The Antiquities Act of 1906

[OriginalOscar]

The process has been the same since 1906...deal with it.

You can complain all you want, but Utah had this coming and in a big way.

.

So political payback is ok in your mind? That's the problem our country has and for the president to make an end run around locals who live in an area should never happen. I guess you hold the same contempt for your fellow Wyoming folks who have been hurt by the anti energy polices from the Obama administration? Wyoming is the only state to lose population last year.

p.s Standing offer for a beer if you get to SLC. We can disagree but any HT member is good people.

 

[BuzzH]

I have a general opinion on the addition of more millions of acres locked up in the West by Washington DC idiots, grandstanding on the backs of states and local populations. If the millions and millions of acres have met the stringent criteria for Wilderness, Primitive or Monument designation, it means the Western states have done a pretty good job of taking care of it. Locking it up with more layers of federal regulations and relying on some federal agency to manage it seems counter productive to me. In many instances, access to these areas becomes more difficult if not impossible for the average person, not to mention the aged and handicapped. I see no advantage to more federal interference for these wild places. I think the feds should designate a 50 block square area in the New York City business center a national monument, limit the access to 4 designated entry points, not allow any new building or renovation, make it foot traffic only, limit the number of people allowed in the area at any one time, make it mandatory to pack out your garbage in a backpack, limit the length of time a person can stay in the area...........let's lock it up and make it better by federal regulation. Let's preserve it for future generations. Don't allow anything to change in that area.........no matter what the State or local population wants........I may decide to go and look at that monument someday and I want to see it just as it is.

The reason that the locals have done a good job with primitive areas, wilderness areas, and monuments is because they have not had a choice. Given one, the federal lands would be treated no differently than their state lands...which they've developed, sold, roaded the chit out of, etc.

Don't forget that the federal lands in question don't belong to just the locals...they're federal lands, not state lands, not local lands...

As far as your "argument" about the old and handicapped...that's just an old worn out line of crap. If we believe your other argument that the States have done a good job of protecting those areas with wilderness qualities, monuments, etc. seems to me like the handicapped and old aren't using those areas much currently. The only way that would change is if your real agenda is to start providing easier access via roads, atv's, etc. and not protecting the areas in question. Personally, I don't care about the old and handicapped. I have no intentions of hiking 25 miles into the thorofare and packing an elk out of there...but that sure as hell doesn't mean that I want a road punched in there so I can, so that a handicapped person can, or so that some old blue hair can.

Replies like yours are the exact reason why I find the use of the Antiquities Act warranted...

 

[Big Fin]

Randy .....

Not doing something worthwhile because you will face backlash is bad precedent to begin. It means nothing will ever happen. If it's a good idea, and I think both of these are, then it's worth fighting for. We're going to have these fights regardless of any action that the President would have taken. Just as Bishop & Co. will use these are PR spin to speak of the injustice of one of America's flagship conservation laws, we can use it to highlight a 110 year record of conserving some of America's crown jewels - Bears Ear included.

Ben, my comments were addressing whether this action was a long-term net positive for the case of public land conservation. We might disagree. Only time will tell which of us had the better crystal ball.

As for worrying about backlash, potential backlash doesn't guide my positions. Long-term view with assessment of what is best 20, 50, 100, 200 years from now does guide me. All reading or commenting on this thread have different views of the current situation, resulting in different interpretations of how actions impact the long-term efforts for landscape conservation.

I hope you are right and that none of my concerns become reality.

 

[OriginalOscar]

And second, you don't know anything about New York City and all the National Parks already there. Of the 22 national parks in New York State, 10 are in New York City. Every year 12 million people visit these parks, monuments, and historic sites, more than 27,000 acres of protected land and preserved past.

It's called pork projects over the generations. Every congressman wanted one in their district. Every heard of Steamtown in Scranton PA? https://www.nps.gov/stea/index.htm

 

[BuzzH]

So political payback is ok in your mind? That's the problem our country has and for the president to make an end run around locals who live in an area should never happen. I guess you hold the same contempt for your fellow Wyoming folks who have been hurt by the anti energy polices from the Obama administration? Wyoming is the only state to lose population last year.

p.s Standing offer for a beer if you get to SLC. We can disagree but any HT member is good people.

Again, Utah has had a long, long time to get this thing right. What about Lee, Bishop, etc. defunding the land management agencies? Is that prudent, just political payback, or trying to further the anti-fed movement to gain state control of Federal lands? Is it right? Are the people in Utah doing anything about it? Sure doesn't appear they give much of a chit as they keep re-electing the idiots.

I'm all about collaboration to address local, State, and Federal issues. What I've routinely found is that the leadership at all those levels have a few loose cannons that aren't interested in anything but their personal agenda. They aren't willing to compromise on anything. I believe that to be the case with Bishops failed public lands initiative...his agenda wasn't to compromise or collaborate on much of anything.

As far as Wyoming goes...all extractive industries experience boom and bust cycles, have been since statehood. That's not going to change, no matter the policy. There's only so much oil, gas, coal, etc. to mine.

I fundamentally disagree that locals always know what's best. In most cases, their agenda is heavily skewed to over-utilizing federal lands and resources for personal gain.

As far as Wyoming losing population...you talk as though that's a bad thing. My odds of drawing a tag just got better...and since I'm a local, I know what's best.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Ben, my comments were addressing whether this action was a long-term net positive for the case of public land conservation. We might disagree. Only time will tell which of us had the better crystal ball.

As for worrying about backlash, potential backlash doesn't guide my positions. Long-term view with assessment of what is best 20, 50, 100, 200 years from now does guide me. All reading or commenting on this thread have different views of the current situation, resulting in different interpretations of how actions impact the long-term efforts for landscape conservation.

I hope you are right and that none of my concerns become reality.

Friends can disagree. It's a nice thing about being a true friend.

My main point is that this isn't a new fight, nor is it a fight anyone should shy away from. History has taught us that over the 110 years the Act has been utilized. Looking at the past gives us the indication of not only future actions, but how to succeed in maintaining the act. I don't mean to dismiss your concerns because they are all valid, I do believe that we need to look at the entirety of the threat, regardless of who is in charge or what the action is. History has shown us that landscape level conservation through the Antiquities Act has been primarily positive, and that the forces who have tried to eliminate are using the same playbook from 1906. The actors may have changed, but the play remains the same.

 

[Nameless Range]

Not doing something worthwhile because you will face backlash is bad precedent to begin. It means nothing will ever happen. If it's a good idea, and I think both of these are, then it's worth fighting for. We're going to have these fights regardless of any action that the President would have taken. Just as Bishop & Co. will use these are PR spin to speak of the injustice of one of America's flagship conservation laws, we can use it to highlight a 110 year record of conserving some of America's crown jewels - Bears Ear included.

This is how I feel. Given the background evidence, it will be hard to see any future actions by a GOP driven administration/congress as a function of backlash. They would have done what they do regardless. Nowadays it seems we chiefly worry about the emotional reactions of those in power, or those who will be, and place a real premium on praising every little good decision made, and being very careful not to condemn too harshly poor ones for fear of what that condemnation will motivate those in power to do. It's become SOP to baby those in power for fear of hurting their feelers, regardless of what partisan side they are on, like tender little snowflakes. That's not how it works in any other realm of the working world. Maybe it's necessary for politicians. Maybe it is how politicians nowadays sense the change in wind direction of societal opinions. But it feels gross.

I encourage people to read this article and look at the maps. This is large landscape scale conservation in action, and I have little doubt future generations will be grateful. Bishop, Chaffetz et al. will continue their war on public lands regardless.

 

[BuzzH]

I have little doubt future generations will be grateful. Bishop, Chaffetz et al. will continue their war on public lands regardless.

Agreed...

 

[u1299]

Ben, my comments were addressing whether this action was a long-term net positive for the case of public land conservation. We might disagree. Only time will tell which of us had the better crystal ball.

As for worrying about backlash, potential backlash doesn't guide my positions. Long-term view with assessment of what is best 20, 50, 100, 200 years from now does guide me. All reading or commenting on this thread have different views of the current situation, resulting in different interpretations of how actions impact the long-term efforts for landscape conservation.

I hope you are right and that none of my concerns become reality.

I hope Ben is right as well and IMO he absolutely is. This entire transfer/sale anti-public land bullshit didn't just start with these Monument designations, as he stated they are simply using it as another PR tool to further their anti public lands agenda which has been the GOP's goal for as long as I can remember, and I remember the administration that gave us James Watt and the sagebrush rebellion quite clearly. For me at least, that's when this crap all started

I'll refuse to lay the blame equally on both sides or blame the current administration if the AA is repealed or our public lands go up in smoke. Only one side but for a few moderate exceptions has a goal to destroy TR's legacy of conservation and public lands.

 

[jzeck2]

Fin,

Under your argument the way I see it is we don't need the Antiquities Act because it can never be used. Or maybe can only be used by Republicans not Democrats. Well I don't see many Teddy Roosevelt's in the Republican Party anymore unfortunately.

As an example I have a gun and ammo and a hunting license but I better not go out an secure my yearly meat supply because by doing so I will set off a radical fringe that will take away my ability to hunt in the future. Under this logic haven't I already lost the privilege.

Maybe it's time for more of us to give up the "R" and "D" labels for the BIG "I" as I have done maybe even the big "BM" (Bull Moose). The "R's" and "D's" don't much care nor listen to us anymore.

If anytime we are afraid to exercise our privilege under fear losing that privilege, it is already lost.

 

[jzeck2]

I hope you are right and that none of my concerns become reality.

Keep voting the way we have been voting and all our fears will become reality.

 

[JoseCuervo]

I concur, Obama not using the Act for fear of the GOP getting mad and rescinding the act so future Democrats can't use it seems to be caving and surrendering.

 

[Big Fin]

Fin,

Under your argument the way I see it is we don't need the Antiquities Act because it can never be used. Or maybe can only be used by Republicans not Democrats. Well I don't see many Teddy Roosevelt's in the Republican Party anymore unfortunately.

As an example I have a gun and ammo and a hunting license but I better not go out an secure my yearly meat supply because by doing so I will set off a radical fringe that will take away my ability to hunt in the future. Under this logic haven't I already lost the privilege.

Maybe it's time for more of us to give up the "R" and "D" labels for the BIG "I" as I have done maybe even the big "BM" (Bull Moose). The "R's" and "D's" don't much care nor listen to us anymore.

If anytime we are afraid to exercise our privilege under fear losing that privilege, it is already lost.

And where did I say any of that or anything remotely close to that? I didn't.

If that is how you want to take comments that explain my perspective about the net long-term benefits/detriments the Gold Butte/Bears Ear actions will have on the bigger picture of landscape conservation, knock yourself out.

 

[noharleyyet]

I concur, Obama not using the Act for fear of the GOP getting mad and rescinding the act so future Democrats can't use it seems to be caving and surrendering.

The point is, and you know this....he fully intends to 'piss em off'...but by all means, feign naivete and cheer him on.

 

[Ben Lamb]

The point is, and you know this....he fully intends to 'piss em off'...but by all means, feign naivete and cheer him on.

Some truth to that, but Bears Ears has been looking for protection since the 1930's, and Reid has been pushing for Gold Butte for a long time as well. There is local support for both of these, and thanks to the congress of no we've had, the president has used his lawful authority to end the debate and make them monuments.

It would also ignore the conservation legacy that President Obama has carefully crafted. Sportsmen haven't had it this good for a long time, nor will they again, when it comes to public land, the management there of, citizen involvement and true multiple use management rather than simply adhering to the old adage of drill now, worry later.

 

[BuzzH]

The point is, and you know this....he fully intends to 'piss em off'...but by all means, feign naivete and cheer him on.

Utah had decades to figure this out...

Their lack of taking action is why they should be pissed, not because someone else took the lead and did what a leader should do.

There are consequences for kicking the can down the road for 50 years.

 

[noharleyyet]

Fully agree with you on the consequences Buzz.

 

[OriginalOscar]

Utah had decades to figure this out...

Their lack of taking action is why they should be pissed, not because someone else took the lead and did what a leader should do.

There are consequences for kicking the can down the road for 50 years.

A leader would show up, sit down and have a discussion with people who live there.

Fully agree with you on the consequences Buzz.

Easy comment when your state is 99% privately owned.

 

[noharleyyet]

Easy comment when your state is 99% privately owned.

Know your sarcasm then pick your battles.

 

[Ben Lamb]

A leader would show up, sit down and have a discussion with people who live there.
.

Secretary Jewell has made the effort to show up, sit down and listen to the people who live there. That was her job.

The proposal, as has been mentioned, was in the making for years. Changing the metrics for what involvement is necessary is a delay tactic, not a strategy for resolution. The proclimation from the President clearly shows those concerns from people who wanted boundary concessions. It is fairly close to what Bishop, et al advanced, if I understand that correctly.

Bishop had 3 years to put the PLI together in a fashion that would have ended the monument push from Obama, but instead refused to release it until it was too late for Congress to really do anything with it. More stall tactics. He also ignored the input from the people he claimed to have worked with and few if any of the groups who worked in the PLI from the conservation perspective supported it.

I hear and understand your concerns. It is unfortunate that as a government, we have people on both sides of the aisle who want to simply stop all work rather than find common ground. In this instance however, I believe that President Obama actually did listen to concerns from locals who had valid arguments and made changes to the NM to reflect that. The other side truthfully cannot say that.

At any rate, cheers, and have a happy new year Dukes. Thanks for the thoughtful conversation!