Trump to help the people by removing national monuments

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by jpietrzak8, Apr 25, 2017.

  1. jpietrzak8 macrumors 65816

    jpietrzak8

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    #1
    Yep, you heard right. The Washington Post states:

    Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke said Tuesday evening that President Trump has authorized him to review any national monument created since Jan. 1, 1996, that spans at least 100,000 acres “to make sure the people have a voice” in which lands receive the highest level of federal protection.​

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...e-people-have-a-voice/?utm_term=.eedbcdd01f55

    The Hill states that this includes up to 40 different sites:

    Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke told reporters he will consider whether monument designations at up to 40 sites should be “rescinded, resized or modified in order to better benefit our public lands.” ​

    http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/330548-trump-orders-review-of-national-monument-sites

    So yeah, looks like we may be kissing 20 years worth of conservation of natural lands goodbye tomorrow.
     
  2. ibookg409 Suspended

    ibookg409

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2016
    Location:
    Portsmouth, NH
    #2
    Why do you assume that you'll be "kissing them goodbye"? It's a review of land that were made monuments after 1996, meaning prior to 1996 they were not protected land but somehow survived just fine.
     
  3. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #3
    I hope they decide to keep them, but I'm guessing it will be a way to try to sell them off to be exploited in exchange for some quick cash.
     
  4. jpietrzak8 thread starter macrumors 65816

    jpietrzak8

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    #4
    Yep, before they were protected lands, they did indeed survive. Which means that they were not being developed way back then.

    And, now that they are protected lands, it is illegal to develop them.

    Therefore: why bother removing the protections? If no-one wants to chop down trees and put up parking lots, then no problemo! If someone does want to remove the protections, that means they do want to chop down trees and put up parking lots.

    Thus: if this review shows that "the people" (ahem) desire the protections removed, then "the people" (whoever we are talking about here) are planning on doing exactly the things that those protections are protecting against.
     
  5. JayMysterio macrumors 6502

    JayMysterio

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2010
    Location:
    Rock Ridge
    #5
    I can make a guess who some of those 'people' are...

     
  6. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #6
    That's one good thing obama did. Trump sucks
     
  7. MadeTheSwitch macrumors 6502a

    MadeTheSwitch

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    #7
    Why the arbitrary date of 1996? Why not ones created before that date?
     
  8. jpietrzak8 thread starter macrumors 65816

    jpietrzak8

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    #8
    Presumably, Trump really wants to get rid of the Grand Staircase-Escalante monument in Utah. Bill Clinton dedicated it in 1996, and it apparently covers the most land area of all US national monuments. So yeah, this executive order seems carefully tailored to look generic, yet hit a very specific target.
     
  9. bopajuice Suspended

    bopajuice

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2016
    #9
    Most people are clueless. Ulterior motives are beyond comprehension.
     
  10. Nefilim Suspended

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2016
    #10
    At this point the vile trash says "glad she didn't win".
     
  11. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #11
    Do you want to know what this is all about?

    It's really all about the Bears Ears National Monument in San Juan County is southeastern Utah.

    President Obama declared it a protected National Monument during the last days of his Presidency. Why is it called "Bears Ears"? Maybe this picture will help:

    [​IMG]

    That pair of Mesas really does look like a bear's ears.

    Much of the land is also considered sacred by the native American people of the area. But even if it wasn't - do we really need to open this land up to commercial exploitation? Are we really down to our last few barrels of gasoline? Is the retail price of beef so out of control we have no choice but to open up this beautiful land to commercial ranching?

    Trump is a filthy maggot. The sooner some of you people accept this, the sooner this country can move on to bigger and better things.
     
  12. flyinmac macrumors 68030

    flyinmac

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2006
    Location:
    United States
    #12
    Perhaps there is another problem not considered.

    In my area, anyplace that is near water or usable for camp grounds has been taken over by the state.

    You can't even go walk there for 10 minutes without paying the government a fee.

    So, now if you'd like to sit by the river, camp outside, or enjoy nature, you must pay the government.

    So, in a way, the government owning that property has worked against the people.

    It used to be public lands. And free for everyone to enjoy. But as soon as they made it a protected state park, it required you to pay $10 per person just to walk past the gate. And if you want to stay more than a couple hours, you must pay again. And if you want to park a car, that's another fee. And if you want to stay the night, that's another few. If you'll be using a tent, then you can only use this spot and pay this fee. If you use an rv, then you only have to pay for parking.

    So, government owned public land is one thing. State and national parks, that generally only works to make sure we can't use the land which the people own without paying ridiculous fees.

    It shouldn't cost me $50 to $100 just to take my kids for a walk by a river. That's crazy.
     
  13. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #13
    Utter b/s. And you know it.

    This isn't about recreational fees for enjoying public lands. It's about letting mining companies; oil companies; and commercial ranching operations destroy the publicly-owned property of every American citizen.
     
  14. daflake macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2008
    #14

    Actually I agree with him. I camp and do a lot of cycling outside and it always costs a great deal of money to get on to what is now, government property. I paid $30 plus 70 in camping fees for two of us just to camp at the Grand Canyon. It has gotten very expensive over the last 10 years.

    I get the need to protect them and think that Trump removing those protections is stupid, but the costs are going up and that isn't good either.
     
  15. Scepticalscribe Contributor

    Scepticalscribe

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2008
    Location:
    The Far Horizon
    #15
    If the fee thus charged is strongly ring fenced for the protection and preservation of amenities on public land, I fail to see why there should be a quarrel.
     
  16. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #16
    Do these designations ever go through congress? One problem with pretty much everything Obama did was that he didn't go through congress to make it actual law. Trump can swipe these protections away and the next president can reinstate them.
     
  17. daflake macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2008
    #17
    I have no problems paying to take care of the property, but the fees are getting steeper and steeper and they are starting to nickle and dime you at these places. The property was supposed to be public land, but apparently that has changed to "we want your money". Again, I normally don't mind paying, but $30 bucks for a car to enter is a little steep and can also put something like the Grand Canyon off limits to low income families. Me, I just pay and do what I need to do.
     
  18. yaxomoxay macrumors 68000

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #18
    It's just a review, most likely nothing will come out of it.
    In addition, if the feds decide to remove the national monument designation, the state can always make the same territory a state park, state landmark, or a state natural area. There are ways to protect this territory.
     
  19. JayMysterio macrumors 6502

    JayMysterio

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2010
    Location:
    Rock Ridge
    #19
    What's to say that governments at the state level won't have similar views on designations? There are quite a few state governments that are very, very business friendly and could see jobs are more important than a few less parks.
     
  20. yaxomoxay macrumors 68000

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #20
    If it's an important landmark as some think the state will protect it. Local politics is merciless and no voter would forgive a politician that gives up landmarks so easily.
    What's the governor's view on this?
     
  21. jpietrzak8 thread starter macrumors 65816

    jpietrzak8

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    #21
    From Wiki:

    The Antiquities Act of 1906, (Pub.L. 59–209, 34 Stat. 225, 54 U.S.C. § 320301–320303), is an act passed by the United States Congress and signed into law by Theodore Roosevelt on June 8, 1906. This law gives the President of the United States the authority to, by presidential proclamation, create national monuments from federal lands to protect significant natural, cultural, or scientific features.​

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

    So no, "national monuments" are created by the president alone.
     
  22. yaxomoxay macrumors 68000

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #22
    From "federal lands". Interesting, so it's all about the acquisition. I don't think that federal lands can be opened to businesses (I might be completely wrong).
     
  23. Dagless macrumors Core

    Dagless

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2005
    Location:
    Fighting to stay in the EU
    #23
    Most folk like that will take nuclear war, "broken contracts", global warming, and still go to sleep repeating that quote.
     
  24. ibookg409 Suspended

    ibookg409

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2016
    Location:
    Portsmouth, NH
    #24
    It's about those things just because you say so? Or do you have some insider knowledge you'd like to share with us?
     
  25. JayMysterio macrumors 6502

    JayMysterio

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2010
    Location:
    Rock Ridge
    #25
    I'm not sure what the particular governor's view on say Bear Ears. What made me question was reading a little on the Brownback experiment in Kansas. With his very pro business approach to government & economic shortfalls as a result, a governor might be inclined to use state assets. It's all hypothetical, but it made me wonder if something like that could lead a state government to take advantage of the removal of national protections for sustainability.
     

Share This Page