Obama trying to lock up millions of acres of public land
- Thread starter JohnCushman
- Start date
JoseCuervo
New member
Seems like it would be a great thing.
What do you mean by 'securing'? It's already public land. Do you think it will be 'better' after the designation, if so why?
Not quite true. Some consumptive uses are still allowed within a Monument.
I guess the "open and transparent" speech I delivered on National Public Lands day only applies to certain levels of government...
shoots-straight
Well-known member
I'd have to see the fine print. Some area's that are monuments are hunted some aren't. To see the lands protected for their wild qualities would be nice. Not at the expense of not utilizing them at all.
I'll start out by saying I'm pretty naive to this topic, and no doubt you know the situation way better than I.
However, it does seem to me, in the tiny bit of research I have done, it would be better to get these large chunks of mix and match public ground under a single designation. I could be completely wrong, and tell me if I am, but isn't this similar to taking NF land and designating it as wilderness areas? Starts as public and ends as public, but gets more protection in the process. Which to me, is almost always a good thing.
Again, I have very little knowledge of how land ownership and management works, but as John Q. Public, this is how I interpret it.
And yes, I do see the problem with Federal going over the heads of the States, and am not agreeing with that.
At what cost though? There must be a balance and with the uses that would likely be taken away we would be fighting over more mineral development, which we need to more of our own.
In my area we now this push for "Green" energy in the form of windmills. However, the greenies pushed through regs in years past for public land in relation to animal numbers. Because of these regs they are having a hard time getting the rights to put in the windmills.
I guess all I am saying is that you can't have your 10% unemployment cake and eat it too.
In my area we now this push for "Green" energy in the form of windmills. However, the greenies pushed through regs in years past for public land in relation to animal numbers. Because of these regs they are having a hard time getting the rights to put in the windmills.
I guess all I am saying is that you can't have your 10% unemployment cake and eat it too.
Randy- I know there are others on here that a much more familiar with management of a Monument than I am. That said, the reason I asked is that I do think quite a few people have the same view as you, in that designation alone will 'protect' it more. Monument designation is not the same as wilderness. IME/O, that may not be the case and it all depends on what issues are in the area. The management of a Monument would be directed by the EIS/Land Use Plan. Depending on your values for that area, that plan may allowing for it to be 'protected'. As can be seen by the posts directly above/below yours many folks have different values for any given piece of land.
My personal opinion on the designation of Monuement is that it depends! I personally don't believe that the designation will neccessarily protect an area from all issues. Any management possible on a monument is possible on that same piece of ground prior to designation. The only real change I see after designation is levels of funding...
I know of two specific issues impacting one monument: 1. the area recieves many times more visitors since designation than before (roads paved/maintained) 2. vegetation management projects have been stalled/dropped/changed due to public pressure/perception.
My personal opinion on the designation of Monuement is that it depends!
I personally don't believe that the designation will neccessarily protect an area from all issues. Any management possible on a monument is possible on that same piece of ground prior to designation. The only real change I see after designation is levels of funding...I know of two specific issues impacting one monument: 1. the area recieves many times more visitors since designation than before (roads paved/maintained) 2. vegetation management projects have been stalled/dropped/changed due to public pressure/perception.
sweetnectar
New member
One person should never have the say on such a large matter. Isn't this something that some kind of King would do? Well, what will happen is less public access in the name of closing some roads, not allowing snow mobiles, discontinuing hunting, etc. These are all possibilities in the name of a monument and what input the people have on the land use deminishes when you call something a monument.
Nemont
Well-known member
Well one of the areas is in my back yard and already managed as a wilderness study area. Fewer roads would be justified. Depending upon how the boundaries of the area are drawn there would be alot of private lands inside the monument if they decide to do the Bitter Creek monument in northern Montana.
I am neutral on the issue at this point as I don't know any specifics.
Nemont
I am neutral on the issue at this point as I don't know any specifics.
Nemont
noharleyyet
Well-known member
The list contains a number of political land mines for the president, according to a former Bush Interior Department appointee familiar with the document who asked to remain anonymous.
"Right now a number of senior officials are going over the report," he told Fox News. "When Clinton did it, most of the West was red states and he didn't have any blowback. Obama has to ask himself, if he chooses a Nevada location, will it hurt (Senator Harry) Reid's re-election. The same is true in almost every (Western) state where Democrats have made serious inroads."
"Right now a number of senior officials are going over the report," he told Fox News. "When Clinton did it, most of the West was red states and he didn't have any blowback. Obama has to ask himself, if he chooses a Nevada location, will it hurt (Senator Harry) Reid's re-election. The same is true in almost every (Western) state where Democrats have made serious inroads."
Khunter
Well-known member
The only problem is, if you 'average' the opinions on a matter such as this and use that as the answer..not one acre of land would be protected to any degree. There is always some contingent that wants to preserve a piece of land only after all marketable value has been fully extracted from it. Some places just need to be preserved because it is the right thing to do. No idea if these lands meet that high criteria but am glad to hear the administration is thinking about the long-term future of our public lands. As a sportsman, that is one of the most important issues I like to see addressed, even if it puts some animals out of my reach. Heck with all the 'make a buck off of it at any cost' land policies Bush shoved though it will take a concerted effort by this administration just to bring back a modicum of balance.
Cone on now, George did use the Antiquities Act to create the largest National Monument ever.
JoseCuervo
New member
You can't access public lands unless you have a road or a snowmobile?
Go buy a pair of boots and get out and enjoy our public lands. You don't need to sit on your butt to "access" public lands.
JoseCuervo
New member
Cone on now, George did use the Antiquities Act to create the largest National Monument ever.
It was just a bit "wet", if memory serves me correct.... I don't think the snowmobile crowd, or the fat-assed ATV riders lost much on that one.... nor the Welfare Ranchers, or even the oil/gas guys....
yea, and
over an oil rich region ta-boot!
In any event, read the Proclamation for the proposed monument, then find out who's going to manage it. After designation the process for developing a management strategy/plan is completely public. Get involved all the way up to your eye balls, or do nothing it's a free country. . .
A Monument designation does not mean its managed like a wilderness, maybe more like a nationl park though and almost certainly any rules would not apply to private land.
The purpose of the monument is to preserve an american antiquity(s) by providing it with a more conservative designation, not less. Conservative in the sense that it should be used but not ruined for future generations. I've always wondered how it was that conservatives today dont like to conserve. . .
What would this nation look like and what kind of hunting heritage would we have without the power of the president to withdraw lands for the overall benefit of the nation?
I'm not saying, I'm just saying. . .
Now go take on the day. . .
over an oil rich region ta-boot!
In any event, read the Proclamation for the proposed monument, then find out who's going to manage it. After designation the process for developing a management strategy/plan is completely public. Get involved all the way up to your eye balls, or do nothing it's a free country. . .
A Monument designation does not mean its managed like a wilderness, maybe more like a nationl park though and almost certainly any rules would not apply to private land.
The purpose of the monument is to preserve an american antiquity(s) by providing it with a more conservative designation, not less. Conservative in the sense that it should be used but not ruined for future generations. I've always wondered how it was that conservatives today dont like to conserve. . .
What would this nation look like and what kind of hunting heritage would we have without the power of the president to withdraw lands for the overall benefit of the nation?
I'm not saying, I'm just saying. . .
Now go take on the day. . .
69chevey
New member
Just hope they don't follow california's lead ,the majority of the newly protected land acquired by this state you can't even hunt on !!
wyomuledeer
New member
I don't know about this bill, but I'm glad that the H.R. 980 bill did not go through last year. I'm not sure what the restrictions are on national monuments are but the H.R. 980 would of made a lot of land wilderness in the west.
JoseCuervo
New member
Can you ever have too much wilderness?
