Jump to content

Welcome to FutureTimeline.forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!

These ads will disappear if you register on the forum

Photo

The Future of National Monuments

National Monuments preservation conservation science Trump Department of the Interior

  • Please log in to reply
23 replies to this topic

#1
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,220 posts

ACT NOW: America’s National Parks and Monuments Are At Risk

 

https://www.american...uments-at-risk/

 

Introduction:

 

President Donald Trump has launched an unprecedented attack on America’s national parks, public lands, and oceans. The U.S. Department of the Interior, led by Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke, is considering eliminating or shrinking at least 27 national monuments established by presidents from both parties since 1996.

 

National monuments are sites owned by all Americans who honor our nation’s cultural, historical, and outdoor heritage. Places from the Grand Canyon to Bears Ears, the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, and Stonewall have all been protected as national monuments. These places help define who we are as a nation, and any attempt to revoke or change the fabric of national monuments must be stopped.

 

The Department of the Interior has opened a public comment period for members of the public to weigh in on the protected status of these monuments. With your help, we can demonstrate the overwhelming public support for national monuments.

 

 

 

The following is taken from the Federal Register. As such, length of citation restrictions that would otherwise apply do not need to be a factor here as documents in the Federal Register are considered public documents and not subject to copyright related infringement restrictions.

 

 

 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

 

 
Executive Order 13792 of April 26, 2017 (82 FR 20429, May 1, 2017), directs the Secretary of the Interior to review certain National Monuments designated or expanded under the Antiquities Act of 1906, 54 U.S.C. 320301-320303 (Act). Specifically, Section 2 of the Executive Order directs the Secretary to conduct a review of all Presidential designations or expansions of designations under the Antiquities Act made since January 1, 1996, where the designation covers more than 100,000 acres, where the designation after expansion covers more than 100,000 acres, or where the Secretary determines that the designation or expansion was made without adequate public outreach and coordination with relevant stakeholders, to determine whether each designation or expansion conforms to the policy set forth in section 1 of the order. Among other provisions, Section 1 states that designations should reflect the Act's “requirements and original objectives” and “appropriately balance the protection of landmarks, structures, and objects against the appropriate use of Federal lands and the effects on surrounding lands and communities.” 82 FR 20429 (May 1, 2017).

 

In making the requisite determinations, the Secretary is directed to consider:

 

(i) The requirements and original objectives of the Act, including the Act's requirement that reservations of land not exceed “the smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of the objects to be protected”;

 

(ii) whether designated lands are appropriately classified under the Act as “historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, [or] other objects of historic or scientific interest”;

 

(iii) the effects of a designation on the available uses of designated Federal lands, including consideration of the multiple-use policy of section 102(a)(7) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (43 U.S.C. 1701(a)(7)), as well as the effects on the available uses of Federal lands beyond the monument boundaries;

 

(iv) the effects of a designation on the use and enjoyment of non-Federal lands within or beyond monument boundaries;

 

(v) concerns of State, tribal, and local governments affected by a designation, including the economic development and fiscal condition of affected States, tribes, and localities;

 

(vi) the availability of Federal resources to properly manage designated areas; and

 

(vii) such other factors as the Secretary deems appropriate. 82 FR 20429-20430 (May 1, 2017).

 

The National Monuments being initially reviewed are listed in the following tables.Start Printed Page 22017

National Monuments Being Initially Reviewed Pursuant to Criteria in Executive Order 13792

 

  Monument Location Year(s) Acreage Basin and Range Nevada 2015 703,585 Bears Ears Utah 2016 1,353,000 Berryessa Snow Mountain California 2015 330,780 Canyons of the Ancients Colorado 2000 175,160 Carrizo Plain California 2001 204,107 Cascade Siskiyou Oregon 2000/2017 100,000 Craters of the Moon Idaho 1924/2000 737,525 Giant Sequoia California 2000 327,760 Gold Butte Nevada 2016 296,937 Grand Canyon-Parashant Arizona 2000 1,014,000 Grand Staircase-Escalante Utah 1996 1,700,000 Hanford Reach Washington 2000 194,450.93 Ironwood Forest Arizona 2000 128,917 Mojave Trails California 2016 1,600,000 Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks New Mexico 2014 496,330 Rio Grande del Norte New Mexico 2013 242,555 Sand to Snow California 2016 154,000 San Gabriel Mountains California 2014 346,177 Sonoran Desert Arizona 2001 486,149 Upper Missouri River Breaks Montana 2001 377,346 Vermilion Cliffs Arizona 2000 279,568

 

National Monuments Being Reviewed To Determine Whether the Designation or Expansion Was Made Without Adequate Public Outreach and Coordination With Relevant Stakeholders

 

  Katahadin Woods and Waters Maine 2016 87,563

 

The Department of the Interior seeks public comments related to: (1) Whether national monuments in addition to those listed above should be reviewed because they were designated or expanded after January 1, 1996 “without adequate public outreach and coordination with relevant stakeholders;” and (2) the application of factors (i) through (vii) to the listed national monuments or to other Presidential designations or expansions of designations meeting the criteria of the Executive Order. With respect to factor (vii), comments should address other factors the Secretary might consider for this review.

 

In a separate but related process, certain Marine National Monuments will also be reviewed. As directed by section 4 of Executive Order 13795 of April 28, 2017, “Implementing an America-First Offshore Energy Strategy” (82 FR 20815, May 3, 2017), the Department of Commerce will lead the review of the Marine National Monuments in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior. To assist in that consultation, the Secretary will accept comments related to the application of factors (i) through (vii) in Executive Order 13792 as set forth above to the following Marine National Monuments:

 

Marine National Monuments Being Reviewed Pursuant to Executive Orders 13795 and 13792

 

Marianas Trench CNMI/Pacific Ocean 2009 60,938,240 Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Atlantic Ocean 2016 3,114,320 Pacific Remote Islands Pacific Ocean 2009 55,608,320 Papahanaumokuakea Hawaii 2006/2016 89,600,000 Rose Atoll American Samoa 2009 8,609,045

 

Before including your name, address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you may ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. (Note:  See initial article for further assistance in easily submitting a comment to the Department of the Interior if you wish to do so)

 

Federal Register Link:  https://www.federalr...-public-comment


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#2
Sciencerocks

Sciencerocks

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,742 posts

I love our national monuments and parks. It makes me sick that the fucking republicans want to destroy and sell off our nature treasures and it makes me hate the bastards with a passion.

 

Nothing outside of the benefit of the greedy matters to these slim bags.


To follow my work on tropical cyclones


#3
Lunix688

Lunix688

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,286 posts
  • LocationUnited States

I love our national monuments and parks. It makes me sick that the fucking republicans want to destroy and sell off our nature treasures and it makes me hate the bastards with a passion.

 

Nothing outside of the benefit of the greedy matters to these slim bags.

You do realize that privatization of national parks doesn't mean they'd become oilfields or strip mines right? 
 

Also surely you realize that bureaucrats and presidents have been a bit overzealous in national-parking and 'protecting' the Western USA (in which in some states, most of the land is federally owned)


  • Jakob likes this
"Liberterianism is a mental disease. A national health crisis and a threat to the future of this country...Worse than the threat from terrorism, asteroids, disease and yes global warming.
It is mindless anti-government idiocy. If it isn't turned back I predict the end of this country as a world power. Simply put the need to educate our entire population like any sane country is sen as wrong by the cult that practice this foolish idiocy. So is simple workers rights, child labor and every other sane policy of the modern world."
-Matthew
 
"The man who does not value himself, cannot value anything or anyone.”
-Ayn Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness: A New Concept of Egoism
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
 
"The world runs on individuals pursuing their self interests. The great achievements of civilization have not come from government bureaus. Einstein didn't construct his theory under order from a, from a bureaucrat. Henry Ford didn't revolutionize the automobile industry that way."
-Milton Friedman
 
 

 


#4
Erowind

Erowind

    Psychonaut, Aspiring Mathematician and Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 526 posts
  • LocationInside some convoluted formula I don't actually understand.

 

I love our national monuments and parks. It makes me sick that the fucking republicans want to destroy and sell off our nature treasures and it makes me hate the bastards with a passion.

 

Nothing outside of the benefit of the greedy matters to these slim bags.

You do realize that privatization of national parks doesn't mean they'd become oilfields or strip mines right? 
 

Also surely you realize that bureaucrats and presidents have been a bit overzealous in national-parking and 'protecting' the Western USA (in which in some states, most of the land is federally owned)

 

 

It would be more likely that said private interests would exploit the natural resources in former national parks for profit. No private corporate entity is going to turn down profit for any moral reason. If a mining company offered the owner(s) a cut of the profits for the rights to use some of the land--the owner(s) would take the money without question--after negotiating an even better deal of course. Why would any corporate entity act against the growth of its profit margins?


Current status: slaving away for the math gods of Pythagoras VII.


#5
Jakob

Jakob

    Fenny-Eyed Slubber-Yuck

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,236 posts
  • LocationIn the Basket of Deplorables

 

 

I love our national monuments and parks. It makes me sick that the fucking republicans want to destroy and sell off our nature treasures and it makes me hate the bastards with a passion.

 

Nothing outside of the benefit of the greedy matters to these slim bags.

You do realize that privatization of national parks doesn't mean they'd become oilfields or strip mines right? 
 

Also surely you realize that bureaucrats and presidents have been a bit overzealous in national-parking and 'protecting' the Western USA (in which in some states, most of the land is federally owned)

 

 

It would be more likely that said private interests would exploit the natural resources in former national parks for profit. No private corporate entity is going to turn down profit for any moral reason. If a mining company offered the owner(s) a cut of the profits for the rights to use some of the land--the owner(s) would take the money without question--after negotiating an even better deal of course. Why would any corporate entity act against the growth of its profit margins?

 

Who said it would be a for-profit company?


Click 'show' to see quotes from great luminaries.

Spoiler

#6
Cody930

Cody930

    An Apple Pie from Scratch

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,509 posts
  • LocationNew Jersey, US

 

 

 

I love our national monuments and parks. It makes me sick that the fucking republicans want to destroy and sell off our nature treasures and it makes me hate the bastards with a passion.

 

Nothing outside of the benefit of the greedy matters to these slim bags.

You do realize that privatization of national parks doesn't mean they'd become oilfields or strip mines right? 
 

Also surely you realize that bureaucrats and presidents have been a bit overzealous in national-parking and 'protecting' the Western USA (in which in some states, most of the land is federally owned)

 

 

It would be more likely that said private interests would exploit the natural resources in former national parks for profit. No private corporate entity is going to turn down profit for any moral reason. If a mining company offered the owner(s) a cut of the profits for the rights to use some of the land--the owner(s) would take the money without question--after negotiating an even better deal of course. Why would any corporate entity act against the growth of its profit margins?

 

Who said it would be a for-profit company?

 

 

What are the chances it would be environmental-loving non-profit companies taking over the land? Come on, reality shows what any company would do most of the time, even if it's simple things like the timber industry wanting trees or real estate folks developing in the desert. 


  • Unity likes this

"Since we first emerged, a few million years ago in East Africa, we have meandered our way around the planet. There are now people on every continent and the remotest islands, from pole to pole, from Mount Everest to the Dead Sea, on the ocean bottoms and even, occasionally, in residence 200 miles up - humans, like the gods of old, living in the sky."


#7
Jakob

Jakob

    Fenny-Eyed Slubber-Yuck

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,236 posts
  • LocationIn the Basket of Deplorables

 

 

 

 

I love our national monuments and parks. It makes me sick that the fucking republicans want to destroy and sell off our nature treasures and it makes me hate the bastards with a passion.

 

Nothing outside of the benefit of the greedy matters to these slim bags.

You do realize that privatization of national parks doesn't mean they'd become oilfields or strip mines right? 
 

Also surely you realize that bureaucrats and presidents have been a bit overzealous in national-parking and 'protecting' the Western USA (in which in some states, most of the land is federally owned)

 

 

It would be more likely that said private interests would exploit the natural resources in former national parks for profit. No private corporate entity is going to turn down profit for any moral reason. If a mining company offered the owner(s) a cut of the profits for the rights to use some of the land--the owner(s) would take the money without question--after negotiating an even better deal of course. Why would any corporate entity act against the growth of its profit margins?

 

Who said it would be a for-profit company?

 

 

What are the chances it would be environmental-loving non-profit companies taking over the land? Come on, reality shows what any company would do most of the time, even if it's simple things like the timber industry wanting trees or real estate folks developing in the desert. 

 

There are a lot of parks in my area that are owned or maintained by nonprofits, or by for-profits as a way of giving back to the community.


Click 'show' to see quotes from great luminaries.

Spoiler

#8
Alislaws

Alislaws

    Democratic Socialist Materialist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 722 posts
  • LocationLondon

 

There are a lot of parks in my area that are owned or maintained by nonprofits, or by for-profits as a way of giving back to the community.

 

Are we talking like small local parks (like central park in new york) or national parks as in "yellowstone national park"?


  • Cody930 and Unity like this

#9
Mike the average

Mike the average

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,474 posts
I can just imagine American private enterprise getting hold of these parks, doing some great things, such as 'Giving back to the public', deforesting some ancient redwood forest for a 36 hole semi pro golf course etc.
  • Unity and Erowind like this
'Force always attracts men of low morality' - Einstein
'Great spirits always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds' - Einstein

#10
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,220 posts

Well, first I am glad that everybody is responding to this in terms of what the future might bring instead of treating it as another news article.  I feel more justified in having put it in this forum as opposed to the News and Current Event forum.

 

Secondly, I also find it interesting that folks are focusing on parks as parks and not immediately defaulting to the "this is how technology is going to change things" mode of analysis.  

 

What I mean by that is that the future does involve a component that is very much an extension of the past.  An extension of how things use to be. National monuments and national parks  are places that very definitely can give us a connection to the past, to the way things used to be.  That is, used to be even before technological man arrived at the scene.

 

At L.L. Bean in Maine where they sell books, I read a portion of a book about appreciating the outdoor experience. I don't even recall the title of the book or the author.  What I do recall is a point made.  That the wilderness experience is valuable precisely because it can be hard to get to the place being experienced. It is the very experience of challenging oneself to climb a mountain or take an extended hike  that can give you the reward.

 

What capitalism threatens to do (among other things) is to turn such vacationing trip into a Coney Island experience.  A place where the urban world has simply been transferred to some remote location to serve as a tourist experience.  Complete with joy rides and banal contests of skill like throwing basketballs through a hoop.  I can imagine a future where a hiker sets out to climb a mountain. Getting to the mountain top, he is met by somebody who arrived by passenger drone. In such a world, there will be no place to get away.  A loud cantankerous civilization will follow you no matter where you go. Nothing will be sacred, especially not nature.  

 

I am not sure that a man who made a good chunk of his money building luxury hotels can really understand the importance of what is at stake.  Luxury hotels are pretty much the diametric opposite of the kind of experience that I am talking about.  Passenger drones on steroids, as it were.

 

Of course, all of this does not even contemplate drilling for oil and gas, etc.

 

Now, whether the new head of the Department of Interior understands this or not is hard for me to say.   What is not hard for me to say is that this administration has lost all credibility with me.  I have quickly learned that one must expect the worse.  I hope that I am wrong.


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#11
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,220 posts

At the risk of turning this thread into a depository of news stories, here is an update.

 

Zinke Takes First National Monuments Off Trump’s Chopping Block

 

 

http://www.courthous...chopping-block/

 

Introduction:

 

(CN) – U.S. Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke on Thursday removed two national monuments from his review of 27 that President Donald Trump has sought to either make smaller or remove protections from entirely, saying they will no longer be considered for changes.

 

Craters of the Moon National Monument in Idaho and Hanford Reach National Monument in Washington state will not be modified and are exempted from the review, Zinke said.

 

“When the president and I began the monument review process, we absolutely realized that not all monuments are the same and that not all monuments would require modifications,” Zinke said. “Today I’m announcing that the Craters of the Moon and Hanford Reach National Monuments review process has concluded and I am recommending no changes be made to the monuments.”

 

Environmental organizations hailed the announcement, but said the Trump administration’s continued review of the 25 remaining monuments is ill-advised and needs to stop.

 

“Admitting that Craters of the Moon is worthy of protection is a no-brainer,” Craig Gehrke, Idaho state director for The Wilderness Society, said in a statement. “The real celebration here would be ending the larger review of our national monuments that have already been deemed special places worthy of protection.”

 

 

Any further thoughts related to the theme of this thread?

 

At any event, I find myself sympathetic to the philosophical observation that ending the larger review would be beneficial. In the spirit of science, I am willing to accept evidence that contradicts that proposition, but I have seen no such credible evidence.


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#12
Sciencerocks

Sciencerocks

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,742 posts

We're better then what we were in the 18th century and anyone that thinks we should go back to that time and act like the environment doesn't matter or any number of republican 18th century idiocy is just wrong within my mind.

 

Sorry but you will never make it acceptable.


To follow my work on tropical cyclones


#13
Jakob

Jakob

    Fenny-Eyed Slubber-Yuck

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,236 posts
  • LocationIn the Basket of Deplorables

The vast majority of federal land should belong to state, county, or municipal governments. Or private organizations.


Click 'show' to see quotes from great luminaries.

Spoiler

#14
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,220 posts

Trump Could Shrink Some of Our Most Beautiful National Monuments

 

http://www.motherjon...onal-monuments/

 

Introduction:

 

Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke on Thursday delivered his long-awaited recommendations on the fate of 27 national monuments that the Trump administration is considering opening up for mining and drilling. Zinke’s verdict, it turns out, is a confusing one.

 

The Associated Press was first with the story, with a headline that originally read, “Zinke Won’t Eliminate Any National Monuments.” That seems to suggest good news, but the story goes on to note that Zinke said he is recommending that President Donald Trump make changes to a “handful” of monuments. Conservationists say this is exactly what they feared: They don’t know what those changes mean or which monuments will be targeted, because Zinke has been vague on what’s in his report to Trump. But administration may intend to shrink monuments in New Mexico, California, and Utah—including Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante, monuments that are important to Native Americans.

 

 “First and foremost I think this news shows how arbitrary the process has been,” says Dan Hartinger, the Wilderness Society’s deputy director for Parks and Public Lands Defense. “Talking about them as a ‘handful’ of monuments is something that’s neither acceptable or respectful of the critical cultural and sacred sites.” Hartinger noted that Zinke’s phrasing seemed to try to frame the decision “as some generous gift or compromise,” when the threat of shrinking protected lands is actually a major blow to conservation. Aaron Weiss, a spokesman for the Center for Western Priorities agreed. “A handful could be two; a handful could be eight or 10,” he said. “An attack on one monument is an attack on all of them.”

 

Conservationists predict Trump intends to shrink some existing monuments to open up lands for new mining and drilling operations, a potential move that Friends of the Earth’s Ben Schreiber described as a “blatant handouts to the oil and gas industry.” Any such land would still be federally managed, but losing monument status would strip it of national park-like protections, which forbid new leases for grazing, oil, gas, and mining.

 

If Trump does attempt to shrink any monuments, he will invite the first constitutional test of the 1906 Antiquities Act, a law signed by Teddy Roosevelt giving presidents the power to create land and marine monuments. 

31136248023_99dbb89491_k.jpg?w=963

Bears Ears

Bob Wick, BLM/Flick


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#15
PhoenixRu

PhoenixRu

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,516 posts
  • LocationRussia

The first signs:

 

Let's Get Rid of Mount Rushmore

 

Donald Trump says removing confederate statues is a slippery slope that could get out of control. Maybe he's right—would that be such a bad thing?

 

There are already discussions about whose faces should be erased and why. This is sad, very sad... i always thought Mount Rushmore will stay for millenia, as a great monument of great fallen civilization.


  • Yuli Ban, Lunix688, Jakob and 1 other like this

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

 

"And the Russian land, let God keep it! Under heavens, there is no other land like this. And although Russian nobles are not righteous neither kind, let God arrange the Russian land and give us enough justice" - Afanasy Nikitin, medieval traveler of XV century.


#16
Erowind

Erowind

    Psychonaut, Aspiring Mathematician and Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 526 posts
  • LocationInside some convoluted formula I don't actually understand.

The first signs:

 

Let's Get Rid of Mount Rushmore

 

Donald Trump says removing confederate statues is a slippery slope that could get out of control. Maybe he's right—would that be such a bad thing?

 

There are already discussions about whose faces should be erased and why. This is sad, very sad... i always thought Mount Rushmore will stay for millenia, as a great monument of great fallen civilization.

If mount Rushmore ever got blown up I hope to god we would rebuild it as close to the original as possible. I can't stand Vice sometimes, l glanced at that article and this is the first sentence that caught my eye, "Which made me wonder: If Rushmore ever did get "blown up," what should those dudes be replaced with?."

 

This is genuine idiocy, no way to sugar coat it.


  • Jakob likes this

Current status: slaving away for the math gods of Pythagoras VII.


#17
Pisiu369

Pisiu369

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 742 posts

The first signs:

 

Let's Get Rid of Mount Rushmore

 

Donald Trump says removing confederate statues is a slippery slope that could get out of control. Maybe he's right—would that be such a bad thing?

 

There are already discussions about whose faces should be erased and why. This is sad, very sad... i always thought Mount Rushmore will stay for millenia, as a great monument of great fallen civilization.

I've always thought of Mount Rushmore as the American Colosseum, the fact that the plain proposal of removing the nations biggest historical monument exists, is a clear indication that the nation is bound to fail.



#18
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,220 posts

I don't think the answer is to tear Mount Rushmore down (or statues of Robert E. Lee).  I think the answer is to build more monuments such as:

 

 

https://crazyhorsememorial.org/

 

homeslider_header_back_1.jpg


  • Yuli Ban, PhoenixRu and BasilBerylium like this

The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#19
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,220 posts

Shrink at Least 4 National Monuments and Modify a Half-dozen Others, Zinke Tells Trump

 

http://www.msn.com/e...ID=ansmsnnews11

 

Introduction:

 

Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke has recommended that President Trump modify 10 national monuments created by his immediate predecessors, including shrinking the boundaries of at least four western sites, according to a copy of the report obtained by The Washington Post.

 

The memorandum, which the White House has refused to release since Zinke submitted itlate last month, does not specify exact reductions for the four protected areas Zinke would have Trump narrow — Utah’s Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante, Nevada’s Gold Butte, and Oregon’s Cascade-Siskiyou — or the two marine national monuments — the Pacific Remote Islands and Rose Atoll — for which he raised the same prospect. The two Utah sites encompass a total of more than 3.2 million acres, part of the reason they have aroused such intense emotions since their designation.

 

The secretary’s set of recommendations also would change the way all 10 targeted monuments are managed. It emphasizes the need to adjust the proclamations to address concerns of local officials or affected industries, saying the administration should permit “traditional uses” now restricted within the monuments’ boundaries, such as grazing, logging, coal mining and commercial fishing.

 

If enacted, the changes could test the legal boundaries of what powers a president holds under the 1906 Antiquities Act. Although Congress can alter national monuments easily through legislation, presidents have reduced their boundaries only on rare occasions.

 

The memorandum, labeled “Final Report Summarizing Findings of the Review of Designations Under the Antiquities Act,” shows Zinke concluded after a nearly four-month reviewthat both Republican and Democratic presidents went too far in recent decades in limiting commercial activities in protected areas. The act, signed into law by President Theodore Roosevelt, gives the president wide latitude to protect public lands and waters that face an imminent threat.

 

 

 

UT_BearsEars_BLM_MasonCummings_160427_27

 

Bears Ears' namesake is a pair of sandstone-fringed buttes jutting about 2,000 feet up from the mesa.

Photo by Mason Cummings (TWS).


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#20
Unity

Unity

    Information Organism

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,443 posts
Edited





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: National Monuments, preservation, conservation, science, Trump, Department of the Interior

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users