Public comment period on national monuments

[LuckyMan]

A certain politician has launched an unprecedented attack on our national monuments, and the public comment period is open.


http://blog.gossamergear.com/public-comment-period-open-national-monument-review

[Rain Man]

"An executive order passed by the Trump Administration on April 26 ...."

I'm sorry, but executive orders are "issued" (by a single politician) not "passed" (as in, by multiple branches of government).

GG should do better.

[Old Hiker]

Please explain how "review" becomes "unprecedented attack".


Cite evidence, please, not personal opinions.


So, NO other president has "reviewed" the Antiquities Act before? Definition "unprecedented": "never done or known before ".

[Lone Wolf]

this has nothing to do with the AT

[somers515]

The OP posted a link that discusses the order to "review any national monument designated via the Antiquities Act since January 1, 1996, that spans at least 100,000 acres. 22 land-based monuments and five marine monuments are under review and now is the time to comment (https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=DOI-2017-0002-0001) and make your voice heard" and essentially urged those on this forum to share their comments.

I respect very much the opinion of Rain Man, Old hiker and Lone Wolf and you guys have all helped me many times but I think your comments are not very helpful here.

1. Rain Man: It's true that executive orders are issued and not passed. What is this significance of this statement? Should we not comment on this executive order because Gossamer Gear said "passed" and not "issued"? If a person told you something insightful would you not listen to them because their shoe was untied? Seems weird to me.

2. Old Hiker, how about you cite some evidence of other presidents reviewing national monuments in this fashion before? Should we not be concerned yet since they haven't actually acted to rescind or partially rescind a National Monument designation yet? Do you not understand the plan of those that want the review? It's not like it's some secret. The review isn't to come up with a plan on how to protect more open space, is it? I think the point of the OP was there is a public comment period and now is the time to share your comments if you have any.

3. Lone Wolf. It's true that this has nothing to do with the AT but this website isn't just limited to the AT despite the name. There are subforms on all different trails and open spaces.

Always strikes me as a little odd that there is a subset of people on whiteblaze who can see the benefits of having open space and enjoy getting out into the wilderness but criticize someone for merely saying hey consider voicing your concerns to protect those open spaces.

I would actually be interested in hearing more from all 3 of you about this. As I said at the start of my post I respect your viewpoints and I enjoy hearing different points of view and I'm open to changing my mind if I'm all wrong about this. I bet we'll agree on more then you think.

Regardless, I suggest everyone on whiteblaze considers reading the OP's link and making your voices heard. Thank you OP for sharing.

[Tipi Walter]

Somers515---Thanks for the link and the head's up. All Whiteblazers should be concerned with keeping as much land as possible protected and be concerned with keeping the "beautiful" in America the Beautiful, or what's left of it.

There are probably hundreds of websites and forums devoted to road building and logging and sprawl and off-road sport vehicles and oil/fracking resource development---but Whiteblaze is not one of them. I assume all WBers want to keep what's left of our outdoors intact and to see more wilderness and less roads. Stupid assumption probably on my part.

In other words, I see the importance of this thread and the importance of discussing any threats to our trails and to the great outdoors.

Remember, Whiteblaze is a Community of Appalachian Trail enthusiasts---and with the inclusion of dozens of other trails in this forum---it's really a community of Trail enthusiasts. And a community of Hikers and Backpackers.

[ChuckT]

"Review" in _this_ context is guv'mnt speech for - I'm PO'd and all you minions should do something about this! My personal opinion (maybe not worth much, but it's mine) is that Whiteblaze is a appropriate forum for this discussion. And we need more public lands not less.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

[rocketsocks]

I'm down with discussing it...might learn somthin' along the way.

[Bansko]

The issue of national monuments designation is far from simple. It was intended to designate specific features for protection, not vast swaths of wilderness. If you ask most of the people in Northwest Maine, putting 87,000 acres of private land (now the Katahdin Woods & Waters national Monument) under the Federal umbrella was not a good thing.

[OCDave]

.... It was intended to designate specific features for protection, not vast swaths of wilderness. ...

I am not sure this is true. If a vast swath of wilderness contains scatter sites of archeologically significant artifacts; would that vast swath not merit protection? My understanding is the value of Bear's Ears National Monument includes historic cultural sites scatter throughout the monument.

[Rabbi]

Why is the Maine Woods & Water "not a good thing"?

It was private land prior. It is now being opened for use by all citizens.

The he more land sequestered and spared exploitation the better.

[somers515]

I'm down with discussing it...might learn somthin' along the way.
Couldn't agree more rocketsocks! Most of my knowledge is from Ken Burns American Parks documentary and so I'm sure there is more to learn.

[TJ aka Teej]

Please explain how "review" becomes "unprecedented attack".
Cite evidence, please, not personal opinions.
So, NO other president has "reviewed" the Antiquities Act before? Definition "unprecedented": "never done or known before ".
www.dictionary.com

[rocketsocks]

Couldn't agree more rocketsocks! Most of my knowledge is from Ken Burns American Parks documentary and so I'm sure there is more to learn.yeah I'm afraid I don't know much about the legislative body, or the judicial branch for that matter.

[Old Hiker]

www.dictionary.com (http://www.dictionary.com)


I resemble that remark. Or at least, that definition. :)

[BlackCloud]

Several Presidents have reduced the size of previously-designated national monuments.

The National Park Service can not afford to be used to hand over private lands to the government. The budget is finite. For every tree you save in Maine, the fewer dollars there are for Yellowstone NP, Shenandoah NP, and yes, the Appalachian National Scenic Trail.

[TJ aka Teej]

Several Presidents have reduced the size of previously-designated national monuments.
Name the ones that were "reduced" for purely partisan political reasons.

[BlackCloud]

I actually have no idea which monuments were reduced (vs. abolished), but I'd be interested to find out. Taft & Eisenhower shrunk several units as did some others, who I can't recall. Congress has delisted a litany of NPS units over the years. It's not that uncommon at all:

https://www.nationalparkstraveler.org/2011/12/gone-and-mostly-forgotten-26-abolished-national-parks9202

https://www.nps.gov/archeology/sites/antiquities/abolished.htm

Just b/c your fav politician said something; doesn't necessarily make it so......

[BlackCloud]

I actually found the answer on the NPS website:

Taft reduced Petrified Forest
FDR reduced Grand Canyon
JFK reduced Nat'l Bridges
Taft, Wilson & Coolidge reduced Mt. Olympus
Taft reduced Navajo
Eisenhower reduced Colorado
JFK reduced Bandelier
Eisenhower reduced Hovenweep
FDR reduced Craters of the Moon
FDR reduced Wupatki
Eisenhower reduced Glacier Bay
Eisenhower reduced Arches
Eisenhower reduced Great Sand Dunes

Not so unprecedented after all me thinks! I would now like to hear how evil and/or purely partisan FDR & JFK were!

[Alligator]

FDR modified monuments https://monumentsmatter.org/the-monuments/monuments-1906-1945/national-monuments-established-by-presidential-use-of-the-antiquities-act-march-4-1933-to-april-12-1945/national-monuments-modified-by-presidential-use-of-the-antiquities-act-march-4-1933-to-april-12-1945/

Craters of the moon was diminished for a road right of way. Wupatki was reduced by 52 acres in 1941. On the other hand, FDR added 33,631 acres there in 1937. The Grand Canyon reduction was almost 72,000 acres and I have not found the reasoning for it yet. Considering FDR added what looks like 2-plus millions of acres through modifications and new additions I don't see anything particularly evil in his actions. JFK did not have nearly the same level of activity. He did reduce Natural Bridges 320 acres and at the same time he added 5,236 acres. Chandelier was also added to and reduced, but was net negative around 1,100 acres. Overall, JFK was net positive in modifications and additions.

https://www.nps.gov/archeology/sites/Antiquities/MonumentsList.htm

[Starchild]

I believe the unprecedented part is no president has dissolved/eliminated a national monument and there may be no legal mechanism for one to do so - that will be up to the courts. Changing the boundaries of one is not the same, and when done for a public good, such as a right of way or a land exchange, has precedence.

And we can get silly here and change the boundaries to a 1 ft by 1 ft national monument, but again the presidents seem to be for the public good, not for reasons like i dam well feel like it and I'm the most important man in the world. The question seems to be did the founding fathers create a system good enough which will prevent being taken over by a ruler who believes he is one of the gods.

[Bansko]

Several Presidents have reduced the size of previously-designated national monuments.

The National Park Service can not afford to be used to hand over private lands to the government. The budget is finite. For every tree you save in Maine, the fewer dollars there are for Yellowstone NP, Shenandoah NP, and yes, the Appalachian National Scenic Trail.

In the case of the new monument in Maine, the Feds aren't saving anything. The reason why it is a beautiful, undeveloped 87,000 acre parcel of land in the first place is because of good stewardship by lumber companies over many decades.

[somers515]

In the case of the new monument in Maine, the Feds aren't saving anything. The reason why it is a beautiful, undeveloped 87,000 acre parcel of land in the first place is because of good stewardship by lumber companies over many decades.

A lot of interesting posts here on this thread and I've learned a few things from the discussions. Thank you all.

I know it's popular to bash government workers on internet websites, I'd just like to point out that the purpose of government is to serve the people. Of course because it's a system run by people it's not perfect but as a government worker for 15 years I got up every morning and tried to serve the people. The purpose of a lumber company is to serve its private ownership or shareholders. So I'd like to learn a little more of why Bansko and others seem so much more confident in a lumber company to preserve open space in Maine for hiking then the federal government? Do you have an article or link that summarizes your position? Thanks in advance!

[Bronk]

According to Wiki, of the 18 areas Roosevelt originally designated as monuments, only 9 still remain monuments.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_National_Monuments_of_the_United_States

[Traveler]

According to Wiki, of the 18 areas Roosevelt originally designated as monuments, only 9 still remain monuments.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_National_Monuments_of_the_United_States
That may be due to many of the Monuments he designated have become National Parks.