dewey02 wrote:
...
Having said that, I will go on to say that I am most definitely NOT a fan of Presidents (not just Obama) making these designations as they walk out of the oval office. These are already mostly federally owned lands and being managed under whatever agency is responsible. The designations are just preventing uses that have been deemed acceptable for decades and also they are a last-ditch effort by whatever President is leaving to try to build a conservation legacy for themselves. It is a foolish way to manage federal resources. If these areas truly needed protection, that protection should have come with careful thought and planning and should have been done sometime during the previous 8 years of the President's terms of office.
Agree. The federal government should not designate any new national monuments, Wilderness, or National Parks over local opposition. If local government approves (not just the state legislature) then I am all for it. My understanding both the state and the local counties are emphatically opposed to the Bears Ears designation. Have not heard how the locals feel about Gold Butte.
The Snow Mountain Monument in California had local support, as well as a several others in the state. So I have no problem with those designations. Another proposed monument is the Modoc Plateau, which in the opinion of everyone knowledgeable of the area agrees would be a really bad idea, including both counties Board of Supervisors, local city councils, Chambers of Commerce, the local BLM Area Manager and Forest Supervisor, the two county Fish and Game Advisory Councils, BLM Advisory Board, and National Forest Resource Advisory Committee.
