If you voted for Trump with on the basis of public access.....you were dead WRONG!!

[Topgun 30-06]

What Trump did today was correct abuse of the Antiquities Act by the last two Provincial Progressive Presidents.

Right on D_D and those posting negative comments on this action need to understand what he actually did today and not just make negative comments because they don't like Trump. It has nothing to do with political paybacks to allow drilling. etc. even though that may happen in the future if various standards are met on the lands that were taken out of Monument status.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Respectfully Troy, I disagree. You get your wish today, but the pendulum will swing far in the other direction based on this administration's action. That's not good for hunters or for public land.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Right on D_D and those posting negative comments on this action need to understand what he actually did today and not just make negative comments because they don't like Trump. It has nothing to do with political paybacks to allow drilling. etc. even though that may happen in the future if various standards are met on the lands that were taken out of Monument status.

Due to regulatory changes at Interior and from congress, the push is to develop without constraints. You cannot look solely at land designation or lack thereof. You have to look at the prescribed regulatory mechanisms in place to foster conservation of the resource. Those are being wiped out as this administration continues it's push to eliminate any safeguard public lands had.

The land transfer movement was adept in changing from the call to transfer to the call to reduce regulation. If only the hunting community were so adept.

 

[u1299]

I didn't know you could hunt in National Monuments because in Devils Tower you sure can't.

375, I hunt some block management areas in Montana and in some of those there are specific safe zones near buildings etc where for safety concerns shooting is not allowed (a good thing) would you agree? Ever heard of “Be sure of your target and beyond”???

 

[OriginalOscar]

Respectfully Troy, I disagree. You get your wish today, but the pendulum will swing far in the other direction based on this administration's action. That's not good for hunters or for public land.

Ben, I also respect your opinions. Everyone on this forum has more in common than different.

I've been reading Bush 43 book Decision Points and he outlines the importance of the legislative process, collaboration and respect for limiting governments role. Have a wonderful evening and best wishes for wonderful Christmas and New Year.

 

[Oak]

There is so much confusion and misinformation over the "National Monument" designation. The status of activities like hunting and grazing largely depends on when, how, and why the designation occurred, and legalities of those activities are outlined in the enabling acts. Those monuments that were created more than 30-40 years ago often have similar restrictions to those activities as do national parks, and they are management by the NPS. Those that were created more recently usually allow traditional uses such as hunting and grazing and are managed by the BLM, but it's important to make sure that those uses are protected in the enabling acts with "shall" statements, and not wait for development of management plans. In my local area we have Dinosaur National Monument, Colorado National Monument, and Florissant Fossil Beds National Monument that do not allow hunting. These are long established NM. We also have Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park and Great Sand Dunes National Park and Preserve that used to be national monuments that did not allow hunting. The names of those monuments were changed in recent years (Black Canyon largely to attract tourists, and Great Sand Dunes during a park expansion). Still, neither one allow hunting, except that you can hunt on the recently added "Preserve" portion of Great Sand Dunes.

Alternatively, we have Browns Canyon National Monument (managed by the BLM) and Canyons of the Ancients National Monument (managed by the NPS) that were created more recently and allow hunting. So the blanket statements on "national monument" management really need to go. Carry on....

 

[tjones]

Any of 43’s made up words in his book?I loved him when Letterman had “Great Moments in Presidential Speeches.”


This post has nothing to do with the OP and shouldn’t be taken seriously.

 

[fwagner]

Right on D_D and those posting negative comments on this action need to understand what he actually did today and not just make negative comments because they don't like Trump. It has nothing to do with political paybacks to allow drilling. etc. even though that may happen in the future if various standards are met on the lands that were taken out of Monument status.

You literally contradicted yourself in your own statement you brain trust.

 

[MTGomer]

Bears Ears and others are already on the decline.
Whether We mine it, frac it or attract tens of thousands of littering yuppy rock climbers to place their hardware all over the rocks and leave their broken IPA bottles and Subaru mufflers behind, the place’s golden years are behind her.
This area is already all over the news and social media and there is not shortage of people ‘advocating’ for it by turning the formations and cultural artifacts into props for #instaselfies
I hope we never have to have this fight with any administration over UMRBNM, so Patagonia and crew doesn't have to come ‘save’ us.

 

[mtmiller]

I hope we never have to have this fight with any administration over UMRBNM, so Patagonia and crew doesn't have to come ‘save’ us.

Actually, Patagonia was just here in October.

 

[CubsFan]

I don't think anyone voted for Trump on the basis of public land access without some elite level mental gymnastics.

 

[dan.kirkpatrick]

make America great again.

 

[Oneye]

Respectfully Troy, I disagree. You get your wish today, but the pendulum will swing far in the other direction based on this administration's action. That's not good for hunters or for public land.

THIS^ This is what should be scary. Troy, we don’t agree on this issue, but we agree on a lot I’m sure, that’s why Trump should be scary even to his supporters. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. As Ben said, you won today with some announcement that is going to go to court and likely lose.

What scares me and should scare you is what happens in 3 years. In 3 years there will be another election, and in 3 years if the other side gets the power, you better belive after this Administrations actions they’re going to take off running. Sometimes you can go too far, and this Administration has done that in a lot of ways whether you agree or disagree with the actions they’ve taken. This Adminsitration signed a lot of orders, how many will the next one sign? This Administration isn’t going about anything in any better way than the last one did, they’re just doing what some like.

 

[bowhuntmontana]

I think what worried me the most about the announcement yesterday was just how cozy President Trump and Secretary Zinke were with the Utah delegation. I think we know of that delegation's desire for land transfer, and it concerns me that they have the ear and action of the administration. I worry this is a sign of things to come.

 

[jmveverka]

I've never been to either Monument, but the massive size of the Bears Ears and Grand Staircase give me pause as to whether they were designated to "protect a specific natural, cultural or historic feature". If you recall as these areas were being proposed and debated it was not without controversy - there were many opponents to the designation. So maybe the size is necessary, I am not an authority and can't speak to that.

However, while we all want as much undisturbed wilderness and protected-undisturbed landscapes as possible, the reality is that most of America's public land is not set aside for hunters or hikers or bird watchers. It was established under the ideas of multiple use - so while a few of us use it to recreate (hunt, hike, ski, climb, etc), many more Americans benefit from the use of the land for lumber, grazing, and mineral and natural resource extraction. This is not land transfer - I opposed transfer wholeheartedly - this is multiple use.

I am pragmatic and understand that the more land that is closed off from these extractive uses - the louder the call for state transfer will be. So lets work together, be reasonable and allow that there are other uses for land than just those that serve our direct benefit or ideological bent, and keep the focus on fights for access, funding for land management and opposing state transfer.

 

[u1299]

You ain’t seen nothing yet I’m afraid, hope I’m wrong but I don’t think so.

 

[Straight Arrow]

jmveverka, it's the "multiple use" phrase wherein the real issue(s) reside. The ideological as well as real on-the-ground problems historically and in the future evolve from the logistical, infrastructure, and heavily intrusive requirements for resource extraction of any kind. If you like roads, pavement, hardscapes, and other never-to-be reversed requirements to be implemented, then the "multiple use" to which you refer is not a problem. But realize there are many of us who are students of land use history and human nature and who have been around enough decades to actually see the evolvement of once really nice pristine natural places which now are developed and no longer desirable places to visit ... and will forever remain that way.

For each tract proposed for resource extraction, one question is "Does this place remain as one of the last best places to extract that resource I find crucial to my way of life ... or is it merely a place to more easily extract that resource that makes someone even more extremely wealthy?"

 

[Deleted member 18333]

I am pragmatic and understand that the more land that is closed off from these extractive uses - the louder the call for state transfer will be. So lets work together, be reasonable and allow that there are other uses for land than just those that serve our direct benefit or ideological bent, and keep the focus on fights for access, funding for land management and opposing state transfer.

I think there is a lack of understanding on the part of most Americans regarding how many acres of public land are already available for extractive uses. There is currently no shortage of places to drill for oil, nat gas, mine coal, gold or copper in the US. Trust me I know, I am a coal miner that operates on public land. Public land areas for extractive uses only seems to grow as technology makes new areas viable. What seems to get smaller are areas that we just flat out leave alone. My two cents.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Well expressed, mulecreek, .... and with a real-life firsthand extractive industry perspective.

 

[jlmatthew]

Bears Ears and others are already on the decline.
Whether We mine it, frac it or attract tens of thousands of littering yuppy rock climbers to place their hardware all over the rocks and leave their broken IPA bottles and Subaru mufflers behind, the place’s golden years are behind her.
This area is already all over the news and social media and there is not shortage of people ‘advocating’ for it by turning the formations and cultural artifacts into props for #instaselfies
I hope we never have to have this fight with any administration over UMRBNM, so Patagonia and crew doesn't have to come ‘save’ us.

Nailed it!

Before the Sand Dunes became a National Park it was a nice place to visit, now it’s been/being loved to death