Forum Index > Stewardship > Dept of Interior begins review of 27 Monuments under Trump exec. Order.
Previous :: Next Topic  
Author Message
wiki summary
 
This wiki post can be edited by any member
Member





wiki summary
  Top

 
This wiki post can be edited by any member
PostSat May 06, 2017 2:04 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Basin and Range
Bears Ears
Berryessa Snow Mountain
Canyons of the Ancients
Carrizo Plain
Cascade Siskiyou
Craters of the Moon
Giant Sequoia
Gold Butte
Grand Canyon-Parashant
Grand Staircase-Escalante
Hanford Reach
Ironwood Forest
Mojave Trails
Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks
Rio Grande del Norte
Sand to Snow
San Gabriel Mountains
Sonoran Desert
Upper Missouri River Breaks
Vermilion Cliffs
Katahadin Woods and Waters

Marine:
Marianas Trench
Northeast Canyons and Seamounts
Pacific Remote Islands
Papahanaumokuakea
Rose Atoll


Wiki summmary last edited by Tom on Sat May 06, 2017 2:37 pm (this post can be edited by any member)
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
jinx'sboy
Member
Member


Joined: 30 Jul 2008
Posts: 463 | TRs
Location: on a great circle route
jinx'sboy
  Top

Member
PostSat May 06, 2017 1:34 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
News release

https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/interior-department-releases-list-monuments-under-review-announces-first-ever-formal

They are going back to 1996! The release contains the full list.

Release in part:  "Executive Order 13792 of April 26, 2017 (82 FR 20429, May 1, 2017), directs the Secretary of the Interior to review certain National Monuments designated or expanded under the Antiquities Act of 1906, 54 U.S.C. 320301-320303 (Act). Specifically, Section 2 of the Executive Order directs the Secretary to conduct a review of all Presidential designations or expansions of designations under the Antiquities Act made since January 1, 1996, where the designation covers more than 100,000 acres, where the designation after expansion covers more than 100,000 acres, or where the Secretary determines that the designation or expansion was made without adequate public outreach and coordination with relevant stakeholders, to determine whether each designation or expansion conforms to the policy set forth in section 1 of the order. Among other provisions, Section 1 states that designations should reflect the Act’s “requirements and original objectives” and “appropriately balance the protection of landmarks, structures, and objects against the appropiateuse of Federal lands and the effects on surrounding lands and communities.”  82 FR 20429 (May 1, 2017)."
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Dalekz
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Mar 2002
Posts: 477 | TRs

Dalekz
  Top

Member
PostSat May 06, 2017 1:52 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
They must be going back that far because of the Utah representatives and to get  the Grand Staircase-Escalante!!!!
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
Tom
Admin



Joined: 15 Dec 2001
Posts: 15482 | TRs

Tom
  Top

Admin
PostSat May 06, 2017 2:06 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Added a wiki with links.  Feel free to populate with images.
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
PostSat May 06, 2017 2:51 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
While no president has ever canceled a monument declaration under the Antiquities Act, a few have removed some land from them, and never been challenged on it. I think that many Utahns were okay with a smaller Bear Ears Monument, so Trump could probably just shrink it down. But Grand Staircase Escalante has been around 20 years now, and a lot of business has developed around it, so I doubt he would do much there.
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
jinx'sboy
Member
Member


Joined: 30 Jul 2008
Posts: 463 | TRs
Location: on a great circle route
jinx'sboy
  Top

Member
PostSat May 06, 2017 3:34 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
drm wrote:
.... I think that many Utahns were okay with a smaller Bear Ears Monument, so Trump could probably just shrink it down... 

I think you may be right, it will be an interesting fight.  The local native nations supported the designation, so we will see.

I have visited the area often, beginning in 1972, and worked there one year long ago in the late 1970s.
An old friend helped start an advocate group there....https://www.friendsofcedarmesa.org
They were instrumental in the designation last year.  They will probably be on the front of any activity to change the designation.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 27 May 2005
Posts: 9568 | TRs
Location: tacoma
Ski
  Top

><((((°>
PostSat May 06, 2017 10:51 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
I thought we had a discussion on this in another thread here.
There is no provision in the Antiquities Act of 1906 for UNdoing a National Park or National Monument.
It would require an act of Congress.

As mentioned, they can shrink the size, which was done repeatedly up on the Olympic Peninsula (prior to the creation of Olympic National Park in 1938.)

--------------
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. 
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
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
trestle
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Aug 2008
Posts: 1962 | TRs
Location: the Oly Pen
trestle
  Top

Member
PostSun May 07, 2017 5:56 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Thank the writers for separation of powers, checks and balances. Two of our guiding principles. One could also say that limited government is an equally important principle and the one under examination with the Monuments review. Gotta love Civics!

--------------
"Life favors the prepared." - Edna Mode
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
PostSun May 07, 2017 10:27 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote

--------------
"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
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 27 May 2005
Posts: 9568 | TRs
Location: tacoma
Ski
  Top

><((((°>
PostSun May 07, 2017 6:08 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
indulge me here a minute:

Your Congressmen (Congresswomen) and Senators don't really care much about the intrinsic value of wilderness.
It's always the money that is the determining factor.
Consider:
Olympic National Park generated $398 MILLION dollars in "economic benefits" into the local economy over the last year.
For every National Park, National Monument, or other federally-owned piece of public land, somebody has written up some kind of paper on the economic benefits generated from that piece of real estate. Most of them are pretty easy to find with a simple Google search (i.e., "Economic benefits of <insert National Park or Monument name here>")
Granted, the methodology used for those reports and the numbers they arrive at might be open to debate, but even if you subtract HALF, that number for ONP last year would be $199 MILLION dollars - hardly something to sneeze at.
Moreover, that money is generated year after year after year - the trend recently has been that those dollar numbers are increasing.

If you go out and start punching holes in the ground for oil wells, or digging mines, you might generate a lot of money for a big mining or oil company, but in the end not a heck of a lot of that goes into the local economy, and sooner or later it's going to peter out because they'll tap the well dry or they'll run out of whatever ore they're digging up. (I'm excluding timber harvesting here because it's a renewable resource.)

Bottom line:
Short term = sure, some people would make some money with mines and oil wells.
Long term = tourism revenue keeps the money coming in year after year after year.

It's a no-brainer. Unfortunately you're up against Charles and David Koch, and Exxon-Mobil here, and the rest of their bastard compatriots, so they'll most surely come up with some misinformation campaign to try to refute fact.

--------------
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. 
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
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
Malachai Constant
Member
Member


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

Member
PostTue May 16, 2017 1:19 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Spent the last couple days in Bears Ears. It is a marvelous area.filled with many canyons which have prehistoric dwellings in the 100's or inscriptions every mile or so. It is a beautiful area with a unique historic value. There has been a lot of misinformation given to locals by the administration and pressure groups and industry reps that hunting and 4x4 use will be banned. They are not banned in the monuments in the area already. The First Nations people in the area pushed for this to protect their sacred sites. The area has already been explored for oil and nothing significant found. There is only one outstanding oil lease and the owner intends to let it lapse. There is a need to protect the existing artifacts as most are just out in the open, BLM has been protecting by obscurity but that is no longer adequate since the Internet. People are posting GPS coordinates of sensitive sites and vandalism and theft follows. The tribes have agreed to help protect the area if it continues. Please write reps and Sens to stop this useless sacrilege being planned.

--------------
"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
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 10526 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostTue May 16, 2017 2:37 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
I think the suspicion about bans is warranted.

If the designations were accompanied by statutory bans on excluding user groups from areas currently accessed, there might be a lot less push back.

As it is all hunters and 4x4 users have as of today is promises not encoded in the fine print of designations.  Given the rachet behavior of bureaucracies, bans are not out of the question, IMO.

The by any means methods seem to apply... get it set in stone while misleading opponents, perhaps not even intentionally...then after a while, exclude them one by one at the behest of internal or external pressure groups. End result, users excluded in spite of promises.

Now I know folks will argue that they're not being excluded because they could still access via approved methods. But that's bait and switch, and not what was promised. What was promised was continuation of their existing access methods and uses.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
rubywrangler
Member
Member


Joined: 04 Aug 2015
Posts: 174 | TRs

rubywrangler
  Top

Member
PostTue May 16, 2017 2:56 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Submit comments here: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=DOI-2017-0002-0001
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
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 27 May 2005
Posts: 9568 | TRs
Location: tacoma
Ski
  Top

><((((°>
PostTue May 16, 2017 3:02 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
And exactly what evidence exists that any user groups are going to be excluded?

If the 4x4 user group chooses not to follow the regulations, if they go in and rip the landscape up (as they did over on Oak Creek and some other areas), then the land managers are well within their statutory rights to exclude those user groups and ban them from using the area. It wouldn't be the first time that's happened.

Hunting regulations change all the time. Nothing new there.

--------------
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. 
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
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
Malachai Constant
Member
Member


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

Member
PostTue May 16, 2017 3:58 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
The period for Bears Ears is only 15 days, it is clear they are trying to fast track this😒😒

--------------
"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
  Display:     All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Forum Index > Stewardship > Dept of Interior begins review of 27 Monuments under Trump exec. Order.
  Happy Birthday Flash Gordon, raz2sea!
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