Forum Index > Stewardship > National Monument shrinkage
Previous :: Next Topic  
Author Message
Malachai Constant
Member
Member


Joined: 13 Jan 2002
Posts: 13882 | TRs
Location: Back Again Like A Bad Penny
Malachai Constant
  Top

Member
PostWed Sep 20, 2017 7:06 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
The land in Maine is adjacent to Baxter State Park the home of the tallest peak in Maine and the terminus of the Appalachian Trail. The only real controversy appears to be a ban on bear baiting in the monument. The governor of Maine is violently opposed to the monument.

--------------
"You do not laugh when you look at the mountains, or when you look at the sea." Lafcadio Hearn
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
alpendave
Cat Herder



Joined: 01 Aug 2008
Posts: 700 | TRs
Location: Kitsap Peninsula
alpendave
  Top

Cat Herder
PostThu Sep 21, 2017 3:50 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Nice colors
Nice colors

I can think of a couple areas that a substantial number of the locals strongly resist federal intervention to preserve certain areas that are strikingly beautiful. The Idaho Selkirk and the Scotchman Peaks area. While jobs are not plentiful there, I still think that you simply don't sacrifice certain places no matter what the locals say. On the other hand, locals should not simply mean those who literally reside at the foot of some area. Those in Spokane and Couer D' Alene are legitimately local to those areas and very likely disagree with the average resident of Clark Fork.

I remember back in the 90's hearing that only about 10% of the Olympic old growth forests remained. Not sure what the number really was. But what would still be there now if the Feds hadn't intervened back then?

--------------
Like a ray of sunshine in a drought stricken land.

What we do does far more than what we think others ought to do. Inspiration is a far greater power for good than coercion. In your own life, show others the good that you wish to see in the world.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
RodF
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Sep 2007
Posts: 2445 | TRs
Location: Sequim WA
RodF
  Top

Member
PostFri Sep 22, 2017 5:24 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
jinx'sboy wrote:
Here's a similar scenario:  Beginning in the 1920's and continuing up until 2001, the John D Rockefeller family has donated many tens of thousands of acres in what has become Grand Teton Nat. Park, the Rockefeller Parkway and adjacent Preserve, and the National Elk Refuge.  Amid MUCH local and national controversy.

Realize this had consequences...
Congressional Research Service wrote:
National Monuments and the Antiquities Act.
Litigation and legislation related to the law have been pursued throughout its history. To give one historical example, displeasure with President Franklin Roosevelt’s proclaiming of the Jackson Hole National Monument in Wyoming in 1943 (which became Grand Teton National Park) prompted litigation on the extent of presidential authority under the Antiquities Act, and led to a 1950 law prohibiting future establishment of national monuments in Wyoming unless Congress made the designation.  As another example, President Carter’s establishment of monuments in Alaska in 1978 also was challenged in the courts and led to a statutory requirement for congressional approval of land withdrawals in Alaska larger than 5,000 acres.

...so disposition of Federal land is ultimately up to Congress.  Realize also...
The Atlantic wrote:
Mount Olympus National Monument on Washington’s Olympic Peninsula..., encompassing temperate rainforest and Pacific seashore, was first created by President Theodore Roosevelt in 1909. In the next two decades, it received two small, largely uncontroversial cuts, as the original designation had accidentally included some private homesteads.  But it also received one large emendation. During World War I, President Wilson cited the country’s need for lumber and halved the monument in size.

...so there is precedent.

--------------
"of all the paths you take in life, make sure a few of them are dirt" - John Muir
"the wild is not the opposite of cultivated.  It is the opposite of the captivated” - Vandana Shiva
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
drm
Member
Member


Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 1211 | TRs
Location: The Dalles, OR
drm
  Top

Member
PostFri Sep 22, 2017 7:03 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
RodF wrote:
...so there is precedent.

I have read claims that Congress passed a law in the 1960s that adjusted this so that presidents can no longer decrease the size of monuments created under the Antiquities Act. I believe that all such actions were prior to that date. But though I've searched online, I have not been able to find this law so I really don't know how clear that is. If anybody knows about such a law - please post.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
RodF
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Sep 2007
Posts: 2445 | TRs
Location: Sequim WA
RodF
  Top

Member
PostSat Sep 23, 2017 10:00 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
drm wrote:
I have read claims that Congress passed a law in the 1960s that adjusted this so that presidents can no longer decrease the size of monuments created under the Antiquities Act.

Critics of the Antiquities Act maintain that it is inconsistent with the intent of the the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976, which is to restore control of public land withdrawals to Congress.

This is nothing beyond wishful thinking.

Law professor C. Klein, in "Preserving Monumental Landscapes", Cornell Law Review, 87(6), 1359 (2002) explains:
"In 1976, Congress declined to seize a second critical opportunity to amend or repeal the Antiquities Act.  In that year, Congress passed the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) and expressly repealed the executive withdrawal authority contained in twenty-nine statutes.  The Antiquities Act is conspicuously absent from that list... Moreover, Congress expressly affirmed the value of executively designated national monuments by forbidding the Secretary of the Interior from modifying or revoking any monuments created [by Congress or] by executive withdrawal under the Antiquities Act. See 43 U.S.C. § 1714(j) (1994)."

Specifically, FLPMA 43 U.S.C. § 1714(j) reads: "Applicability of other Federal laws withdrawing lands as limiting authority
"The Secretary shall not make, modify, or revoke any withdrawal created by Act of Congress; make a withdrawal which can be made only by Act of Congress; modify or revoke any withdrawal [by the President] creating national monuments under chapter 3203 of title 54 [the Antiquities Act]..."

FLPMA does not read "A President may not modify or revoke any withdrawal by a past President creating a national monument under the Antiquities Act.", as other critics wish it had.

Bottom line, in plain text, when Congress wrote Secretary [of Interior], they meant Secretary.  They could have, but did not, write President because they did not mean President.

Plain and simple: FLPMA did not amend or repeal the Antiquities Act.  It carefully sidestepped this issue.

--------------
"of all the paths you take in life, make sure a few of them are dirt" - John Muir
"the wild is not the opposite of cultivated.  It is the opposite of the captivated” - Vandana Shiva
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
  Display:     All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Forum Index > Stewardship > National Monument shrinkage
  Happy Birthday LeafEater!
Jump to:   
Search this topic:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
   Use Disclaimer Powered by phpBB Privacy Policy