interest in mind when he upped the acreage.

 

[mlevimadden]

Patagonia is leading the charge on filing a lawsuit.

I have a hard time believing Obama had sportsman best interest in mind when he upped the acreage.

One look at Orrin Hatch's and Rob Bishop's stances on past public land issues will clearly show they do not have the best interest of public land sportsmen and sportswomen in mind. If it was left up to them, every bit of public land in Utah would be auctioned off to the highest bidder. Once again, I am disappointed that Utah always has to be leading the charge against federally-protected public lands. I too am interested to see how the courts rule.

 

[fulldraw1972]

One look at Orrin Hatch's and Rob Bishop's stances on past public land issues will clearly show they do not have the best interest of public land sportsmen and sportswomen in mind. If it was left up to them, every bit of public land in Utah would be auctioned off to the highest bidder. Once again, I am disappointed that Utah always has to be leading the charge against federally-protected public lands. I too am interested to see how the courts rule.

I haven’t looked into there past. I just had seen Patagonia was filling and I know there not sportsmen best friend. That goes for obama as well.

Like someone above stated it’s definetly political driven and I don’t think sportsman wants are high on there list.

 

[tttoadman]

I think this is a great example of why all outdoor enthusiasts need to come together under a common goal. It could be said that Obama didn't have sportsmen in his thoughts when taking action, but rather all outdoor enthusiasts. I applaud the efforts of the large outdoor companies like Patagonia for taking a stand on this. We don't share all of the same goals for use, but we do all share a fear of losing our public lands to corporate greed. I will keep making my contributions to TRCP, The Wilderness Society, and my annual contributions to ODFW and IDFG in the hope that I always have "roadless" public land to trek on. I understand that legislation needs checks and balances, but I am pretty certain the current administration does not share my values toward public lands.

 

[Where's Bruce?]

Didn't Obama designate/expand these NM's as he was going out the door?

Seems like Trump is mostly just reversing that kick in the nuts to hunters/Trump voters.

Yup. Utah has done a fine job of managing it's natural resources. How many states ever created a Predator Control Program that pays you for each dead coyote and did it w/o requiring you buy a hunting license? I trust Utah more than DC. Smart reversal IMHO.

 

[tthompson4]

I think this is a great example of why all outdoor enthusiasts need to come together under a common goal. It could be said that Obama didn't have sportsmen in his thoughts when taking action, but rather all outdoor enthusiasts. I applaud the efforts of the large outdoor companies like Patagonia for taking a stand on this. We don't share all of the same goals for use, but we do all share a fear of losing our public lands to corporate greed. I will keep making my contributions to TRCP, The Wilderness Society, and my annual contributions to ODFW and IDFG in the hope that I always have "roadless" public land to trek on. I understand that legislation needs checks and balances, but I am pretty certain the current administration does nor share my values toward public lands.

Many monuments have been turned in to national parks after some time. You could look at this as a way to make sure that doesn’t happen. You will loose hunting rights in a national park.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[durangobrad]

I haven’t looked into there past. I just had seen Patagonia was filling and I know there not sportsmen best friend. That goes for obama as well.

Like someone above stated it’s definetly political driven and I don’t think sportsman wants are high on there list.

Patagonia is not a friend of sportsmen? I believe your wrong there.

Yvon Chouinard is an avid outdoorsman, fisherman and hunter. He founded 1% for the planet. They make great gear that last a long time in the most environmentally conscious ways possible.

Patagonia Founder Yvon Chouinard releases TV ad on public lands | GrindTV.com

 

[tthompson4]

Patagonia has opposed expansion of an excise tax that guarantees money for conservation. Where We Stand on the "Backpack Tax" - Outdoor Industry Association


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[durangobrad]

Patagonia has opposed expansion of an excise tax that guarantees money for conservation. Where We Stand on the "Backpack Tax" - Outdoor Industry Association


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I know we are way off topic but did you even read the article? Yes they opposed it for many reasons, especially because they believe the government is mismanaging the funds and currently not doing its part and giving them more would lead to further mismanagement.

"Congress must first meet its obligation to fund the land management agencies and fully fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) program, which is given only a small fraction of its authorized amount every year"

How about the time Patagonia gave all of its global retail and online sales to environmental non profits. $10 million in one day.....
Hang Tight! Routing to checkout...

If you guys want to continue bashing Patagonia, lets start a new thread, Ill see you there.

 

[muddydogs]

Is the control of that land now going to be given to the people of Utah to make decisions on? I'm not clear on this.

The land is still Forest Service and BLM land i.e. public land and will stay that way. The public is not losing land to the state or private sector yet. All that is happening is the NM is being shrunk to a size that will protect the resource but let the rest of the area continue in its multi use fashion like it has been for the past 200 years. The people against states taking over public lands have used this NM shrinkage in there agenda when it has little to do with states taking over public land and more to do with overreaching bureaucrats taking away multi use access land from the public and restricting access and use to it. It's not like this is a pristine 150 year old wilderness and the artifacts and structures just dropped out of the sky, Bears Ears has been around a long while and the area has been mulit use this whole time. There is a need to protect the cultural and archeological value of the area but there's no need to have 1,352,000 acres of public land tied up into the Bear's Ears NM.

 

[vdeal]

Doubt it. Well who knows, maybe it was russia.....

Which part do you doubt? That the President doesn't have the authority or that the lawsuits will be about his authority? If it's about the President's authority have you read the American Antiquities Act of 1906? Just in case you haven't I'll make it easy - here's the link. It will only take 5 minutes to read - I'll wait. Humm, no provision for rescission. While I haven't looked at Trump's declaration I assume it's an Executive Order or Signing Statement which as far as I know can not negate a law - only Congress can do that.

If you doubt the issue of the lawsuits that's okay but I've read that the authority issue is what will be hammered.

 

[mtwarden]

Yup. Utah has done a fine job of managing it's natural resources.

I'm just damn glad Utah isn't managing our natural resources. Well unless I win the lottery that is.

 

[vdeal]

I see another common thread in several of the responses here and that is the perceived dichotomy between "sportsmen" and "outdoor enthusiasts". I believe this is an unnecessary and harmful perception. I hike, backpack, bike, fish, hunt, canoe, ski, etc. I don't see one as better than the other. I don't see my hikes as scouting trips or training even though they might occasionally be. Any of these activities can stand alone or be combined. I have mountain biked in to fish and enjoyed both aspects. Creating an artificial barrier between people who enjoy the outdoors does not help anyone except those determined to exploit the land for financial gain. We are better than that.

As far as Patagonia not being a friend of hunters and fishermen (notice I didn't say sportsmen) I think folks are way off base. I have a pair of Patagonia waders that I've used extensively. Patagonia has a range of gear in muted colors that work well for all activities. Just because they don't have camo doesn't mean they are an enemy. Ditto for other companies such as Arcteryx, Kelty, Gregory, etc. I'm sure several of you are wearing Asolo or Salomon boots - see what I mean.

In regards to National Monuments becoming National Parks there are currently 129 National Monuments and 59 National Parks. It takes an act of Congress to change the designation or add a NM to a NP. By the way, 11 NM's have been abolished by an Act of Congress.

 

[durangobrad]

I see another common thread in several of the responses here and that is the perceived dichotomy between "sportsmen" and "outdoor enthusiasts". I believe this is an unnecessary and harmful perception. I hike, backpack, bike, fish, hunt, canoe, ski, etc. I don't see one as better than the other. I don't see my hikes as scouting trips or training even though they might occasionally be. Any of these activities can stand alone or be combined. I have mountain biked in to fish and enjoyed both aspects. Creating an artificial barrier between people who enjoy the outdoors does not help anyone except those determined to exploit the land for financial gain. We are better than that.

As far as Patagonia not being a friend of hunters and fishermen (notice I didn't say sportsmen) I think folks are way off base. I have a pair of Patagonia waders that I've used extensively. Patagonia has a range of gear in muted colors that work well for all activities. Just because they don't have camo doesn't mean they are an enemy. Ditto for other companies such as Arcteryx, Kelty, Gregory, etc. I'm sure several of you are wearing Asolo or Salomon boots - see what I mean.

In regards to National Monuments becoming National Parks there are currently 129 National Monuments and 59 National Parks. It takes an act of Congress to change the designation or add a NM to a NP. By the way, 11 NM's have been abolished by an Act of Congress.

Couldn't have said it better myself. These are bipartisan issues and we all need to work together. I also have a pair of their waders! Splurged on the high $ ones with a zipper, love them and am confident they will last me a long time...

 

[vdeal]

Okay, it looks like Trump used a Presidential Proclamation for the reductions. You can read them at that link - they're pretty long. The proclamation references section 320301 of title 54, United States Code as the authority for the reduction. You can read that here. I see nothing there to grant that authority.

 

[Violent Hippie]

Muddydogs, thats the way I see it as well. As long as the land is still forest service land I see no negative. What is the advantage to the average outdoorsman of a designated NM vs simple FS or BLM land ?