Trump - shrinking bears ear and escalante

[Shrek]

This is actually very good news. The hard drive to get the ownership of the lands transferred to the states was a direct result of the Obama administration using Monument status and other designations to shut down commercial uses across the West. When more than half the state is federal lands this puts a boot on the throat of the local economy. The more friendly Trump Administration and the opening back up of these lands relieves the pressure to grab the lands from the federal government. Although it is a long standing practice to ignore the US Constitution limits on what lands the federal government may own the practice could come to a halt if challenged in the Supreme Court with a more strict constructionists makeup. If Kennedy retires in the spring as is expected we could be close to that composition. If I was a greenie I’d be very careful challenging this in court. Every last acre of federal land held for parks , national forest , and BLM could be transferred to the states. All of theses states were admitted to the union as lessor states under coercion. Forced to agree to lessor status. These states can’t afford to manage theses lands without commercially exploiting them so would move to privatize much of it. As long as the states can exploit and exercise some control of some of the land without having to own and pay for it it’s a good deal for them and the rest of the country. The states can prosper and grow while most of the land remains mostly preserved and a benefit to the whole country.

 

[mlevimadden]

You must be a liberal. Jason is of the few conservatives who is constantly grinding on Republicans for their shortcomings and has been particularly vocal with the current administration. Show me any proof the creation of massive monuments has improved access. Any modern day example will do. Trump is right, there are crumbling roads and buildings throughout our nation that would be better served by resolving the debt crisis that has left our recreation area billions of dollars in the red. You don't add a wing to your home when the plumbing doesn't work...you use your budget to fix the stuff that needs fixing first. It's just common sense. The change is hardly a change given how recently Obama signed this deal anyway. No doubt there was some sweetheart deal in it for those filing suits but the media won't reveal those facts anytime soon...maybe Wikileaks will.

I'm not sure how my post dictates my political ideology. I typically take a moderate stance on most issues and try to evaluate issues on an individual basis instead of blindly following a single ideology like liberalism or conservatism.

I was simply concerned that someone reading the thread may have taken your source as a neutral point-of-view, which Chaffetz clearly is not. The day that I entrust the man who introduced the "disposal of excess public federal lands act" and the "local enforcement for local lands act" to protect my public lands is the same day that I entrust Senator Warren to protect my second amendment rights (which she adamantly opposes). Both of them hold equally ignorant stances on their respective issues, which is why I cited the reference.

I apologize if my reference offended you, as that was not my intent. I was simply encouraging everyone to try to get information from a less biased point-of-view.

 

[wind gypsy]

Yup. Utah has done a fine job of managing it's natural resources. How many states ever created a Predator Control Program that pays you for each dead coyote and did it w/o requiring you buy a hunting license? I trust Utah more than DC. Smart reversal IMHO.

I mean it would be nice to shoot Coyotes without a license and get a check for it but how is that managing resources well? How is the coyote population doing in Utah?

 

[nexus]

This is actually very good news. The hard drive to get the ownership of the lands transferred to the states was a direct result of the Obama administration using Monument status and other designations to shut down commercial uses across the West. When more than half the state is federal lands this puts a boot on the throat of the local economy. The more friendly Trump Administration and the opening back up of these lands relieves the pressure to grab the lands from the federal government. Although it is a long standing practice to ignore the US Constitution limits on what lands the federal government may own the practice could come to a halt if challenged in the Supreme Court with a more strict constructionists makeup. If Kennedy retires in the spring as is expected we could be close to that composition. If I was a greenie I’d be very careful challenging this in court. Every last acre of federal land held for parks , national forest , and BLM could be transferred to the states. All of theses states were admitted to the union as lessor states under coercion. Forced to agree to lessor status. These states can’t afford to manage theses lands without commercially exploiting them so would move to privatize much of it. As long as the states can exploit and exercise some control of some of the land without having to own and pay for it it’s a good deal for them and the rest of the country. The states can prosper and grow while most of the land remains mostly preserved and a benefit to the whole country.

There is a lot going on in this post and I'm sure you are trying to make some very important connections and points; but I am having a hard time connecting all of the dots you are bring to the table. Can you provide the readers a little more clarification on the specifics related to Obama's role in land transfers for this region, your vision of future economics of the already impoverished area and Indian tribes, and how this move alleviates these matters? Then we can move on to the "pressure to grab the land from the federal government - who is grabbing the land?

I am not asking to be a wise guy, I am asking to become wise....

Thanks

 

[WV Mountaineer]

I don't believe I ever painted an end of the world scenario. Also, saying that you got your info from Tidwell is hearsay since there is no supporting documentation and even if he did say it that does not make it law.

PM m your email. I'll send you the document he sent to us, to read for yourself. Then you can spread the truth versus your painted version of it.




You are correct about what he says not being law. However, when he is quoting the law, that is a little different.




I'm not trying to insult you. I'm trying to educate you

 

[Matt Cashell]

This is actually very good news. The hard drive to get the ownership of the lands transferred to the states was a direct result of the Obama administration using Monument status and other designations to shut down commercial uses across the West. When more than half the state is federal lands this puts a boot on the throat of the local economy. The more friendly Trump Administration and the opening back up of these lands relieves the pressure to grab the lands from the federal government. Although it is a long standing practice to ignore the US Constitution limits on what lands the federal government may own the practice could come to a halt if challenged in the Supreme Court with a more strict constructionists makeup. If Kennedy retires in the spring as is expected we could be close to that composition. If I was a greenie I’d be very careful challenging this in court. Every last acre of federal land held for parks , national forest , and BLM could be transferred to the states. All of theses states were admitted to the union as lessor states under coercion. Forced to agree to lessor status. These states can’t afford to manage theses lands without commercially exploiting them so would move to privatize much of it. As long as the states can exploit and exercise some control of some of the land without having to own and pay for it it’s a good deal for them and the rest of the country. The states can prosper and grow while most of the land remains mostly preserved and a benefit to the whole country.

That is a bunch of Sagebrush Rebellion recycled bull, Dave. This is a common tactic of anti-public lands folks, as they selectively quote the Enclave Clause of the US Constitution and completely ignore the Property Clause.

You don't have to take my word for it though ... it is long-settled Supreme Court precedent that Federal Ownership of land is constitutional under the property clause way back to 1840 and earlier:

Kleppe v. New Mexico, 426 U.S. 529, 539, 96 S.Ct. 2285, 2291, 49 L.Ed.2d 34 (1976);  United States v. San Francisco, 310 U.S. 16, 29, 60 S.Ct. 749, 756, 84 L.Ed. 1050 (1940).   Alabama v. Texas, 347 U.S. 272, 273, 74 S.Ct. 481, 481-82, 98 L.Ed. 689 (1954);  United States v. California, 332 U.S. 19, 27, 67 S.Ct. 1658, 1662-63, 91 L.Ed. 1889 (1947);  Gibson v. Chouteau, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 92, 99, 20 L.Ed. 534 (1871);  United States v. Gratiot, 39 U.S. (14 Pet.) 526, 537, 10 L.Ed. 573 (1840).

Regardless of the makeup of the court, I don't see them overturning 200 years of precedent.

But still, this has little to do with this thread, as the Trump administration does not challenge this authority, or even the validity of the Antiquities Act. In fact it stipulates to both federal land authority and the Antiquities Act by only attempting to reduce the size of the National Monuments, while even proposing a new Trump-Signed National Monument in Montana's Badger Two Medicine here in Montana just this week.

Zinke defends monument reductions, supports Badger-Two Medicine | Local | missoulian.com

I applaud the Badger Two Medicine proposal, but I still cant see anything in the law outlining the authority of one president to reduce the size of a previous administration's NM, and I think the chances of these NM reductions being overturned by the courts is pretty high.

 

[dplantz]

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

Uh no. Not even close. It's disturbing the number of people in this country that don't comprehend federal lands. I don't mean that as an insult. It is just truly disturbing to those who cherish federal public lands. These lands were already Forest service/blm. And the vast majority were wilderness research areas; a precursor to wilderness designation, in a way that maintains main access roads, but closes off a lot of the excess, unmaintained two tracks. Kinda perfect for the hunter willing to work for it. Certainly not open to any mineral exploration.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk

 

[dplantz]

Patagonia is leading the charge on filing a lawsuit.

I have a hard time believing Obama had sportsman best interest in mind when he upped the acreage.

Yep. The same Patagonia that took multiple pages out of a recent catalog to spew emotional propaganda opposing delisting of gye grizzlies

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk

 

[mtwarden]

Uh no. Not even close. It's disturbing the number of people in this country that don't comprehend federal lands. I don't mean that as an insult. It is just truly disturbing to those who cherish federal public lands. These lands were already Forest service/blm. And the vast majority were wilderness research areas; a precursor to wilderness designation, in a way that maintains main access roads, but closes off a lot of the excess, unmaintained two tracks. Kinda perfect for the hunter willing to work for it. Certainly not open to any mineral exploration.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk

you must not be familiar with Utah politicians- many want to transfer federal lands to state control, where many could be sold to the highest bidder

what's perfect about that? well if you happen to be multi-millionaire, then yes- it is perfect

 

[twall13]

I want to chime in and state that I'm from Utah, but don't frequent the area in question and don't feel I know enough about the issues at hand. I appreciate those who have posted links where I've been able to go read and understand the issue better. I've honestly been torn on this whole debate for awhile feeling like I don't have all the information to make a decision on which side I stand. I'm still not sure I have all the right information. I feel like I can't trust anyone's take on it as most responses seem to be emotional and based on speculation rather than clearly definable facts. In this specific case, I'm honestly not sure how much hunting, fishing, etc, access changes with a NM designation versus the traditional public lands use and most of the arguments one way or the other are based on speculation of what the underlying intentions are.

I will point out that Bears Ears was a very recent NM addition. To my understanding, the Forest Service and BLM never fully defined the exact borders of the NM given it's vastness and such a short time to work with. As such, I'm not sure what all the big uproar is about with losing a lot of that monument. Most of it goes back to what it was before (Forest Service & BLM managed lands) , and for those that wanted a national monument, they still have one and it's more than was there a year ago.

One thing that concerns me about the reductions is it sets a precedent that it can be done elsewhere and in the future. I don't know how legitimate that concern is but if Trump really has the authority to do that, what's stopping the next president from doing the same on a larger scale? I guess that fear is baseless unless I can better understand what that means for most of us regarding our access to those public lands and how they are managed.

Although I'm a hunter and that's my favorite form of outdoor recreation, I also enjoy hiking, backpacking, biking, camping, fishing, skiing, riding atv's, etc. I personally like that we have different areas set aside for different uses. I want to have some wilderness areas, but I don't want everywhere to be wilderness. I like having some national monuments and national parks but I don't want all public lands to fall into that category. I do know that the National Parks bring massive tourism dollars to Southern Utah. Without them, much of the residents in those areas wouldn't be able to live there. I'm not sure if the same applies for National Monuments, but I imagine it does to a lesser extent. Did any of you see that Representative Chris Stewart from Utah proposed a new National Park on the heels of the NM reduction? He claims it is a way to appease both sides of the NM reduction debate. While I do think it would bring additional tourism money to Utah, I don't think we should be adding another NP when there is a massive backlog of repairs and maintenance that needs to be done on the current National Parks.

 

[Where's Bruce?]

This is only correct if hunting is permitted on the NM. Which some do and some do not allow. The problem exhibited is that the rules of any NM can change with the whim of Congress. Mandatory pubic input is no longer guaranteed under any NM because the laws defining a particular NM is statutory. They stand alone law wise and, the only way to legally change a NM law is through Congress.





The end of the world scenario you are painting is incorrect. As is your understanding of NM law. Before you ask, I got my info from Chief of the FS. Thomas Tidwell. So, I'm not winging it nor, am I guessing on one thing concerning NM's.

God Bless men

Bingo! This is why Trump was right to restore control back to Utah. Obama slipped this in at the last minute probably so he'd have one monument left after Obamacare was repealed. LOL

 

[twall13]

Bingo! This is why Trump was right to restore control back to Utah. Obama slipped this in at the last minute probably so he'd have one monument left after Obamacare was repealed. LOL

Trump pitched it as restoring control back to the locals. I think that has alot of people thinking the state is in control. In reality it returns to BLM and Forest Service management. Whether or not you consider that "local control" is a matter of personal opinion.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

 

[bigdesert10]

I think Steven Rinella summed things up in a way that resonates with me pretty well...

Steven Rinella’s Statement on the reduction of Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monuments – MeatEater

 

[vdeal]

PM m your email. I'll send you the document he sent to us, to read for yourself. Then you can spread the truth versus your painted version of it.

You are correct about what he says not being law. However, when he is quoting the law, that is a little different.

I'm not trying to insult you. I'm trying to educate you

Please! That last line is condescending. Everything I posted was backed up with links to fact sheets from the Forest Service or referenced in other ways. If I said something that wasn't backed up then I stated that it was an opinion.

On the other hand you have not provided any documentation and did not PM me. How about you just post that document up here so the entire board can see it, okay? BTW, I never really said anything about any other National Monuments since this thread is about Bear's Ear and Grand Staircase - what happens in others (many of which are run by the NPS and have an entirely different management strategy) is not really germane to this thread.

Apparently I said something that bothered you amongst all these comments. Maybe you could quote me so I can see if I made a mistake and correct it if I did but since you didn't I really don't know what your issue is.

 

[twall13]

I think Steven Rinella summed things up in a way that resonates with me pretty well...

Steven Rinella’s Statement on the reduction of Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monuments – MeatEater

Thanks for the link. I tend to agree with Steve on this. I don't think it's as good or bad as either side paints it. Regardless, we need to work together to insure hunting and fishing remain viable on public lands. There are many more battles to fight in the future and, in the end, I'm not sure this one is as big a deal as it's being made out to be. Maybe I'm wrong on that, but that's where my research up to this point has lead me.

 

[nexus]

Bingo! This is why Trump was right to restore control back to Utah. Obama slipped this in at the last minute probably so he'd have one monument left after Obamacare was repealed. LOL

If you are speaking of legacy...Obama actually has ultimate scoreboard. He made the call when it was needed to kill that bastage Bin Laden. Again, regardless of our individual politics, that was an American moment that should never be forgotten - especially on a historic day like December 7th.

 

[WV Mountaineer]

Please! That last line is condescending. Everything I posted was backed up with links to fact sheets from the Forest Service or referenced in other ways. If I said something that wasn't backed up then I stated that it was an opinion.

On the other hand you have not provided any documentation and did not PM me. How about you just post that document up here so the entire board can see it, okay? BTW, I never really said anything about any other National Monuments since this thread is about Bear's Ear and Grand Staircase - what happens in others (many of which are run by the NPS and have an entirely different management strategy) is not really germane to this thread.

Apparently I said something that bothered you amongst all these comments. Maybe you could quote me so I can see if I made a mistake and correct it if I did but since you didn't I really don't know what your issue is.

I tried but cannot post it. I've been unsuccessful in the past in other attempts as well. Trust me. Id love to be able to post it. If I could, I'd do so every time a political puppet starting spewing the same broken record over and over again.



What I said was simple to understand. If you want to see it, PM me. I'll gladly send it to you. And, you could google it yourself and find the exact same and factual info that dispute's your assumptions.



Once again, I will provide factual info to dispute your claims of how NM law works. I will do it free of charge and free from ridicule. If you will read my previous post, you will see that I asked for a PM containing your email address to send the info to you. Since I cannot get the document to post. Never did I say I was going to PM you requesting your email address. That is kinda easy to see why. if we are lucky, Perhaps you will have better luck and can post it on this thread for everyone to see and, read for themselves. No more speculation doing it like that. I'd appreciate it.



I do not have an issue with you. Only your incorrect assumptions. And, I have zero incentive to allow you to spread your version of the truth, as the gospel, when it is being based on what you think. Versus federal law.




God Bless