Interior secretary recommends Trump alter at least three national monuments.

[mfb99]

All hands on deck!

Another good article in the Washington Post.

http://https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/08/24/interior-secretary-recommends-trump-alter-a-handful-of-national-monuments-but-declines-to-reveal-which-ones/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_monuments-3pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.214107c5c331

Still waiting on the details of the Zinke report............

My view is don't give an inch on Public Lands monument reductions. Giving an inch now will lead to more negative impact on OUR Public Lands.

The bottom line is this Zinke activity is about increasing access of the Extraction Industry to OUR Public Lands.

Why do we need to open more land to oil and gas extraction when there is a glut of oil and fracking technology will keep it that way. Why do we need to open public land to more coal strip mines when coal is a dead end energy source? Why do we need to open protected fishing spots when most of the oceans have been commercially fished out?

The reason why is GREED - earnings per share.

Don't over think this, it is not complicated. Resist the urge to try and find some meaningful and benevolent reason for this Zinke effort. There is none, at least not for us sportsmen who love OUR Public Lands.

If there was benevolence in this effort, Zinke would be making recommendations to EXPAND Public Lands Monuments. Has he? Of course not.

Call your Congressional representatives at 202-224-3121

Join Backcountry Hunters and Anglers http://www.backcountryhunters.org/

Join and give to the League of Conservation Voters. https://www.lcv.org/

Above all, don't carry water for these guys trying to decimate OUR Public Lands.

Cheers,

Mark

 

[JWP58]

Your link doesn't work. Are you opposed to any commercial use of public land? No grazing, no gas, no oil, no mining, no logging? Or is some ok, and what defines "ok"?

Do you think cutting off all use of public land outside of recreation makes public land more or less attractive to the avg. metro-living American that will never utilize public land for recreation?

This is not a politically motivated, attack, or instigation. Friendly discussion.

 

[HighWildFree]

Your link doesn't work. Are you opposed to any commercial use of public land? No grazing, no gas, no oil, no mining, no logging? Or is some ok, and what defines "ok"?

My problem is a lot of times it is foreign companies that are mining public lands and pay no royalties back to the US. Grazing rates for AUMs are ridiculously low when compared to private and state lands. I am not against any commercial use of public lands but as public land owners we should be getting a fair price for the use of our lands. It's not 1872 anymore. The West is settled.

 

[OriginalOscar]

The reason why is GREED - earnings per share. American capitalism foundation of our economy.

Don't over think this, it is not complicated. Resist the urge to try and find some meaningful and benevolent reason for this Zinke effort. There is none, at least not for us sportsmen who love OUR Public Lands. Irrational revolutionary rant

If there was benevolence in this effort, Zinke would be making recommendations to EXPAND Public Lands Monuments. Has he? Of course not.

Call your Congressional representatives at 202-224-3121

Join Backcountry Hunters and Anglers http://www.backcountryhunters.org/ Aligns himself with BHA

Join and give to the League of Conservation Voters. https://www.lcv.org/ Somehow the coming Mexican Border Wall is a hot button environmental issue

Above all, don't carry water for these guys trying to decimate OUR Public Lands.

Cheers,

Mark

Anyone from BHA leadership care to comment or disavow?

 

[mtmiller]

Do you think cutting off all use of public land outside of recreation makes public land more or less attractive to the avg. metro-living American that will never utilize public land for recreation?

Which Monuments are only recreational use? Just "friendly discussion".

 

[Sytes]

What is the opposition towards oil and gas?

Maybe instead of toeing the partisan line, we put the scientific community and the play use community of our National lands - Monuments, Parks, etc together to find a way to extract with minimal impact... Your going have to give some and if you don't... well, the ultimatum method, meh... friendly discussion.

 

[JWP58]

My problem is a lot of times it is foreign companies that are mining public lands and pay no royalties back to the US. Grazing rates for AUMs are ridiculously low when compared to private and state lands. I am not against any commercial use of public lands but as public land owners we should be getting a fair price for the use of our lands. It's not 1872 anymore. The West is settled.

I agree, prices should reflect market value.

 

[Big Fin]

Keep this one on track, or people will be banned when I get back to civilization in a few days. Out of six different participants on this thread, at this early point of discussion, four are regularly drawn to these potential politically-charged threads like drunks to beer.

I want to see useful discussion that present facts and perspective. The way that these threads go is never that path. I am sure by morning a few more "regulars" will chime in.

Stay on topic and keep the partisan jabs out of it.

 

[esracerx]

This is why I stay out of these discussions. Lots of bickering and in the end nothing happens. A lot like the political system. It's a who yells louder match. I wish the link worked so I could actually comment on the Secretary's comments. I'll refrain until then.

Thanks for being Big Brother, Big Fin.

Not all us drunks like beer. I prefer whiskey...although one time I woke up 2 days later with my appendix missing so maybe I should refrain on that as well.

 

[esracerx]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/24/politics/zinke-national-monument-review-no-eliminations/index.html

Hopefully this link works. The 2 page summary in the link is worth a read itself. I'd like to hear why hes advocating a slight reduction in land. That was only speculated.

 

[Sytes]

My problem is a lot of times it is foreign companies that are mining public lands and pay no royalties back to the US. Grazing rates for AUMs are ridiculously low when compared to private and state lands. I am not against any commercial use of public lands but as public land owners we should be getting a fair price for the use of our lands. It's not 1872 anymore. The West is settled.

I was not aware we do not receive royalties for minerals extracted from our land! Why? I don't understand. Reading various articles to edu-macate myself I ran across this article: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fo...yalties-on-public-land-to-the-government/amp/
This article shares the basis of the word, "royalty" is dubious as $ is gained via tax. True? Within, the author shares the tax code may not tax enough however it's a play of words to say one does not pay, "royalties".

Foreign or American... I wonder, if Theodore Roosevelt were still around would he permit a foreign company access to our public lands - for their profit? I don't think so...

Political lobbying, in my opinion, is disguised federal bribery. One of the largest culprits for problems that face Americans. The culprit here I would imagine.

Regarding the "three". Where does that # come from? Because Zinke commented a small handful? In my opinion, if that is the case, I would say Zinke is much more the public land advocate than those not fond of Zinke would lead us to believe... 3 of 27? Hell, hope those, with their ultimatums, know when they've been given a bone.

 

[mplane72]

I could say a whole lot about how this is an issue that should be able to transcend party loyalties and a balance needs to be found between environmental protections, recreational use and commercial use. That would be a waste of time.

Outside of my concerns about what could happen to the land itself I am very concerned about the precedent this move could set. One administration coming in and undoing what has been set up by a previous one. Trump reverses Obama's bear's ears then the next dem reinstates it and public lands becomes a bigger political football punted back and forth with each power swing. I have not looked in depth into the situation yet and what Trump could actually do but I expect it will be challenged in court, which may push it to congress which could very well end in a repeal of the antiquities act. That would not make me happy.

 

[1_pointer]

I could say a whole lot about how this is an issue that should be able to transcend party loyalties and a balance needs to be found between environmental protections, recreational use and commercial use. That would be a waste of time.

Outside of my concerns about what could happen to the land itself I am very concerned about the precedent this move could set. One administration coming in and undoing what has been set up by a previous one. Trump reverses Obama's bear's ears then the next dem reinstates it and public lands becomes a bigger political football punted back and forth with each power swing. I have not looked in depth into the situation yet and what Trump could actually do but I expect it will be challenged in court, which may push it to congress which could very well end in a repeal of the antiquities act. That would not make me happy.

I get your concern about the punting back and forth. One thing I've yet to understand is why monument designations are made as an administration is walking out the door? From the brief history of Bears Ear, as provided by Ben Lamb, this has been discussed for decades. If President Obama deemed it important enough to use the monument designation on, why not do it earlier in his term(s) when his appointees were in place to craft the management plans? Bears Ear is not the only monument that was done in that fashion, but it's a conundrum I've not yet figured out the why of.

 

[esracerx]

I was not aware we do not receive royalties for minerals extracted from our land! Why? I don't understand. Reading various articles to edu-macate myself I ran across this article: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fo...yalties-on-public-land-to-the-government/amp/
This article shares the basis of the word, "royalty" is dubious as $ is gained via tax. True? Within, the author shares the tax code may not tax enough however it's a play of words to say one does not pay, "royalties".

Foreign or American... I wonder, if Theodore Roosevelt were still around would he permit a foreign company access to our public lands - for their profit? I don't think so...

Political lobbying, in my opinion, is disguised federal bribery. One of the largest culprits for problems that face Americans. The culprit here I would imagine.

Regarding the "three". Where does that # come from? Because Zinke commented a small handful? In my opinion, if that is the case, I would say Zinke is much more the public land advocate than those not fond of Zinke would lead us to believe... 3 of 27? Hell, hope those, with their ultimatums, know when they've been given a bone.

"Zinke recommended Thursday that Trump reduce the size of at least three national monuments: Oregon's Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument and Utah's Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante national monuments, the Washington Post reported"

"No President should use the authority under the Antiquities Act to restrict public access, prevent hunting and fishing, burden private land, or eliminate traditional land uses, unless such action is needed to protect the object," Zinke said

 

[mplane72]

I get your concern about the punting back and forth. One thing I've yet to understand is why monument designations are made as an administration is walking out the door? From the brief history of Bears Ear, as provided by Ben Lamb, this has been discussed for decades. If President Obama deemed it important enough to use the monument designation on, why not do it earlier in his term(s) when his appointees were in place to craft the management plans? Bears Ear is not the only monument that was done in that fashion, but it's a conundrum I've not yet figured out the why of.

LOL. Same with pardons. I imagine they will say they are allowing all interested parties as much time as possible to reach an agreement before the President steps in.

 

[mtmiller]

One thing I've yet to understand is why monument designations are made as an administration is walking out the door? From the brief history of Bears Ear, as provided by Ben Lamb, this has been discussed for decades. If President Obama deemed it important enough to use the monument designation on, why not do it earlier in his term(s) when his appointees were in place to craft the management plans? Bears Ear is not the only monument that was done in that fashion, but it's a conundrum I've not yet figured out the why of.

I believe there were 28 or 29 designations under Obama. Three of them occurred "as he walked out the door". Maybe he should have done those three in his first-term as they seem to be very popular with the majority. It may have cost him UT though. ;-)

 

[u1299]

Won't get into the discussion on the specifics of each Monument because I don't have the expertise or knowledge to do so, however I find it hard to imagine protecting these areas for future generations is interpreted by some to be a bad thing, especially by those who consider themselves to be public land advocates. I've spent over 50 years putting my share of boots tracks into some of the most rugged hard to reach areas I could find and never once did I wish for more roads, vehicular access, mines or oil and gas wells in these areas. I'm not so ignorant as to not understand the need for all these things in certain locations but I think we have that now don't we?

 

[Ben Lamb]

I get your concern about the punting back and forth. One thing I've yet to understand is why monument designations are made as an administration is walking out the door? From the brief history of Bears Ear, as provided by Ben Lamb, this has been discussed for decades. If President Obama deemed it important enough to use the monument designation on, why not do it earlier in his term(s) when his appointees were in place to craft the management plans? Bears Ear is not the only monument that was done in that fashion, but it's a conundrum I've not yet figured out the why of.

This is a critical and important question.

In regards to Bear's Ears, there was hope initially that the Bishop PLI would be a product all could stand behind. Years of meetings and attempts to find common ground were booted for Bishop's own vision of what it should be. Sensing that nothing would happen, the coalition that was attempting to find that common ground then asked President Obama for 1.9 million acres protected, and Obama then protected 1.4 million as the Monument.

There is a longer answer, but I'm being eaten by a 9 week old lab that is demanding time with rope & ball.

 

[elkduds]

As usual, including this latest camel's-nose-under-tent in my regular correspondence w CO delegates in WA. PLT lite.

MFB99, right there w you on all points.

Sytes, hilarious suggestion that this administration would include actual science in their drill-it-all-ASAP planning. Irony meter pegged.

Ben, correct that the UT PLT tribe reneged (back-flipped?) on acreage in Bears Ears after the election.

D D, Get Over PLT. Its just a plank.

 

[Irrelevant]

While it looks like whatever the final decision is it will be contested in court, I think it would have been a better move for Zinke to propose additions or expansions on other monuments to offset the reductions in those three.