TRUMP executive order....pay attention

[IA Born]

 

I'm hesitant to jump into this and weigh in, but there is a great deal of misinformation going through this entire thread. I'm simply hoping to clarify a couple of pieces of misinformation and help everyone form a more informed opinion and path forward, whatever path you choose. Our office is getting daily updates/briefs about the EO. The EO is authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to back through two decades' of National Monument designations and determine whether they should be overturned. Most of those NMs are on BLM and NPS managed land, and a few are on FS managed land, but all are mostly on Federal land and were from the moment the designation was official. The Federal government does not have the authority to designate State Land as a NM; however, checkerboard pieces are often lumped into the boundary just because of ease of drawing said boundary. There is absolutely no seizure of state land in the process. Those pieces of State Trust Land are still under the respective states' management and not the Federal land management agency. If National Monument status is overturned, those Federal lands will revert back to status-quo Federal lands managed by the Forest Service, BLM, or NPS and will not go to the states to be sold off. It takes an act of Congress to convert Federal land back to state management and that is not a part of the EO.

 

I will not get into the pros and cons of national monument status on Federal lands, but I encourage everyone to read what each NM proclamation allows and doesn't allow under that designation. I will only say that I've yet to work with a NM in Arizona that hasn't retained hunting, fishing, and ranching as a part of the proclamation. That means that those activities are allowed to continue in perpetuity. Most national monument designations ensure that the habitat for the game we like to hunt will be managed even closer in perpetuity. Yes, it adds an extra layer of paperwork at the bureaucratic level, but it helps ensure habitat, wildlife, and hunting will continue in even better quality.

 

As far as the idea that the Grand Canyon-Parashant NM or any monument is inside the Grand Canyon NP, that is far from correct. The GCPNM is a completely separate piece of land in NW Arizona and has not ties to Grand Canyon National Park, except for the words "Grand Canyon". The southern portion of the GCPNM is NPS land that was part of Lake Mead NRA (NPS) until monument status was designated. The majority of GCPNM is BLM managed land. BLM has the majority of land management responsibilities, but GCPNM is co-managed by BLM and NPS. As for Bears Ear NM, that land was Federal land to begin with, as described above; therefore, the state can't sell of that 1.4 million acres. Utah could only sell what is SITLA (equivalent to state land in AZ).

 

And to the comment that AZ passed a Senate Bill last year to allow the sale of state trust land, Arizona State Trust Land, similar to SITLA in Utah has always been designated to be sold for the highest profit for the good of the state, particularly the education system. I've lived in Arizona since 1999, but that was one of the first things I learned when working in wildlife/habitat management. Arizona State Trust Land is not public land and it can and will be sold to the highest bidder in order to get the most profit for the State of Arizona. Same for Utah. I can't speak for other western states, but I'm pretty sure that's the case there, too.

So is this executive order good or bad?

 

 

That's the million dollar question that I purposefully tried to avoid, Phil. I have to be very careful when I weigh in on these issues, but, at the same time, I feel like I owe the American People I work for the best, correct information that is out there. Everything I said above, can be vefired; I just didn't have the time or desire to look up every Federal Reg in the CFR or under the ARS for ASLD. I want people to know that the correct information is out there, they can find it, and then form their opinions.

 

I deeply apologize for this highly bureaucratic answer, but I love my job and want to keep it. I've always considered myself to be one of those Feds who takes my job working for you very seriously and that you (collective you) deserve nothing less than the best and absolute honesty. Now, if you're ever in Flagstaff and want to catch me when I'm off duty and allowed to express my personal opinions on these matters, I'd be happy to share them with you.

[DesertBull]

No evidence either way is presented. Typical of web site lawyers and pontificates. Web site pontificates as a rule only understand the large print.

 

 

The Antiquities act was signed into law in 1906. Passed by Congress and Signed by President Roosevelt. You cannot "executive order" it away.

 

The EO says to go back and review all NM created since 1996 that are more than 100,000 acres and see if there is benefit into returning it to public land (IE BLM, National Forest, etc)

 

No where is in this EO does it say to transfer any land or to even reclassify it.

 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/04/26/presidential-executive-order-review-designations-under-antiquities-act

[IA Born]

 

No evidence either way is presented. Typical of web site lawyers and pontificates. Web site pontificates as a rule only understand the large print.

 

 

The Antiquities act was signed into law in 1906. Passed by Congress and Signed by President Roosevelt. You cannot "executive order" it away.

 

The EO says to go back and review all NM created since 1996 that are more than 100,000 acres and see if there is benefit into returning it to public land (IE BLM, National Forest, etc)

 

No where is in this EO does it say to transfer any land or to even reclassify it.

 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/04/26/presidential-executive-order-review-designations-under-antiquities-act

 

 

 

THIS!!! Except that it was already public land prior to NM designation. The National Monument designation just (in a nutshell) adds another level of scrutiny and protections.

[Red Sparky]

In the last 2 or 3 years they took the Organ Mountains down by Las Cruces and designated it a NM or NP not sure which. Big uproar saying that it couldn't be used for grazing, big uproar saying it would be harder to patrol for illegals, big uproar on many levels on why it shouldn't be designated. It was so it falls under this EO to see if it should be reverted back to what it was. It is a way for one President to undo what another President did without having to go through Congress to do it.

 

From what I understand the federal land being reverted to the state is mainly spearheaded out of Nevada. I think that will take congress or a vote by the american people to add an amendment to the Constitution to get done.

[ctracingraptor]

Secretary Ryan Zinke said he will examine whether any designations had led to loss of jobs, reduced wages and reduced public access, because some of these areas were put off limits for traditional uses, like farming, ranching, timber harvest, mining, oil and gas exploration, fishing, and motorized recreation.

I wonder if it does open the option to do the "traditional uses" and the lands again

[Snapshot]

The Trump Admin, is going to analyze the last 20 years of Federal Land grabs, and NM designations.

[countrykid]

"The Act states that areas of the monuments are to be confined to the smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of the objects to be protected." If you look back over the last 20 or so years the past administrations locked up a lot of lands that had nothing to do with antiquities, but rather keeping environmentalist happy. Just look at the most recent one, the Bear Ears, a little over 1.3 million acres, when in reality you could protect it with 100,000. But in reality you don't even need that because it was already being managed by the Blm and USFS and had protection already. And like usual the people that it effects the most didn't even get a fair shake, but it was the outside special interest groups that got their way.

[QCwtAddict]

There is always a lot of misinformation thrown around in any discussion involving national monuments. Here's a link to a good article by field and stream about national monuments. http://www.fieldandstream.com/sportsmans-view-national-monuments

[countrykid]

I'm sorry but that article was horrible. What the article should read is " Bleeding Heart Environmentalist posing as a Sportsman"

[QCwtAddict]

I'm sorry but that article was horrible. What the article should read is " Bleeding Heart Environmentalist posing as a Sportsman"

can you point to where he was wrong regarding the facts?

[countrykid]

Can you show me any facts in the article? I didn't see any, and if you click on the links it actually shows facts that go against what he says in the article. He says, that livestock grazing has never been restricted or reduced in any Monument designation, yet you click on his link and it names off like three that had there grazing allotments retired. And I know for a fact grazing on the Escalante NM was restricted . Go ask a rancher, logger or miner if the Monument doesn't affect them or their communities. Not some guy that goes there to hunt quail. You can do that on State Trust Land or National Forest, or any other public land.

[QCwtAddict]

Can you show me any facts in the article? I didn't see any, and if you click on the links it actually shows facts that go against what he says in the article. He says, that livestock grazing has never been restricted or reduced in any Monument designation, yet you click on his link and it names off like three that had there grazing allotments retired. And I know for a fact grazing on the Escalante NM was restricted . Go ask a rancher, logger or miner if the Monument doesn't affect them or their communities. Not some guy that goes there to hunt quail. You can do that on State Trust Land or National Forest, or any other public land.

I didn't see that link, he sure was wrong on that one. Has the monuments designated by any president since Clinton affected grazing? My understanding is that none of the Obama designations have affected grazing.

[countrykid]

Ya just like Obama Care would make health care more affordable, and if you liked your doctor you could keep your doctor..... as of right now no, none of Obama's designations have affected grazing, but neither did some of Clinton's in the beginning. For example Escalante, The language was written so that certain area's were now off limits. So even tho they didn't necessarily cut back the permits. The ranchers were forced to do that themselves when they weren't allowed to run on certain areas, or extend water lines to areas of the ranch, or fence off riparian areas.You cut off water, you cut of ranching. But 90% of my friends ranch got swallowed up in the Bear Ears NM and they are hoping and praying that if it doesn't get over turned it will at least get reduced in size. They were told that their grazing numbers would not change....but they're not holding their breath

[ctracingraptor]

From what I understand, once the land became federal on bear ears land, they claimed farming, ranching, timber harvest, mining, oil and gas exploration, would not be affected. What ended up happening was once the lease was up they told them to go pound sand, either halting or greatly reducing what happens on that land. I could be wrong and that's only coming from what I have read on the web

[countrykid]

One of my friends sent me this link http://sutherlandinstitute.org/bears-ears-myth-vs-fact/