National Monuments Gutted - Mountain Buzz
 



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 12-05-2017   #1
Misspellingintothefuture!
 
mattman's Avatar
 
Tabernash, Colorado
Paddling Since: 2000
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,901
National Monuments Gutted

Donald Trump signed an illegal presidential proclamation yesterday, essentially gutting two of our National Monuments, in order to allow use by mining and other special interest groups.
Though the President of the united states has power to create National Monuments, only Congress has the power to remove National Monument status.
Grand Canyon Trust has been working for the last 20 years to protect these areas, and is preparing for a long legal battle, in partnership with the five original nations that call these lands sacred, and who's people lived here long before Donald J Trump came to power.

Please don't think for a minute that the War on public lands will stop here.


https://www.grandcanyontrust.org/blog/trump-slashes-bears-ears-and-grand-staircase"

God Bless America, now let's save some of it.

__________________
We can't always agree, but we can still be civil to each other.
mattman is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 12-05-2017   #2
 
Southern, Oregon
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 60
The Antiquities Act is something that has being used beyond its original scope an intent. From what I have read the President does have the authority to reduce the size of National Monuments as it has been done before. You start locking up millions of acres at a time and there is going to be some push back eventually, example this reduction. There needs to be middle ground on the monument issue.
Duce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2017   #3
 
mr. compassionate's Avatar
 
conifer, Colorado
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,016
The Antiquities Act was not meant to lock up huge tracts of land by the Federal Govt. against the wishes of the state. Obama illegally used the act to restrict access to millions of acres. Trump is merely righting one of the many wrongs of the Obama Administration.

I agree and support States rights, if the State of Utah would like to restrict use to/by their citizens then so be it.
mr. compassionate is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 12-05-2017   #4
 
mr. compassionate's Avatar
 
conifer, Colorado
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,016
Specific language from the act that shows Obama way over stepped the bounds of this act!

and may reserve as a part thereof parcels of land, 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:

Millions of acres doesn't fit into this sorry...
mr. compassionate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2017   #5
 
Denver, Colorado
Paddling Since: 2012
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. compassionate View Post
Specific language from the act that shows Obama way over stepped the bounds of this act!

and may reserve as a part thereof parcels of land, 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:

Millions of acres doesn't fit into this sorry...
Sure it does, if millions of acres is needed to protect the landscape and antiquities therein, then millions of acres is perfectly within "the smallest area compatible with proper care and management..."
dbertolad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2017   #6
 
mr. compassionate's Avatar
 
conifer, Colorado
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by dbertolad View Post
Sure it does, if millions of acres is needed to protect the landscape and antiquities therein, then millions of acres is perfectly within "the smallest area compatible with proper care and management..."

100% wrong, antiquities covers only the artifacts as referenced in the act nothing to do with land or landscape and actual states "the smallest area compatible"

Whoever wrote this clearly understood the over reaching of our Federal Govt. Why shouldn't the State be able to decide. I'm all for State Rights over Federal Rights. Not sure why so many of you trust our Federal Government.
mr. compassionate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2017   #7
 
Denver, Colorado
Paddling Since: 2012
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. compassionate View Post
100% wrong, antiquities covers only the artifacts as referenced in the act nothing to do with land or landscape and actual states "the smallest area compatible"

Whoever wrote this clearly understood the over reaching of our Federal Govt. Why shouldn't the State be able to decide. I'm all for State Rights over Federal Rights. Not sure why so many of you trust our Federal Government.
See "antiquities therein." The antiquities in these areas are inextricably tied to the landscape.
dbertolad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2017   #8
 
Denver, Colorado
Paddling Since: 2012
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. compassionate View Post
100% wrong, antiquities covers only the artifacts as referenced in the act nothing to do with land or landscape and actual states "the smallest area compatible"
Also, your interpretation of the scope of the act is incorrect. Heres' the language from the horse mouth:

"That the President of the United States is hereby authorized, in his discretion, to declare by public proclamation historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest that are situated upon the lands owned or controlled by the Government of the United States to be national monuments, and may reserve as a part thereof parcels of land, 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"

Both "prehistoric structures" and "objects of scientific interest" could both refer areas of the landscape without specific human artifacts.
dbertolad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2017   #9
 
dirtbagkayaker's Avatar
 
Poundtown, Wokastan
Paddling Since: 420
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,622
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. compassionate View Post
Specific language from the act that shows Obama way over stepped the bounds of this act!


Millions of acres doesn't fit into this sorry.
Totally agree! He did it on 12/28/2016. A month before his office ended.

Here is a bit about da land

"Of the some 1.35 million acres of the monument, the Bureau of Land Management manages 1.06 million acres and the U.S. Forest Service manages 289,000 acres.[8] The vast majority of the land within the national monument is federal land; some 109,100 acres of land within the boundaries of the monument are owned by the State of Utah, while 12,600 acres are privately owned.[8] These state-owned and privately owned lands within the monument's boundaries are not part of the national monument, and will not be "unless subsequently and voluntarily acquired" by the United States.[8] The designation of the monument does not affect the rights of owners of land in or adjacent to the monument's boundaries to access or use their property.[8]"


On a side note:

I just love Trumps hate! Keep it coming for a Trump win in 2020.
__________________
I saw someone do it on youtube.
dirtbagkayaker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2017   #10
 
Denver, Colorado
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 507
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. compassionate View Post
The Antiquities Act was not meant to lock up huge tracts of land by the Federal Govt. against the wishes of the state. Obama illegally used the act to restrict access to millions of acres. Trump is merely righting one of the many wrongs of the Obama Administration.

I agree and support States rights, if the State of Utah would like to restrict use to/by their citizens then so be it.
Actually, Clinton monument proclamations were challenged over just the issue you raise, these challenges (2) were shot down in lower courts, and the SC declined to review them. So based on current case law, you're wrong: presidents CAN and often have used the Antiquities Act to protect natural resources and have done so with designations of considerable size.

And Trump is not merely righting a "wrong". He's using the authority of the Antiquities Act in an entirely new way, to "de-proclaim" an area proclaimed by a previous president. Now, I can tell you with certainly that the plain language of the Antiquities Act NOWHERE spells out this authority to remove designation. It will therefore be up to the court to decide whether this authority is implied in some way. I think there is a good argument that this power lies with Congress, but there is a genuine legal issue to sort out and it has real importance to how a great many of our national park units have been created in the past.

As to states rights...well, the state has not right to dispose of land it doesn't own, so we can put that to rest quite easily.
markhusbands is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Topic Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Monuments Under Review-Public comment Dsuth82 The Eddy 2 05-16-2017 06:21 AM
BLM getting gutted by congress highbrace Boaters Forum | General Boating Topics 16 02-23-2017 05:12 PM
National Spotlight yesimapirate Whitewater Kayaking 1 09-14-2015 09:39 AM
National Recognition yesimapirate Whitewater Kayaking 2 12-16-2011 04:59 PM
A-1 on national TV. farp Whitewater Kayaking 9 10-24-2006 10:10 AM

» Classified Ads
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:02 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.