# Native American Elizabeth Warren visits Utah



## RandomElk16

For all of you that are big on the Bears Ears/Staircase debates:

https://www.ksl.com/article/4653211...ars-ears-grand-escalante-if-elected-president


----------



## Bradonifia

Sounds to me like she is researching what different states are complaining about and trying to get support by building a stance on those hot topics. I like that she is taking an interest, but based in that merit alone, wouldn't get my vote.


----------



## DallanC

Bradonifia said:


> Sounds to me like she is researching what different states are complaining about and trying to get support by building a stance on those hot topics. I like that she is taking an interest, but based in that merit alone, wouldn't get my vote.


Nah she could care less about Utah and its meger what, 6 electoral votes? She's pushing for the ultra liberal vote in states with 30 or 40 electoral.

Basically Trump only does bad things, so they have to take the opposite position on everything.

-DallanC


----------



## Lone_Hunter

Figures KSL is all over that. They are like our own homegrown version of CNN. Now, If Warren is native American, I'm a Chinese jet pilot, there is ocean front property in Arizona, and pigs can really fly.


----------



## High Desert Elk

What does making an empty promise like this have to do with the outdoors and preserving it? There is no vested interest...


----------



## paddler

She was here because Utah is now part of Super Tuesday, so our votes matter. I've read that many candidates for the Democratic nomination will be visiting our state. I'd like to attend Amy's and Mayor Pete's rallies. If we ever get to the point where the electoral college goes away, or if our EC votes are awarded proportionally to our votes instead of winner takes all, our votes in the general election will matter, too.

I see no reason to think Warren's promise to "restore" the monuments is empty. I use quotes because Trump's actions remain under legal challenge, so it's not a done deal. However, since it's been raised, any Democrat will be better for public lands than the Trump administration. Democrats are the party of protecting the environment, clean air, clean water, preservation of public lands. Republicans are the party of castrating the EPA, the party of climate change deniers, the lackeys of extraction industries, of polluting our air, contaminating our rivers, streams, lake and oceans. Go ahead, support those who act against our best interests.


----------



## RandomElk16

paddler said:


> Democrats are the party of protecting the environment, clean air, clean water, preservation of public lands.


They have that all as a slogan, anyways...


----------



## paddler

RandomElk16 said:


> They have that all as a slogan, anyways...


Not a slogan, but a promise that has been backed up by actions, as demonstrated in both the Grand Staircase and Bears Ears designations. But, the Republicans have their "Drill, Baby, Drill", so that's good. Get real, dude.


----------



## Lone_Hunter

The Democrat's may be all about the environment, but their the first ones to try and take your inalienable rights away, and make us all indentured servants to an overpowered, and bloated central government. To make us subjects and not citizens. The biggest giveaway on that is when they say that "We are all belong to the government" instead of saying the government exists to serve the will of the people. For the Democrat's, it's all about obtaining, and keeping, the power to tell us all from on high what we can own, what we can do, what we can say, what we're supposed to think, and how to live our lives. 

The Republican's will be the first to screw over public lands, but at least they aren't actively trying to turn us all into "subjects of the crown". 

For someone who values both freedom, and public lands, neither party fits the bill.


----------



## High Desert Elk

paddler said:


> Democrats are the party of protecting the environment, clean air, clean water, preservation of public lands. Republicans are the party of castrating the EPA, the party of climate change deniers, the lackeys of extraction industries, of polluting our air, contaminating our rivers, streams, lake and oceans. Go ahead, support those who act against our best interests.


It's all a matter of perspective and belief...


----------



## paddler

Lone_Hunter said:


> The Democrat's may be all about the environment, but their the first ones to try and take your inalienable rights away, and make us all indentured servants to an overpowered, and bloated central government. To make us subjects and not citizens. The biggest giveaway on that is when they say that "We are all belong to the government" instead of saying the government exists to serve the will of the people. For the Democrat's, it's all about obtaining, and keeping, the power to tell us all from on high what we can own, what we can do, what we can say, what we're supposed to think, and how to live our lives.
> 
> The Republican's will be the first to screw over public lands, but at least they aren't actively trying to turn us all into "subjects of the crown".
> 
> For someone who values both freedom, and public lands, neither party fits the bill.


Wow. Fox News devotees, I see. Guess we're done here.


----------



## High Desert Elk

The problem with politicians is they believe they know what's best and they think they are doing the right thing.

The problem with easy-streeters is they conveniently forget what makes it easy in the first place to fit their narrative...


----------



## backcountry

I see 2020 is winding up to be a doozy already.

I've stopped listening to the chattering of candidates and campaigns almost all together. That said, I'll be hard pressed to vote for her if she continues down this rhetoric of shutting down extraction on public lands. But at some point it's a binary choice that we have to compromise on.

The notion that this is what "Utah wants" conveniently ignores much of reality. I don't think any of us wanted this FUBAR long term back and forth. And plenty of us think both presidents messed up an opportunity to manage the lands differently.

Might need to budget for more whiskey next year.


----------



## Lone_Hunter

paddler said:


> Wow. Fox News devotees, I see. Guess we're done here.


Says who? The CNN/MSNBC devotee? Let's not pretend that there is such a thing as an unbiased news source that doesn't live in a left/right echo chamber. Honestly, liberals and conservatives stopped talking a long time ago. So, we've been done for awhile now, and personally, I'm fine with that.



backcountry said:


> I see 2020 is winding up to be a doozy already.
> 
> I've stopped listening to the chattering of candidates and campaigns almost all together..


 Ditto. There really isn't much choice on who you get to vote for, or rather, who you get to vote *against*. I don't vote *for *anyone.

As to public lands, I think both the state and federal governments may need to go back and look at the original documents when states were admitted into the Union. If the below video is accurate, then there shouldn't be any argument about it regardless of what jackwagon is in office.


----------



## High Desert Elk

Funny how at 1:21 some of the uses outlined are grazing, timber harvesting, and extraction. Uses and commodities that actually generate revenue for a state and not a utility...


----------



## RandomElk16

paddler said:


> Not a slogan, but a promise that has been backed up by actions, as demonstrated in both the Grand Staircase and Bears Ears designations. But, the Republicans have their "Drill, Baby, Drill", so that's good. Get real, dude.


Lol.. you mean the monuments dedicated by a since-impeached president while he stood at..... the Grand Canyon? He didn't even bother to come to Utah. That was a power move against republicans.

Come at me like I'm a republican, I don't mind. It's clear when someone disagrees you get aggravated or just cry "Fox News"


----------



## backcountry

I decided to reread the linked article and her Medium post.

I have to wonder, given the antagonistic political climate of the last 20 years, that only seems to be escalating, how does any candidate believe they can make unilateral promises about land management and be believed and/or consistent with ideology? Trump's monument retraction doesn't exactly fit into conservative constructs of limited executive behavior (his order will only be deemed legal in a broad interpretation of executive power that will be ironic at best when viewed through classic conservative ideology; if found legal it will expand executive powers under the Antiquities Act, not restrict them). Candidates like Warren make sweeping promises knowing full well that a divided Congress will hamstring her in multiple ways (both parties know how to use minority party obstruction to full effect). I was a greenie and still prefer a stronger ecological framework to land management but how does Warren think an immediate shutdown of fossil fuel extraction in the US won't hurt the American economy, family budgets and worker incomes? And how does her promise fit into a collaborative, "multiple-use" framework that has been championed and respected for decades? 

Oscillating between 4 to 8 years of kleptocracy and cronyism then 4 to 8 years of environmental policy extremism (her's fits the bill) doesn't seem healthy or sustainable for any of us.

As an avid fisherman, novice hunter, and lifelong hiker I just don't see how we get out of this cycle of unsustainable activity and promises by candidates and presidents. It's cathartic for the first few years "your" candidate wins but the pendulum ultimately swings back. And that swing seems to wipe out much of what both sides consider progress.

Ugly mess. And I'm not seeing any candidates willing to talk about the ugly complexities it will take to clean it up and the inherent costs of doing so. "Both sides" are failing us.


----------



## Vanilla

backcountry said:


> Ugly mess. And I'm not seeing any candidates willing to talk about the ugly complexities it will take to clean it up and the inherent costs of doing so. "Both sides" are failing us.


Exactly!

Talking WITH people instead of AT people does not keep these folks in office. Thinking that they actually care about anything other than retaining office and power is naive and misguided at best. Yes, both sides are failing us.


----------



## High Desert Elk

backcountry said:


> I decided to reread the linked article and her Medium post.
> 
> I have to wonder, given the antagonistic political climate of the last 20 years, that only seems to be escalating, how does any candidate believe they can make unilateral promises about land management and be believed and/or consistent with ideology?...Candidates like Warren make sweeping promises knowing full well that a divided Congress will hamstring her in multiple ways (both parties know how to use minority party obstruction to full effect)


Like I said, empty promises.


----------



## paddler

RandomElk16 said:


> Lol.. you mean the monuments dedicated by a since-impeached president while he stood at..... the Grand Canyon? He didn't even bother to come to Utah. That was a power move against republicans.
> 
> Come at me like I'm a republican, I don't mind. It's clear when someone disagrees you get aggravated or just cry "Fox News"


"Drill, Baby, Drill" was the battle cry of the Republican party during the 2008 presidential campaign. It remains one of their prime directives:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...KCN1S21WB?utm_source=34553&utm_medium=partner

Democrats prefer monuments, environmental and wildlife protections, and responsible energy development.


----------



## paddler

backcountry said:


> I decided to reread the linked article and her Medium post.
> 
> I have to wonder, given the antagonistic political climate of the last 20 years, that only seems to be escalating, *how does any candidate believe they can make unilateral promises about land management and be believed and/or consistent with ideology?* Trump's monument retraction doesn't exactly fit into conservative constructs of limited executive behavior (his order will only be deemed legal in a broad interpretation of executive power that will be ironic at best when viewed through classic conservative ideology; if found legal it will expand executive powers under the Antiquities Act, not restrict them). Candidates like Warren make sweeping promises knowing full well that a divided Congress will hamstring her in multiple ways (both parties know how to use minority party obstruction to full effect). I was a greenie and still prefer a stronger ecological framework to land management but how does Warren think an immediate shutdown of fossil fuel extraction in the US won't hurt the American economy, family budgets and worker incomes? And how does her promise fit into a collaborative, "multiple-use" framework that has been championed and respected for decades?
> 
> Oscillating between 4 to 8 years of kleptocracy and cronyism then 4 to 8 years of environmental policy extremism (her's fits the bill) doesn't seem healthy or sustainable for any of us.
> 
> As an avid fisherman, novice hunter, and lifelong hiker I just don't see how we get out of this cycle of unsustainable activity and promises by candidates and presidents. It's cathartic for the first few years "your" candidate wins but the pendulum ultimately swings back. And that swing seems to wipe out much of what both sides consider progress.
> 
> Ugly mess. And I'm not seeing any candidates willing to talk about the ugly complexities it will take to clean it up and the inherent costs of doing so. "Both sides" are failing us.


For one, they can follow the law. There is no statutory or case law justification for Trump's attempt to reduce the monuments. When you show no respect for the law you deserve no respect.


----------



## RandomElk16

paddler said:


> For one, they can follow the law. There is no statutory or case law justification for Trump's attempt to reduce the monuments. When you show no respect for the law you deserve no respect.


Except it is legal. He isn't even the first president to do it....


----------



## paddler

RandomElk16 said:


> Except it is legal. He isn't even the first president to do it....


Actually, no. Previous modifications by executive order haven't been contested. Congress can do what they wish with National Monuments, as it is not restricted by the Antiquities Act. Presidents are, however, and there is no language in the Act that allows a President to reduce a previously designated monument. There is no case law supporting Trump's actions, either.

Some have been modified or reduced. For instance,Olympic National Monument was designated by Theodore Roosevelt in 1909, it was about 610,000 acres. Wilson cut it in half during WW I to allow logging, some thought the spruce was necessary to build airplanes. I think there was another NM reduced, but it was due to under utilization, and also not challenged. So, we don't actually know if Trump acted illegally. Wouldn't be the first time. Allowing a president to reduce or rescind a NM would represent judicial activism.


----------



## Lone_Hunter

Some peoples "ability" to blindly follow a political party with rose tinted glasses never ceased to amaze me.

Yeah I used to sit on the left side of the fence, so I understand how those people think. Then one day I realized I was being lied to, and head was being subjected to a bunch of group think that was born out of a myopic perception of the larger picture, which lacked the comparative experience to know any better.

Stop drinking the kool-aid, its bad for ya.


----------



## High Desert Elk

paddler said:


> Congress can do what they wish with National Monuments, as it is not restricted by the Antiquities Act.


And therein lies the problem. No quicker way to lose the ability to use these lands than to have a legislative body of government "deciding" how best to use these lands with special protections, especially when they align with special interest groups.



paddler said:


> "Drill, Baby, Drill" was the battle cry of the Republican party during the 2008 presidential campaign. It remains one of their prime directives.
> 
> Democrats prefer monuments, environmental and wildlife protections, and responsible energy development.


Normal people prefer to have a balance and understand the importance of a clean environment and protecting wildlife at the same time extracting the energy needed to sustain a thriving economy (aka NEPA process), party affliction is irrelevant. States that succumb to the rhetoric of "green energy" through renewable's buy the needed power from other states who have not drunk from that kool aid cup to balance the grid when the sun isn't shining, the wind isn't blowing, and the batteries are sucked dry because of a heat wave or a severe cold snap.

How do I know? Years of service in energy production and seeing the day to day business operations of both oil/gas development and power generation...


----------



## Vanilla

paddler said:


> Allowing a president to reduce or rescind a NM would represent judicial activism.


Actually, staying out of the question and telling the legislative branch to do their job would be the exact OPPOSITE of judicial activism. It's shocking to me sometimes how little you understand these issue and how biased you are to "your side."


----------



## paddler

Vanilla said:


> Actually, staying out of the question and telling the legislative branch to do their job would be the exact OPPOSITE of judicial activism. It's shocking to me sometimes how little you understand these issue and how biased you are to "your side."


You sure are dumb, V. I was talking about the lawsuits brought by those who object to Trump's power play. If the courts decide to allow the reductions of our monuments in the clear absence of language in the Antiquities Act, and without any precedent in case law, that would be judicial activism. This is being litigated, and decisions will be forthcoming, so your point is pointless. Moot, as it were.

Further, the Antiquities Act was enacted because Congress couldn't agree on protections. In the case of Bears Ears, Congress debated for years without taking action. In the early 1900's, Congress was unable to protect the Mesa Verde area from looting due to infighting. Local interests seeking to exploit areas often interfere with protections, which is why the President is empowered to step in. So, your "point" about having the legislative branch do it is also moot, as history teaches us. Yep, dumb as a bag of hammers.


----------



## Vanilla

An inability to act like adults and do ones job doesn’t change the constitution and it’s delegation of powers. 

When lawsuits happen, and courts choose to not answer the question because it is a power delegated to another branch of government, that is called judicial restraint, not judicial activism. It really isn’t a hard concept. Not hard at all.


----------



## paddler

Vanilla said:


> An inability to act like adults and do ones job doesn't change the constitution and it's delegation of powers.
> 
> When lawsuits happen, and courts choose to not answer the question because it is a power delegated to another branch of government, that is called judicial restraint, not judicial activism. It really isn't a hard concept. Not hard at all.


Its called checks and balances, V. The courts check the power of the other two branches when either exceeds its constitutional powers. Congress lawfully created the Antiquities Act, which delegates the power to designate monuments to the president. President Obama lawfully exercised those powers to designate Bears Ears, just as President Clinton did with Grand Staircase. The Dumpster exceeded his power when he purportedly reduced the monuments, because as I said previously, he had no statutory power, Constitutional power or case law precedent to do so. Only Congress can reduce a monument. Many cases regarding our monuments have now been consolidated before the US District Court in Washington. Are you saying the court shouldn't rule on this matter?

You know, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt when I said you were dumb, as your posts persistently espouse ridiculous positions, straw man arguments, etc. The alternative explanation is dishonesty.


----------



## Vanilla

I predict what I have always predicted: The Supreme Court will uphold President Trump's action on this. If I'm wrong there, you can call me all the names you'd like. If I'm right, you never post on this forum again. 

Deal? 

You seem pretty sure of yourself on this issue. Shouldn't be a problem, since you know so much more than me on this and are so much smarter and more honest than I am. 

Deal, or no deal? 

My opinion is Congress should deal with this, not the executive or the courts. But your kind have become so accustomed to running to the courts to obtain your agenda, so we'll have to wait for the courts to verify what I'm saying. 

Willing to put your forum posting where your mouth is? Or are you just blowing smoke, like normal?


----------



## paddler

Vanilla said:


> I predict what I have always predicted: The Supreme Court will uphold President Trump's action on this. If I'm wrong there, you can call me all the names you'd like. If I'm right, you never post on this forum again.
> 
> Deal?
> 
> *You seem pretty sure of yourself on this issue. Shouldn't be a problem, since you know so much more than me on this and are so much smarter and more honest than I am.*


So it would appear. Probably the former, most certainly the latter. But you set a low bar.



Vanilla said:


> Deal, or no deal?
> 
> My opinion is Congress should deal with this, not the executive or the courts. But your kind have become so accustomed to running to the courts to obtain your agenda, so we'll have to wait for the courts to verify what I'm saying.
> 
> Willing to put your forum posting where your mouth is? Or are you just blowing smoke, like normal?


You want me to bet on the Supreme Court? You mean the one that decided Citizens United, and has only become more Far Right with the two seats stolen by McConnell and the Russians? No thanks. As I said above, upholding the Dumpster's reductions would be an act of judicial activism, as there's no legal basis for that. If they decide for the plaintiffs it will be a testament to the overwhelming legal argument on their side. It certainly should go that way, but I wouldn't bet on it.


----------



## Vanilla

We'll all take that as a "You were right, Vanilla. I was wrong. I'm sorry for being a total ignorant jerk all the time."

Apology accepted, Paddler. Thanks for proving your true colors again, and again, and again, and again...


----------



## RandomElk16

paddler said:


> two seats stolen by McConnell and the Russians?.


Stolen? :rotfl:


----------



## RandomElk16

paddler said:


> Actually, no. Previous modifications by executive order haven't been contested. Congress can do what they wish with National Monuments, as it is not restricted by the Antiquities Act. Presidents are, however, and there is no language in the Act that allows a President to reduce a previously designated monument. There is no case law supporting Trump's actions, either.
> 
> Some have been modified or reduced. For instance,Olympic National Monument was designated by Theodore Roosevelt in 1909, it was about 610,000 acres. Wilson cut it in half during WW I to allow logging, some thought the spruce was necessary to build airplanes. I think there was another NM reduced, but it was due to under utilization, and also not challenged. So, we don't actually know if Trump acted illegally. Wouldn't be the first time. Allowing a president to reduce or rescind a NM would represent judicial activism.


https://www.cheatsheet.com/culture/...president-to-shrink-a-national-monument.html/

It's been done many times. It's always tricky when the law is ambiguous. It isn't explicitly illegal... The burden of proof in this case would be showing it's illegal, not the other way around.

The Antiquities Act is so over-reaching in it's actual use. The spirit of it is long gone.


----------



## wyoming2utah

RandomElk16 said:


> The Antiquities Act is so over-reaching in it's actual use. The spirit of it is long gone.


Maybe...but, I would certainly take Clinton and Obama's use of it over Trump's! Give me back the monuments as they were originally designated!


----------



## paddler

RandomElk16 said:


> Stolen? :rotfl:


Yes, stolen. McConnell for not allowing a vote on Garland, a clear violation of his Constitutional duty, and the Russians for all the reasons enumerated in the Mueller report.

And I disagree that the burden of proof is on the plaintiffs. The administration must show why a president should be allowed to unilaterally alter a monument. If they decide that a president can do that, it invalidates the spirit, the intent and the power of the Antiquities Act. Any subsequent administration could alter any monument at any time for any capricious reason or to please any special interest group.

I'm with Wyoming2Utah. I like monuments.


----------



## Vanilla

paddler said:


> And I disagree that the burden of proof is on the plaintiffs.


Wow. Just....wow. You really don't understand our legal system.


----------



## RandomElk16

paddler said:


> the Russians for all the reasons enumerated in the Mueller report.


They had nothing to do with our Supreme Court decision.

Also:



paddler said:


> If they decide that a president can do that, it invalidates the spirit, the intent and the power of the Antiquities Act. .... to please any special interest group.


That's already accomplished when they CREATE a number of these monuments


----------



## RandomElk16

wyoming2utah said:


> Maybe...but, I would certainly take Clinton and Obama's use of it over Trump's! Give me back the monuments as they were originally designated!


I love protecting our land. I don't like doing so by misclassifying or taking short cuts. Thats what is done with that particular act.


----------



## paddler

Vanilla said:


> Wow. Just....wow. You really don't understand our legal system.


Oh, I think I do, V. Scary how little you do, given you pass yourself off as an attorney:

https://www.sltrib.com/news/environment/2019/03/22/tribes-will-win-their/


----------



## paddler

RandomElk16 said:


> They had nothing to do with our Supreme Court decision.


Ya think? They were instrumental in getting Dumpster elected. Trump won the electoral college by a combined 70,000 votes in three states. Coincidentally, those three states were specifically targeted by Manafort when he shared Trump's internal polling data with Kilimnik.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-24/manafort-kilimnik-polling

Neither Gorsuch nor Kavanaugh would be considered for the Supreme Court by any Democratic president. But then, Democrats don't have to choose judges from a list provided them by the Heritage Foundation.


----------



## Vanilla

A former interior secretary gets to tell you who bears the burden of proof in a legal action? Solid logic. Some of your best! t

That issue is not a question that is up for opinion or debate. That is very clear, and not debatable. And your statement was factually incorrect.


----------



## paddler

Vanilla said:


> A former interior secretary gets to tell you who bears the burden of proof in a legal action? Solid logic. Some of your best! t
> 
> That issue is not a question that is up for opinion or debate. That is very clear, and not debatable. And your statement was factually incorrect.


It's a matter of law, of whether Trump can invoke the Antiquities Act to reduce a monument when there in no language in the Act empowering a president to do so. And as I said before, no previous reduction has ever been challenged in court, so there is no case law justifying Dumpster's purported reduction. I'll trust Sally over you any day, every day, all day.


----------



## Vanilla

paddler said:


> I'll trust Sally over you any day, every day, all day.


I guess we'll see.


----------



## wyoming2utah

RandomElk16 said:


> I love protecting our land. I don't like doing so by misclassifying or taking short cuts. Thats what is done with that particular act.


What about taking short cuts to eliminate protections? That is what Trump did with the act....

...even worse, what is being suggested now by some repubs is to take part of the old monument and turn it into a National Park which would effectively end my traditional hunting grounds and completely end my fishing down there.


----------



## Vanilla

wyoming2utah said:


> ...even worse, what is being suggested now by some repubs is to take part of the old monument and turn it into a National Park which would effectively end my traditional hunting grounds and completely end my fishing down there.


Why wouldn't you be able to fish in a national park? (Not saying I support that creation. Just curious why fishing would completely end?)


----------



## wyoming2utah

To be clear, I said it would end "my" fishing. What I meant by that is that I would not fish there even if I could. The cost to fish in a National Park and the hassle it includes far exceeds the joy I would get in doing it. So, I would probably not fish in those few places that park would offer.

But, I think it also could end all fishing down there and is a legitimate threat because the only waters in the park would be the bottom end of native cutthroat waters and all the brown trout may be potentially removed as a threat to cutthroat populations. Sadly, though, the waters flowing into and out of the park are not very suitable to cutthroat and they would most likely not survive the stretches of water I would fish. Even worse, the annual stocking of brown trout in those waters would certainly end and natural recruitment down there is nil....

Either way...IF that area is made into a national park, my fishing will end.


----------



## RandomElk16

wyoming2utah said:


> What about taking short cuts to eliminate protections? That is what Trump did with the act....


Something he couldn't have done if it wasn't created wrongly in the first place, right?

I am in no way sticking up for Trump. Every political party needs to look in the mirror when they point the finger, because they all do sketchy stuff.

If real time was put into things, and shortcuts weren't taken, then the proper monuments and parks would be created the first time. Legal action would then likely be a lot more simple. The fact is - *neither party is actually willing to put the work or resources into our lands that many of us would prefer.* Signing a piece of paper, in an entirely different state, isn't doing some miraculous thing or putting in work. It was actually relatively easy. If Clinton's admin would have put in more effort and worked closely with Utah the first time around, it likely wouldn't have ever been messed with.

Again, I love wildlife and protected lands (done correctly).


----------



## paddler

RandomElk16 said:


> Something he couldn't have done if it wasn't created wrongly in the first place, right?
> 
> I am in no way sticking up for Trump. Every political party needs to look in the mirror when they point the finger, because they all do sketchy stuff.
> 
> If real time was put into things, and shortcuts weren't taken, then the proper monuments and parks would be created the first time. Legal action would then likely be a lot more simple. The fact is - *neither party is actually willing to put the work or resources into our lands that many of us would prefer.* Signing a piece of paper, in an entirely different state, isn't doing some miraculous thing or putting in work. It was actually relatively easy. If Clinton's admin would have put in more effort and worked closely with Utah the first time around, it likely wouldn't have ever been messed with.
> 
> Again, I love wildlife and protected lands (done correctly).


Whoa, there, Hoss. You need to review the process followed by Jewell and Obama that resulted in the Bears Ears designations. Jewell met with all stakeholders in open meetings, Dbag Zinke met only with monument opponents behind closed doors.

It's important to understand that both Obama and Clinton acted legally, exercising the powers entrusted to the President by Congress, who acted in accordance with the Constitution when they created the Antiquities Act. You may not like it, but both Presidents acted completely lawfully. I strongly disagree with your assertion that Trump would have acted differently if Clinton had signed the GS designation while standing in Utah. He simply wanted to erase Obama's legacy in every way possible, apparently believing that doing so would bolster his own reputation. He's seriously messed up.

If you really love wildlife and our protected lands, you would be giving full-throated support to the original designations, the tribes, Obama, Jewell, the Democrats, SUWA, etc, etc. Sorry, but your statement above precisely contradicts your posts. Also, your last comment attempts to draw a false equivalence between the parties when it comes to preserving public lands, protecting the environment, clean air and clean water. There is no equivalence. The case under discussion is the rule, not the exception. Democratic Presidents created the protections of our public lands when they designated the monuments. It's not by chance that a Republican(?) President has attempted to destroy those protections, and instead promote the exploitation of our public lands by a select few.


----------



## backcountry

paddler said:


> Vanilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. Just....wow. You really don't understand our legal system.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I think I do, V. Scary how little you do, given you pass yourself off as an attorney:
> 
> https://www.sltrib.com/news/environment/2019/03/22/tribes-will-win-their/
Click to expand...

That link doesn't discuss the details of the legal case in any real way. And Sally Jewell was an engineer and CEO, not a lawyer. Of course she is going to argue it will be returned to it's former size; that's her job as a partisan cheerleader.

The reality is we have no clue what will come of the lawsuits as we don't have much case law dealing with this type of nuanced question.


----------



## paddler

backcountry said:


> That link doesn't discuss the details of the legal case in any real way. And Sally Jewell was an engineer and CEO, not a lawyer. Of course she is going to argue it will be returned to it's former size; that's her job as a partisan cheerleader.
> 
> The reality is we have no clue what will come of the lawsuits as we don't have much case law dealing with this type of nuanced question.


The question doesn't seem nuanced to me. There is no language in the Act that empowers a president to alter an existing monument. The powers of the President are delineated in the Constitution, reducing monuments is not mentioned. Trump's purported reduction is an attempt to usurp the powers of Congress.


----------



## backcountry

paddler said:


> The question doesn't seem nuanced to me.


And that alone undermines any contribution to a conversation about the legality of Trump's actions.

I do hope you remain consistent on your strict constitutionalism when democratic presidents inevitably cross that line for conservation and ecological purposes.


----------



## Vanilla

He won’t. You already know that.


----------



## paddler

Seems a stretch to allow a president to reduce monuments by executive order, using an informal power to supersede that which resulted from the formal power of Congress to legislate.

We're in Season 3 of the West Wing. One of tonight's episodes aired in March of 2002. The Republicans were talking about drilling in the ANWR and "Clean Coal" back then. Gotta give it to them staying on message, despite the fact their message is crap.

The ANWR was created in 1980. Democrats controlled both houses of Congress then, President Carter was a driving force for the legislation. Hopefully 2020 will result in the Democrats controlling Congress and the White House again. Our new President should restore our monuments on Day One, if necessary.


----------



## High Desert Elk

paddler said:


> The question doesn't seem nuanced to me. There is no language in the Act that empowers a president to alter an existing monument. The powers of the President are delineated in the Constitution, reducing monuments is not mentioned. Trump's purported reduction is an attempt to usurp the powers of Congress.


Is there language that reads a President cannot reduce the size? Monuments have nothing to do with the Constitution as that document addresses the governance of this country and what authority each branch has. Monuments are just a "thing"...



paddler said:


> Seems a stretch to allow a president to reduce monuments by executive order, using an informal power to supersede that which resulted from the formal power of Congress to legislate.
> 
> We're in Season 3 of the West Wing. One of tonight's episodes aired in March of 2002. The Republicans were talking about drilling in the ANWR and "Clean Coal" back then. Gotta give it to them staying on message, despite the fact their message is crap.
> 
> The ANWR was created in 1980. Democrats controlled both houses of Congress then, President Carter was a driving force for the legislation. Hopefully 2020 will result in the Democrats controlling Congress and the White House again. Our new President should restore our monuments on Day One, if necessary.


Reducing monuments by executive order? The same executive powers that allow the granting of such...?

"Clean Coal" just means cleaner emissions. The democrats finally caught onto that and are now making it their own message...

The worst thing that can happen in today's day and time is to have this country controlled by the blue party in its entirety, there always needs to be a system of checks and balances. If that were to happen, expect fuel shortages, cold winters/hot summers, and consistent brown-outs...


----------



## backcountry

A democratic president will likely restore Bears Ears. But I wouldn't call that any more prudent than Trump's or Obama's moves. It just continues the tit for tat partisanship that got us to this point.

I thoroughly appreciate most monuments. Both for recreation and conservation. But the Act has a built in blind spot. Without local buy-in their designation can fuel resentment and retaliation that last generations. 

Put simply, there must be a better way. We need local stewards as much as we need national ones.


----------



## paddler

High Desert Elk said:


> Is there language that reads a President cannot reduce the size? Monuments have nothing to do with the Constitution as that document addresses the governance of this country and what authority each branch has. Monuments are just a "thing"...
> 
> Reducing monuments by executive order? The same executive powers that allow the granting of such...?
> 
> "Clean Coal" just means cleaner emissions. The democrats finally caught onto that and are now making it their own message...
> 
> The worst thing that can happen in today's day and time is to have this country controlled by the blue party in its entirety, there always needs to be a system of checks and balances. If that were to happen, expect fuel shortages, cold winters/hot summers, and consistent brown-outs...


Executive orders are termed informal powers, ie, not specifically delineated in the Constitution. They're supposed to be used infrequently under unusual circumstances. Bears Ears and Grand Staircase were not created by Executive Order. Monuments are not just a "thing". The Congress specifically granted the power to create monuments when they passed the Antiquities Act. Such is Congress' Constitutionally delegated power. See Article 1 Section 1. You seem to be confused on this point.

Also, there is no language in the Act to specifically prevent or allow a president to reduce monuments. The authors probably didn't think the former was necessary, as they couldn't foresee a narcissistic, corrupt president bent on erasing his predecessor's legacy acting out of spite. Including language in the Act regarding the latter would render the Act meaningless.

"Clean Coal" is a misnomer, and coal is going away for a variety of reasons.

From the Trib today:

https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/editorial/2019/05/04/tribune-editorial/

As an aside, I read Pete Souza's "Shade" last night. He was the official WH photographer for Obama. The book contrasts his presidency with that of the Dumpster over a broad range of issues. Well worth a read. I see the current administration as a blip, a really dark time that will pass. The damage done will take time to reverse, some things longer than others, but we will reverse it. Unfortunately, the Republicans will not help repair the damage. Oh well.


----------



## paddler

backcountry said:


> A democratic president will likely restore Bears Ears. But I wouldn't call that any more prudent than Trump's or Obama's moves. It just continues the tit for tat partisanship that got us to this point.
> 
> I thoroughly appreciate most monuments. Both for recreation and conservation. But the Act has a built in blind spot. Without local buy-in their designation can fuel resentment and retaliation that last generations.
> 
> Put simply, there must be a better way. We need local stewards as much as we need national ones.


Put simply, there is no better way. Unfortunately. Local resistance to protecting public lands has always been the major obstacle to establishing those protections. Locals resisted the establishment of the Grand Canyon National Monument in 1908, they resisted BE. Locals seem to have an overdeveloped sense of entitlement regarding federal lands that has not and will not go away. It's not a blind spot in the Act, it's the impetus for the Act itself.


----------



## backcountry

You once again miss the point completely.

Pro-monument lawyers have years of essays dealing with the nuances that will be dealt with in a case about Trump's decision. But you don't believe there is nuance.

Pro-monument advocates and professionals have decades of data and ideas ideas that run contrary to your simplistic construct of that there is "no better way". It's that approach of cramming federal level decisions down local's throats that has created the largest barrier to long term sustainability of conservation that I have ever seen in my life. Your approach lacks the type of creativity and problem solving that helped start both the conservation and environmental movements in previous eras. 

Imagine the world we would have if Aldo Leupold, Rachel Carlson, Zahniser, Pittman, Roosevelt, Grinnel, and the countless other conservationist threw up their hands in their time and claimed "there is no better way.". Conservation resulted from the ingenuity of citizens recognizing when old tools no longer worked at creating the outcomes we need for the long term sustainability of our lands. And we are seeing more and more evidence that designating massive monuments by presidential decree is leading to a justifiable and strong resistance to federal land management that jeopardizes the very goals many of us are seeking. This resistance will continue to grow and destroy years of work without some insight, humility and compassion for the people these monument designations directly affect. 

The old tools have led to this outcome. The old tools aren't going to fix it.


----------



## Critter

I believe that anything that is created by a just a signature on a piece of paper can be undone the same way. 

Now if they go through Congress to designate a monument then that is a different thing and should take Congress to change the boundaries.


----------



## paddler

backcountry said:


> You once again miss the point completely.
> 
> Pro-monument lawyers have years of essays dealing with the nuances that will be dealt with in a case about Trump's decision. But you don't believe there is nuance.
> 
> Pro-monument advocates and professionals have decades of data and ideas ideas that run contrary to your simplistic construct of that there is "no better way". It's that approach of cramming federal level decisions down local's throats that has created the largest barrier to long term sustainability of conservation that I have ever seen in my life. Your approach lacks the type of creativity and problem solving that helped start both the conservation and environmental movements in previous eras.
> 
> Imagine the world we would have if Aldo Leupold, Rachel Carlson, Zahniser, Pittman, Roosevelt, Grinnel, and the countless other conservationist threw up their hands in their time and claimed "there is no better way.". Conservation resulted from the ingenuity of citizens recognizing when old tools no longer worked at creating the outcomes we need for the long term sustainability of our lands. And we are seeing more and more evidence that designating massive monuments by presidential decree is leading to a justifiable and strong resistance to federal land management that jeopardizes the very goals many of us are seeking. This resistance will continue to grow and destroy years of work without some insight, humility and compassion for the people these monument designations directly affect.
> 
> The old tools have led to this outcome. The old tools aren't going to fix it.


TR threw up his hands out of frustration with the failure of Congress to protect antiquities from looters and signed the Act in 1906. Obama waited years for Congress to act, then, having no practical alternative, used the Act to designate Bears Ears. History therefore teaches us that no better way has been developed during that intervening period. Selfish corporations wishing to exploit our public lands, and locals who believe their proximity to our public lands somehow endows them with greater say over said lands than any other American citizen will always resist protecting public lands if they think doing so harms their interests. So, can you see that your "better way" hasn't materialized in more than 110 years? I'm starting to lose confidence. In the meantime, Presidents are allowed to set aside areas as they see fit under the Antiquities Act. The rule of law must prevail in this and all things.


----------



## backcountry

paddler said:


> TR threw up his hands out of frustration with the failure of Congress to protect antiquities from looters and signed the Act in 1906. Obama waited years for Congress to act, then, having no practical alternative, used the Act to designate Bears Ears. History therefore teaches us that no better way has been developed during that intervening period. Selfish corporations wishing to exploit our public lands, and locals who believe their proximity to our public lands somehow endows them with greater say over said lands than any other American citizen will always resist protecting public lands if they think doing so harms their interests. So, can you see that your "better way" hasn't materialized in more than 110 years? I'm starting to lose confidence. In the meantime, Presidents are allowed to set aside areas as they see fit under the Antiquities Act. The rule of law must prevail in this and all things.


Actually your use of the Antiquities Act undermines your entire argument. He didn't throw his hands up, he worked with Congress to create a new solution.

Your pessism and myopia is a prime example of how old paradigms hold us back from creating new solutions. And I find it telling that you so easily rationalize Obama's decision. Imagine what would have happened if he had designated the monument Utah roughly negotiated? Yeah it would have been smaller than what he designated but significantly larger than what we ended up with to date. And more importantly, it would have ratified the feedback from the state and local's to help foster buy-in. Would be great if presidents showed more wisdom in such decisions instead of playing to their base (both Trump and Obama here).

There are so many more options than you claim exist, especially when you truly recognize it's rarely the designation that protects the land. Bears Ears is a prime example. Everyone, including Obama, knew Trump was going to reduce the monument drastically. And now we have increased visitation to a resource that simply can't handle the pressure. But yeah, let's keep doing it the old way. Cram it down local's throats. Advertise and promote monuments until it creates a tourist industrial complex that itself undermines conservation goals. Etc. Etc.

What could go wrong with that?


----------



## High Desert Elk

paddler said:


> Put simply, there is no better way. Unfortunately. Local resistance to protecting public lands has always been the major obstacle to establishing those protections. Locals resisted the establishment of the Grand Canyon National Monument in 1908, they resisted BE. Locals seem to have an overdeveloped sense of entitlement regarding federal lands that has not and will not go away. It's not a blind spot in the Act, it's the impetus for the Act itself.


No, the feeling of resentment from locals is from being ran over roughshod by people hundreds to thousands of miles away that compromises their lifestyle and livelihood.

Coal is going away because people have had it too good for too long and think the other is better. Once something is gone, it's tough to get it back. The only other ways to get a stable base load since all fossil fuels are bad is hydroelectric (depends on good snowpack) and nuclear.

What is the environmental impact to dispose of millions of tons and thousands of acres of batteries from solar fields once they've reached their life cycles? How and where are you going to get more, the rare earth metals? Mining and extraction is bad, remember?

Not making this stuff up. It's the things that need to be addressed because the "fairytale" won't...


----------



## Vanilla

It's funny that paddler wants to focus on only was is articulated directly in the Act and conform to it strictly. Not shockingly, that has not always been his position, and it won't remain his position either. Copied and pasted from the Act:

"That the President of the United States is hereby authorized, in his discretion, to declare by public proclamation historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest that are situated upon the lands owned or controlled by the Government of the United States to be national monuments, and may reserve as a part thereof parcels of land, *the limits of which in all cases shall be confined to the smallest area compatible with proper care and management of the objects to be protected:"*

Never mind, the language of the act is not important ALL the time, just when it's convenient. Besides, "all" doesn't really mean what you think it does, and "shall" is just a suggestion. Kind of like the Pirate Code. The rule of law should prevail in all things that benefit my team. Not so much if the guys wearing a different color and letter will get some gain.

Backcountry- I like looking for a new solution on this one. You won't see me agreeing with Rep Bishop often on public lands issues, but I think his proposal to modify the Antiquities Act was about as good of a compromise between ideologies as I've seen.


----------



## paddler

backcountry said:


> Actually your use of the Antiquities Act undermines your entire argument. He didn't throw his hands up, he worked with Congress to create a new solution.
> 
> Your pessism and myopia is a prime example of how old paradigms hold us back from creating new solutions. And I find it telling that you so easily rationalize Obama's decision. Imagine what would have happened if he had designated the monument Utah roughly negotiated? Yeah it would have been smaller than what he designated but significantly larger than what we ended up with to date. And more importantly, it would have ratified the feedback from the state and local's to help foster buy-in. Would be great if presidents showed more wisdom in such decisions instead of playing to their base (both Trump and Obama here).
> 
> There are so many more options than you claim exist, especially when you truly recognize it's rarely the designation that protects the land. Bears Ears is a prime example. Everyone, including Obama, knew Trump was going to reduce the monument drastically. And now we have increased visitation to a resource that simply can't handle the pressure. But yeah, let's keep doing it the old way. Cram it down local's throats. Advertise and promote monuments until it creates a tourist industrial complex that itself undermines conservation goals. Etc. Etc.
> 
> What could go wrong with that?


I was speaking figuratively. The Antiquities Act was the best solution to the problem in 1906 and remains so today. The President is the only elected official that is charged with acting in the best interests of all Americans, of not prioritizing the desires of those who live near federal lands over those who do not. Thus it makes sense to entrust the power of monument designation to the President. Obama designated BE after an exhaustive process and only after Congress failed to come up with a solution. That's the way it's supposed to work under the Act. Far from being pessimistic, I'm optimistic that our monuments will be upheld by the courts or restored by future presidents. Better if the courts do it to eliminate future problems.

I don't know why you seem to think that the locals would "roughly" negotiate. Sorry, but the Tea Party and the Freedom Caucus are alive and well in San Juan County, in the personage of Phil Lyman, et al. They believe in the tyranny of the minority, that to negotiate in good faith is weakness. Optimism on that point would be misplaced.

Interesting that Lyman now is reportedly attempting to capitalizing on the monuments. I read that he's building a motel in Blanding and may receive $1.75 million in CRA funds. Ironic not only that he's not only trying to benefit from the monuments he opposes but is also contributing to the Industrial Tourism you mention. Hypocrisy? He's also objecting to paying the $90,000 he owes in fines and restitution. The feds want him to pay $500/month instead of the $100/month he has been paying. So, he's receiving public funds as a legislator and maybe CRA funds, but doesn't want to the money he owes the public. Scurrilous character, that. You negotiate with him if you like.

The key issue is that those lands are owned by all Americans. The good folks of San Juan County have no more claim to that land than any other American citizen.


----------



## backcountry

The inconsistencies in Paddlers arguments are glaring in this case. You can't critique "judicial activism" on one hand and embrace that very technique that led to support of expansive monuments in the other. 

I fear our executive branch has so eroded public trust that the era of big monuments needs to be over for the time being. We just don't have the national unity at the moment to sustain unilateral decision making of that caliber. And doubling down will only split us into deeper divided groups. I recognize the history of why the Antiquities Act was established. But it's been overused and ultimately abused (at a general level, not by any one president) in a way that undermined its very purpose and need. 

Yet I don't believe amending the Antiquities Act has enough support within both branches of Congress either. I think we ultimately need a "Planning 2.0" revamping like the BLM created (despite it being short lived). I clearly don't have details on what that would look like but I think the public input procedures and dynamic evaluation processes of such a structure would lead to more sustainable designations. Implementation of such a planning procedure would ultimately require the president to show temperance and an uncommon wisdom but I think we can still attract such candidates to office. But that ultimately requires citizens to vote in what has been called the "radical middle" who not only wants to work across the aisle but also sees immense value in blending the best of diverse ideologies. We've seen it happen in the past but we are sadly seeing a negative partisanship on the rise that undermines such a goal.

Whatever the case, if "both sides" don't start incorporating new information into their frameworks then our lands and wildlife, and therefore hunters and fisherman, are ultimately going to suffer. I know I don't want to consign my wildlife experiences to some past golden era that future generations can only dream about. I think most of us have that in common.


----------



## paddler

backcountry said:


> The inconsistencies in Paddlers arguments are glaring in this case. You can't critique "judicial activism" on one hand and embrace that very technique that led to support of expansive monuments in the other.
> 
> I fear our executive branch has so eroded public trust that the era of big monuments needs to be over for the time being. We just don't have the national unity at the moment to sustain unilateral decision making of that caliber. And doubling down will only split us into deeper divided groups. I recognize the history of why the Antiquities Act was established. But it's been overused and ultimately abused (at a general level, not by any one president) in a way that undermined its very purpose and need.
> 
> Yet I don't believe amending the Antiquities Act has enough support within both branches of Congress either. I think we ultimately need a "Planning 2.0" revamping like the BLM created (despite it being short lived). I clearly don't have details on what that would look like but I think the public input procedures and dynamic evaluation processes of such a structure would lead to more sustainable designations. Implementation of such a planning procedure would ultimately require the president to show temperance and an uncommon wisdom but I think we can still attract such candidates to office. But that ultimately requires citizens to vote in what has been called the "radical middle" who not only wants to work across the aisle but also sees immense value in blending the best of diverse ideologies. We've seen it happen in the past but we are sadly seeing a negative partisanship on the rise that undermines such a goal.
> 
> Whatever the case, if "both sides" don't start incorporating new information into their frameworks then our lands and wildlife, and therefore hunters and fisherman, are ultimately going to suffer. I know I don't want to consign my wildlife experiences to some past golden era that future generations can only dream about. I think most of us have that in common.


My posts are entirely consistent. I support the Antiquities Act as written and upheld by the Supreme Court multiple times. The Supreme Court has found that the courts have "limited jurisdiction to investigate and determine" whether a presidential proclamation under the Antiquities Act is unreasonable. Sounds more like judicial restraint than activism to me, so I'm cool with it.

I think we're past the point of trusting each other on a national level. I don't feel the least bit obligated to compromise with those who seek to despoil our lands or exploit them for personal gain. Nor do I have any desire to compromise with or tolerate those who seek to erode our institutions, undermine the rule of law, seek support from our enemies, attack our free press or fail in their duties to support and defend the Constitution.


----------



## Vanilla

I see no reason to compromise with someone that attempted to close off public lands to large portions of the hunting public in Utah so they could have their own way of doing things be the only way of doing things. 

Man, ain’t history a bugger?


----------



## RandomElk16

paddler said:


> Whoa, there, Hoss. You need to review the process followed by Jewell and Obama that resulted in the Bears Ears designations. Jewell met with all stakeholders in open meetings, Dbag Zinke met only with monument opponents behind closed doors.
> 
> It's important to understand that both Obama and Clinton acted legally, exercising the powers entrusted to the President by Congress, who acted in accordance with the Constitution when they created the Antiquities Act. You may not like it, but both Presidents acted completely lawfully. I strongly disagree with your assertion that Trump would have acted differently if Clinton had signed the GS designation while standing in Utah. He simply wanted to erase Obama's legacy in every way possible, apparently believing that doing so would bolster his own reputation. He's seriously messed up.
> 
> If you really love wildlife and our protected lands, you would be giving full-throated support to the original designations, the tribes, Obama, Jewell, the Democrats, SUWA, etc, etc. Sorry, but your statement above precisely contradicts your posts. Also, your last comment attempts to draw a false equivalence between the parties when it comes to preserving public lands, protecting the environment, clean air and clean water. There is no equivalence. The case under discussion is the rule, not the exception. Democratic Presidents created the protections of our public lands when they designated the monuments. It's not by chance that a Republican(?) President has attempted to destroy those protections, and instead promote the exploitation of our public lands by a select few.


Uh.. didn't mean he had to be standing here. I was however implying that him not even coming to Utah is symbolic of his true intent.

Erase Obama's legacy by doing something that Utah asked him to do? Okay... I don't think most people outside of Utah associate Obama's legacy with Bears Ears. That's not even what most Utahns associate it with.

Again, the Act wasn't made to protect sagebrush. They use the heart of it to create MASSIVE "Monuments" which I feel is a mis-designation. I understand you are super left-wing and mistake me as right wing. I simply feel that you guys then call the same thing out when people on the right don't use a law 100% (like you are now by deciding he can't reduce them, when in fact it doesn't explicitly say that).


----------



## paddler

RandomElk16 said:


> Uh.. didn't mean he had to be standing here. I was however implying that him not even coming to Utah is symbolic of his true intent.
> 
> Erase Obama's legacy by doing something that Utah asked him to do? Okay... I don't think most people outside of Utah associate Obama's legacy with Bears Ears. That's not even what most Utahns associate it with.
> 
> Again, the Act wasn't made to protect sagebrush. They use the heart of it to create MASSIVE "Monuments" which I feel is a mis-designation. I understand you are super left-wing and mistake me as right wing. I simply feel that you guys then call the same thing out when people on the right don't use a law 100% (like you are now by deciding he can't reduce them, when in fact it doesn't explicitly say that).


Coming to Utah would not have helped. He'd have been greeted by the Sagebrush Rebellion crowd. There's more than sagebrush there, archeological artifacts abound in the area. But you know that. Not sure what the support for BE is in Utah right now, but I'd bet it's pretty high and increasing. Even if it was zero, Utah has less than 1% of the US population, the land belongs to all 328,000,000 Americans.

You may think me super left-wing, I consider myself moderate. Liberal on social issues, fiscally conservative. Exactly the opposite of the Republican party.

Edit: Here's the last poll I can find on the topic:

https://www.sltrib.com/news/environ...oppose-breaking-up-grand-staircase-poll-says/

The takeaways are that once again our elected "leaders" are out of touch with Utah voters. And, women are smarter than men. And, of course, support for reducing BE isn't very strong. And, of course, support for GS has increased remarkably over time and it's now supported 2:1. Taking the long view, support for protecting our public lands increases over time. TR faced a lot of resistance when he designated Grand Canyon National Monument from those locals who wanted to exploit it. Seems unimaginable now, a no-brainer, if you will. Conservation is popular among those who wish to leave the country better than they found it, who think of others, of future generations, their children's children. I will stipulate to being guilty as charged.


----------



## High Desert Elk

paddler said:


> Coming to Utah would not have helped. He'd have been greeted by the Sagebrush Rebellion crowd. There's more than sagebrush there, archeological artifacts abound in the area. But you know that. Not sure what the support for BE is in Utah right now, but I'd bet it's pretty high and increasing. Even if it was zero, Utah has less than 1% of the US population, the land belongs to all 328,000,000 Americans.
> 
> You may think me super left-wing, I consider myself moderate. Liberal on social issues, fiscally conservative. Exactly the opposite of the Republican party.


The entire Rocky Mtn west is adorn with cultural resources to the effect if it were to all be protected by the AA, millions of people would have to be displaced, including your home - the SLC valley. Cultural reaources are anything 50 years old or greater and not limited to "indigenous peoples".

BE in large part was pushed by those who have as small as stake as the "Sagrbrush Rebellion crowd" do. Their special interest group won for reasons I will not go into...


----------



## RandomElk16

paddler said:


> Coming to Utah would not have helped. He'd have been greeted by the Sagebrush Rebellion crowd. There's more than sagebrush there, archeological artifacts abound in the area. But you know that. Not sure what the support for BE is in Utah right now, but I'd bet it's pretty high and increasing. Even if it was zero, Utah has less than 1% of the US population, the land belongs to all 328,000,000 Americans.


If 328M people that are never going to come to Utah and see the monuments own the land and want a voice, and since you are saying Obama and Clinton were that voice - great. Because now trump speaks for those 328M people, and he made a decision for them. I'm glad there are people that still want the electoral college and think our voice matters. One way or another we are 1 of 50. Less people doesn't mean less important. The type of thinking that those people in Cali and New York that screwed up their environments should speak for us is dangerous. Shoot - maybe SFW and Mossback should set our tag numbers while we are at it.

I love how you say him coming to Utah wouldn't have helped - that's because the majority of Utah wasn't for it, right? It would have been terrible for him to work with the state to create a monument, in the state.

"Local officials such as Democratic U.S. Representative Bill Orton from Utah objected to the designation of the national monument, questioning whether the Antiquities Act allowed such vast amounts of land to be designated. However, United States Supreme Court decisions have long established the president's discretion to protect land under the Antiquities Act, and several lawsuits filed in an effort to overturn the designation were dismissed by federal courts."

This is why he didn't come. He didn't even have Democratic support here.

Fiscally conservative - so you are not a democrat then?


----------



## paddler

High Desert Elk said:


> The entire Rocky Mtn west is adorn with cultural resources to the effect if it were to all be protected by the AA, millions of people would have to be displaced, including your home - the SLC valley. Cultural reaources are anything 50 years old or greater and not limited to "indigenous peoples".
> 
> BE in large part was pushed by those who have as small as stake as the "Sagrbrush Rebellion crowd" do. Their special interest group won for reasons I will not go into...


So, you're saying Obama displayed remarkable restraint, protecting only those areas with the highest concentration of artifacts. Got it. From the wiki:

*On December 28, 2016, President Obama proclaimed the 1,351,849 acres (547,074 ha)[12] Bears Ears National Monument, including the eponymous buttes and the surrounding landscapes, using his authority under the Antiquities Act to create national monuments by proclamation.[12][3]

The intertribal coalition proposed the inclusion of several areas that did not make it into the final monument designation; these included the Abajo Mountains (also called the Blue Mountains); the lower reach of Allen Canyon; Black Mesa; a "large, arcing strip of land" next to the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, surrounding Mancos Mesa; Raplee Anticline, and "most of Lime Ridge between Mexican Hat and Comb Ridge."[40] The omission of these areas from the boundaries of the monument represented a "significant" concession to those who opposed the monument's designation.[40]*

As I understand it, Obama excluded more than 1/2 million acres from the monument, including those areas with the greatest potential for energy development. As I said, the process followed in his designation was thoughtful, exhaustive, inclusive and wise. There's no satisfying those who oppose monuments. They must be marginalized and ignored. See you in court.


----------



## Vanilla

Paddler could be a Marvel character, because he lives in a whole different universe!


----------



## RandomElk16

paddler said:


> There's no satisfying those who oppose monuments. They must be marginalized and ignored. See you in court.


lol..


----------



## paddler

RandomElk16 said:


> *Fiscally conservative - so you are not a democrat then?*


Bull. The last time we had a surplus was under Clinton. Bush cut taxes, started two wars and signed Medicare D, all without paying for any of it. Most recently the Republican Congress passed the tax cut to give more money to the wealthy, further blowing up the deficit. They said, as they always do, that the cuts would pay for themselves. Instead, we're stealing from our kids to give to the rich:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/11/business/trump-tax-cuts-revenue.html

Long term, Democratic administrations have been far more fiscally conservative than Republican. Trump promised to pay off our debt completely, you know, all that "trickle down" BS that never works. You're supposed to pay down the debt when the economy is strong, but we're adding to it. Guess that's what happens when you put an idiot with four previous bankruptcies in charge.


----------



## RandomElk16

paddler said:


> Bull.


Right.. I forgot how socialism works. We have a surplus because everyone pays exponentially more taxes.

Have you viewed the platform of EVERY democratic nominee for 2020? "Free" "Universal" are themes. There is nothing financially conservative about paying off 1.5 Trillion in student debt and giving everyone free school. Reparations aren't conservative. "Medicaid for all", is not conservative. Clinton was "conservative" with his budget because he hiked taxes on the upper class, corporate tax, gas tax, medicare tax.. Let's not act like taking more money from civilians is the same as intelligently "budgeting". It's increasing the amount you have to spend. Now, if he truly would have strengthened the dollar, or seen a solid GDP increase rate after the '91 recession, you could tout what he did.

Luckily - Clinton wasn't faced with 911. So he didn't have to deal with how to respond. He did however have the opportunity to kill his FRIEND, Bin Laden. Which could have avoided a lot of what we went through as a nation.

But, you are right. Shame one party.

Edit: First, we know the NY times is liberal so we can expect what the article says. However, why should the "revenues" of our government be high? More money is staying with the people. The argument is: Who can budget money better the people or the government? Most wealthy capitalists agree that the government has no clue what it's doing. Work for a federal government job and watch what they do with their remaining budget at the end of the fiscal years. It's insane and neither party is stopping that. Watch what they purchase throughout the year - buying $8 items for $80 and $100 software for over $1K. They don't operate efficiently. That's not down to one party. The whole system. Your dems want to create more of these inefficient programs. That's not financially conservative.

"with economic growth accelerating and the jobless rate falling to an 18-year low" -- I will take the tradeoff.


----------



## RandomElk16

Tax Rev by year:

FY 2018 - $3.33 trillion.
FY 2017 - $3.32 trillion.
FY 2016 - $3.27 trillion.
FY 2015 - $3.25 trillion.
FY 2014 - $3.02 trillion.
FY 2013 - $2.77 trillion.
FY 2012 - $2.45 trillion.
FY 2011 - $2.30 trillion.
FY 2010 - $2.16 trillion.
FY 2009 - $2.10 trillion.
FY 2008 - $2.52 trillion.


And they still don't have a clue how to spend it.


----------



## paddler

Yep, only a fiscal conservative can run up the debt during a period of strong economic growth and low unemployment. Not an easy thing to do, but just leave it to Republicans. They will find a way.


----------



## RandomElk16

paddler said:


> Yep, only a fiscal conservative can run up the debt during a period of strong economic growth and low unemployment. Not an easy thing to do, but just leave it to Republicans. They will find a way.


Under Obama debt nearly doubled.

Nice try. Again - I would rather the "people" have their money than the government. Clearly Jobless rates don't matter. Dems love having poverty stricken and poor people. It's one of their largest bases. All Trump has to do is raise taxes and he can be one of those magical, smart dems...


----------



## Catherder

This thread might actually be kind of funny if it wasn't solidly indicative of the partisan problem that will likely hamper any real solution to the "monument" issue. I suppose I'll throw my inflation adjusted 2 cents too, although we have discussed this many times and nothing much has changed. 

1. I have long stated that the monument debate on a regional and national level has become less an issue of the specific locations involved and almost exclusively a "proxy war" regarding vague ideologies regarding land use and scoring points for partisan sides. 

2. Both sides can and did find a ready audience of sycophants when they did their "fact finding" trips to claim so called "local support" and "local input". As we have also often discussed here, what a given party is willing to call a "local" is usually up for considerable debate, especially in Southern Utah. 

3. For some, if slick Willie or Obama declared a mere 100 acres packed with artifacts as protected monument, it would be liburl overreach. For others, more should have been stuck in monuments, and enough wasn't done. 

4. From what I've read from what I can deem "objective" legal analysis, Trumps reductions have a decent shot at being upheld, but it isn't a sure thing either way. As we've seen in this thread, partisans from both sides are pretty sure of themselves and I'm sure that SCOTUS will be vilified by the losing side, no matter what.

5. IMO, I wish they left GSENM the heck alone. It won't result in a boon for extraction jobs like some locals seem to think and for most of the areas, it won't affect us sportsmen one way or the other. The proposed new National Park, (Gobert NP?), will be a positive economic entity for the region but will be a Kick in the junk for hunters and many recreationalists. I don't have enough firsthand knowledge of BENM to comment comfortably. 

6. Public opinion polls of Utahns seem to be about evenly divided on the issue and are dependent on the way the question is phrased. Both sides can claim that Utahns support them, but neither can say that public opinion gives them a mandate and claim intellectual honesty. (not that intellectual honesty matters much in a good old partisan whizzing match.)

Carry on.

Hey, TOTP!


----------



## paddler

Catherder said:


> This thread might actually be kind of funny if it wasn't solidly indicative of the partisan problem that will likely hamper any real solution to the "monument" issue. I suppose I'll throw my inflation adjusted 2 cents too, although we have discussed this many times and nothing much has changed.
> 
> 1. I have long stated that the monument debate on a regional and national level has become less an issue of the specific locations involved and almost exclusively a "proxy war" regarding vague ideologies regarding land use and scoring points for partisan sides.
> 
> 2. Both sides can and did find a ready audience of sycophants when they did their "fact finding" trips to claim so called "local support" and "local input". As we have also often discussed here, what a given party is willing to call a "local" is usually up for considerable debate, especially in Southern Utah.
> 
> 3. For some, if slick Willie or Obama declared a mere 100 acres packed with artifacts as protected monument, it would be liburl overreach. For others, more should have been stuck in monuments, and enough wasn't done.
> 
> 4. From what I've read from what I can deem "objective" legal analysis, Trumps reductions have a decent shot at being upheld, but it isn't a sure thing either way. As we've seen in this thread, partisans from both sides are pretty sure of themselves and I'm sure that SCOTUS will be vilified by the losing side, no matter what.
> 
> 5. IMO, I wish they left GSENM the heck alone. It won't result in a boon for extraction jobs like some locals seem to think and for most of the areas, it won't affect us sportsmen one way or the other. The proposed new National Park, (Gobert NP?), will be a positive economic entity for the region but will be a Kick in the junk for hunters and many recreationalists. I don't have enough firsthand knowledge of BENM to comment comfortably.
> 
> 6. Public opinion polls of Utahns seem to be about evenly divided on the issue and are dependent on the way the question is phrased. Both sides can claim that Utahns support them, but neither can say that public opinion gives them a mandate and claim intellectual honesty. (not that intellectual honesty matters much in a good old partisan whizzing match.)
> 
> Carry on.
> 
> Hey, TOTP!


Agreed. This is a time of hyperpartisanship, and I see no turning back. For to long the Far Right has been given equal time, "alternative facts" have been given air time, assaults on our judiciary have gone unquestioned, assaults on the free press have been tolerated. No more. If we cannot even agree that facts matter, mutually respectful discourse is impossible. If we ever get back to a time where we can work together, we need to agree that lies are unacceptable, those who lie will suffer consequences, those who violate the law will be brought to justice, that the rule of law is imperative. I'm not optimistic in the short term. Long term we'll be fine, in fact, the current administration may spur a major correction. One can hope.

https://medium.com/@dojalumni/statement-by-former-federal-prosecutors-8ab7691c2aa1


----------



## High Desert Elk

paddler said:


> So, you're saying Obama displayed remarkable restraint, protecting only those areas with the highest concentration of artifacts. Got it. From the wiki:
> 
> *On December 28, 2016, President Obama proclaimed the 1,351,849 acres (547,074 ha)[12] Bears Ears National Monument, including the eponymous buttes and the surrounding landscapes, using his authority under the Antiquities Act to create national monuments by proclamation.[12][3]
> 
> The intertribal coalition proposed the inclusion of several areas that did not make it into the final monument designation; these included the Abajo Mountains (also called the Blue Mountains); the lower reach of Allen Canyon; Black Mesa; a "large, arcing strip of land" next to the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, surrounding Mancos Mesa; Raplee Anticline, and "most of Lime Ridge between Mexican Hat and Comb Ridge."[40] The omission of these areas from the boundaries of the monument represented a "significant" concession to those who opposed the monument's designation.[40]*
> 
> As I understand it, Obama excluded more than 1/2 million acres from the monument, including those areas with the greatest potential for energy development. As I said, the process followed in his designation was thoughtful, exhaustive, inclusive and wise. There's no satisfying those who oppose monuments. They must be marginalized and ignored. See you in court.


Well, you brought up the reasons I didn't want to. If anykind of a tribal coalition were to have their way, everyone not tribal would have to relocate and lose the use of public lands as we know it. There were once millions that used to populate the Rocky Mountain west, and the southwest in particular was very sophisticated at a time the Crusades were taking place.

Not opposed to monuments in general, they're just not needed...


----------



## paddler

High Desert Elk said:


> Well, you brought up the reasons I didn't want to. If anykind of a tribal coalition were to have their way, everyone not tribal would have to relocate and lose the use of public lands as we know it. There were once millions that used to populate the Rocky Mountain west, and the southwest in particular was very sophisticated at a time the Crusades were taking place.
> 
> Not opposed to monuments in general, they're just not needed...


The tribes asked for 1.9 million acres to be protected from future energy development, not barring everybody who isn't tribal from engaging in other activities. We ended up with 1.3 million acres protected, with traditional uses like hunting, fishing, camping, logging and grazing guaranteed in perpetuity. Many people, me included, believe the area deserves protection. Others, like you, don't. We can agree to disagree, but the process was thorough and the designation lawful.

The word "compromise" means nobody gets everything they want, but everybody gets enough. Obama compromised, as I mentioned above. My understanding is that he included areas richest in artifacts but excluded the areas with the most potential for energy development. Seems measured and fair to me. Phil Lyman and his band of fed haters adamantly resist any protections whatsoever, which makes compromise impossible. Sometimes you just have to move on, this was one of those times.


----------



## Vanilla

Disagreeing on this issue does not make one “partisan.” I could not care less about the team sports politics paddler is wrapped up in. He wants to make everything a D vs R issue. Everything. The Republican Party disgusts me no less than the Democratic Party. Neither have my best interests (or yours) in mind. Yes, partisan idiocy played out in team sports politics is a huge problem today. You all can have those fights, don’t lump me into them. 

My position on this is what I’ve stated before: I dislike the Antiquities Act. I dislike it when Democrats use it. I dislike it when republicans use it. I dislike it when white men use it. I dislike it when black men use it. If a woman is ever elected president, I’ll dislike it when she uses it too. 

I am not for the expansion of executive power. President Trump’s emergency declaration is yet another example of why congress delegating its powers to the executive is dangerous. (I do not support that declaration either, just so we’re clear.) 

Our constitution put limits on the executive branch’s powers for a reason. We had just fought a war for our independence from a country where their version of the executive had all the power. We set our system up to be a “more perfect union” with checks and balances. When one branch begins delegating and giving up its powers to another branch, that throws the balances out of whack, as we are seeing on these land issues. Giving up freedom is not the answer to our elected officials inability to do their jobs, yet they’ve convinced some that this is exactly the answer. “We are incompetent and can’t work in groups like healthy, responsible adults, so what can we convince our respective cheering sections they have to give up because we suck?” That is the summary of every one of paddler’s arguments for the Antiquities Act. Congress needs to do its job. If they can’t, vote your people out that are unwilling to work and put someone in that is. But these designation powers belong to congress, and I hope one day we can curtail the ever expanding powers of the executive branch and restore proper order in our less than “more perfect union.” Otherwise, the bickering you see today is just the tip of the iceberg. It’s going to get WAAAAY worse. But an angry populace is a controllable populace, so that’s exactly what the powers that be in each of your parties wants. Even if you can’t see it.


----------



## backcountry

Vanilla said:


> Disagreeing on this issue does not make one "partisan." I could not care less about the team sports politics paddler is wrapped up in. He wants to make everything a D vs R issue. Everything. The Republican Party disgusts me no less than the Democratic Party. Neither have my best interests (or yours) in mind. Yes, partisan idiocy played out in team sports politics is a huge problem today. You all can have those fights, don't lump me into them.
> 
> My position on this is what I've stated before: I dislike the Antiquities Act. I dislike it when Democrats use it. I dislike it when republicans use it. I dislike it when white men use it. I dislike it when black men use it. If a woman is ever elected president, I'll dislike it when she uses it too.
> 
> I am not for the expansion of executive power. President Trump's emergency declaration is yet another example of why congress delegating its powers to the executive is dangerous. (I do not support that declaration either, just so we're clear.)
> 
> Our constitution put limits on the executive branch's powers for a reason. We had just fought a war for our independence from a country where their version of the executive had all the power. We set our system up to be a "more perfect union" with checks and balances. When one branch begins delegating and giving up its powers to another branch, that throws the balances out of whack, as we are seeing on these land issues. Giving up freedom is not the answer to our elected officials inability to do their jobs, yet they've convinced some that this is exactly the answer. "We are incompetent and can't work in groups like healthy, responsible adults, so what can we convince our respective cheering sections they have to give up because we suck?" That is the summary of every one of paddler's arguments for the Antiquities Act. Congress needs to do its job. If they can't, vote your people out that are unwilling to work and put someone in that is. But these designation powers belong to congress, and I hope one day we can curtail the ever expanding powers of the executive branch and restore proper order in our less than "more perfect union." Otherwise, the bickering you see today is just the tip of the iceberg. It's going to get WAAAAY worse. But an angry populace is a controllable populace, so that's exactly what the powers that be in each of your parties wants. Even if you can't see it.


Over the years I've slowly merged into being concerned about our "imperial presidency" as well. I still believe a president can show restraint with the Antiquities Act but few have justified that optimism in the last 20 years. They all just lame duck it and play to their base and legacy.

I too think we need to reinforce Congressional power and influence. A functioning Congress was designed to help prevent some of these hyperpartisan skirmishes that only inflame division and dysfunction. I just don't know how we get Americans away from the current model and back to that place we vacated decades ago. Negative partisanship is destroying this country.

I think we definitely need to put a pause on huge monuments for a while. I say that as someone who values places like GSENM but has seen the growing movement that has the power to undermine decades of ecological-minded land management. The monument debacle is fueling that resistance to a large degree. We can protect lands without those decrees and I think do so in a way that fosters buy-in locally and regionally. Because without those we are just going to see this power struggle spiral more out of control and that only hurts our lands and wildlife in the long run.

I'll never stop believing we can find better solutions but I sadly don't see the public interested in exiting the current strategies that are inflaming such dangerous division. Our country just seems fascinated with the fight and setting up competing special interest groups (our founders were deeply concerned about such political machinations) to duke it out. It's all becoming a little too Fight Club-esque for me, a display of power and control in a fever dream version of land management. I've played my own part in that in the past but trying to learn from my mistakes. We'll see how that goes.


----------



## Vanilla

backcountry said:


> I'll never stop believing we can find better solutions but I sadly don't see the public interested in exiting the current strategies that are inflaming such dangerous division. Our country just seems fascinated with the fight and setting up competing special interest groups (our founders were deeply concerned about such political machinations) to duke it out. It's all becoming a little too Fight Club-esque for me, a display of power and control in a fever dream version of land management. I've played my own part in that in the past but trying to learn from my mistakes. We'll see how that goes.


Exactly! I still have hope. It may be naive and not realistic, but it's my hope and I'm going to keep it. Nobody can take it away from me.

I made the comment above that an angry populace is a controllable populace. This is not a new idea, but one that has been utilized by leaders all around the world for millennia. How do you think Hitler convinced his people to do what they did? Or Mugabe in Zimbabwe with the "war veteran" movement? These are extreme examples, and I'm not trying to compare any current leader to them. But they are illustrative of this idea of making people angry helps one attain and retain power without having to actually do anything for their people. And our current leaders are absolutely fanning the flames of fear, which if directed at another group, turns to anger, and now you are controlled to the point the "leaders" of your movement want you to be. It's funny that people like paddler don't even realize they're just being used as pawns, and the anger and finger pointing at the other team is just what the people that want to remain in power wanted them to do. The democrats don't have a monopoly on this idea. Our current president is a master at this with his "team." Other Republican Party leaders do it as well. And people that espouse the "party first" mantra just fall in line.

We need good leaders. To get that, people are going to have to drop their party first ideals and elect people that actually care about our country. That doesn't fly in the climate today on either side. But maybe a correction is coming in my lifetime. Hopefully...


----------



## PBH

I'm all for the proposed new National Park, but on 1 condition: it's named after Rudy Gobert. Good call Catherder.

#RudyGobertNationalParkOfTheEscalanteCanyons


----------



## paddler

PBH said:


> I'm all for the proposed new National Park, but on 1 condition: it's named after Rudy Gobert. Good call Catherder.
> 
> #RudyGobertNationalParkOfTheEscalanteCanyons


We never should have let go of Millsap. I bumped into Jerry Sloan a few years ago at the Ford dealership downtown. I said hello and told him I really liked Millsap's work ethic. He said, "Yeah, he's a stud." Come to think of it, Jerry kinda reminds me of Mueller, both physically and temperament.

Regarding "R" vs "D", I'd be remiss if I didn't call out the false equivalence promoted here. Trump has lied more than 10,000 times in a bit over two years. Republicans are cool with that. The Trump campaign was receptive to and expected to benefit electorally from interference by a hostile foreign power in 2016. Republicans are cool with that. According to more than 300 DOJ alumni, Trump committed obstruction of justice at least 10 times. Republicans are cool with that. In Trump's last 90 minute phone call to Putin, for which there is no official read out, witnesses or transcript, ongoing Russian meddling "didn't come up". Pompeo said there wasn't enough time to get around to that topic. Republicans are cool with that. Barr completely misrepresented the findings of the Mueller report, so much so that Mueller memorialized his objections in writing. It's called, "Going to paper". Barr also lied to Congress. Again, Republicans are cool with that. Giuliani said it's okay to accept help from Russia, no problem with them interfering in our elections. Republicans are cool with that. Republicans are so cool with the foregoing and so many other criminal actions of the Trump campaign and Trump himself that they are complicit in attempting to cover it up, saying, in effect, "Nothing to see here, let's move along." Please stop implying there is equivalence between "D" and "R". There simply is none. What we are seeing is unprecedented, this is truly a threat to our democracy. Implying equivalence is an attempt to minimize that threat.

Edit: The list of signatories to the DOJ Alumni Statement now stands at 688, and will be updated. I linked that statement in a preceding post.


----------



## backcountry

Most of what you just discussed in your last post has nothing to do with monuments. And discussing how an us vs them mentality stoked by extreme negative partisanship, in regards to land management, isn't a false equivalency.

Your approach here is why I no longer identify with environmentalism on the left. I get passion. I get values. But the notion that only one side has valid arguments, needs and goals isn't conducive with our nation's complex relationship to the land. I've been involved at multiple levels of the issue and everytime I walk away realizing how the sort of tropes you posit fail when you actually meet the "opposition". I fully recognize there are bad faith players, it's true in pretty much every human enterprise, but most people I've met have a fair amount of overlap in desiring healthy public lands and a desire to be stewards. The us vs them mentality being discussed erodes that common ground and we get stuck in a tit-for-tat (increasingly played out at the executive level) that doesn't foster long term solutions for our lands and wildlife. 

Warren's plan is just another escalation of that aging process. It's cathartic for a while until you realize the next conservative president will likely run on undoing those measures. That's why you hear folks like Vanilla and I discussing those general themes. It's not a false equivalency but a legitimate observation of how our systems are failing us.


----------



## RandomElk16

paddler said:


> We never should have let go of Millsap. I bumped into Jerry Sloan a few years ago at the Ford dealership downtown. I said hello and told him I really liked Millsap's work ethic. He said, "Yeah, he's a stud." Come to think of it, Jerry kinda reminds me of Mueller, both physically and temperament.
> 
> Regarding "R" vs "D", I'd be remiss if I didn't call out the false equivalence promoted here. Trump has lied more than 10,000 times in a bit over two years. Republicans are cool with that. The Trump campaign was receptive to and expected to benefit electorally from interference by a hostile foreign power in 2016. Republicans are cool with that. According to more than 300 DOJ alumni, Trump committed obstruction of justice at least 10 times. Republicans are cool with that. In Trump's last 90 minute phone call to Putin, for which there is no official read out, witnesses or transcript, ongoing Russian meddling "didn't come up". Pompeo said there wasn't enough time to get around to that topic. Republicans are cool with that. Barr completely misrepresented the findings of the Mueller report, so much so that Mueller memorialized his objections in writing. It's called, "Going to paper". Barr also lied to Congress. Again, Republicans are cool with that. Giuliani said it's okay to accept help from Russia, no problem with them interfering in our elections. Republicans are cool with that. Republicans are so cool with the foregoing and so many other criminal actions of the Trump campaign and Trump himself that they are complicit in attempting to cover it up, saying, in effect, "Nothing to see here, let's move along." Please stop implying there is equivalence between "D" and "R". There simply is none. What we are seeing is unprecedented, this is truly a threat to our democracy. Implying equivalence is an attempt to minimize that threat.
> 
> Edit: The list of signatories to the DOJ Alumni Statement now stands at 688, and will be updated. I linked that statement in a preceding post.


And Hillary intentionally deleted over 30K emails. They all lie Pad. Hate to break it to you. Obama promised to fix his home city of Chicago. How did Chicago look for 8 years? You have all this legal jargon - you have the full Mueller report. Good luck getting anything prosecuted from a mega expensive witch hunt (fiscally conservative "investigation" this has been huh?).

They are all criminals with self/party interest in mind, not the people.

This is why if I was forced to pick a party today- I would be libertarian. I am very much with Vanilla on less- gov intervention.


----------



## paddler

backcountry said:


> Most of what you just discussed in your last post has nothing to do with monuments. And discussing how an us vs them mentality stoked by extreme negative partisanship, in regards to land management, isn't a false equivalency.
> 
> Your approach here is why I no longer identify with environmentalism on the left. I get passion. I get values. But the notion that only one side has valid arguments, needs and goals isn't conducive with our nation's complex relationship to the land. I've been involved at multiple levels of the issue and everytime I walk away realizing how the sort of tropes you posit fail when you actually meet the "opposition". I fully recognize there are bad faith players, it's true in pretty much every human enterprise, but most people I've met have a fair amount of overlap in desiring healthy public lands and a desire to be stewards. The us vs them mentality being discussed erodes that common ground and we get stuck in a tit-for-tat (increasingly played out at the executive level) that doesn't foster long term solutions for our lands and wildlife.
> 
> Warren's plan is just another escalation of that aging process. It's cathartic for a while until you realize the next conservative president will likely run on undoing those measures. That's why you hear folks like Vanilla and I discussing those general themes. It's not a false equivalency but a legitimate observation of how our systems are failing us.


We'll just agree to disagree. While I 'm sure that many Republican voters support protecting public lands, elected Republican leaders consistently act against our interests. This is not a close call, but a repetitive pattern that cannot be denied or justified in any rational way. While I'm confident that others involved in this discussion here agree with my support for public lands, and many Republican voter do also, our congressional delegation unanimously opposed BE. The current administration has been consistent and aggressive in rolling back environmental regulations and promoting the interests of the extractive industries at the expense clean air and clean water. It's a mindset I just don't understand. Take the ANWR, for instance. The Republicans have repeatedly, incessantly pushed to open it to drilling. We don't need to do that. Domestic production is more than ample, yet they persist. It almost seems that opening it to drilling would be like collecting a trophy, that despoiling that area would be a point of pride. I find that disturbing.

I rail against the Republican policies, against their war on the environment. Trump's purported reduction of our monuments is just another example of that agenda. In order to effect change, we must change leadership. I'm not confident that even those Republicans who support public lands comprehend that. People who support Republican candidates support the Republican agenda, which is steadfastly against protecting public lands. Until the Republican agenda changes, it really is us against them.


----------



## paddler

RandomElk16 said:


> And Hillary intentionally deleted over 30K emails. They all lie Pad. Hate to break it to you. Obama promised to fix his home city of Chicago. How did Chicago look for 8 years? You have all this legal jargon - you have the full Mueller report. Good luck getting anything prosecuted from a mega expensive witch hunt (fiscally conservative "investigation" this has been huh?).
> 
> They are all criminals with self/party interest in mind, not the people.
> 
> This is why if I was forced to pick a party today- I would be libertarian. I am very much with Vanilla on less- gov intervention.


This is precisely the false equivalence I was talking about. It's the "What about....?" argument. You bring up unrelated issues and denigrate the Mueller report. Cool.


----------



## Vanilla

They can change the public lands policy and it will still be “us against them” because that’s what your leaders tell you to do.


----------



## RandomElk16

paddler said:


> This is precisely the false equivalence I was talking about. It's the "What about....?" argument. You bring up unrelated issues and denigrate the Mueller report. Cool.


Your entire post was calling republican's liars. I call them all liars and you then say this?

Lol.

This is the problem with you "party people". You don't look in the mirror. I can accept Trump's faults, are you willing to accept everything that dems do? Who really has the issue with acceptance here?

PS - the mueller report is there in it's entirety. It may show a lot of gray area (where they are all pros at living), but shows no crime. You just want so badly for it to show one. Did you have the same energy with the Hillary investigation? No. They are all bad.


----------



## paddler

RandomElk16 said:


> Your entire post was calling republican's liars. I call them all liars and you then say this?
> 
> Lol.
> 
> This is the problem with you "party people". You don't look in the mirror. I can accept Trump's faults, are you willing to accept everything that dems do? Who really has the issue with acceptance here?
> 
> PS - the mueller report is there in it's entirety. It may show a lot of gray area (where they are all pros at living), but shows no crime. You just want so badly for it to show one. Did you have the same energy with the Hillary investigation? No. They are all bad.


l'll take my leave now. Have a nice day.


----------



## Lone_Hunter

paddler said:


> Agreed. This is a time of hyperpartisanship, and I see no turning back. For to long the Far Right has been given equal time, "alternative facts" have been given air time, assaults on our judiciary have gone unquestioned, assaults on the free press have been tolerated


There is so much to pick apart, to point and scoff in that loaded sentence of left leaning democratic talking points, I don't even know where to start. Basically, that's a synopsis of someone who's been drinking the blue kool-aid with breakfast, lunch and dinner.

We do agree on one thing, there is no turning back at this point. I''ve long been of the thought it's time to start removing stars from the union blue field of the flag. Right now, there is essentially two different America's, occupying the same real estate, and the two have little to nothing in common. If a peaceful secession of blue states were possible, I'd be all for it. You can go make your own country. Never in my wildest imagination would I have ever believe I would think such a thing when I was younger and wearing the uniform. Now, it's inescapable.



backcountry said:


> *Over the years I've slowly merged into being concerned about our "imperial presidency" as well. * I still believe a president can show restraint with the Antiquities Act but few have justified that optimism in the last 20 years. They all just lame duck it and play to their base and legacy.
> 
> *I too think we need to reinforce Congressional power and influence. A functioning Congress was designed to help prevent some of these hyperpartisan skirmishes that only inflame division and dysfunction.* I just don't know how we get Americans away from the current model and back to that place we vacated decades ago. Negative partisanship is destroying this country.


The current problem with the "imperial presidency", one could say began with 911, or maybe escalated during that time. After the twin towers, we basically wrote the executive branch, and the government at large, a blank check to do whatever it wanted to keep us safe from terrorists. I'd argue that ever since 911, presidential power has only grown, regardless of what party the president was from.

The other part of the problem, maybe a compound problem, IS congress. Congress critters are only concerned about one thing - keeping office. Period, end of story. In that pursuit, they duck, dodge, and defer their jobs and responsibilities to any of the alphabet agencies, or to the supreme court, turning the supreme court into super legislators. Which is why the left is so bent out of shape over trump nominating two conservative justices. They avoid making decisions that will tick people off, and when they do, it's in lockstep with their party platform.

I believe THIS particular problem STARTS with the 17th Amendment, which turned the House of the States, into a redundant House of the people. Up until this change, term limits weren't really necessary, but afterwards, term limits did become necessary, because with a limited time in office, they'd focus on making the hard choices, instead of pandering for reelection in perpetuity.In my opinion, the only thing that will stop this train from wrecking, is a convention of states to pass another amendment to impose congressional limits - and THAT kind of concences ain't going to happen in this day and age.

That said, I don't see how this train isn't going to derail somewhere down the line, it's only a matter of time. We already have a highly divided population, with a political divide that is only growing over time. As an aside, I used to be left of center in my thoughts and beliefs. No one is more amazed then I, on how that has changed over the last decade or so.


----------



## backcountry

I think the tension around public lands are a good metric for the division in our country. But from that I think there is a lot more purple out there then gets credit. I see it in many of the comments here. I'm not as convinced our situation can't be mended but I also understand the perspective. Plenty of despondent citizens at the moment. And it's all too easy for any one of us to fall back into a bubble at any time. I've had to cut my consumption of most social media down to almost nil. I've come back to this forum the last few months because I've learned a lot from side band conversations. Even then I continue make errors. 

One of my favorite aspects of living in SW Utah has been learning from not-like minded people. It's tough as hell at times, for all parties involved, but the interaction matters. I've come to understand how and why decisions made in Washington have outsized effects on communities, families and traditions that will never be felt or even known by those advocating for the policies. I don't always agree with responses to such federal policy but I have tremendous sympathy for the difficulties experienced. The way we expect small, rural regions of the West to just change suddenly isn't consistent with how cultures work.

That's why I shake my head at Warren's statement she will shutdown all extraction if she becomes president. There is no sense of scale and compassion in such a plan. I recognize there is greed and pilfering at the top of many of the biggest companies that impact stewardship but there are also untold numbers of hard, caring workers that will be affected. Flippantly messing with lives that way is devastating to the individuals and impacts any chance at support in years to come.

My hope comes from seeing more and more professionals abandoning the hardline rhetoric of both sides in favor of finding solutions people can agree on. It takes much longer. It's can and does fail. But the outcomes tend to have staying power and doesn't fuel the animosity I've talked about in previous comments. Watching professionals adapt to the complexity of needs, desires and histories associated with our lands makes me think that we can get out of this us vs them mess. I could be wrong.


----------



## Vanilla

paddler said:


> l'll take my leave now. Have a nice day.


Have a great day, paddler. Maybe we can do lunch sometime to talk about closing off hunting areas. We could probably get something together for the next round of RACs?


----------



## High Desert Elk

For the record, paddler, the NEPA process already protects public lands and cultural resources. You are most certainly, undeniably, and unequivocally correct in the statement that I do not think monuments are needed to protect them today.

Today, monuments are nothing more than a money generator for the federal gov't. But like all things gov't, they are not profitable...


----------



## PBH

High Desert Elk said:


> Today, monuments are nothing more than a money generator for the federal gov't. But like all things gov't, they are not profitable...


Don't forget the local communities that surround those monuments. They are a money generator for them as well, boosting income and property values alike.

#IAmTOTP


----------

