WhiteBlaze Pages 2024
A Complete Appalachian Trail Guidebook.
AVAILABLE NOW. $4 for interactive PDF(smartphone version)
Read more here WhiteBlaze Pages Store

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 51
  1. #21

    Default

    The people who want smaller government will support this.

    The people who want larger government will oppose this.

    That's about all that's going on in this thread IMO.

  2. #22
    Is it raining yet?
    Join Date
    07-15-2004
    Location
    Kensington, MD
    Age
    47
    Posts
    1,077
    Images
    62

    Default

    It may be instructive for everyone interested to read the full EO, which is quite short:

    https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press...ntiquities-act

    Pres. TR tricked Congress in 1906 into giving him the authority to designate lands as National Monuments. He wanted the authority b/c many archeological sites in the undeveloped West were being looted & otherwise damaged. It wasn't until FDR's 1933 reorganization of the National Park Service did most Nat'l Monuments come under the NPS umbrella. That's also when many battlefields were transferred from the War Dep't to the NPS as well.

    Early on, Presidents designated relatively small areas as national monuments; as in a few hundred or few thousand acres. Starting with Carter however, and then with Clinton & all after, Presidents have been designating millions of acres at a time, and thus effectively circumventing Congress, for better or worse. This EO orders a review of all sites created after 1-1-1996 that are EITHER > 100,000 or were created "where the Secretary determines that the designation or expansion was made without adequate public outreach and coordination with relevant stakeholders"

    Be Prepared

  3. #23
    Is it raining yet?
    Join Date
    07-15-2004
    Location
    Kensington, MD
    Age
    47
    Posts
    1,077
    Images
    62

    Default

    Be Prepared

  4. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PennyPincher View Post
    Keep in mind that the original designation as a national monument of any land is a land grab by the Feds of state lands. Obama stole 1.35 Million acres last year with the designation of Bears Ears. I do appreciate the lands that have been protected but when you see some of the western states where the feds own virtually every acre of land and the states have no say about it you realize the over reaching that Presidents have committed.
    No its not a land grab. National monuments are created from federal lands. Federal lands belong to all the states and all the people, not a single state or its citizens.

    American Antiquities Act of 1906

    16 USC 431-433
    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any person who shall appropriate, excavate, injure, or destroy any historic or prehistoric ruin or monument, or any object of antiquity, situated on lands owned or controlled by the Government of the United States, without the permission of the Secretary of the Department of the Government having jurisdiction over the lands on which said antiquities are situated, shall, upon conviction, be fined in a sum of not more than five hundred dollars or be imprisoned for a period of not more than ninety days, or shall suffer both fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the court.
    Sec. 2. That the President of the United States is hereby authorized, in his discretion, to declare by public proclamation historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest that are situated upon the lands owned or controlled by the Government of the United States to be national monuments, and may reserve as a part thereof parcels of land, the limits of which in all cases shall be confined to the smallest area compatible with proper care and management of the objects to be protected: Provided, That when such objects are situated upon a tract covered by a bona fied unperfected claim or held in private ownership, the tract, or so much thereof as may be necessary for the proper care and management of the object, may be relinquished to the Government, and the Secretary of the Interior is hereby authorized to accept the relinquishment of such tracts in behalf of the Government of the United States.
    Sec. 3. That permits for the examination of ruins, the excavation of archaeological sites, and the gathering of objects of antiquity upon the lands under their respective jurisdictions may be granted by the Secretaries of the Interior, Agriculture, and War to institutions which the may deem properly qualified to conduct such examination, excavation, or gathering, subject to such rules and regulation as they may prescribe: Provided, That the examinations, excavations, and gatherings are undertaken for the benefit of reputable museums, universities, colleges, or other recognized scientific or educational institutions, with a view to increasing the knowledge of such objects, and that the gatherings shall be made for permanent preservation in public museums.
    Sec. 4. That the Secretaries of the Departments aforesaid shall make and publish from time to time uniform rules and regulations for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this Act.
    Approved, June 8, 1906
    "Sleepy alligator in the noonday sun
    Sleepin by the river just like he usually done
    Call for his whisky
    He can call for his tea
    Call all he wanta but he can't call me..."
    Robert Hunter & Ron McKernan

    Whiteblaze.net User Agreement.

  5. #25
    In the shadows AfterParty's Avatar
    Join Date
    05-11-2016
    Location
    Norton, Kansas
    Age
    43
    Posts
    490
    Journal Entries
    1
    Images
    12

    Default

    He wants a review of the federal governments ie the presidents ability to land grab from a state and local governments. Creating a national monument in a state should first be approved by that state wouldn't one think? It would not reverse any existing monuments.
    Hiking the AT is “pointless.” What life is not “pointless”? Is it not pointless to work paycheck to paycheck just to conform?.....I want to make my life less ordinary. AWOL

  6. #26
    Registered User handlebar's Avatar
    Join Date
    11-05-2005
    Location
    Youngstown, OH
    Age
    78
    Posts
    986
    Images
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PennyPincher View Post
    Keep in mind that the original designation as a national monument of any land is a land grab by the Feds of state lands. Obama stole 1.35 Million acres last year with the designation of Bears Ears. I do appreciate the lands that have been protected but when you see some of the western states where the feds own virtually every acre of land and the states have no say about it you realize the over reaching that Presidents have committed.
    Your statement is false. The lands were not state lands. The land was owned by the United States (as a result of the treaty ending the Mexican-American War). It was administered by the USDA Forest Service and/or the Dept. of Interior Bureau of Land Management. No president stole any lands to create Bears Ears or any other national monument. The State of Utah did not even exist until well after the land within its boundaries was ceded in 1846. What the State of Utah and other western states with large tracts of federally-owned lands within their borders want to do is to gain control of those lands so their politicians can benefit from their development.
    Handlebar
    GA-ME 06; PCT 08; CDT 10,11,12; ALT 11; MSPA 12; CT 13; Sheltowee 14; AZT 14, 15; LT 15;FT 16;NCT-NY&PA 16; GET 17-18

  7. #27
    Registered User
    Join Date
    02-14-2017
    Location
    Pasadena, Maryland
    Age
    52
    Posts
    489

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by handlebar View Post
    Your statement is false. The lands were not state lands. The land was owned by the United States (as a result of the treaty ending the Mexican-American War). It was administered by the USDA Forest Service and/or the Dept. of Interior Bureau of Land Management. No president stole any lands to create Bears Ears or any other national monument. The State of Utah did not even exist until well after the land within its boundaries was ceded in 1846. What the State of Utah and other western states with large tracts of federally-owned lands within their borders want to do is to gain control of those lands so their politicians can benefit from their development.
    You are correct in that it was already Federal land.

    The issue is the "Monument" designation. With that designation comes a LOT of restrictions, INCLUDING hiking and camping.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  8. #28

    Default

    These National Monument acreage numbers don't tell the full story off how involved various Presidents including President Roosevelt were in conservation and protection. TR is actually responsible for federal protection of almost 230 MILLION ACRES. In TR's day it was commercial biz interests, selfish greedy resource grabbers, who were powerfully politically connected, just as is happening now but with MUCH MUCH more desperate and powerfully entrenched players, that fought National Park designation for a wide variety of obvious selfish reasons and hence the circumnavigation of Congress to conserve and protect by issuing easier to designate National Monuments.

    President Teddy Roosevelt courageously summed it by saying, “Here is your country. Cherish these natural wonders, cherish the natural resources, cherish the history and romance as a sacred heritage, for your children and your children's children. Do not let selfish men or greedy interests skin your country of its beauty, its riches or its romance.”
    -- Theodore Roosevelt

    “I do not dislike but I certainly have no especial respect or admiration for and no trust in, the typical big moneyed men of my country. I do not regard them as furnishing sound opinion as respects either foreign or domestic business.”
    -- Theodore Roosevelt

    TR was a wise man seeing through the pretentiousness and greed.

    http://www.theodoreroosevelt.org/sit...rvationist.htm

    The question of National Monument status, whether being rescinded or amended, in the context of President Trump's EO is NOT aimed at conservation or protection... no matter the WH rhetoric. It is aimed at methodically paving the way for commercial biz interests - fossil fuel interests in the energy sector, mining and other developments - gaining access to natural resources whether through state or federal ownership and/or management. If it's a more forthright path to commercially capitalize through privatization under state ownership and/or control so be the path that will be taken.

    Don't lose sight of this as the primary objective no matter how it's facilitated or language used to define it or how this being the main issue will be attempted to be diverted into other talking points.

    Let us be reminded of another President Trump EO that also circumnavigated laws and regs aimed at conservation and protection by rescinding them claiming it was done to reduce costs. Really? Always? Across the board? Costs to whom? Could it be primarily costs and inconveniences and limiting land and resource access that hindered greater profitability in the natural gas, oil, coal(no such thing as clean coal!), mining, lumber, water rights/clean water rights, etc industries?

    It's about getting at the resources to exploit the land, water, oil, natural gas, mined elements, forests, etc through easing EPA and other regs to allow greater energy sector and development profitability. It's what the current Prez does. He goes in methodically lining up his troops as a bull. He is known for this. He's a billionaire BIG BIZ man known for "lawyering up." He is a pro fossil fuel President. He is a pro mining President. It's what he's said repeatedly. Look at who he has placed into key cabinet positions - Sec of State, Sec of Interior, EPA Commissioner, DOJ head, DOE head, ...

  9. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackCloud View Post
    It may be instructive for everyone interested to read the full EO, which is quite short:

    https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press...ntiquities-act
    YES, read the EO. It is stated in the opening paragraph the objective of the EO "...in recognition of the importance of the Nation's wealth of natural resources to American workers and the American economy,.."

    That's about getting at the resources! That's about money folks. That's about development of National Monuments land for commercialized capital gain. That's it. The rest are details about how it's going to be facilitated and superfluous fluff.

  10. #30
    Registered User
    Join Date
    02-14-2017
    Location
    Pasadena, Maryland
    Age
    52
    Posts
    489

    Default

    How about we keep an eye on it, and IF they actually make a proposal to divest of all these lands for commercial interest, then we can bring out the long knives. For now, can't we keep them sheathed and ready while working within the process in a civilized manner instead of half-cocked allegations?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  11. #31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TX Aggie View Post
    For now, can't we keep them sheathed and ready while working within the process in a civilized manner instead of half-cocked allegations?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    what would be the fun in that

  12. #32
    Registered User Just Bill's Avatar
    Join Date
    07-06-2013
    Location
    Chicago, Il
    Age
    45
    Posts
    3,770

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TX Aggie View Post
    How about we keep an eye on it, and IF they actually make a proposal to divest of all these lands for commercial interest, then we can bring out the long knives. For now, can't we keep them sheathed and ready while working within the process in a civilized manner instead of half-cocked allegations?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Just depends where you draw your line. Is this the opening move in a chess game or one away from checkmate?


    Patagonia is ready to sue:
    https://www.google.com/search?client...w=1024&bih=672

    I didn't pick a story to paste on purpose...people get sensitive about the outlet selected.

    it is hard to tell still. Are these various actions just heavy handed and fairly inept blundering or some thoughtful plan of putting pieces into place? Are some of these clumsy moves headline grabbers while other things quietly slip by? What will get passed at two am or via obscure law or simply while we stare at a bomb drop somewhere.

    Lotta things moving fast and a lotta things moving very bigly to no purpose. Lotta folks busy with social and religious fighting, various wing speakers speaking for no purpose but reactions, and lotta folks pretty interested simply in being mad or blindly cheering on their team. Lotta folks turned off and tuned out. Lotta things quietly passing through piece by piece, one regulation, order, policy, or motion at a time underneath all the headlines. At least once a week it seems; so that any given serious issue proposed today is lost in the glare of the next oncoming trainwreck proposed tomorrow.

    It's all very difficult to focus and even harder to tell what lines have been drawn, crossed, or even matter to be blunt.
    And all the government positions whose job it remains to watch all the lines remain largely unappointed and/or filled with straw men. Budgets, staffing, and regulatory powers in critical checks and balances evaporate continuously.

    Once some deal gets cut...takes more than long knives to uncut it.

  13. #33
    Registered User
    Join Date
    02-14-2017
    Location
    Pasadena, Maryland
    Age
    52
    Posts
    489

    Default

    More often than not, I find reactions to anything political come not from learning of actual events, but rather from hearing what others' opinions are of it. We've become so reactionary and only listen to part of the story, of which we hear from storytellers we tend to agree with, rather than using our own critical thinking skills.

    It doesn't help that not a single news agency will actually give an honest account of what's happening, or at least just a recount of events without commentary.

    I'm keeping an open mind on this one. The EO gives much of the oversight to the Sec of Interior, who in this case is Ryan Zenke, a former SEAL and avid outdoorsman. He also broke with Republicans while in the Senate over proposals to transfer Federal lands to the States calling the proposals extreme, and that better federal management was the better choice.

  14. #34
    Clueless Weekender
    Join Date
    04-10-2011
    Location
    Niskayuna, New York
    Age
    68
    Posts
    3,879
    Journal Entries
    10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TX Aggie View Post
    I'm keeping an open mind on this one. The EO gives much of the oversight to the Sec of Interior, who in this case is Ryan Zenke, a former SEAL and avid outdoorsman. He also broke with Republicans while in the Senate over proposals to transfer Federal lands to the States calling the proposals extreme, and that better federal management was the better choice.
    My mind is always open (and sometimes my head is also empty). I'm less optimistic than you. The Secretary of the Interior serves at the pleasure of the President, who will not hesitate to fire anyone that doesn't let him have his way.
    I always know where I am. I'm right here.

  15. #35
    Registered User
    Join Date
    02-14-2017
    Location
    Pasadena, Maryland
    Age
    52
    Posts
    489

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Another Kevin View Post
    My mind is always open (and sometimes my head is also empty). I'm less optimistic than you. The Secretary of the Interior serves at the pleasure of the President, who will not hesitate to fire anyone that doesn't let him have his way.
    Here's another side:
    Trump is speaking at the NRA convention today. Both of his sons are hunters. Hunters are just as much against this land being transferred to the states as the hiking community is, for basically the same reasons. Trump's win was in no small part due to support from the hunting community.

  16. #36
    Registered User
    Join Date
    06-13-2013
    Location
    Boonsboro, MD
    Age
    50
    Posts
    23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TX Aggie View Post
    Here's another side:
    Trump is speaking at the NRA convention today. Both of his sons are hunters. Hunters are just as much against this land being transferred to the states as the hiking community is, for basically the same reasons. Trump's win was in no small part due to support from the hunting community.
    Who knew federal land use could be so complicated?

  17. #37
    Registered User
    Join Date
    02-14-2017
    Location
    Pasadena, Maryland
    Age
    52
    Posts
    489

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lambsknoll View Post
    Who knew federal land use could be so complicated?
    Lol,

    Anyone who understands "Federal?"


  18. #38
    Is it raining yet?
    Join Date
    07-15-2004
    Location
    Kensington, MD
    Age
    47
    Posts
    1,077
    Images
    62

    Default

    I always hate to confuse the issue with the facts, but many of the newest national monuments were NOT previously federally owned land, but voluntarily relinquished as permitted by the Antiquities Act:

    1.Waco Mammoth
    2.Stonewall
    3.Freedom Riders
    4.Birmingham Civil Rights
    5. Reconstruction Era
    6. North Maine Woods
    7. and the list goes on.....
    Be Prepared

  19. #39
    Registered User Just Bill's Avatar
    Join Date
    07-06-2013
    Location
    Chicago, Il
    Age
    45
    Posts
    3,770

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackCloud View Post
    I always hate to confuse the issue with the facts, but many of the newest national monuments were NOT previously federally owned land, but voluntarily relinquished as permitted by the Antiquities Act:

    1.Waco Mammoth
    2.Stonewall
    3.Freedom Riders
    4.Birmingham Civil Rights
    5. Reconstruction Era
    6. North Maine Woods
    7. and the list goes on.....
    So...only being familiar with the Katahdin Woods (#6 correct?) which was donated... is that what you mean by voluntarily relinquished?

    not being argumentative... but a state voluntarily turning over (elevating?) land to federal protection or a private grant of the same doesn't sound as insidious. I could easily be reading your post through my own filter but these are not seizures or some sort of emminant domain move? More like when a city turns over a park to the state for better preservation/management/budget reasons? Or even interest in historical preservation stronger than they can provide locally?

  20. #40

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackCloud View Post
    I always hate to confuse the issue with the facts, but many of the newest national monuments were NOT previously federally owned land, but voluntarily relinquished as permitted by the Antiquities Act:

    1.Waco Mammoth
    2.Stonewall
    3.Freedom Riders
    4.Birmingham Civil Rights
    5. Reconstruction Era
    6. North Maine Woods
    7. and the list goes on.....
    Quote Originally Posted by Just Bill View Post
    So...only being familiar with the Katahdin Woods (#6 correct?) which was donated... is that what you mean by voluntarily relinquished?

    not being argumentative... but a state voluntarily turning over (elevating?) land to federal protection or a private grant of the same doesn't sound as insidious. I could easily be reading your post through my own filter but these are not seizures or some sort of emminant domain move? More like when a city turns over a park to the state for better preservation/management/budget reasons? Or even interest in historical preservation stronger than they can provide locally?
    One conflicting narrative to get at the resources is that the state lands were stolen by the federal gov't a good ploy to voice in states that have historically been leery of back east Washington intervention. This is not true. But it depends on who's story you're limiting yourself.
    YES. TU Black Cloud for sharing this. It's being said by the WH that local state people and local state legislators should have a say, and didn't have it, when these National Monuments were designated. This is not true. This is a false narrative to politicize the designations along party lines and increase friction between state verse federal gov't factions to distort and amend protections status. WHY?... to confuse the issue AND, to push protections, National Monument designations, and management down to the state level to states that have pro fossil fuel, mining, and development interests. This means the fight has to be then refought to protect these National Monuments. Another fight in this pro fossil fuel industry and mining administration means a greater possibility of gaining access to these resources.

    Oh the drooling going on by pro fossil fuel interests and sympathetic energy industry state legislators with the greater potential of finally developing Escalante -Grand Staircase for energy profits. Is it all about the jobs? http://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?...ismic.html.csp Lots of oil shale, natural gas, oil, and coal in some National Monuments such as Grand Staircase Escalate National Monument which is one of those currently under review.

    It's about getting at the resources with the various explanations being it's about the jobs, furthering the economy, rights of states, etc. It's about getting at the resources. It's about energy development... of one type - fossil fuels. It's about more encroachment upon these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._United_States

    Do you think these places are worth protecting? Some of us think so.

    Here is what's at stake:

    The largest protected place on earth. Designated by George W. Bush, NOT President Obama. This designation received so little mainstream media attention despite President Bush being labeled in absolute terms of being unfriendly to environmental concerns. More partisan politics "news" to define issues by employing stereotyping labels? http://www.papahanaumokuakea.gov/wheritage/climate.html

    Giant Sequoia National Monument - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_...ional_Monument
    https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/sequo...telprdb5394941 http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/201...onal-monument/

    Basin and Range National Monument - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basin_...ional_Monument http://www.latimes.com/travel/califo...htmlstory.html

    Rio Grande del Norte National Monument - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rio_Gr...ional_Monument
    https://www.google.com/maps/uv?hl=en...bjBgsQoioIdTAK

    Katahdin Woods and Waters National Monument - https://www.nps.gov/kaww/index.htm What might have happened here was this area would be added to other acreage making for another National Park.

    Remember what President Teddy Roosevelt said “Here is your country. Cherish these natural wonders, cherish the natural resources, cherish the history and romance as a sacred heritage, for your children and your children's children. Do not let selfish men or greedy interests skin your country of its beauty, its riches or its romance.”

    And consider Teddy Roosevelt's position at the time, who he was saying that to, who he was well connected, and in what country with what economic system.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
++ New Posts ++

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •