Trump to help the people by removing national monuments

jpietrzak8

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Feb 16, 2010
1,053
6,082
Dayton, Ohio
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/energy-environment/wp/2017/04/25/zinke-to-review-large-national-monuments-created-since-1996-to-make-sure-the-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Secretary Ryan Zinke told reporters he will consider whether monument designations at up to 40 sites should be “rescinded, resized or modified in order to better benefit our public lands.”​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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Huntn

jpietrzak8

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Feb 16, 2010
1,053
6,082
Dayton, Ohio
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.
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.
 

JayMysterio

macrumors 6502a
Apr 24, 2010
665
12,027
Rock Ridge, California
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.
I can make a guess who some of those 'people' are...

The other “bookend” of the review, Zinke said, is the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument that President Clinton created in 1996, a decision that drew criticism from mining firms.
 

MadeTheSwitch

macrumors 6502a
Apr 20, 2009
827
15,203
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.
Why the arbitrary date of 1996? Why not ones created before that date?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Scepticalscribe

jpietrzak8

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Feb 16, 2010
1,053
6,082
Dayton, Ohio
Why the arbitrary date of 1996? Why not ones created before that date?
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.
 

vrDrew

macrumors 65816
Jan 31, 2010
1,317
11,835
Midlife, Midwest
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:



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.
 

flyinmac

macrumors 68040
Sep 2, 2006
3,582
2,408
United States
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.
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.
 

vrDrew

macrumors 65816
Jan 31, 2010
1,317
11,835
Midlife, Midwest
It shouldn't cost me $50 to $100 just to take my kids for a walk by a river. That's crazy.
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.
 

daflake

macrumors 6502a
Apr 8, 2008
920
4,225
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.

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.
 

Scepticalscribe

macrumors Sandy Bridge
Jul 29, 2008
45,479
30,722
The Far Horizon
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.
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.
 

Zombie Acorn

macrumors 65816
Feb 2, 2009
1,301
9,062
Toronto, Ontario
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.
 

daflake

macrumors 6502a
Apr 8, 2008
920
4,225
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.
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.
 

yaxomoxay

macrumors 68040
Mar 3, 2010
3,606
24,516
Texas
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.
 

JayMysterio

macrumors 6502a
Apr 24, 2010
665
12,027
Rock Ridge, California
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.
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.
 

yaxomoxay

macrumors 68040
Mar 3, 2010
3,606
24,516
Texas
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.
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?
 

jpietrzak8

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Feb 16, 2010
1,053
6,082
Dayton, Ohio
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.
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MacNut

yaxomoxay

macrumors 68040
Mar 3, 2010
3,606
24,516
Texas
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.
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).
 

ibookg409

Suspended
Apr 20, 2016
612
7,356
Portsmouth, NH
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.
It's about those things just because you say so? Or do you have some insider knowledge you'd like to share with us?
 

JayMysterio

macrumors 6502a
Apr 24, 2010
665
12,027
Rock Ridge, California
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?
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: yaxomoxay