Trump - shrinking bears ear and escalante

[durangobrad]

Trump shrinks Utah monuments angering environmentalists - BBC News

Was listening to his speech a little, quotes like "return the land to the people" and "it won't be controversial".

Yet all 5 tribes are already planning a lawsuit.

85% reduction to bears ear and 50% escalante. We have a pretty diverse group here. Would love to hear from some Utah guys specifically, who are more educated on the matter than I. What are your thoughts and opinions?

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

 

[PathFinder]

On one hand, I hate the entire federal government with a burning passion. On the other, national monuments have a way of creating wilderness areas and closing roads. Anything that keeps fat guys on ATVs out of good hunting areas puts a smile on my face. There are no hunting restrictions in either monument, so they don't bother me. I'm not aware of any mining going on in either place, and I'm not sure what else the monuments really limit. Anyone care to chime in on the benefits of reducing the monuments, other than limiting federal overreach?

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[durangobrad]

I know there is some good sheep habitat in there, I doubt they will do very well with encroachment of extractive industries.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

 

[COSA]

I'm torn on this issue. I believe that hunting is permitted on these two designations. However, I also know there are monuments where hunting is not allowed (Colorado National Monument in GMU 40). I'm also for responsible industry to support decent paying local jobs, just not to the degree where the land is a myriad of roads and well pads. With the way politics is heading, I guess I'm just leery that another administration can come in and change the law to make the monuments off limits to hunting

 

[mtwarden]

Montana’s Upper Missouri River Breaks NM was on the list to cut, Zinke heard loud and clear on what most Montanan’s thought of that idea and it was quickly off the list. Evidently they heard something else in Utah- home of the “if it’s public, sell it” zealots.

 

[durangobrad]

Montana’s Upper Missouri River Breaks NM was on the list to cut, Zinke heard loud and clear on what most Montanan’s thought of that idea and it was quickly off the list. Evidently they heard something else in Utah- home of the “if it’s public, sell it” zealots.

I though so too, it's almost like this is the only place they could get away with it, so let's start there....

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

 

[Idaho Lefty]

On one hand, I hate the entire federal government with a burning passion. On the other, national monuments have a way of creating wilderness areas and closing roads. Anything that keeps fat guys on ATVs out of good hunting areas puts a smile on my face. There are no hunting restrictions in either monument, so they don't bother me. I'm not aware of any mining going on in either place, and I'm not sure what else the monuments really limit. Anyone care to chime in on the benefits of reducing the monuments, other than limiting federal overreach?

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

Amen, Bro ! As long as, the land doesn't get sold off, to Ranchers or, Miners,.. WHO,..CARES !

 

[nexus]

As I understand the controversy, the current administration believes two previous administrations (Obama and Clinton) in designating these areas as National Monuments under the Antiquities Act conducted some form of "Federal Overreach" (not enough transparency, not enough local involvement, too much land, etc.) . Of course, the Antiquates Act and enacting Administrations (Republican and Democrat) have historically been challenged by opposing local/industrial interests regarding Federal government overreach since the development of the 1906 act.

That being said, here are just a few questions I am still asking with regards to the overall process:

1) By maintaining some amount of land under the National Monument designation, isn't this an admission by the Department the Interior that application of the Antiquities Act was not an overreach, but instead a reasonable act of protecting something of significant historical, natural, and/or cultural value?
2) Does this process conclude that National Monuments should be reduced to only those specific lands that are of direct significance and minimize potential buffer lands?
3) How did the Department of Interior gather the necessary data, critically review, and redefine the boundaries of the National Monument and address all of the noted process short-comings the earlier Administrations did not complete or address?
4) How did the Department of Interior (Zinke) decide the "Appropriate" size of the monument?
5) What were the metrics (economics, wildlife habitat, cultural resources, etc.) used in deciding the "NEW" configuration?
6) Lastly, the impacted areas are some of the poorest areas of the State of Utah (many are local Indian tribes). Much is made that today's action will allow for the enhancement the local economy for the betterment of the local residence. If this is a genuine concern by state representatives, didn't this folks exist before the National Monument designation? Did they become poor because of the designation? What was the state or industry doing with this land prior to the National Monument designation to develop the local economy?

I am interested if anyone has links to the specific process and criteria used in the formulation of today's decision. We can all speculate , but I would like to see actual scientific data if available.

 

[JWP58]

Montana’s Upper Missouri River Breaks NM was on the list to cut, Zinke heard loud and clear on what most Montanan’s thought of that idea and it was quickly off the list. Evidently they heard something else in Utah- home of the “if it’s public, sell it” zealots.

Good thing the land is still public, just not a monument

 

[PathFinder]

I'm not really sure there's much to mine anywhere in either monument. I've been just about everywhere in both of them and never seen a mining operation. Closest I've seen is a gravel pit on private property on the other side of the San Juan from the Bear's Ears. I could be wrong, correct me if I am. The Book Cliffs or Range Creek would be a different story.
The communities in the area have little to no industry outside of tourism (except for ranchers). They make good money on gorpers visiting the monuments. Escalante is a great example, that place has actually grown in the last few years. Everything new is tourism based.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[WV Mountaineer]

National Monuments are statutory in law. They stand alone. The only organization that has control over making or amending any law is Congress. Which means only Congress is able to decide current and future management policies. No on else, including the president has control over management. So, they are susceptible to change at any time concerning hunting rights. So, it is smart and safe to be on the why risk is bus concerning National Monuments. And, when you have monuments larger than states, you have to evaluate why they are being made so large to begin with. NM's are supposed to be as small an area as possible, that is needed to protect the special interest of that area. That has been long abused as well.





There a lots of ways to protect and area from roads and fat guys on ATV's. Signing over multiple use, public owned and used land to congress, shouldn't be one of them. God Bless men

 

[MontanaMarine]

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.

 

[nexus]

National Monuments are statutory in law. They stand alone. The only organization that has control over making or amending any law is Congress. Which means only Congress is able to decide current and future management policies. No on else, including the president has control over management. So, they are susceptible to change at any time concerning hunting rights. So, it is smart and safe to be on the why risk is bus concerning National Monuments. And, when you have monuments larger than states, you have to evaluate why they are being made so large to begin with. NM's are supposed to be as small an area as possible, that is needed to protect the special interest of that area. That has been long abused as well.





There a lots of ways to protect and area from roads and fat guys on ATV's. Signing over multiple use, public owned and used land to congress, shouldn't be one of them. God Bless men

The President just determined a way to bypass Congress on management of the subject lands; rescind designation. For my own education, who now controls access and secures hunter's rights for these "returned" lands? As for the size of the two NMs, I would revert to my earlier questions - how was the revised size determined by Department of Interior?

Thanks

 

[vdeal]

I think the bigger issue here is and will be that there is no provision in the American Antiquities Act of 1906 for rescission of a National Monument. I believe this was an overreach of Presidential Authority and that is what the lawsuits will claim I suspect.

 

[JWP58]

I think the bigger issue here is and will be that there is no provision in the American Antiquities Act of 1906 for rescission of a National Monument. I believe this was an overreach of Presidential Authority and that is what the lawsuits will claim I suspect.

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

 

[fulldraw1972]

Effort to shrink Bears Ears National Monument started before Donald Trump was elected president - The Salt Lake Tribune

 

[handwerk]

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.

 

[mtwarden]

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.

if it's their elected officials in control, you just might get a heck of a deal if you're looking to buy

 

[texag10]

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.

Hunting and fishing were/are allowed at Bears Ears per the Forest Service fact sheet.

Theodore Roosevelt created 16 million acres new national forest lands in 2 day on his way out the door. Big "kick in the nuts" to hunters that turned out to be...

 

[TheTone]

if it's their elected officials in control, you just might get a heck of a deal if you're looking to buy

Heck of a deal? I don't think anyone would be able to compete with extraction industries or large land barons for a piece.

This deal stinks all the way around...