2 National Monument Land Reduced by 'over' 1.1 million acres

If the state of Utah is happy with this development, then I'm happy. The people of Utah are well equipped to decide what is best in their state.

Retired JSO wrote:
This is a political topic and should be removed.

It should not.... these lands and their usage has very much to do with where we can go and what we can do.

The antiques act says the monuments can be created, but it does not say they can be eliminated.

there will be much legal wrangling prior to this being settled.

what Trump did today was reduce the size of two national monuments. this is legal and has prior precedence.

this was done to allow the Native American to graze cattle again on their land, because what Obummer did was to prevent them from doing so.

home work, look up the usage of monument land and the usage of government owned land there is a huge difference

If I had my way, the President would not be allowed to designate NM's. It is degrading the whole concept by becoming a political statement rather than a real decision to protect a parcel of land for the benefit of all people. NP's are the best way to do that.

lc0338 wrote:
From the signing today it looked like the majority of Utah agreed it was a good idea to get the washington bureaucrats out of their business_state.

I wonder what percentage of that “majority” has received money from oil/gas/mining interests?
I can understand how people wouldn’t be happy about the Feds taking such a big piece of land. I can also understand how some people might not trust the state officials to be responsible with the land.
I posted this article in the other thread on the same topic. It’s titled “What you need to know about the Bears Ears controversy”
Here are a couple excepts:
A common misconception about national monuments is that they prohibit traditional land uses like hunting, fishing, extraction of oil and gas, mining, cattle grazing, camping, and use of motorized vehicles. When a monument is created, however, all existing permitted land uses are typically grandfathered in. In Bears Ears, for example, all aforementioned activities are currently permitted, including an active lease for a uranium mine.

The area contains ancient ruins, extensive petroglyphs and artifacts, as well as one of the most complete paleontological fossil records, dating back 300 million years and chronicling the rise of vertebrate life on land.
A 2009 raid of suspected looters’ homes revealed over 40,000 artifacts stolen from the area.
Consider reading it. It’s a fair article and worth the time.

Earl E wrote:
If I had my way, the President would not be allowed to designate NM's. .

If you had your way we'd never have a national monument, or a national park. simply because this the way they are formed.

It was two previous Presidents that made the land grab without much oversite. 66% of Utah is owned by the Federal Government.

Utah just wanted control over land in their state and not some bureaucrat from DC.

Ok. Good discussion (with a couple of exceptions), but there's a similar thread in public lands which is where the discussion should be.

So everyone go Over There.

CLOSED