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


Joined: 14 Sep 2015
Posts: 277 | TRs
Location: montana
cdestroyer
Member
PostTue Sep 19, 2017 7:02 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
just the link (not a copy of the article)



http://billingsgazette.com/news/government-and-politics/zinke-urges-shrinking-national-monuments-in-west/article_7c2cfb5b-6f7a-5276-9e02-22d611524b2c.html
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: 8307 | TRs
Location: tacoma
Ski
><((((°>
PostTue Sep 19, 2017 9:15 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Matthew Daly, quoting Matt Anderson of the Sutherland Institute for the Billings Gazette wrote:
"It begs the question: Are these expansions more about ulterior motives like climate change, presidential legacies, corporate interests like outdoor recreation companies, or are they about antiquities?" Anderson asked.

That is a good question.

To put this into context, Olympic National Park evolved from what was originally the "Olympic Forest Reserve", and later the "Mt. Olympus Monument" before it was "Olympic National Park, and changed in size several times. (In that case, however, the reasons were timber, timber, and timber.)

--------------
"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
drm
Member
Member


Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 1199 | TRs
Location: The Dalles, OR
drm
Member
PostTue Sep 19, 2017 9:57 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
The same question could be asked of the shrinkages - whether (if they happen) they are about corporate interests and political legacies. Some of the people advocating shrinkage are hardly silent about the economic factors they claim are involved.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Visit poster's website Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 27 May 2005
Posts: 8307 | TRs
Location: tacoma
Ski
><((((°>
PostTue Sep 19, 2017 10:16 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
^ of that there can be no doubt, sir. up.gif

this issue was previously discussed at great length in another thread here.

--------------
"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
Chico
Member
Member


Joined: 30 Nov 2012
Posts: 2491 | TRs
Location: Lacey
Chico
Member
PostTue Sep 19, 2017 3:21 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
When congress and the president designate monuments, little consideration for the concerns of the locals is given. The new monument in the state of Maine being a good example.

--------------
http://capitolriders.org
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Visit poster's website Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Seventy2002
Member
Member


Joined: 19 Jul 2008
Posts: 357 | TRs

Seventy2002
Member
PostTue Sep 19, 2017 6:36 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Chico wrote:
The new monument in the state of Maine being a good example.

The Katahdin Woods and Waters National Monument was private property, gifted to the United States by its owner.  Should "the locals" have had a veto?
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: 13422 | TRs
Location: Back Again Like A Bad Penny
Malachai Constant
Member
PostTue Sep 19, 2017 6:55 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
I do not know about Maine but I do know about Utah and New Mexico where Bears Ears, Escalante, and Rio Grande del Norte monuments are located and which are under the knife. In all these areas First Nations people are the primary sponsors of monument status and comprise a large percentage of "locals" to them the lands are sacred and they have volunteered to help in administration. Local nonnative people are split with some thinking there is employment in resource extraction but a substantial number dependent upon tourism. The areas have little mineral or timber resources and only a few marginal ranches. They age been told that fishing and hunting will be stopped by politicians, this is a lie both are allowed in the existing monuments and inholdings are preserved. There are numerous exploratory wells in the area but all but one lease has lapsed without production. The status change proposed is mostly a campaign promise made to local politicians. Most importantly these are National Monuments containing national treasures. Local interests are considered but do not trump national interest.

--------------
"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
jinx'sboy
Member
Member


Joined: 30 Jul 2008
Posts: 395 | TRs
Location: on a great circle route
jinx'sboy
Member
PostTue Sep 19, 2017 7:01 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Chico wrote:
When congress and the president designate monuments, little consideration for the concerns of the locals is given.

I don't buy that at all!

First - almost all the lands designated as Nat. Monument have been, always, under federal ownership.

Second - nearly always, the 'locals' have had an inordinate amount of influence on the management of those lands.  They have for decades.
Whether managed by the BLM or the USFS, the management in those areas have skewed local....rancher x and logger y were able to come into a local office, sit down with a decision maker, and obtain the resource decision THEY wanted!

This is exactly the Problem!  Any why, beginning a few decades ago, people in Cleveland, San Diego and Schenectady said to themselves..."wait a minute, I own an equal share of these lands...why does Joe Sheepherder get a bigger voice than I do?"  Some in Congress still don't get this.

All the 'State's Rights' and 'locals are being trod upon' is just blather....
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: 8307 | TRs
Location: tacoma
Ski
><((((°>
PostTue Sep 19, 2017 8:51 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
re: "locals"

The Senator and Governor of the State of Washington fought like hell against the Olympic Forest Reserve and the Mt. Olympus National Monument and Olympic National Park, eventually reducing the size of what became Olympic National Park by quite a bit.

I think you can find all the gory details in one of Carsten Lien's books.

--------------
"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: 13422 | TRs
Location: Back Again Like A Bad Penny
Malachai Constant
Member
PostTue Sep 19, 2017 9:01 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
ditto.gif and Murray Morgans, Ruby el Hult, and many others.

--------------
"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
drm
Member
Member


Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 1199 | TRs
Location: The Dalles, OR
drm
Member
PostWed Sep 20, 2017 6:37 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Everything I have read indicates that new wilderness areas and parks approved by Congress do not get through unless the Senators and Representatives affected agree to support it. I'm sure there are exceptions to that on occasion through history, but they are rare.

For national monuments created via the Antiquities Act, this doesn't apply because Congress is not involved. I think that it is still true in many Antiquities Act cases, but the exceptions get all the attention, rare though they are. In these cases, Presidents are responding to their supporting constituencies. Note that those constituencies can be local too. Bears Ears is strongly supported by local Native Americans, not just distant environmental groups.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Visit poster's website Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
treeswarper
Alleged Sockpuppet!



Joined: 25 Dec 2006
Posts: 8073 | TRs
Location: Don't move here
treeswarper
Alleged Sockpuppet!
PostWed Sep 20, 2017 7:25 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
jinx'sboy wrote:
Second - nearly always, the 'locals' have had an inordinate amount of influence on the management of those lands.  They have for decades.
Whether managed by the BLM or the USFS, the management in those areas have skewed local....rancher x and logger y were able to come into a local office, sit down with a decision maker, and obtain the resource decision THEY wanted!


Well, now it has swung the other way. Replace rancher x and logger x with enviro group x.  Hell, one of the ones that was running an enviro group is now a district ranger!  What more could you want?

By the way, what about the laws that were in place regulating rancher x and logger x?  Those still had to be followed.  When broken, there were some investigations with early retirements and resignations--some of the more recent cases had underlings fined and going to jail but that is rare.  Examples, which I do not see in YOUR post are the timber scandal on the Olympic NF in the 1980s, when boundary tags were moved, timber markers in Alabama selling or trading the secret tree marking paint, and the rigged log scaling operation on the Colville NF in the 1980s.  There are rumored to be more episodes, like a district ranger on the Klamath NF not following requirements for selling timber sales.  Audits catch these little things.

As a local, I am of the opinion that we have no say.  Your local enviro group with the constant threat of a law suit are the overseers and determine what takes place.  After all, they "read papers" and can always find one that was written about a Southern Oregon Forest to support what they want done here in the rainy part of our state.   shakehead.gif StatementsS like "We want to see the forest restored."  are the drivers of no management.   Science and experiences are ignored and the side with the most lawyers is running things.  This fire season should be a wakeup call, but it won't be.  I'm waiting for the lawsuit to be filed about the "timber grab" along highway 410, where it was decided to thin live trees and cut down the snags to make a defensible fireline. 

And yes, my ears close and my eyes glaze over when I hear one of my neighbors lapse into the UN article 21 or whatever it is, but they still should be listened to when it comes to managing our local forests.   You cannot tell me that somebody in the other Washington understands how our forest works and the ecosystem better than the folks who grew up hunting, fishing, camping and logging in it.  They don't want to destroy it because they live in it.

I would imagine that the "locals" in Utah are afraid.  Someday maybe you'll be afraid of losing your house, your livlihood, and having to move involuntarily to a new environment.  Nobody is doing anything to lessen those fears.  Tourism work is not the answer for everyone.  Tourist work is just as cyclical as logging and lumber mills, and for less pay. 

I am also of the opinion that monument areas and National Parks are oversized.  Not only in official boundaries, but in what might affect them.  We must have buffers, and then the buffers are buffered, and pretty soon the park is expanded and more people are unable to hunt or hike (without turning in their exact plans).  Spontaneity, which is an experience more might want to participate in, is extinguished. 

Anybody got the answer?  I sure don't. 

Ready for the usual insults.   moon.gif

--------------
What's especially fun about sock puppets is that you can make each one unique and individual, so that they each have special characters. And they don't have to be human––animals and aliens are great possibilities
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Chico
Member
Member


Joined: 30 Nov 2012
Posts: 2491 | TRs
Location: Lacey
Chico
Member
PostWed Sep 20, 2017 11:41 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
jinx'sboy wrote:
I don't buy that at all!

Go have a chat with the folks in Maine!

--------------
http://capitolriders.org
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Visit poster's website Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Malachai Constant
Member
Member


Joined: 13 Jan 2002
Posts: 13422 | TRs
Location: Back Again Like A Bad Penny
Malachai Constant
Member
PostWed Sep 20, 2017 4:56 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Of the public comments received 98% were in favor of saving the monuments with 55% specifically mentioning Bears Ears. Utah residents were 88% in favor of Bears Ears 10% against 2% neutral. Several lies are in Zinke's report specifically stating that in Rio Grande del Norte that roads were closed and ranchers left because of road closures. This is false I drove all the roads in this monument this spring and they were open and ranchers were there. One road in the northern section is closed but it was destroyed in a flash flood ten years ago before monument status. I walked it and it was pretty trashed compleatly washed out with loose rock above and below.

--------------
"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
jinx'sboy
Member
Member


Joined: 30 Jul 2008
Posts: 395 | TRs
Location: on a great circle route
jinx'sboy
Member
PostWed Sep 20, 2017 6:53 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Chico wrote:
Go have a chat with the folks in Maine!

My understanding in Maine is that a very wealthy family bought, over time, some 80,000 acres.  Then, donated it to the Federal Govt....along with $40 million or so in cash and commitments to fund initial operations, etc. 
Any other Maine resident - or anyone else - could have bought that land. But did NOT.  Willing seller to willing buyer...

Now, Maine residents, who I'd bet are of the rugged Northeastern "don't tell what I can do with my land" mold, are upset. 
Apparently....you can do with you land what you want....EXCEPT donate it to the Feds for any sort of reserve.

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.

Thank goodness for future minded souls who have chosen to do good with their wealth.
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 > National Monument shrinkage
  Happy Birthday payton, arcticlights69!
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