Trump - shrinking bears ear and escalante

[Rthur]

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...

I don't think comparing Teddy ,the father of national parks, to current to semi current Presidents is a reasonable axiom.
Give the wrong side of the isle in office this could be used to great effect against the hunters.
One thing you will not see most do is give up power or control of anything.

R

 

[gdog]

Yes but once again this isn't about states selling land or taking over public lands it's about reducing the size of a NM. That is the problem with this debate, people can't separate the two debates. I'm not sure why it's so hard.

Yes it is. The ultimate goal is for Bishop, Lee and the rest of our Utard delegates getting state control of Federal ground. Keep as much ground from being labeled a NM is step one...

 

[JWP58]

Yes it is. The ultimate goal is for Bishop, Lee and the rest of our Utard delegates getting state control of Federal ground. Keep as much ground from being labeled a NM is step one...

No it isn't.

 

[vdeal]

Interestingly enough it was "donated" with the stipulation it had to be designated a Wilderness Area. If it wasn't included in the Sabinoso Wilderness Area it wouldn't be donated to the Feds (as far as I can tell, I could be totally wrong but I believe that was the situation). Which I find interesting people would be ok with a private property owner dictating to the D.O.I. what will and wont be designated Wilderness Area. Of course it provided access to a previously land locked Wilderness Area so all was well..

You can look up the details for yourself. It was kinda big news when it happened.

The Wilderness Land Trust bought the property and then donated it. I'm not sure they stipulated because the DOI was wanting a way to open a landlocked wilderness area anyway. Even so, I don't have a problem with a property owner stipulating terms under which they would donate.

In fact this is almost the exact opposite of the real reason behind this thread - the removal of property from a particular designation.

 

[realunlucky]

Of course thier ultimate goal is to make as much money for themselves and thier associated partnerships as possible

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

[mtwarden]

Yes but once again this isn't about states selling land or taking over public lands it's about reducing the size of a NM. That is the problem with this debate, people can't separate the two debates. I'm not sure why it's so hard.

transferring a NM to a state is improbable at best, transferring “plain Jane” BLM or USFS lands is exactly what the Representatives and Senators from the great state of Utah have proposed (many times). the NM designation would certainly slow (or even halt) those issues

 

[mtnkid85]

No it isn't.

It really is. THE reason for a National Monument designation is long term protection against future development.
Which when you look at the public to private push, thats really what we are talking about is future development.
Sure you are correct, simply removing these lands from the NM isn't in its self going to instantly transfer them into private hands to be developed, but it leaves that door open for the future. Which is what the Utah delegation is so worried about.

 

[gdog]

It really is. THE reason for a National Monument designation is long term protection against future development.
Which when you look at the public to private push, thats really what we are talking about is future development.
Sure you are correct, simply removing these lands from the NM isn't in its self going to instantly transfer them into private hands to be developed, but it leaves that door open for the future. Which is what the Utah delegation is so worried about.

Exactly right. Like I said....step#1

 

[MontanaMarine]

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 ?

Off the top of my head, NM land is generally a lot more rules and regulations as compatred to BLM and FS. A couple things that jump to mind are dispersed camping and rec. shooting.

 

[blicero]

My understanding is that this land was Federal before (BLM), and will remain Federal, although the way Trump and Zinke have positioned this as a State's right / local control issue, it's difficult to be certain.

So far, this isn't a land-transfer to the state, but Trump sure does seem to be playing footsie with that crowd a lot.

 

[MontanaMarine]

I believe removing the NM status also opens the door to grazing leases and timber harvest.

 

[Where's Bruce?]

National Park lovers should applaud Trump's monument decision | Fox News

 

[durangobrad]

National Park lovers should applaud Trump's monument decision | Fox News

Please not an article by Fox, written by Jason Chaffetz......For those of you who dont remember, the same guy who introduced the bills to transfer federal lands to the state.

 

[vdeal]

Off the top of my head, NM land is generally a lot more rules and regulations as compatred to BLM and FS. A couple things that jump to mind are dispersed camping and rec. shooting.

MontanaMarine, I would like to see a reference to those two items. Nothing i see changes the way the land was used as FS and BLM land, it only protects against future development.

 

[blicero]

I'd read that grazing leases were still permitted for Bear's Ears under the NM designation, but not 100% sure. I don't think there is much as far as desirable timber leasing, but I'm not a local.

 

[gdog]

Please not an article by Fox, written by Jason Chaffetz......For those of you who dont remember, the same guy who introduced the bills to transfer federal lands to the state.

I almost spit my coffee out when you named the writer of the article. Chavez is a joke and was one of the worse UT reps pushing transfer to state.

 

[bigdesert10]

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.

I honestly don't have a strong opinion one way or the other on these NM's, but just to play devil's advocate, what happens when the previous President acted in manner that might potentially exceed the license he was given? Here's a quote from the Antiquities Act text:

" ...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..."

Is it arguable that the limits of these monuments exceeded that prescription? If it can be determined that the NM exceeds those limits, is there any recourse for executive abuse in this case or is it "too bad, so sad"?

 

[vdeal]

Wow!, there's so many inaccuracies in that Fox News article that it strains credibility. I suppose journalism isn't what it used to be. Just a few:

In the case of Bears Ears National Monument, all of that land was already federal land mostly managed for conservation use. With President Obama’s monument designation, the maintenance fell to the already-strapped National Park Service.

Well, according to the USFS, "The Bears Ears National Monument is the 12th national monument managed by the Forest Service; it is the fth to be managed jointly by the Forest Service and BLM."

While such designations may sound good on the surface, in reality they have strained land management budgets and limited public access to beautiful places.

Again, referencing some of my other posts and the Fact sheet from the FS any previous uses including open roads are still open. Limited public access - I don't think so.

The notion that our only option for managing public land is a restrictive monument designation is false. In truth, we can build bathrooms and fire pits, and accommodate hunting, fishing, grazing, and permit accessibility without destroying the land.

Hunting, fishing, grazing and accessibility were not limited by NM designation.

But freeing up more money for national parks isn’t the only advantage of Monday’s decision. Access to these places will be expanded, not restricted, as required in large-scale national monuments.

By lifting restrictions on motorized access, President Trump makes these lands available to more than just the able-bodied. With expanded access, the elderly, disabled and even wounded veterans can utilize bikes or off-highway vehicles to access spectacular places.

Furthermore, those who wish to use the land for other purposes – such as hunting, fishing, camping, and outdoor recreation – will now also have access.

Wow, this guy just doesn't understand what a National Monument does. I don't need to repeat myself here to make my point on land use and accesibility.

 

[vdeal]

I honestly don't have a strong opinion one way or the other on these NM's, but just to play devil's advocate, what happens when the previous President acted in manner that might potentially exceed the license he was given? Here's a quote from the Antiquities Act text:

" ...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..."

Is it arguable that the limits of these monuments exceeded that prescription? If it can be determined that the NM exceeds those limits, is there any recourse for executive abuse in this case or is it "too bad, so sad"?

If a former President did exceed his mandate them the onus and legal authority is on Congress to rescind. The President has no authority to rescind based on the law. I suspect this will be stopped at District Federal Court level. Whether it goes higher is uncertain.

 

[blicero]

Not to mention that "closure of public access" was primarily done by Lyman Family Farms, which has a history of deliberately buying up parcels in / near public land to control access:

Lyman Family Farm blocks road to popular part of new Bears Ears monument in Utah - The Salt Lake Tribune