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

[rockhillmanor]

So sad to see even yet more of our beautiful preserved land be taken away for unscrupulous reasons. 😞

...Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante national monuments {reduced} by more than 1.1 million acres and more than 800,000 acres

...removes about 85 percent of the designation of Bears Ears and nearly 46 percent of that for Grand Staircase-Escalante, land that potentially could now be leased for energy exploration

Interestingly though is that the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 PROHIBITS reducing any federal site.

1976 Federal Land Policy and Management Act. “Congress made very clear, as a matter of law, that they intend to delegate only that which has been expressly delegated in terms of management of federal lands,” he said — which would mean a president can establish a monument under the Antiquities Act but not “rescind or substantially reduce” a site,...

Sooo, HOW is this being allowed to take place if the FLPMA Act says it is not allowed?

[jplante4]

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

[1L243]

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.

[Tom_Barb]

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.

[Tom_Barb]

read the whole thing.

[Mortimer_Brewst]

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]

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.

[Tom_Barb]

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

[rexlion]

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.

[mobeewan]

When Utah became a state (in 1896) land was set aside and given to the state of Utah under School and Institutional Trust Lands (SITLa, a Utah state agency), to be managed to produce funds for the state school system. This included the mineral rights. Land from this act was stolen from the state by Bill Clinton and added to Grand Staircase.

At that time the land was being looked at by the state of Utah in order to allow mining of coal. The revenues from that mining were going to be used by the state of Utah for their schools as previously designated by the federal government. At the time there were only two known sources of the cleanest burning coal in the world. One was the Utah land that bill Clinton added to Grand Staircase. The other was controlled by political contributors to Bill Clinton. They did not want competition from the coal that would be mined in Utah. By stealing the land from the state of Utah, Bill Clinton was paying back his political contributors.

Donald Trump is only trying to right a wrong that was done to the state of Utah by returning the land and mineral rights to the state of Utah given by the federal government in 1896.

From World News Daily story

"...Clinton didn’t mention that the coal he was effectively locking away was a low-sulfur, clean-burning coal called “compliance coal,” so-named because it meets requirements set by the EPA. It is in demand worldwide as a fuel for electric plants. Nor did he mention that one of the only other places in the world where comparable coal is found is Indonesia, the home of Mochtar and James Riady, the Chinese government-connected billionaires who poured millions of dollars into Clinton campaigns in 1992 and 1996. ..."

[RGar974417]

Good.

[lc0338]

NRALIFR wrote:
I’m afraid I can’t get too worked up over a roll-back of what was a blatant overreach of the antiquities act in the first place. Of course, that’s the way they did a lot of things back in the good “O” days. Bend rules, break rules, ignore rules. How’s that pen and phone taste now?

:):)

I agree with you. The last president added millions of acres using the antiquities act which was never intended to allocate this much land and the other overreach was done by bill clinton when he was president. 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.

[coolbreeze01]

The Mojave Preserve land grab deserves a look.

[2oldman]

rockhillmanor wrote:
Sooo, HOW is this being allowed to take place if the FLPMA Act says it is not allowed?

Very good question. It never has.


Same discussion in Public lands

[SidecarFlip]

This discussion reminds me of the American Motorcycle Association and their ongoing fight against ethanol fuels over 10% by volume.

It is what it is. Live with it.

You cannot make everyone happy without stepping on a few toes....