TRUMP executive order....pay attention

[ctracingraptor]

If anyone hasn't noticed , trump retracted the land antiquities act, the put the national monuments in the hands of the state, no longer held by the federal government. If you can read between the lines on this one, I firmly believe the state will not want to pay the bill to keep national monuments open, the overhead must be tremendous. The state will start to eventually sell off the land to investors or whoever can pay, which in turn will shrink the land we all love to hunt on. I'm not saying there are going to be houses soon on the Grand Canyon, but it's very possible. Lots and lots of land just got forced onto the state. It won't take much before a place like Yellowstone is reduced because the land was sold for commercial or residential use.

[MULEPACKHUNTER]

Big difference between nation parks and monuments.

Concern on my part for sure, I know trump stated many times he wants federal lands to stay public and has no intention of seeing them sold off.

I'm hoping this is just a monument deal and not a big land thing.

[ctracingraptor]

You're right I got ahead of myself, Yellowstone is a park. The Grand Canyon is a monument, and is fair game. Arizona has the most national monuments (18) than any other state, maybe not the most total acreage, but regardless. I hope I'm overreacting and would love to be wrong about this one..

[Str8Shot]

He did not retract the antiquities act ... The order is give back land grabbed by the last administration abusing the act and taking over 265 million acres from the states.... We are not losing National Forests, or National monuments... it is limiting the manner in which the National Government can create new Monuments and seize state land. If too much land is deemed Federal ( which is technically against the constitution ) and somehow the Libtards seized control of the Fed, do you think they would allow guns and hunting on the land? There again our founding Fathers understood the need for states rights over federal government.

[Str8Shot]

You're right I got ahead of myself, Yellowstone is a park. The Grand Canyon is a monument, and is fair game. Arizona has the most national monuments (18) than any other state, maybe not the most total acreage, but regardless. I hope I'm overreacting and would love to be wrong about this one..

Grand Canyon is a National Park .... The expansion in 2000 Grand Canyon Parashant was clamied as a monument and technically not under NPS.

[DesertBull]

If anyone hasn't noticed , trump retracted the land antiquities act, the put the national monuments in the hands of the state, no longer held by the federal government. If you can read between the lines on this one, I firmly believe the state will not want to pay the bill to keep national monuments open, the overhead must be tremendous. The state will start to eventually sell off the land to investors or whoever can pay, which in turn will shrink the land we all love to hunt on. I'm not saying there are going to be houses soon on the Grand Canyon, but it's very possible. Lots and lots of land just got forced onto the state. It won't take much before a place like Yellowstone is reduced because the land was sold for commercial or residential use.

 

There is almost nothing you have said here that is true

[ctracingraptor]

the grand canyon is an example, and i didnt say the National Forest are up fore sale, by giving the control back to the state, within the national forest lies the grand canyon park, and within that park lies the grand canyon nation monument, now where the line can be drawn on what is a park and and what part is a nation monument within that park, i cant say because i just dont know. If you ignore the Grand Canyon and look at the other monuments within the state, or the other monuments that are in the western states, there is nothing stopping a land grab from happening. Last year AZ passed a Senate Bill to allow the sale of state trust land, i cant remember which one though. Yeah i could be overreacting, and this would be a worst case scenario. If you looks at the "Bears Ears" Monument, what is stopping the state from passing a bill, to allow the 1.4 million acres that was set aside by the government, to be sold by the state? I stated that I hope i'm wrong about this, and i merely stated that all this did was get the ball rolling on thing that would possible end up happening. Sure it would take alot of paperwork to make those things happen, but i'm just convinced that it IS possible...

[Phil Beavers]

I was hoping there would be a thread on this..

[trphyhntr]

 

If anyone hasn't noticed , trump retracted the land antiquities act, the put the national monuments in the hands of the state, no longer held by the federal government. If you can read between the lines on this one, I firmly believe the state will not want to pay the bill to keep national monuments open, the overhead must be tremendous. The state will start to eventually sell off the land to investors or whoever can pay, which in turn will shrink the land we all love to hunt on. I'm not saying there are going to be houses soon on the Grand Canyon, but it's very possible. Lots and lots of land just got forced onto the state. It won't take much before a place like Yellowstone is reduced because the land was sold for commercial or residential use.

There is almost nothing you have said here that is true

I award you no points and may god have mercy on your soul.

[DesertBull]

The EO has zero to do with transfering land to the states

[ctracingraptor]

Do anyone have any evidence to prove me wrong?

[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.

[ThomC]

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

[Phil Beavers]

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?

[ctracingraptor]

Thank you IA for the great breakdown of info, as you stated it would take an act of Congress to covert the land back to the state, the ONLY point I'm trying to make is the EO, merely allows the state to get there foot in the door. The state land is bill is something I strongly disagree with regardless and is not related to the EO.